Romans 10:4, Col 2:13-16, Eph 2:15

Rom 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth". It does not say end of The Law; but limits to one's self righteousness for salvation. Jesus clearly said in Matthew he did not come to destroy the law... Not one jot shall change from the law till heaven and earth (which are still here) have passed!! Rom 10:3 talks of those trying to obtain their own righteousness which none can as all have sinned and come short of the requirements. The law and its components is righteous Deu 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Psa 119:7 (+rest) I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgements.   Those who use any scripture to teach or support the notion that "The Law" has ended, been changed etc fall under 1Ti 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm". Plainly, not knowing about what they are talking. Sending their flock to hell, I am sorry to be so blunt! 1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ... and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Are such advocates trying to say Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which f
ollowed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.? That is a foolish concept that one who does not want something and does nothing to get it actually gets it and the other who wants it and earnestly works towards it, is denied it. They forget that Gentiles are grafted INTO the same trunk that fed the Israelites (Rom 11:17), their righteous laws. Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me,
to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

Paul previously said, law or no law we, as God's creation, all have to do the same thing to be saved either via the schoolmaster (law) or our natural conscience. 1) Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 2) Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his
deeds: Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:  3) Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

4) Rom 2:12 For as many as have
sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For
not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles,
which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which s
hew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Prior to the human birth of Yahshua / Jesus we had the written law as our schoolmaster of how to live and attain righteousness (forgiveness of our sins via Aaron annual Day of Atonement sacrifice). After the coming of the Messiah as prophesised by the prophets, we have the living example of Yahshua. To walk, live and conduct ourselves as He did. Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Thus, in short, all Rom 10:4 is saying is that our level of "righteousness" is now judged by our belief in Christ not the written law. A righteousness of "faith" not sight. Rom 10:10 For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek/(Gentile): for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
Just like when Moses held up the rod with the brass serpent, those who looked on it and believed it would cure them, were cured. Now those who believe that Yahshua can forgive their sins instead of the previous sacrificial lamb will have them forgiven subject to the conditions of repentance and obeying God's laws / commandments.

The Catholics have a similar believe, albeit false, that their sins are forgiven once the priest says so subject to the directed penance prayers.

Col 2:13-16 Two extracts are given from previously written replies to others on whether holy days of Leviticus 23 should be kept today.
Col 2:11 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” Here we read, as usual, Paul talking about the demands of the Jews that gentile believers be circumcised and according to their custom handed down via Abraham. Paul states the sacrifice of Jesus was their salvation not circumcision. Col 2:14 “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”. Almost all Christians would say the Commandments were written by the finger of God, do not contain ordinances and was placed in the Ark of the Covenant.  This is according to their use of Exo 31:18; Deut 9:10. Moses did the “handwriting” of the laws between Exodus 20 and 24:4, none of which contained ordinances.  Neither is the word used between chapters 24 and 31 when God wrote on the tables of stone (KJV) which was placed in the side of the ark (Deut 31:26). Num 19:2 This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke: Num 19:3 And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face: Num 19:4 And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times: (some bibles, i.e. NKJV, change “ordinances” to “requirements”. Thus lumping the commandments, laws, statutes, judgements and ordinances together to distort God’s instructions by implying none have to be kept rather than limiting the instruction to ordinances.  The Hebrew word translated as “ordinance” can be traced back to other places in the bible where it is also used. This cannot be done with requirements.)
Another example of an ordinance is Ex 12:24. So to which “ordinance” is Paul referring? today’s society, when people do not want to do something, they commonly use the term “it is against the law”, meaning law of the land rather than a specific one. When pressed, they think of one i.e. “Freedom of Information Act”. When told that law does not contain their restriction they claim or end with “well that is the way our company operates”. What they may be going by is a company suggestion, recommendation, instruction which they call law. Unfortunately, similarly bible readers confuse and lump together commandments, laws, statutes and ordinances of God. Maybe due to limitations of the English language and understanding gained from similar word all of which give instruction. God knew what He meant when he used different words. An ordinance is an instruction; but not limited or exclusive to animal sacrifices or holy days. Neither to God, as the following examples show: 1 Sam 30:25, Num 31:21, Ex 15:25, Lev 18:30 (abominable sexual practices), Lev 22:9 (to do with holy items), Num 10:8 (blowing of trumpet, Eze 45:14 (oil). 
Which ordinance did people find contrary? Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” The yoke of circumcision as mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them (on circumcision), they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question (verses 2 and 6).” Which resulted in the text of 15:10. So is it not circumcision to which Paul was referring and not the Sabbath or God’s holy days? The holy days did not cause division and were forever inclusive of strangers (Ex 12:14, Ex 12:17, Num 9:14). I doubt Paul would be saying we were not to keep any ordinances as this is contrary to Rom 13:2.
Another aspect of the book of Colossians is seen in 2:8 “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy... rudiments of the world”. V20 “if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiment of the world, why as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, touch not, taste not, handle not after the commandments and doctrines of men”. Note Paul speaks of the world not Jews, Israel or anything particularly limited to them as the law. He speaks of commandments of the men not God or contained in the Old Testament. Remember also on numerous occasions Paul states he is a jealous follower of the Law, has never spoken or taught anything against the Law and so on. Paul’s letter was to warn against Judahist tendencies and customs similar to Jesus’ correction of the Pharisees who accused Him of breaking the Law by healing on the Sabbath. Amongst other things, Paul was concerned about the new teachings of worshipping angels as intermediaries between God and man (v2:18).

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Here is the confirmation. Paul is stating not to follow ordinances of men but follow Christ.  The law shows what sin is; the gospel points to the remedy for that sin, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus. If there is no law, there is no sin, and so what are we saved from? Only in the context of the law, and its continued validity, does the gospel make sense. We often hear that the Cross nullified the law. That is rather ironic, because the Cross shows that the law cannot be abrogated or changed. If God did not abrogate or even change the law before Christ died on the cross, why do it after? Why not get rid of the law after humanity sinned and thus spare humanity the legal punishment that violation of the law brings? That way, Jesus never would have had to die. Jesus’ death shows that if the law could have been changed or abrogated, that should have been done before, not after, the Cross. Thus, nothing shows the continued validity of the law more than does the death of Jesus, a death that occurred precisely because the law could not be changed. If the law could have been changed to meet us in our fallen condition, would not that have been a better solution to the problem of sin than Jesus having to die?” Violation of the will of God is defined as sin. The law was meant to show the need of salvation; it never was meant to be the means of obtaining that salvation. Thus if God gave holy days to be kept and one refuses to keep them, regardless of excuse, they are sinning.

Col 2:14 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; Some change the meaning of this scripture to mean “the law was nailed to the cross”! Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly (hypocrisy of leaders), triumphing over them in it. Col 2:16 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: Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Again some people or translations change to “the law", being a shadow of something to come, was nailed to the cross and abolished with the death of Christ, who was the thing of the shadow that then stood”. Wrong “which are a shadow” is referring to 5 previously mentioned things “meat, drink, respect of an holy day, new moon or the Sabbath”. These 5 things do not make up the Law (Torah which consisted of some 613 laws). The sentence is also dealing with standard of JUDGEMENT (Col 2:16), a topic of concern as addressed in Rom 14:3-4. Any church goer using this scripture not to keep the law, Sabbath or feast days should neither be keeping any “holy day” yet we know the apostles and early church did. Any assertion that no holy day is to be kept means no more holy convocation unto God. Would the devil not love that?
A) Paul lists 5 judging criteria each separated by “or”. i.e the keeping of these same holy days at their appointed times Deu 11:13-14; Zec 14:17-19. Religous leaders of the day were continuing to impose handwritten ordinances of men on the people above those established by God or His son.  Similar to what Yahshua said in Mat 15:9, Mark 7:7.

It is the standard deception. Find a word in the scripture you can tie to animal sacrifices, to forgiveness of sin, to Jesus, to nailed to the cross. In this case being “judged” in “meats” is used. They conceal that meat could be linked i.e to eating food with or without blood, and scriptures as Mar 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? Rom 14:2-3 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink;..   Rom 14:20 For meat destroy not the work of God... Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 1Cor 8:7-13 i.e 1Co 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. (also 1Cor 10:25 regarding purchased meat) 1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. See also Acts 15:20, and 1Cor 6:13.

Protestants who do not acknowledge the Catholic Pope's authority to do such a thing have taken a different route. The idea that Protestant individuals can choose to honour the Sabbath or not, and if we decide to, we can choose any day we want, and change that as often as we want, is usually based on a much misunderstood couple of verses written by Paul, in Col.2. Let's take a look at these verses, in their context, and then I'll make just a couple of points about it. READ Col.  2:16-23
Now, the debate over these verses in Colossians stem primarily from overlooking the basic principles Yahoveh had long ago established; so, by our taking a step back and looking at the Sabbath issue from a wider view, here is the questions we need to ask ourselves in order for us to rightly discern what Paul is attempting to explain.
Question 1 and perhaps the overriding question above all others: does Paul EVER contradict Christ?
2nd Question: did Paul EVER disobey standard Jewish Law of his era?
3rd Question:
whose rules about eating and drinking, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths is being talked about in these verses?

1. Does Paul EVER contradict Christ? Well, if we accept the traditional church doctrine that Shabbat is either abolished or optional or can be change at our whim, we would have to believe he did contradict Yahshua. The problem is, if that's so, where does that put us? Does that mean we are now left to decide between believing either Christ or Paul? No. Because Paul does NOT EVER contradict Christ. I don't mean to be harsh, but if we have decided that Christ and Paul did contradict each other, then why are we even here today? I say let's throw our Bibles in the trash and go home, because that would make this book of Scripture anything but accurate and infallible.  Look, we can slip and slide all over the place in deep pursuits of difficult Scriptural Truth: but most  Scripture is very straightforward and explicit. Christ says plainly in Mathew 5:17 " Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill". We here in Torah have looked at this Scripture over and over again. Jesus just SAID He did NOT  abolish the 10 Commandments, or the 613 laws, or ANY principle contained in the Torah. And,   Yeshua goes on to say that not the minutest point about it will change until heaven and earth pass away. Now, how in the world do we turn right around and interpret a handful of difficult passages to mean the Sabbath (which is a central theme of the Law and the Prophets) has been abolished, or that it's no longer the 7th day, or that we can make it anything we choose.
So, if Christ was telling the truth, then what has been erroneously taught as Paul's contention that virtually ALL of God's self-ordained memorials, including Sabbath, are abolished or changeable, can not possibly be correct, can it? We can't have it both ways. This would be the classic example of Biblical contradiction. Worse, it would be a classic example of the disciple challenging his master. Christ can't say it's not changed or abolished, and then have Paul turn right around and say it is changed and abolished. And, certainly, that is NOT what Paul said.

1. Did Paul ever disobey the Jewish Law? Well, if he actually did teach that the Sabbath is abolished, or that the God-breathed ordinances concerning Shabbat are no longer
applicable, then he has not only disobeyed Jewish Law, but he has disavowed the very SIGN that God gave to Israel for the Covenant of Moses.
We like to argue today that while Jews, even if they believe in Christ as Messiah, may still be subject to the Torah, certainly gentile believers are not. Let us pretend for a moment that this was so (which, by the way, it is not). It still would not apply here because Paul was a Jew, not a gentile!  So did Paul disobey Jewish Law and say that some things from the Torah were now abolished?  He says in the New Testament that he did not. In Acts 25:8, Paul said to the Jews in Jerusalem, "I have committed NO offence against the law of the Jews". He goes on to say in Acts 28:17, "I have done NOTHING against the traditions of the fathers". In other words, not only did he observe all the straightforward Scriptural commands, he ALSO obeyed the Jewish oral law traditions. No wiggle room here at all. There was no more important tradition and observance in Jewish Law and life than Sabbath observance.  The Sabbath and the Temple were the center of  Jewish life. So if we are to believe Paul is running around telling his new converts, Jews and
gentiles, that they can just stop observing, or change, Sabbaths, and Biblical Feasts, and so on, then Paul is, at the least, a very conflicted man. But, he would also be committing an offence against Jewish Law that carried the death penalty with it and he would be contradicting the plain words of His Lord and Saviour, Yahshua.
So, assuming that Paul was being truthful in Acts that he had NEVER broken Jewish Law or Jewish traditions, there is absolutely NO WAY that we can construe what he said in Colossians as meaning that he is telling everybody that the Sabbath can be anything you want it to be, even abolished. If he DID lie about not breaking Jewish Law (just so his ministry was not interrupted) then why would we believe ANYTHING Paul said? The answer is easy: Paul did not lie. He never said Sabbath could be changed or abolished.  In fact, in Heb. 4:9 Paul says, “So there remains a Shabbat keeping for God’s people”.  Who’s rules about eating and drinking, Sabbaths, New Moons, etc, was Paul referring to? Because if it’s God’s rules Paul is saying to ignore it’s one thing, but if it’s mans’ rules about these sorts of things it’s an entirely different matter. Well, let’s look at the context of Col. 2. Starting with vs. 16 it states….. so don’t let anyone (any man) pass judgement on you……
Vs.18 Don’t let anyone deny you the prize…… such PEOPLE are always……
Vs 19 They (people) fail to hold to the Head…..
Vs 22 Such prohibitions are concerned with things meant to perish by being used, and they are based on MAN MADE RULES AND TEACHINGS. Man made. Not God made. Are we to think that Paul is now saying that the laws of Torah were NOT given to Moses by God, but instead were man made? Of course not.
Here Paul sets the context of this entire teaching; it is that these believers can ignore MAN MADE doctrines; but, most certainly NOT God’s teachings. Remember, the Sabbaths, the 4th Word is not a man-made TRADITION. Men did not institute the Sabbaths; God in the Torah instituted it. But, men did add hundreds of rules about the Sabbath, and Biblical feasts, and New Moons, and THAT, along with pagan rituals that often mimicked Hebrew rituals is what Paul was condemning.
What Paul was fighting, as did Christ, was the mountains of Jewish tradition that was being heaped on the people AND the now commonplace melding together of various pagan traditions with Jewish Traditions because 90% of the Jewish population lived scattered throughout the Roman Empire and had great interest in being tolerant and accepted by their gentile neighbours. These traditions and observances in many cases flat out replaced Holy Scripture. Members of various Jewish sects had taken to following Paul around on his travels, trying to recruit his converts into the various Jewish Messianic sects (denominations) that had quickly sprung up; and each had there own set of do’s and don’ts, what you can eat, what you can’t, just exactly HOW one is to celebrate Shabbat, New Moons, and so forth. The most minute details of their lives were being controlled by volume after volume, literally 1000’s, of man made rules all said to be explaining Scripture. When in fact, these were primarily man made doctrine that was REPLACING Scripture.

So, Paul is not railing against God’s Torah in Colossians, he is condemning man-made rules and doctrines, some pagan, some misguided Tradition, which he plainly says.
Ah; but there seems to be one final out for the gentile Church. There are those who would say, yes, yes, that’s all fine; but the Sabbath is for Israel, not for gentile Believers. For you, I have two things to consider: first, the 10 Words (called 10 commandments) were indeed given to Moses and Israel, were they not? Since that is so, then why do you, and the Church system in general, regard them as valid for we the gentile Church? Is not that just a little schizophrenic? Second, I’d like to quote Paul in Galatians and Ephesians who goes right to the heart of the matter:  Galatians 3:16 “Now the promises were to Abraham and to his seed…..”

Here is just one of dozens of places in the Bible, OT and New, that establishes that all the promises, covenants, God would give, He gave to Abraham and/or to his seed; nobody else. So, who is Abraham’s seed? Israel. Hebrews. Abraham’s descendants. So, since that is the case, then how can others and I claim that we, as gentile Christians are mysteriously part of that same group that we get all the benefits, and are subject to all the principles, of Israel’s covenants?  
Here is the answer to that.
Galatians 3:26-29
“For in union with the Messiah, you are all children of God through this trusting faithfulness; because as many of you as were immersed into the Messiah have clothed yourselves with the Messiah, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor freeman, neither male nor female; for in union with the Messiah Yahshua, you are all one. Also, if you belong to the Messiah, YOU are seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise”.

Let’s look at Ephesians 2:11-13
“Therefore, remember your former state: you Gentiles by birth… called the uncircumcised by those who, merely because of an operation on their flesh, are called the Circumcised…. at that time you HAD no Messiah. You were estranged from the national life of Israel. You were foreigners to the covenants embodying God’s promise. You were in this world without hope and without God. But now, you who were once far off have been brought near through the shedding of the Messiah’s blood”.
We simply cannot get around it; WE gentile Believers are MADE seed of Abraham by means of having been joined to Israel’s covenants; and we’re joined to Israel’s covenants by means our faith, our trust, in the Saviour, Yahshua, Christ Jesus. We Gentiles by birth, foreigners, have been brought into Israel’s covenants. That’s how we’re able to partake of those covenants. Does that make us physical Jews? Of course not!  When Paul says there’s neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, etc., that certainly does not mean that physically the world suddenly became Unisex, that there was no more anatomical distinction of the sexes and that there was no more race of the Jews, or that gentiles became Jews or vice-versa. Just our observation of the world around us makes that clear. But, on the spiritual level, Christ broke all distinction IN HEAVEN, in the spirit world, among people, no matter what that distinction had been, colour, race, sex, nationality, rich or poor, slave or free, Jew or gentile. From a spiritual point of view Yahovah sees all Believers as bonded, grafted, adopted into the promises he gave to Israel, by means of our trusting Christ, our union with Jesus. See, we are not grafted into Christ: our union, by faith, with Christ grafts us into the covenants of Israel.
So why does the Sabbath apply to us? Because we are part of Israel, spiritual Israel, not physical Israel. Paul calls “spiritual Israel”, the “Israel of God”. We Believers get the benefit of and are subject to, all the spiritual principles of the Torah, but not necessarily all the Hebrew-cultural rituals. Christ’s sermon on the mount was mainly about two things: discounting the traditions of men, and reaffirming the PRINCIPLES behind the Law that had been obscured by all those traditions of men. Yahovah says the Sabbath is an eternal spiritual principle; it is woven into the very fabric of the universe; and now its benefits belong to every believer. And, God established a particular day as the weekly Sabbath, blessed it, and made it Holy. Let me say that again: Sabbath is a GOD established day, not a man-established day. The Sabbaths (annual ones included) may be FOR man, but it is not OF man. Christ’s death was FOR man, but it was not OF man. We cannot anymore change the terms of the Sabbath than we can change the terms of our redemption.

Frankly, I am not even sure what all the consternation is about when it comes to recognizing that we ought to observe God’s Sabbath. Observing the Sabbath is not difficult. I don’t know anyone who observes Sabbath who won’t tell you that their lives have been blessed, and they and their family are all the better for it as a result. The Biblical Jews met every day of the week at the daily prayer times as well as the weekly and annual sabbaths. Sunday Church, what we call the Lord’s Day, and the Shabbat, are two different days, and two different observances. Part of two different spiritual systems.  One a manmade tradition that did not even exist before the 4th century A.D, and one God ordained upon the Creation of the world. I would like to end this discussion on Sabbath by reading to you Isaiah 56:1-7.

Eph 2:13-16:  Let us get the context:
1) They were Gentiles, heathen, ungodly with no hope of salvation Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in
the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: This promise of the covenant was given to Abraham via a sign of circumcision of the flesh. This sign separated them from the promise.

2) "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;" The partition of physical circumcision.

3) Eph 2:16 And that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

4) Eph 2:19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints (who kept the law), and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (who preached and called Israel back to obeying the Law) , Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Eph 2:15 “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;” A commentator changed to “Law contained in rituals” and this is the wrong transformation people make thinking all animal sacrifices are for forgiveness of sins, which Jesus took away.  They claim anyone who keeps the law inclusive of the holy days contained in it, is denying Jesus. We have seen God prescribed animal sacrifices for a variety of reasons, see Leviticus 1-3. Heave, peace etc offerings, cleansing of garments, utensils, priest and us. Some impose a non biblical division into God’s law of “moral” representing the 10 commandments and “ceremonial” for the others. Link the ceremonial ones to forgiveness of sins and thus vanish them away with the death of Jesus. There is no "moral" nor “ceremonial” in a legitimate translation of the Bible. Rom 3:20 …by the law is the knowledge of sin. If God's law has been changed, then the definition of sin must be changed, too. Or if God's law was done away with, then sin must be, as well and who believes that? (See also 1 John 1:8–10; James 1:14, 15.)
This is what a commentator said.  “First we want to consider “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” In other words what is a law contained in ordinances? That is a big mistake of him.  It is NOT law contained in ordinances; but law of a certain thing “commandments” then that is contained in another thing “ordinances”. The commentaorr deliberately making this switch to deceive the reader. In for example Exo 18:20 “And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do”.   I read three separate things God instructed to be taught not that the law was contained in the ordinances!
Paul is saying, these ordinances are of men, so why follow or subject yourselves to commandments derived by men. The same message as Jesus when the leaders taught not to carry your bed on the Sabbath, walk so many steps, washing hands etc.
What are these ordinances? In Greek the word is (G1378 δόγμα dogma dog'-mah From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance. (Strong’s cooncordance). [To think, conclusion, opinion, (Acts 16:14) as decree or command (Luk 2:1, Acts 17:7, Eph 2:15, Col 2:14)
IT IS USED IN REFERENCE TO DOGMAS OF CHRISTIANITY, it means views, doctrinal statements, principles] (Lexical concordance).
In the Hebrew language there is a different word used for things of God (holy things) and those of man (ordinary things). i.e ordinances of God is Chuqqah (H2708) and are “permanently binding” (Lexical concordance) and those of man can be Mishpat (H4941) or Mishmereth (H4931). It is the same with the biblical Greek language. Ordinance of God as in Luk 1:6 is “Dikaiama” (G1345) “The product or result of being justified by God. The rights or claims which one has before God when he becomes His child by faith through Christ. In Rev 19:38 where the translation is the rightousness of saints, it is actually the legal rights of saints (dikaiomata). (In Heb 9:1, what is translated as ordinances of divine service actually are dikaiomata, legal rights. See also Luk 1:6; Rom 1:32, 2:26, 5:16, 18; 8:4 Heb 9:10; Rev 15:4.(Lexical concordance). Compared to those of man as in Eph 2:14; Col 2:14, 20. Being “dogma” (G1378) in the first two and “dogmatizo” (G1379) in the last (to let oneself fall into a certain order, subject to ordinances of man. Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from therudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (G1379 of men), v22 “…after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

(Bear in mind Faith and Grace has the law associated with it; but those living purely under the law wrongly forget grace).

Jam 1:22 But
be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. Jam 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: Jam 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

Jam 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works?
can faith save him? Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Jam 4:17
Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (Sin being transgression of the Law! Doing good is to keep the law)
Jam 5:20 Let him know, that
he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death,and shall hide a multitude

If you want the full text from which some of the following summary was extracted, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and request Feast days study article.
Romans 10:4; Col 2:13-16, Eph 2:15

Get In Touch


  • Add: Unit behind 567 EASTERN AVENUE, GANTS HILL, ILFORD, ESSEX IG2 6PJ. (Entrance in Denham Drive, through black metal gate which is about 25 yards from Eastern Avenue junction. No mail deliverable.)
  • Tel: 44 - 798 - 514 - 8018 (07985 148 018).
  • Email:


We use cookies to improve our website. By continuing to use this website, you are giving consent to cookies being used. More details…