5. Concerning meats and sabbath days: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. LET EVERY MAN BE FULLY PERSUADED IN HIS OWN MIND. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.... But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.... So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. LET US NOT THEREFORE JUDGE ONE ANOTHER ANY MORE" (Rom. 14:1-13; Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:14-17). If the law of Moses, including the fourth commandment, was in force in the new covenant the above statements would never have been written by Paul. Each Christian can do as he pleases concerning the sabbath and he is not to be judged by his brother "ANY MORE."

6. Christian experiences do not come by the law: "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?.... the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them [things of the law] shall live in them.... how turn ye AGAIN to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage?" (Gal. 1:6-9; 2:15-21; 3:1-12, 19-25; 4:1-3, 19-31; 5:l-9, 11-21). Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years [that the law required]. I am afraid of you, Lest I have bestowed labour upon you in vain" (Gal. 3:1-12; 4:9-11). Going back to observe sabbaths according to the law is spoken of here as going back into the bondage of the law. If one does this "he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal. 5:3).

7. The law was added because of transgressions, TILL THE SEED [Christ] SHOULD COME to whom the promise was made.... But before faith came [that Christ brought in the gospel and the new covenant, Heb. 12:1, 2], we were kept under the law, shut up unto that faith WHICH SHOULD AFTERWARDS BE REVEALED.... Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ THAT we might be justified by faith. BUT AFTER that faith is come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A SCHOOLMASTER" (Gal. 3:19-25). Not being "under" law is here explained as being out from under its authority like one who is no longer under a schoolmaster when he graduates from school. The law is not in force and it has no claim or authority over the person under the new covenant. He is under the obligation to keep the new covenant laws and commandments, which include new laws that were never part of the old covenant, as well as those old laws that God saw fit to make a part of the new covenant.

8. The law, including the ten commandments, has been "CAST OUT": "Tell me, YE THAT DESIRE TO BE UNDER THE LAW, do ye not hear the law. For it is written, that Abraham had TWO SONS.... he who was of the BONDWOMAN was born after the flesh; but he of the FREEWOMAN was by promise. WHICH THINGS ARE AN ALLEGORY: for THESE ARE THE TWO COVENANTS THE ONE FROM MOUNT SINAI, which GENDERETH TO BONDAGE, which is Agar (Hagar).... and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and IS IN BONDAGE with her children. But Jerusalem which is above IS FREE, which is the mother of us all.... Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. BUT AS THEN he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that is born after the Spirit, EVEN SO IT IS NOW. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN [the first or old covenant FROM MOUNT SINAI] AND HER SON [those under the law]: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN OF THE BONDWOMAN [the old ten commandment covenant and its many laws], BUT OF THE FREE [the new covenant]. Stand fast therefore IN THE LIBERTY wherewith Christ hath made us FREE, and BE NOT ENTANGLED AGAIN WITH THE YOKE OF BONDAGE [the old covenant].... For I testify again to every man that is circumcised [no man had any part in the old covenant unless he was circumcised], that he is a debtor TO DO THE WHOLE LAW" (Gal. 4:21-31; 5:1-5, 18).

Modern law keepers never mention this passage, for there is no possible way for them to explain such simple language as the old covenant "from Sinai" being "cast out" with all its sons who are under bondage and death. The old covenant of commandments that brought death has no more relationship to people under the new covenant than Hagar and Ishmael had with Sarah and Isaac. Abraham was the father of both Ishmael and Isaac, but Ishmael had no part in Isaac's inheritance (Gen. 21:9-21). God was the author of both covenants, but one was designed to bring death and guilt of sin, and the other was designed to bring life and freedom from sin. There can be no keeping of both, for the reasons given in Point 12 below.

9. The law was a covenant of types and shadows and was abolished when the realities of those shadows appeared. "Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity [the law of bondage and death], EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances... . BLOTTING OUT [making void] 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: WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME; but the body [or reality of which those things were mere shadows] is of Christ" (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14-17).

Followers of Moses today naturally attempt to explain away some of the Next Testament passages which state that the old law or covenant has been "abolished," but the more they attempt such an impossible job the more ridiculous their position becomes. It is like trying to sink a battleship with a blow gun. It cannot be done. In trying to explain away the passages mentioned above they say that "the law of commandments" referred to the ceremonial law, and that "the sabbath days" of Col. 2:14-17 were the ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly sabbath.

It is strange that they take this position for wherever "commandments" and "sabbath days" are found at every other place in Scripture they argue that they refer to the ten commandments and the weekly sabbaths. This only magnifies the inconsistency of their doctrine as well as their plain and open rebellion against the Word of God. If they are the sole representatives of God on Earth as they claim it is strange that they would fight God and His own Word.

Regardless of what old covenant disciples say about these passages, it is certain that Paul was not one with them because he did not one time require men to keep any certain day, especially the old fourth commandment sabbath. The Greek word for "sabbath" is in the plural and the word "days" is not in the original language, so it should read "sabbaths." It is the same Greek word used of the weekly sabbaths in 59 other places, so it must refer to the weekly sabbath as well as any other sabbath of the old covenant.

The weekly sabbath as well as the other sabbaths is part of the ordinances given by God to Moses. The weekly sabbath was the first of eight feasts of the Lord in Lev. 23, "Concerning THE FEASTS OF THE LORD, which ye shall proclaim TO BE HOLY CONVOCATIONS, EVEN THESE ARE MY FEASTS. Six days shall work be done: but on the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, AN HOLY CONVOCATION; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD IN ALL YOUR DWELLINGS." After commanding this weekly "feast" and "holy convocation" the Lord next commanded the seasonal "feasts" and "holy convocations," which were to be kept "IN THEIR SEASONS" (Lev. 23:2-4). Thus we have a "weekly feast" and "seasonal feasts" and all were to be "holy convocations" and times of rest and holy worship.

In Lev. 23:38, after giving the seven seasonal feasts, which were given after the weekly feast, the Lord said, "These are the feasts of the Lord.... Besides THE SABBATHS of the Lord," referring to the weekly sabbaths, thus proving that the word "sabbaths" includes the weekly sabbath as much as it does all other sabbaths. See also Ex. 31:13-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20, or any place where "sabbaths" is found, and one will have to acknowledge that the weekly sabbath is included in the word "sabbaths" in Col. 2:14-17.

All these "feasts" were to be observed "for ever" (Lev. 23:14, 31, 41), so the theory of some that the weekly sabbath is the only eternal feast is unscriptural. All eight feasts were part of one eternal law that would have continued eternally if man could have kept his part of the contract. Since man could not keep it and there was no provision in it to make a man righteous and capable of keeping it, then it had to be set aside for the new covenant which does not have faults like the old one, as seen in Points 11 and 12 below. When the old law was "abolished," the weekly sabbath (the sign of the old covenant to commemorate the deliverance from Egypt) was done away, with all other sabbaths and parts of the old law. The fact is, that eternal terms are used profusely in the so-called ceremonial part of the law of Moses, but not one time are they used in connection with the ten commandments of Ex. 20:1-17, Deut. 5:1-21, so it can be proved with more authority that the ceremonial part of the law was external and the ten commandments were temporary if we are going to use eternal terms as the basis of proof.

The Greek word for ordinances is dogma, a civil or religious law (Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4; 17:7; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). As we have already proved and will see more fully in Point X below, the ten commandments were part of God's law to Israel, and since the whole law has been abolished, there are no grounds to prove that the law of commandments in Eph. 2:15 refers to all the laws except the ten commandments. If such commandments were the basis of the whole law as all men agree, then they would have to be included in the law of commandments that was abolished in Christ on the cross. As we have seen in Point I above, it is the ten commandments that are singled out as having been "done away" and "abolished." As we have seen above, the weekly sabbath is part of the ceremonial law. Therefore, when men admit that the "sabbaths" in Col. 2:14-17 refer to the ceremonial sabbaths they state the truth, but this does not mean that the weekly sabbath is not included in all the old law ceremonial sabbaths.

10. The old law was imperfect and had to be changed. Christ came "after the order of Melchizedek" and not after the Levitical priesthood which could not bring perfection and under which "the people received the law.... For the priesthood BEING CHANGED, there is made of necessity A CHANGE [abolishment] ALSO OF THE LAW.... For there is verily A DISANNULLING OF THE COMMANDMENT going before for THE WEAKNESS AND UNPROFITABLENESS THEREOF. FOR THE LAW MADE NOTHING PERFECT, but the bringing in of a better hope did.... By so much was Jesus made a surety of A BETTER TESTAMENT. . . . For the law maketh men priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, WHICH IS SINCE THE LAW, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. . . . But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry [than old covenant priests], by how much also he is the mediator of A BETTER COVENANT, which is established upon better promises. For if THAT FIRST COVENANT [from Sinai, Gal. 4:21-31] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for THE SECOND. But finding fault with them, he saith . . . A NEW COVENANT, he hath made THE FIRST OLD [obsolete]. Now that [old covenant] which decayeth [is obsolete, discarded] and waxeth old is ready to vanish away [to be abrogated]. Then verily THE FIRST COVENANT had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.... Which was A FIGURE FOR THE TIME THEN PRESENT. . . . Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal [human] ordinances, imposed on them UNTIL THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION [setting things right of the new order] . . . for this cause he is the mediator of THE NEW COVENANT, that by means of death, FOR THE REDEMPTION OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS THAT WERE UNDER THE FIRST TESTAMENT, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth [the new covenant was not in force until Christ died]. Whereupon neither the FIRST TESTAMENT was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken EVERY PRECEPT [including the ten commandments] to all the people ACCORDING TO ALL THE LAW, he took the blood of calves and of goats.... and sprinkled both THE BOOK and ALL THE PEOPLE, Saying, THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE TESTAMENT which God hath enjoined unto you.... For THE LAW HAVING A SHADOW OF GOOD THINGS TO COME, and NOT THE VERY IMAGE OF THE THINGS can never ... make the comers thereunto perfect.... Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He TAKETH AWAY [abolishes] THE FIRST [old covenant], THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE SECOND [new covenant]" (Heb. 7:11, 12, 22, 28; 8:6-18, 9:1, 9, 10, 15-22; 10:1-18).

The word "establish" here means to enact the laws of the new covenant, while the word as used in Rom. 3:31 means that the righteousness of the old covenant is upheld in the new covenant by fulfilling that righteousness in men, not by the keeping of the old law, but by faith in Christ provided by the new covenant (Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 2:15-20, 3:1-14; 5:1-26).

The many passages in Hebrews and in the other points above are clear in themselves that the old covenant with the ten commandments and all the laws given to Moses were abolished, abrogated and annulled.