Objection:
You are wrong! Ephesians 2:14, 15 and Colossians 2:14, 16 prove that the law was abolished at the cross.
Answer:
Very true! But which law? In a previous objection titled “There Is Only One Law In The Bible,” we found that the Scriptures speak of more than one law and that these two texts describe the ceremonial law. Strictly speaking, we might therefore throw out the so-called proof before us without further discussion. But so plausibly are these texts set forth by many that we shall here examine them further.
We found that “where no law is, there is no transgression,” and specifically, the law that makes sin known to us is the one containing the command against coveting–the Ten Commandments. (See Romans 4:15; 7:7). The simple proof that there was sin long before Moses’ time established that the law must have existed before then.
It is evident that we can quickly discover whether the law existed after Christ’s time by the same reasoning process. Did sin exist after the cross? Most certainly. The apostles went out to preach to sinners after Christ’s return to heaven. The New Testament has as much to say about sin and sinners as has the Old. “But sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Romans 5:13.
Thus it is as clear as a spring morning that the Ten Commandments are as surely in existence after Christ as they were before Moses. No Christian would admit that in the centuries before Christ, men lived by a higher moral standard than we, for indeed, there could not be a more exalted code than the Ten Commandments. How could we longer contend that in the Christian dispensation, men were brought up to a higher moral plane if we say at the same time that in this dispensation, men are freed from the highest conceivable code–the Ten Commandments?
We are therefore prepared to believe, even before we examine the texts quoted by the objector, that they cannot possibly teach what he claims. The texts declare: “For he [Christ] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.” Ephesians 2:14, 15. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross… Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” Colossians 2:14, 16.
What do we generally mean by “ordinances” when we speak religiously? The Standard dictionary thus defines the word: “A religious rite or ceremony as ordained or established by divine or by ecclesiastical authority; as, the ordinance of the Lord’s supper.” We found that the Jewish church before Christ had certain ordinances, even as we since Christ’s time have ordinances, such as the Lord’s supper and baptism; only they had many more. They had special rites and ceremonies, like the Passover, various holy days, meat offerings, drink offerings, et cetera. We read, for example, “This is the ordinance of the passover…” Exodus 12:43. When these are referred to in the New Testament, the same language is used: “meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances.” Hebrews 9:10.
We also found that there were various laws and commandments stating just how those ordinances should be carried out. They were all written down by Moses in a book and are generally described by Bible writers as the law of Moses, or the ceremonial law, which is not to be confused with the ten-commandment law. How evident, then, that the law which Paul here says is “abolished” and blotted out does not include the Ten Commandments.
The book of Hebrews best explains the relationship of the ancient Jewish ceremonies to the work of Christ. Incidentally, this book is generally regarded as having been written by Paul, the author of the two texts we are considering in the objection before us. In it, we read of “the law having a shadow of good things to come.” Hebrews 10:1. Plainly, the writer means the ceremonial law, first, because the moral law could not be described as a “shadow” of something “to come,” for it deals with eternal principles; second, the writer says “the law” there spoken of deals with “burnt offerings and offering for sin,” et cetera. Verse 8.
All the offerings under the Jewish service were intended to shadow forth the good things of the gospel when Christ, the great sacrifice, should be offered up. When that one great, perfect sacrifice for sin was made, imperfect shadows were no longer needed. Christ “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever.” Verse 12. The laws and ordinances commanding offerings of sacrifices, meat and drink offerings, and annual holy days, like the Passover, were all abolished at the cross. Shadow met reality.
In view of this, we have no difficulty in understanding what Paul refers to when he speaks of the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” and the ‘handwriting of ordinances” in the two texts we are examining. He means simply the ceremonial law. He makes this doubly clear by saying in the succeeding verses that because these “ordinances” are abolished, we are no longer under obligation as to offerings of meat or drink, and certain holy days, which “are a shadow of things to come.” The comparison with the language of the book of Hebrews is exact.
This conclusion is made doubly evident by the following facts:
- Contrast Paul’s words concerning meats and drinks, et cetera, with the words of the Ten Commandments. Those commands deal with tremendous and soul-shaking matters, such as idolatry, blasphemy, lying, stealing, and adultery. To illustrate the contrast, let us imagine that a particular country repealed all its traffic laws. Would it not be almost humorously obvious for a government official to declare solemnly that now no one may judge you for parking overtime, or failing to have your car inspected, when actually no one may judge you even for driving a hundred miles an hour through town and endangering a thousand lives? And so on the highway toward heaven. Suppose, in the Christian Era, travelers are suddenly freed from “the law,” including the Ten Commandments. How unbecomingly irrelevant for an inspired guide to inform them that now no one may judge them on relatively minor matters, such as “meat” or “drink,” when actually no one may longer judge them on such mighty matters as killing or stealing? Or why should a guide feel it impressive or essential to announce that the travelers need no longer be concerned with holy days when, if the Ten Commandments are a part of the blotted-out law, they may, with impunity, commit the sacrilege of blasphemy and idolatry? And with sacrilege permitted, what possible significance could a holy day have anyway? On the other hand, if a country repealed only those traffic laws that dealt with such minor and often burdensome matters as parking, how understandable for an official to announce that no one may now be judged in the matter of parking. Likewise, how appropriate and relevant Paul’s words become if the government of heaven has repealed only the ceremonial laws on meats and drinks, et cetera.
- The law mentioned in these two texts is said to have been abolished by the death of Christ. If the Ten Commandments are a part of that law, then God sent His Son to shed His blood to repeal, among other things, the formerly divine ban on idolatry, profanity, murder, and all the other evils denounced in the Ten Commandments. What a monstrous idea!
- Again, this abolished law is said to be “against us… contrary to us.” Will anyone be so presumptuous as to say that the Ten Commandments are “against us… contrary to us”?
So far, from these texts teaching that the ten-commandment law is abolished, they do not even mention it.
We’ll discuss the Colossian passage further under the objection “Paul Expressly Declares That The Sabbath Is Abolished” for deeper insight as it relates specifically to the Sabbath commandment.
