Request:

Can you please comment on the exchange below I found recently on the meaning of Colossians 2:13-14.   Does this passage imply that the Law of Moses was done away with when Jesus was killed on the cross?

Editor’s note:  This will be a fairly long passage, with the answer well down the page.

–Quote—

Colossians 2:13-14 definitely shows that the law was nailed to the Cross and the specific commandments that went with it were also nullified.

—End Quote—

Brasso:

"When the Septuagint was translated the word used in place of "Torah" was the Greek word "Nomos". While it is true that "Nomos" means any law, it was used exclusively for Torah. Also, the word "Nomos" isn’t written one single time in the Book of Collosians, and certainly not in 2:13-14. The words are cheirographon dogmasin. It literally means a written document of law violations, written as well as dogmatic, also meaning "man’s laws". There is no way to make this mean the Torah. It means that our sins have been forgiven and that we have now become clean again. The violations that separated us from YHWH have been erased. The wall of partition that prevented us from entering into His presence have been removed. It’s the same thing that was impressed on Peter with the "sheet from heaven incident". All people are now clean, not just the circumcised of flesh. You may want it to say the Torah was done away with, but it doesn’t. Just get out a Strong’s and look it up for yourself.  The New Covenant did supercede the Mosaic Covenant, just like all the previous 6 Covenants superceded the ones before them, but they didn’t nullify them. They added to them. If they nullifed the covenants before them, then why does Paul reference the Old Testament at all? The promise to Abraham would be nullified. The 10 Commandments would be nullifed. The need for blood to atone would be nullified. That alone should tell you this can’t be, otherwise Messiah didn’t have to die in the first place."

—Quote—

Some parts of the Old Testament are carried over into the New Testament the heart of the Law like the heart of God was unchanged —End Quote—

Brasso:

"It’s more than that. The Words of YHWH are unchanged. Everything He says is eternal. Messiah is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth. Think about that. How does this go with YHWH changing what He considers sin in His "Word"? Messiah is the Word. You are contradicing Messiah by suggestign that He did away with any Words of the Father, because He is that Word. When the Torah was originally written is was literally one long word. There were not spacings between letters, sentences, paragraphs, chapters, or books. There is no hint of Him changing. If His heart can change, then those poor souls who died breaking the Sabbath before, are a mockery."

Response:

I used to teach that Colossians 2:13-14 tells us that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross when Jesus was crucified. I have since changed how I say this, as, apparently, the Greek does not favor this interpretation. What, then, is this "written code" Paul is talking about? I am uncertain. Perhaps it is a reference to the Mosaic Law, but I am no longer sufficiently convinced to use this passage to teach this.

Of course, one of the points of Colossians and especially of Galatians is that we are no longer required to keep the laws in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, but that may not the point of Colossians 2:13-14. Having said that, it is arguable that the point of Colossians 2:16-17 IS that we are no longer judged by obedience to the Torah. The laws of the Torah are a shadow which led us toward the reality which is found in Christ (Hebrews 10:1f). Yes, the New Covenant DID replace the old.

The author you are quoting seems to want to hang on to the Mosaic Law. Perhaps this law was not nullified, but it was made irrelevant for our salvation. The Hebrew writer said that it was old, fading, and about to pass away (Hebrews 8:13).

So I agree with this author that Colossians 2:13-14 (probably) does not say that the Law of Moses was done away with.

I do not buy his argument as logical that "If they nullifed the covenants before them, then why does Paul reference the Old Testament at all? The promise to Abraham would be nullified. The 10 Commandments would be nullifed. The need for blood to atone would be nullified.

There are many reasons for Paul to refer to and teach from the Old Covenant, even if the actual covenant was nullified. The argument of the author you quote sounds logical, but it is not. If the Law of Moses is nullified, it is not logical to conclude that this means the need for blood to atone is nullified. Where is the logical connection here? Paul tells us that these things which happened to them were written for us (1 Corinthians 10:11f) The Hebrews passage above tells us that the laws and regulations were foreshadows which led us and helped us to understand the reality which is found in Christ. We are NOT subject to the Ten Commandments, as proved by Colossians 2:16.

My conclusion is that it is possible to over interpret Colossians 2:13-14 with regard to what happened to the Law of Moses under the New Covenant, but it is also possible to under interpret what happened to the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was great, but the Law of Christ is MUCH GREATER (see Hebrews). We no longer have a need for the Law of Moses, although we can learn a vast amount about the gospel from understanding Leviticus.

John Oakes

Jason—Quote—

Colossians 2:13-14 definitely shows that the law was nailed to the Cross and the specific commandments that went with it were also nullified.

—End Quote—

Brasso:

"When the Septuagint was translated the word used in place of "Torah"

was the Greek word "Nomos". While it is true that "Nomos" means

any law, it was used exclusively for Torah. Also, the word "Nomos"

isn’t written one single time in the Book of Collosians, and

certainly not in 2:13-14. The words are cheirographon

dogmasin. It literally means a written document of law

violations, written as well as dogmatic, also meaning "man’s

laws". There is no way to make this mean the Torah. It means

that our sins have been forgiven and that we have now become clean

again. The violations that separated us from YHWH have been

erased. The wall of partition that prevented us from entering into

His presence have been removed. It’s the same thing that was

impressed on Peter with the "sheet from heaven incident". All

people are now clean, not just the circumcised of flesh. You may

want it to say the Torah was done away with, but it doesn’t. Just

get out a Strong’s and look it up for yourself.

The New Covenant did supercede the Mosaic Covenant, just like all the previous 6 Covenants superceded the ones before them, but they didn’t

nullify them. They added to them. If they nullifed the

covenants before them, then why does Paul reference the Old Testament

at all? The promise to Abraham would be nullified. The 10

Commandments would be nullifed. The need for blood to atone would

be nullified. That alone should tell you this can’t be, otherwise

Messiah didn’t have to die in the first place."

Jason—Quote—

Some parts of the Old Testament are carried over into the New Testament the heart of the Law like the heart of God was unchanged —End Quote—

Brasso:

"It’s more than that. The Words of YHWH are unchanged.

Everything He says is eternal. Messiah is the Lamb slain from the

foundation of the earth. Think about that. How does this go with

YHWH changing what He considers sin in His "Word"? Messiah is the

Word. You are contradicing Messiah by suggestign that He did away

with any Words of the Father, because He is that Word. When the

Torah was originally written is was literally one long word. There

were not spacings between letters, sentences, paragraphs, chapters,

or books. There is no hint of Him changing. If His heart can

change, then those poor souls who died breaking the Sabbath before, are a mockery."