This is a passage which is appealed to as proof that the decalogne has been abolished; but it can be readily shown that it proves just the reverse. Let us read it:—
"For he 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."
Notice a few facts: There was a certain law here, called a "middle wall of partition," which kept the Jews and Gentiles separate. This wall was broken down by Christ. Was this the moral law or the law of ordinances? Every candid person must admit that it was the latter. The law of circumcision, the one regulating clean and unclean things, and their innumerable washings, carnal ordinances and ceremonies was instituted for the purpose of keeping the Jews a distinct and separate people till the Messiah should come. This was the great object of that law. Hence it was peculiar to the Jews. It never applied to the Gentiles. But the precepts of the moral law were just as applicable to the Gentiles as to the Jews. Was not the law against idolatry, profanity, murder, theft, &c., as applicable to the Gentiles as to the Jews? Of course. Here they are on common ground. This erected no wall between them, but the law of ordinances did. To this Paul refers. He says, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." If Paul had stopped here, as he certainly ought to have done if there had been only one law, and it had all been abolished as our opponents teach, then there would be some show for that position; but he puts on a qualifying phrase which shows beyond question that he knew there were two laws of a very different kind, one which had been abolished and one which had not. Notice how carefully he states this, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in299ordinances." What law is abolished? Answer, That one contained in ordinances. Was there a law relating simply to ordinances and to nothing else? Certainly, for so Paul declares in Heb. 9 : 10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." That this relates to the ceremonial law of the Jews no one can fail to see.
The very fact that Paul when he states that the law was abolished, carefully qualifies this statement by saying that it is the law contained in ordinances, shows that he knew that there was another law not contained in ordinances, which was not abolished. To illustrate: A physician says to his servant, Go to my office and bring me an ounce of medicine contained in the black bottle. This is virtually saying that there is other medicine contained in other bottles. If there was only one kind of medicine he would simply say, Go to my office and bring me an ounce of medicine.
So in this case: when Paul says the law is abolished, he specifies which one, namely, the one contained in ordinances, thus virtually saying that that which was not contained in ordinances was not abolished. The ceremonial law related wholly to ordinances. If the apostles taught the abolition of the decalogue, is it not remarkable that they make no reference to any of these commandments when speaking of the abolition of the law? On the other hand, every reference they make is always to the law of ordinances.
Contrast this passage a moment with the language of the same apostle in Rom. 3 : 31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we estalish the law." The words "make void," in this text are from the Greek word katargeo which is the very word rendered "abolished" in Eph. 2 : 15. Hence in Rom. 3 : 31, Paul emphatically declares that the law is not abolished. But in Eph. 2 : 15, he positively says it is abolished. How can these two statements be reconciled? It is utterly impossible for Paul in both places to be speaking of the same law. But if we understand him to speak in one place of the moral law, and in the other of the ceremonial law, his meaning is plain, and there is no contradiction. The mistake that our opponents make is in applying to the moral law what the apostle says of the ceremonial law.
Col. 2 : 14-17 is another passage furnishing strong proof on the two law position. It reads thus: "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; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."
I believe it can be clearly shown that there is not one reference in all this to the decalogue, or seventh-day Sabbath. On this, Dr. Adam Clarke says: "By the handwriting of ordinances, the apostle most evidently means the ceremonial law." Comment on verse 14. Look at the figures used. "Blotting out." That which was written on parchment in books, as was the ceremonial law, could be blotted out with a wet sponge. See Num. 5 : 23. But it would be improper and absurd to talk of blotting out what was engraved in stones, as was the decalogue. "Handwriting." The ceremonial law was the handwriting of Moses, but the decalogue was written by the finger of God. Ex. 31 : 18. "Of ordinances." Here is further proof that it is the law of ceremonial ordinances which is meant. Compare with Heb. 9 : 10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Then there was a law which stood only in these carnal ordinances of meats, drinks, &c., the very things of which the apostle speaks in Colossians. Mark that these were imposed on them as a burden. So in Eph. 2 : 15: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances."
Here, too, we have the law of ordinances, the enmity abolished. "That was against us, which was contrary to us." The ceremonial law with all its innumerable rites and ordinances, which must be carefully regarded in the smallest affairs of every-day life was indeed a burden, a yoke, and against them, imposed upon them to keep a separate people till Christ came. But which of the ten commandments is against us? Look them over. Is it against us, 1. To have no other gods? 2. Not to make or worship an image? 3. Not to swear? 5. To honor our parents? 6. Not to kill? 7. Nor commit adultery? 8. Nor steal? 9. Nor lie? 10. Nor covet? Are not these commandments good, and for our best interest? But perhaps the fourth precept, the Sabbath, is against us? No, indeed; for Christ himself said, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2 : 27. That which is for man cannot be against him.
"Nailing it to his cross." It would be proper to speak of nailing to the cross a parchment, or laws written on paper, but entirely improper if the reference is to the tables of stone. They could not be nailed up. Notice now the items which the apostle mentions, not one of which is in the decalogue, but all of which are in the ceremonial law. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat." Anything in the ten commandments about meat? Not a word. "Or in drink." Anything there about drink? Nothing. "Or in respect of an holy day." The original word here rendered holy day, is heortee, which means a feast day. Thus Greenfield defines it: "A solemn feast, public festival, holy day." It occurs twenty-seven times in the New Testament, and is, except in this place, every time rendered "feast," or "feast day."
The complete use of heortee in the N. T. as given in the Englishman's Greek Concordance is as follows:—
Matt. 26 : 5. they said, Not on the feast (day).
" 27 : 15. at (that) feast the governor was.
Mark 14 : 2. they said, Not on the feast (day).
" 15 : 6. Now at (that) feast he released unto
Luke 2 : 41. at the feast of the passover.
" 2 : 42. after the custom of the feast.
" 22 : 1. the feast of unleaven bread.
" 23 : 17. release one unto them at the feast.
John 2 : 23. at the passover in the feast (day).
" 4 : 45. at Jerusalem at the feast: for they also went unto the feast.
" 5 : 1. there was a feast of the Jews;
" 6 : 4. a feast of the Jews was nigh.
" 7 : 2. the Jew's feast of the tabernacles was
" 7 : 8. Go ye up unto this feast : I go not up yet unto this feast.
" 7 : 10. went he also up unto the feast.
" 7 : 11. Jews sought him at the feast.
" 7 : 14. About the midst of the feast.
" 7 : 37. that great (day) of the feast.
" 11 : 57. he will not come to the feast?
" 12 : 12. were come to the feast.
" 12 : 20. to worship at the feast :
" 13 : 1. before the feast of the passover.
" 13 : 29. need of against the feast;
Acts 18 : 21. by all means keep this feast.
Col. 2 : 16. or in respect of a holy day.
By this it will readily be seen that heortee always means a feast day, and should have been so rendered here.
The Diaglott renders it thus: "Let no one, therefore, rule you in food, or in drink, or in respect of a festival." There were many festival heortee days in the ceremonial law, but not one in the decalogue. See the yearly festivals enumerated in Lev. 23 : 2, 4, 6, 34, 37, 39, 41, &c., where the original word rendered festival is this the word which Paul uses in Col. 2 : 16, thus carefully pointing out those old yearly festivals of the ceremonial law. No such festival is mentioned in the ten commandments; hence he has no reference to them.
"Or of the new moon." Anything about new moons in the ten commandments? Not a thing. Hence this can have no reference to that law. Was there a law touching the celebration of new moons? Yes, the ceremonial law. See Num. 10 : 10; 28 : 11; Ps. 81 : 3, 4. Thus far we have not found the slightest reference to the ten commandments, but every item mentioned is found in the ceremonial law outside of the decalogue.
"Or of the sabbath days." Here our opponents are in high glee thinking that the seventh-day Sabbath is surely meant by this; but we are as confident that it is not, and will give our reasons for it. Many of the ablest commentators agree with us in this. Dr. Clarke says on this: "The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holidays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths. There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere, that remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, is a command of perpetual obligation."
The American Tract Society comments thus on this passage: "A holy day—sabbaths; in the original, a festival—sabbaths. The days referred to are those required to be observed in meats, drinks, and new moons. The passage does not refer to the Sabbath of the moral law associated with the commands forbidding murder, theft, and adultery."
The following are some of the reasons why this does not apply to the weekly Sabbath:—
1. If it does, then it leaves us no weekly Sabbath day at all; for no exception is made. It sets aside the first-day Sabbath as well as the seventh-day. Let no man judge you in respect to the sabbath days. If one man is not to be judged for disregarding one day, then another is not to be judged for disregarding another day, and so we need keep no day.
2. This interpretation contradicts the many plain and direct texts which assert that, the law which includes the Sabbath, is still in force and must be kept, even to the smallest point. Rom. 3 : 31; Matt. 5 : 17-19; Jas. 2 : 8-12.
3. If this proves the Sabbath nailed to the cross, then the other commandments went with it, and so the law against murder, adultery, theft, &c., has been abolished.
4. Not a single expression in the whole passage, unless it be this one touching the sabbath days, is applicable to the law of God engraven in stones, as we have seen.
5. Every item in the context, enumerated by the apostle, viz., meats, drinks, festivals, and new moons, is found, not in the decalogue, but in the ceremonial law. This is a strong indication that he is simply talking of the institutions of that ceremonial law, and has no reference to the moral law.
6. But were there any sabbath days in the ceremonial law? Yes; several yearly Sabbaths, distinct from the Lord's Sabbath which was the only weekly Sabbath. They are described at length in Lev. 23. We will notice a few of them:—
Verse 24: "In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein." This sabbath was on the first day of the seventh month, which could only come once a year as all can see.
Verses 27-32: "Also on the tenth day this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls; in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." The Greek word here rendered sabbath, is sabbaton, the same that is used by Paul in Col. 2 : 16. This sabbath was on the tenth day of the seventh month, and so could only come once a year. The first and tenth days of the month were sabbaths, which shows that they are not weekly sabbaths; for they are ten days apart—rather a long week!
Verse 39: "Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days; on the first day [of the feast, hence the fifteenth day of the month] shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath." Here we have two more yearly sabbaths. These are not weekly sabbaths is farther proved by the fact that the tenth and the fifteenth days of the month were sabbaths—a week only five days long! Further the Lord says these are to be kept besides his Sabbath.
Verses 37, 38: "These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings everything upon his day; besides the Sabbaths of the Lord."
Thus we have the fact plainly before us that there were several yearly sabbaths connected with meats, drinks, new moons, feasts, &c. All these were besides God's Sabbath, and this is the very list which Paul names in Col. 2 as nailed to the cross and blotted out.
7. Paul is very careful to designate which sabbath days were done away. He says, "the days which are a shadow of things to come." Verse 17. This is true of the ceremonial sabbaths, but not of the seventh-day Sabbath. It pointed back to creation, not forward to the cross; hence it is not what the apostle meant.
But, says one, days is a supplied word in Col. 2 : 16. So the original would read, "Or of the Sabbath," singular number, hence the Sabbath, the seventh day, and not the sabbath days, the yearly sabbaths, plural. I answer, It is true that "days" is not in the original but sabbaton is in the plural; hence if we do not render it sabbath days, we must render it sabbaths, plural, which is the same in substance. So our opponents have not even a single hook upon which to hang their theory in this passage, but we have strong proof here of our position on the two laws.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Gilroy, Cal., July 12.