The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

The Old Testament/Law of Moses was done away by the death of Jesus Christ

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,912 times Debate No: 46258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)




Affirmed: The Old Testament (i.e. the Law of Moses), the covenant which God made with Israel through Moses, was abrogated and taken away at the death of Jesus Christ and hence no longer operational from then on.
The purpose of the Old Testament or Law of Moses was to bring Christ into the world " Gal. 3:23-25; which it did. Therefore, once that primary purpose had been "completed" there is no more use for that covenant. See also Rom. 7:1-7 & 10:4.
Jesus Christ affirmed that it was not His intent to "destroy", "overthrow" or "throw down" the Law of Moses, "but to fulfill it" " Matt. 5:17. Once anything has been "fulfilled" or filled full, it has been completed.
Since the Old Testament was one of a "fleshly" nature; in that it 1.) Included only those of a specific physical, genealogical lineage, 2.) Was identified by physical circumcision, and 3.) Observed with physical animal sacrifices and certain other outward conduct, it was fulfilled in the body of Jesus Christ, so that which is spiritual " heritage " Jn. 3:3-7, Rom. 8:14-17 and Gal. 3:26-29, identity " Rom. 2:28-29. Col. 2:11-15, and sacrifices and observances " Jn. 4:23-24, 1 Pet. 2:5, Gal. 5:16-25.
Therefore, since the righteousness provided in the New Testament (i.e. the Covenant of Jesus Christ) cannot be achieved or accomplished through the Old Testament (or Law of Moses), then the Old Testament has been abrogated by the death of Jesus Christ and since, is no longer operational.


I gladly accept this debate.

Contents of the Laws of Moses

For the purposes of this debate I will be dividing the Laws of Moses into several parts. For the sake of brevity I will ignore some of the Laws of Moses seeing as how there are 613 of them[1] and even if you divide them up it would still have to be in about 10 categories.

1. The 10 commandments

2. The laws on sacrifice

3. Laws on what is clean and unclean

4. Various other laws, codes, ordinances, etc...



What did Jesus Mean

Jesus must have had some good insight to the future and how his legacy would be remembered and misinterpreted. The verse in Matthew 5:17, is a good example of how Jesus did make some attempt to preempt this by stating his purpose. Unfortunately despite his best effort misconceptions will arise.

""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew" 5:17

Jesus clearly states that he does not wish to abolish the laws of Moses. When he speaks of fulfilling the laws he is referring to some of the prophecies and also by providing himself as a sacrifice, so that the animal sacrifices no longer are necessary. Part of his purpose is to bring more understanding of the laws as well. One way he provided more clarity was by discussing the spirit of the law since the word of the law was being overly focused on.

Here is some more context to the verse previously mentioned.

Matthew 5:18

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

As we all know Heaven and Earth hasn't disappeared, so the law is clearly not done away with.

More context

Matthew 5:19

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Here once again Jesus asserts that the laws are not abolished. Then he goes even further by condemning those who break the laws of Moses.
Debate Round No. 1


The Law of Moses and Covenant which God made with Israel was never meant to be permanent. It was limited in duration and therefore, drawing to its conclusion when it was given: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter ("written on tablets of stone" vs. 3), but of the spirit ("written upon the heart"): for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away" 2 Cor. 3:6-7, ""and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was passing away" vs. 13.
The Law of Moses and Covenant God made with Israel, was never designed to accomplish God"s eternal plan and man"s ultimate need; which was "remission of sins" (which was provided through the blood of Christ Eph. 1:7 & Col. 1:12-14 ) and "everlasting righteousness" (provided by Christ Rom. 3:21-26 & 5:19-21, 2 Cor. 5:21).
"For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? Because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Heb. 10:1-4
"On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!" Jn. 1:29
God set that old system on a course which "ended" with the death of Christ, the fulfillment of the law, the only offering which could appease God wrath against man"s sin and "blot out" the sin on man"s record Isa. 1:18, Acts 3:19 & 1 Jn. 2:1-2. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4. Therefore, once a system has run its course, "IT IS FINISHED" Jn. 19:30.
How many runners, "Wylted" do you KNOW of that, having crossed the "finish line" continue on running? Jesus said; "It is FINISHED ("`4;^9;_5;^9;L9;`9; - teleo" = complete, closed, ended)" Jn. 19:30. As with Paul"s affirmation; "Christ is the END ("`4;^9;L9;_5;_9;`2; - telos" = conclusion, termination, completion, etc.) of the law" Rom. 10:4.
Therefore, by the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, came the completion, conclusion and termination of the Law of Moses and the Old Testament.


The resolution

"The Old Testament/Law of Moses was done away by the death of Jesus Christ"

The above statement is what my opponent has to prove. Please pay special attention to the words "done away", in the resolution.

Jesus's words

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

Definition of the word Abolish

Below is a direct quote from

"Main Entry: abolish
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: do away with or put an end to
Synonyms: abate, abrogate, annihilate, annul, call off, cancel, destroy, disestablish, dissolve, end, eradicate, erase, expunge, extinguish, extirpate, finish, inhibit, invalidate, kill, negate, nix, nullify, obliterate, overthrow, overturn, prohibit, put an end to, put kibosh on, put the kibosh on, quash, repeal, repudiate, rescind, revoke, scrub, set aside, squelch, stamp out, subvert, supersede, suppress, terminate, undo, vacate, vitiate, void, wipe out, zap"

Pay special attention to the bolded words.


Given the statement of Jesus and the definition of the word abolish, it has been proven without a doubt that pro can't possibly prove his resolution.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent is effective ONLY in avoiding his responsibility of denying my affirmative position, by disproving the proposition and subsequent premises set forth in my affirmation. Instead, my opponent chooses to establish his entire position upon a single term and its definition; which I will prove absolutely demolishes his entire argument and position. Ignoring the overwhelming evidence is not a denial and certainly not an effective negation of my affirmative argument.

The cessation of the Law of Moses is evident through the New Testament. The inspired apostle, in comparing the law of Moses to the Covenant of Christ, in no uncertain terms affirmed to abrogation of the Old Testament " 2 Cor. 3. He wrote that the law "written on stone tablets" " vs. 3, and which "killeth" " vs. 6 was to "cease", "be abolished", "be done away" and "vanish" (katargeo - Greek). He further said that the law which Moses gave with a veil over his face was to come to an "end" or "conclusion" and having reached its "end" or "conclusion", it would be "abolished" " vs. 13, kjv or "pass away" " nasb.
Paul is even further point, in his letter to the Colossians, saying the gospel system came into fruition by the 1.) "blotting out", "erasing" or "wiping away" (exaleipho - Greek) of the law of Moses. Note that this very terminology was employed by Peter in reference to what happens to one"s sin when they are forgiven and "washed away" " Acts 3:19. Now, if being "blotted out" does NOT mean, in this case "to be removed", "abolished" or "done away", then likewise, regarding one"s sins are not "removed", "blotted out" or "abolished" from his/her conscience through obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. 2.) Paul goes on to say that the law of Moses was "taken out of the way" and "nailed to the cross" " Col. 2:13-14.
Again, Paul make this very argument to the Ephesians, in reference to how God brought together, in one body both Jew and Gentile through "dissolved", "put off", "ABOLISHED" and "slain" (i.e. destroyed or "put to death") the law of Moses " Eph. 2:14-16.
Finally, the writer of Hebrews, in arguing the superiority and supersession of the Covenant of Christ over that of Moses, affirmed that SINCE the priesthood established through Moses is "changed", "removed" or "disestablished", the it was necessary that the law from which the Levitical priesthood originated be "changed" " Heb. 7:11-12.
Therefore, in Christ"s affirmation in Matt. 5:17, He in no way suggested or determined that the law of Moses would not soon come to an end; but that His intent and purpose for coming was not to usurp or "overthrow" the law of Moses. So, Yes; Christ came to bring the law of Moses to a close, but NOT by revolt insurgence, "overthrow". But, it was to happen by fulfilling that law and completing that law through the sacrifice of the only begotten Son of God.
I would like my opponent to address these passages and disprove their regard to the "passing away" and "abrogation" of the law of Moses.


What needs to be proven

I really shouldn't have to show anything other then Jesus's words that he isn't going to do away with the Laws of Moses, to prove he didn't do away with the law of Moses. Until my opponent shows that the verse is mistranslated, Jesus was a liar or Jesus was mistaken, then I shouldn't have to address anything else. If you can't get past that one piece of evidence, than you can't win this debate regardless of what other verses pulled from the Bible, from people who aren't Jesus say.

The fact that you would take the word of a disciple of Jesus over the actual words of Jesus is disturbing to say the least.


2 Corinthians 3

The chapter is long but I encourage everyone to read it to confirm what I'm saying. What the author of this chapter is saying is that the spirit of the law needs to be obeyed. The Author discusses a veil that remains over the Pharisees that prevent them from seeing past the letter of the law. It pretty much says that if you come to Christ that the veil is removed and you can see beyond the letter of the law and see the spirit of it. This in no way discusses the abolishment of the Law of Moses. Instead it discusses a deeper understanding of the Laws of Moses.

Acts 3:19

Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

This discusses blotting out sins. How would you interpret this as saying it blots out th Laws of Moses.

Colossians 2:13-14

"13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross

The legal indebtedness that is being referred to is original sin among others. He died to replace the sacrifices of animals and also he died to erase our debt of death caused by original sin. Below is a link that shows how some scholars interpret this verse. You would be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who believes this verse is about abolishing the Laws of Moses.

Ephesians 2:15

"15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,"

This is discussing erasing ceremonial law. It really has nothing to do with moral laws. The moral laws in the Laws of Moses are distinct from the ceremonial laws and some of the other ordinances. The point of Jesus's return was to be the last blood sacrifice and to give people a deeper knowledge of the Laws of Moses. A lot of stuff gets lost in translation, but it's very important to try and understand the message the original author was intending to send.

Hebrews 7:12

"12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

The change of the law being discussed here is judicial law. This is not moral law. The law of Moses is not abolished in this verse here. Judicial law is what was handed down specifically to the tribe of Jew Moses was leading. The laws being changed here are things like marriage laws, divorce laws, some ceremonial stuff, and punishments to be doled out to offending parties.

Colossians 1:12-14

This discusses how Jesus saved man by dying for our sins. It in no way discusses abolishing the laws of Moses.

Ephesians 1:7

"7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"

Again this doesn't show that the Laws of Moses were abolished. It merely shows Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

Romans 3:21-26

I have no ideal how these verses prove that The Laws of Moses were abolished please explain.

Romans 5:19-21

This verse also does nothing to show the Laws of Moses have been abolished. Does my opponent believe he can just throw out random bible verses and I will accept without looking them up, as proof of his position.

2 Corinthians 5:21

"21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Once again another bible verse saying we are saved through Jesus. These verses do nothing to support the claim that the Laws of Moses have been abolished. I am utterly baffled as why my opponent is quoting them as proof of his position.

I don't have much room left, but I have addressed almost every verse my opponent has provided. He has failed to provide any evidence that supports his claim.
Debate Round No. 3


MrWright forfeited this round.


I've shown a quote by Jesus, showing that the Laws of Moses were not done away with. Jesus directly says this. I've succesfully refuted every single verse my opponent throws out that contradicts this. My opponent has taken this argument to the comment section. Since my opponent was not able to refute anything I said, than I believe he hasn't met his burden of proof. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
You're welcome and thank you.
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
My humble and sincere gratitude to my opponent "Wylted" for obliging me with the opportunity to debate him on this crucial topic.

Thank you!
Posted by Zhege 3 years ago
My two cents (for anyone reading up on this debate for information on the subject).

Some laws have indeed changed since the Old Testament and we have the new covenant. An example of my own is Mark 7:19, the purification of all foods, which contradicts a number of laws. However, it's irrefutable what Wylted said about Mathew 5:17 since Heaven and Earth have not passed. This leads us that Jesus has not completely abolished, but built up upon, which is abolishing (giving something a new name technically stops the other from existing, even if the differences are subtle) by creating the new covenant.

I'm also astonished that Hebrews 8:7-13 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 was not mentioned in this debate. Hebrews 8:13 says "In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Our covenant with Christ made the first one obsolete.
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
So then, I rest my case.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
We're under British law. That is a whole other debate though.
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
"In a way...", Wylted? REALLY? That's your answer? C'mon! Ever heard of the law of the excluded middle? Or, are just that comfortable being on the fence? Either U.S. citizens are under British law or not. "In a way..." Doesn't hold up before any judge.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
It's not a different law on marriage. The laws of Moses provided regarding marriage were just a set of laws for that tribe. None of the moral code was abolished. The moral code has always stated that divorce is a sin.

In a way, we are still under British law. We adopted the same legal system they use, except in Louisiana. If this debate was about whether we are still under British law you would've lost that one as well.
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
Wylted: "Jesus condemned murder, adultery and all the other things called on by the 10 commandments."
According to YOUR position the USA has been under and amenable to British law for the last 238 year. Because, murder, theft, rape, etc. are prohibited in the U.S. as it is in Great Britain.
Are those prohibitions effective in the U.S. because British law exists and is effective here, or because British men departed/separated themselves FROM British rule/law and established their own INDEPENDANT law, rule, government in the U.S.?
The prohibition of murder, adultery, theft, etc. under Christian law exists NOT because the law of Moses still exists and is effective. But, as in the above example, at the termination of the Old Covenant, these laws were established UNDER CHRIST and the New Testament, independently of its predecessor.
Notice, in Matt. 19, how under the law of Moses a man could divorce his wife for any reason and marry another. But, under Christ in order to contract a second or subsequent marriage, the first or previous union MUST have ended by either death or by divorce due to the reason of act of sexual immorality on the part of one of the parties.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day (annual) or a new moon (monthly) or a sabbath day (weekly): which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's." - Col. 2:16-17 ALL "Done Away" in the death of Christ.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
I'd prefer hell to being part of the brainwashed clique your God desires.
Posted by MrWright 3 years ago
You smack me, then tell me to "turn the other cheek" to you? You should listen to yourself. You're like the Sadducees, desiring neither to be right with God nor to appear wicked. You argue mere for the sake of argumentation; to sound/appear right. The fire of Hell is fueled with such.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Jesus said it, therefore the Old Testament was still relevant during his life and following his reincarnation. Pro's argumentation really just ignores this point and says that it's less important, not done away with. I can believe that and still vote Con.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, and sources to con since pro had none.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S & G to Con for his excellent use of syntax, diction and formatting. Con was the only one with "Sources" so "Sources" points directly to Con. Conduct points as Pro forfeited the last round. I'm keeping arguments tied because I was unable to understand any of Pro's arguments.