Sabbath-Day Observance (The Death of the Law) (Part 4)

Nailed to the Cross

The next portion of an anonymous letter received from a woman attempts to take issue with what is written in Colossians 2:14, which is therefore cited below, along with verse 13:

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him [in baptism, according to verse 12, GWS], having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Most Bible students know that Ephesians and Colossians were both written while Paul was imprisoned in Rome. They both cover a great deal of the same material and are parallel in many respects. Consider what Paul wrote on this subject in Ephesians:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Eph. 2:14-16).

Notice what both passages teach. Something concerning what was taught in the Old Testament was put to death or It It is called the "handwriting of requirements" in Colossians and "the enmity" or "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" in Ephesians. The enmity refers to that first covenant, which separated Jew from Gentile.

The enmity was put to death. This cannot refer to part of the Law of Moses\ash or all of it BUT the Ten Commandments. It refers to the entire Law. The Old and the New Covenants are also contrasted in Hebrews 8:6-7. Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant. The reader should take special notice of verse 7: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." If the first covenant, which is the Law of Moses, would have taken away sin, then God would not have needed to replace it. Although the Law rightly condemned sin, it could not save anyone from those sins. The only way a person could be saved under that covenant was to live a perfect life\emdash as Jesus did. All the rest of us need forgiveness of sins. But that cannot be granted by the shedding of animal blood: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). Two covenants cannot be in effect at the same time; therefore, the first one had to die.

The Scriptures teach that the first covenant was replaced with the New Testament of Jesus Christ. But our female correspondent takes another approach. She says that Colossians 2:14 does not say that "the law" was nailed to the cross. After comparing it to the other passages cited, it is obvious that it was the Law (the first covenant) that was nailed to the cross.

However, she makes an argument that contradicts the Scriptures concerning the Law. First, she points out several truths about the Law.

The Law is perfect (Ps. 19:7).
The Law is truth (Ps. 119:142).
All of God’s commandments are truth (Ps. 119:151).
God’s Word is truth (Ps. 119:160; John 17:17).
All the commandments are righteousness (Ps. 119:172).
The Law and the commandments are holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12).

These are all, of course, true, but they do not address the issue. The very next verse explains: "Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful" (Rom. 7:13). The Law is perfect for what God designed it to do, but it was not designed to save. It did reveal truth, part of which is that, if you sin, you are worthy of death. One can only be saved by obeying the gospel that is part of the New Covenant, which makes one wonder why people want to return to a covenant that could not save.

The Handwriting

The teaching in the New Testament on this subject is clear with respect to many other passages harmonizing with the three we examined, but Sabbatarians try to come with anything that will allow them to cling to whatever parts of the Law they fancy, whether dietary laws, the Sabbath day, etc. In this case, she refers to Deuteronomy 31:24, 26 as an explanation for Colossians 2:14. She writes that this passage

sheds a little light on this. The book of Moses was handwritten by Moses and kept beside the Ark for a witness against the people. It contains blessings and curses and penalties for breaking God’s laws. We can read it and see that it was "against us and contrary to us"—not God’s laws.

The flaws here are several. But first notice how so frequently the answer to a false teaching is often very close by a verse cited by a proponent of error, as with Romans 7:12-13 above. In this case, we should begin with Deuteronomy 31:9: "So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to the elders of Israel." It was to be read every seven years before all the people (31:10-13). Did what was written in the Law originate with Moses? Did it contain his ideas and thoughts? Or were they from Jehovah?

The words were inspired of God, and the verse omitted by the writer (v. 25) has Moses giving a commandment to the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant. In verse 26, Moses calls it "the Book of the Law." Yes, he wrote it down, but he did not share his own advice; he wrote down "The Book of the Law." The origin of the material was God—not Moses. Moses was not being a witness against the people; God was.

The entire Bible is written down by men. Do we imagine that Paul is providing his own thoughts when he writes epistles? Did Peter speak the truth on Pentecost when Luke wrote down what he said? Was it God’s truth when Peter himself wrote two epistles? Or is it only the truth if spoken orally but not when we find it in written form? The New Testament teaches that it is, in truth, the Word of God whether spoken or written (2 Thess. 2:15). This attempt to minimize what was in the Book accompanying the ark utterly fails. What was written in the Book was, clearly, God’s laws.

A second point that must be made is that it was an assumption that Colossians 2:14 refers to Deuteronomy 31 in the first place. Why might it not refer to what God Himself wrote? In Exodus 24:12, God called Moses to come up on the mountain, where he would give him "tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them" (emph. GWS). In Exodus 31:18, God gave Moses the "tablets of stone, written with the finger of God." So, how does our female correspondent know that Paul was not thinking of God’s handwriting in Colossians 2:14?

Did Paul Keep The Law?

The letter writer constantly makes assumptions concerning why certain things are reported in the New Testament. If Paul goes to a synagogue to preach Christ to the Jews, then He must be keeping the Law. If he races to Jerusalem to be there for Pentecost, it must be to keep the law. No, it was an evangelistic opportunity to meet with his fellow Jews. And, as it turned out, he got to speak to a multitude of them (Acts 22).

If Christians were required to keep the Law, and the Law required circumcision, then Paul should have circumcised Titus, but he refused to do so (Gal. 2:3). Also, the apostles and elders did not require circumcision, either, though the Judaizing teachers did (Acts 15:1, 5). How does the letter writer explain that fact? Also, in Galatians 3:24-25, Paul said that the Law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. The Law was our tutor, but we are no longer under a tutor. We are no longer under the Old Law!

What Paul did (and what his motives might have been or might not have been) no one knows. But we do know what he taught. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul said he was free from all men, but he made himself a servant in order to win people to Christ (v. 19). Paul became as a Jew to win Jews (to those under the Law). He behaved "as under the law" that he might "win those who are under the law" (v. 20). But to those without the Law (Gentiles), he also was without law ("not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ"), that he might win those without the law (v. 21).

Now, if he were actually under the Law of Moses, he would not need to behave as "under the law." At various times, then, he did not keep the Law of Moses. Perhaps he traveled on the Sabbath day or ate something forbidden in the Law of Moses. We do not know, but he did not regard himself as being under the Law—because he knew it had been nailed to the cross.

"All Inspired Scriptures"

The correspondent makes several good observations concerning the Scriptures that do not relate to the main issue under discussion but then inserts this sentence: "We need all inspired Scriptures for our doctrine…" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Whoa! There’s a difference between saying, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" and, "We need all inspired Scriptures for our doctrine." Do we need to teach the Day of Atonement as our doctrine (Lev. 16)? Do we need instructions about burnt offerings and sin offerings as our doctrine today? Do we need a tabernacle or a temple? Do we need a test for jealousy as our doctrine (Num. 5)? Do we need the Jewish dietary laws?

Just because a Scripture is inspired does not mean that it is binding on us. If it is, shall we sacrifice a son, as Abraham was willing to do? Shall we build an ark, as Noah did? Shall we abide by the Genesis 1:29 diet? Or the one given to the Hebrews? Or the one given to Christians (Acts 10)? Shall we live by "an eye for an eye" doctrine and have an Avenger of Blood? Do we still need Cities of Refuge? And are they still all located in Israel? All Scriptures are inspired, but we live under the Christian system—not the Law of Moses.

The Law's Purpose

"If the Law’s purpose was completed at the cross, why is it the subject and content of the new covenant (Heb. 8:8-13; 10:16-17)?" Jesus quoted from Genesis 2 as a precedent, also, but that does not mean we are under the entire Law. Some passages in the Old Testament are explained in the New. Some moral principles are also valid under our covenant. But we obey them because they are taught in the New—not because they are in the Old. The Sabbath day is part of the Old Covenant, but it is not part of the New. The other nine of the Ten Commandments are all repeated in the New. As we have already shown from Galatians 3:24-25, we are no longer under the tutor—under the Law—which required the Sabbath day. It is not commanded in the New.