You mentioned two passages. The one from 1 Cor 9:21 is not "under the law" in the Greek. Regarding the one from Rom. 3:19

Tom, what is the difference between "under [obligation to obey] the law" and "in the law"?

12for as many as without law did sin, without law also shall perish, and as many as did sin in law, through law shall be judged,

19And we have known that as many things as the law saith, to those in the law it doth speak, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may come under judgment to God;

21to those without law, as without law -- (not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) -- that I might gain those without law;

Here's Col. 2:14


A correct understanding of this text would have to take into account the phrase "that was against us, which was contrary to us".

Does Colossians 2:14 teaches that the Ceremonial Law was Nailed to the Cross?

To conclude our discussion on the use of EGW's writings in interpreting Scripture, I wish to submit a final example of theological nature. The previous examples were historical in nature, mainly because they were better suited to respond to the criticism that I am committing a serious mistake by rejecting "Ellen White's clear endorsement of Adventism's historic dates for the 1,260-year prophecy."

The final example relates also to my research on the Sabbath. Over the years I have been repeatedly accused by concerned Adventist of ignoring the clear teachings of Ellen White in some of the things I wrote about the Sabbath.

The very first challenges I faced when my dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday came off the press, had to do with my interpretation of Colossians 2:14. Concerned Adventists strongly felt that I am ignoring the clear interpretation given by Ellen White to this text, which reads: "Having cancelled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:14).

It might help to explain that historically Sundaykeepers have used Colossians 2:14 to prove that Paul teaches that the law in general and the Sabbath in particular were nailed to the Cross. Our Adventist response has been to argue that what was nailed to the Cross in Colossians 2:14, was not the moral, but the ceremonial law.

Ellen White uses several times Colossians 2:14 to support the teaching that the ceremonial law was nailed to the Cross. For example, in Patriarchs and Prophets she writes: ""This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross. Colossians 2:14."[36]

Ellen White's teachings that the function of the ceremonial law terminated at the Cross, is absolutely correct. This teaching is emphatically and repeatedly stated in Hebrews chapters 7 to 10, where the effect of Christ's coming is described as "setting aside" (7:18), making "obsolete" (8:13), "abolishing" (10:9) all the Levitical services associated with the sanctuary.

The issue is not the termination of the ceremonial law at the Cross, but whether such biblical teaching can be legitimately supported with Colossians 2:14. Ellen White cites this text several times to support the termination of the ritual law at the Cross.[37] Historically Adventists have followed the lead of Ellen White in maintaining that the "handwriting of ordinances" nailed to the Cross in Colossians 2:14 refer to the termination of the ceremonial law.

The attempts to read into Colossians 2:14 either the ceremonial law or the both the moral/ceremonial laws, are unfounded for at least two reasons. First, because in the whole of the epistle the word "law - nomos" is not used at all. Second, because these interpretations detract from the immediate argument (v. 13) designed to prove the fullness of God's forgiveness. The wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law would hardly provide Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness. Guilt is not removed by destroying law codes. The latter would only leave mankind without moral principles.

What was nailed to the Cross was not the "law - nomos" but the cheirographon, a term which occurs only in Colossians 2:14. Its meaning has been clarified by its occurrence in apocalyptic literature where cheirographon is used to designate the "record-book of sin" or "the certificate of sin-indebtedness" but not the moral or ceremonial law.[38]

By this daring metaphor Paul affirms that through Christ, God has "cancelled," "set aside," "nailed to the cross" "the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was against us." The legal basis of the record of sins was "the binding statutes, regulations" (tois dogmasin) but what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement in sin, but the written record of our sins.

The function of the metaphor of the nailing to the Cross the record of our sins, is simply to reassure believers of the totality of God's forgiveness. There is no reason therefore for Christians to feel incomplete and to seek the help of inferior mediators, as taught by the Colossians' false teachers, since Christ has provided complete redemption and forgiveness. Interested readers are welcomed to read the extensive analysis of this text in both FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY and THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE.

Initially this interpretation was challenged by concerned Adventists who viewed it as a rejection of Ellen White's clear use of Colossians 2:14. Over the years, however, the resistance has subsided. Today I do not know of a single Adventist scholar who still hold to the traditional interpretation of this test.

[36] Patriarchs and Prophets p. 365.
[37] Acts of the Apostles, p. 194; Early Writings, p. 33; SDA Bible Commentary, vol 6, 1094-1095; Evangelism, p. 598, Selected Messages, vol 1, p. 239.
[38] For examples and a discussion, see my treatment in From Sabbath to Sunday, 1977, pp. 347-351.

all of them focus just on Col. 2:14 and none of them offers a reasonable explanation for Eph. 2:15.

Actually, he said all of them.

It's possible that they are making two different points.