“having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
We come to the seventh result of the work of Christ on the cross: “having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us.” Jesus destroyed the demands of the law against us.
“having wiped out the handwriting of requirements”
The previous verse stated that God forgave us (Col 2:13). When he forgave, God canceled the judgment in his written law against us (Romans 3:19).
“Wiped out” means to erase, obliterate. The idea is to wipe by rubbing. This word is intense in the original because it is a compound of two words: to wipe and off. God wipes out several things in the New Testament: Acts 3:19 (sins); Rev 3:5 (not wipe out name in a book); Rev 7:17 (tears). Here God wipes out the list of charges against us. God not only forgives our sin, but he blots out the record of it. Not only is the handwriting erased, but God removed the document itself.
Writing outside the New Testament used “handwriting” to post public debt. Secular Greek used it primarily for a record of financial accounts. The culture of that time gave particular emphasis to the handwritten nature of the document. “Handwriting of requirements” was a note signed by hand by a debtor acknowledging his indebtedness. It is what we call an IOU. It was a record of debts of our nature and acts of sin we signed with our handwriting. Jesus canceled the record or history of these debts to God.
People in the first century used “handwriting” almost exclusively for the autograph on a promissory note. This word frequently occurs in Roman law. It was a signed admission of liability. Our sins pile up as a vast list of debts to God, making it abundantly clear that we are liable before God.
“Requirements” carry the ideas of edict, ordinance, decision, formalized rule (or set of rules) prescribing what people must do. This posting of requirements refers to the Mosaic law. The law has a certificate of requirements that puts us in debt to God. This certificate is God’s public charge against us; it is his list of directives against personal sin. God must stand resolved against us because he cannot contradict his own essence and standards. Therefore, God’s law demands perfection.
“that was against us”
Koine or biblical Greek used “against us” for that which is contrary to persons. Because God is perfect, every standard he holds is a testimony against us. The commandments of the Old Testament and our moral nature testify against us.
We face the total hopeless debt of God’s righteousness. We owe God sinlessness. We can not possibly pay that debt. We do not have the personal resources to do it. We are up to our hocks in debt. We must welsh on the deficit in our human efforts because we cannot pay the debt entirely. Because of this, God placed an IOU against us. The beauty of Christianity is Jesus canceled our debt for us. Jesus personally paid off our debt; he withdrew our IOU to God.
“which was contrary to us”
“Contrary to:” set over against, set against, opposite, of enemies in battle, opposed, opposite. God always defines righteousness in terms of his own perfection. Because we cannot live up to the law’s standard, it works against us and opposes us (Romans 4:15; 5:20; 1 Corinthians 15:56; Galatians 3:23).
The law is like a taskmaster. The law threatens us with penalties and pain. It puts us in bondage, and it does not give us the power to live up to its standards.
God canceled the mountain of debt (the law) against us by the cross.
The law demands perfection, but we cannot live up to it. God demands absolute righteousness because he is absolute righteousness. None of us can pay that price. We cannot produce God’s righteousness in our lives (Romans 3:10f). The law proves we are sinful. Therefore, the law drives us to Christ as our only hope (Galatians 3:13). The law says, “You shall not.” Something says within us, “I shall.” The assertion that “I cannot” makes me want to do it. There is an ingrained rebellion in all our hearts. If we see a sign that says, “Do not spit on the sidewalk,” our salivary glands immediately begin to work. If the sign says, “Do not touch the wet paint,” we want to touch the paint to see if it is genuinely wet. The law provokes the very thing it forbids (Romans 8:3).
Jesus came to take away the charge of the law against us. He not only took away the charge, but he put a new heart within us. Jesus completely, eternally, and adequately settled the law issue by the cross. Grace is effectual where the law fails.
There is a self-confessed indictment against us, which we sign in agreement. We stand bankrupt before the law. God wiped out that list of charges against us. Jesus met the perfect demands of God’s holiness. God has banished the record of our sins. This banishment is positional, judicial, and forensic vindication before God. Have you personally accepted Christ’s work on the cross to give you perfect forgiveness before God forever?
This may be a bad question, but if it is it should not be hard to answer. This verse says the God canceled the law, but Jesus said that even on part of the law would pass away (Mt. 5:18). How can these be reconciled? Thanks!
Oops. *not even part of the law*
Jakob, there are about 7 different uses of the word "law" in the New Testament. There is a reference to the law as the Bible as a whole but then there is the reference to the Mosaic law, or even sometimes merely as a reference to an aspect of the Mosaic law. The context must determine the usage. The usage in Mt has to do with Scriptures whereas the usage in Colossians has to do with the Mosaic law.
I just want to thank you for this commentary, it was very helpful.
Dear Mr Grant, I fully support the first of your commentary, especially when you are referring to Cheiragraphon. However, I got a little confused with your elaboration of Dogmasin. Could you kindly define Mosaic law? Are you referring to the Torah (Pentateuch) which would include the moral law of the decalogue.Please kindly state indications in the text or context that define for us which law is clearly referred to by Dogmasin(Greek word used).
Tsebang, thanks for your comment. I believe the law here refers to any standard (law) that God establishes about the reality of who He is. This appears to me the argument of the context. The law is a reflection of God’s character. Jesus dealt in one final swoop all that the law or character of God demands (cf. argument of Galatians).
Reference Jacob’s initial question “This verse [Col 2:14] says God canceled the law, but Jesus said that even not one part of the law would pass away (Mt. 5:18). How can these be reconciled?”
Firstly, that is an incomplete quote of what Jesus said. The incompleteness changes the whole meaning of His message! “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED!” I emphasize the missing words from the quote because they make all the difference.
Secondly, all believers agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law – the full demands of God for sin – in His own body on the tree. (See 1 Pet 2:24, , Rom 10:4, Rom 3:19-26, Rom 5:12-21, Gal 3:10-14, Heb 10:12)and there are a host of other corroborative Scriptures.
Thirdly, the import of The Lord Jesus’ Message was this – IMMEDIATELY ALL THE LAW IS FULFILLED, EVERY JOT AND TITTLE OF IT WILL PASS!
Fourthly the New Covenant in His Blood could only be active or become valid – as it did – when the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law (Ex 34:28, De 4:13) was fulfilled, or after the death of the Sinless One had been accepte3d for the sin of the world! (Jhn 1:29, Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:8-13, Col 2:14, 2 Cor 5:19, Eph 2:15, Heb 7:18 and so on)
Fifthly, the same Greek word for “law” is used in Jhn 1:17 – the Law was given by Moses; Rom 10:4 – Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness; Rom 8:3 – what the law could not do, in that it was weak; and some 190+ more times in the New Testament. It seems clearly to define the “Law” of Moses (every detail of it).
In conclusion, therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ANOMALY IN THE LORD SAYING THAT NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE SHALL PASS, when compared to Col 2:14. It is the omission of His further words that creates the problem. BE ENCOURAGED ALL! The Lord Jesus did fulfill the Law, and so it has passed – glory to GOD. We are called to live in a sort of pre-Mosaic age, when the Saints were like father Abraham, having no Mosaic Law but approved of God, not by the works they did, but by their faith in The Lord God Almighty; for us, it is our faith in the Death and Resurrection of The Lord Jesus Christ for our sin, sanctification and eternal salvation! Hallelujah Christ has redeemed from the curse of [and impossibility of keeping] the LAW! Hallelujah!
Bishop, I agree with your statements. See my comments on Mt 5:18 to see how “law” is used in that passage.
Grant, Firstly, I agree with your interpretation, and would like to quote it. For instance the statement “Handwriting is used almost exclusively for the autograph on a promissory note. This word occurs frequently in Roman law”. Do you have a source?
Secondly, I do not understand why you did not correct dear brother Jakob. Colossians 2:14 does not say the law was cancelled out or nailed to the cross. This verse says that “God has banished the record of our sins”, to use your words.
Now while I agree with dear Bishopguy that the Law of Moses is not relevant to Christians, I would like to express a warning that Christians are subject to the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). Many people seem to think that the Law of Christ is explained by Paul. In my view the Law of Christ was explained by Christ. For example, the Sabbath is relevant to Christians to the extent and in the form taught by Christ.
The word “handwriting” is from χειρόγραφον which comes from two words χειρ and γραφω, which means personal handwriting. δόγμα is used of public decrees of the Roman Senate. It has been since 1996 that I did this study and I do not remember my sources and research for this verse. However, note some lexical studies following:
33.40 χειρόγραφον, ου n: a handwritten statement, especially a record of financial accounts (similar in meaning to γράμμαd ‘account,’ 33.39, but perhaps with emphasis upon the handwritten nature of the document)—‘account, record of debts.’ ε’ξαλείψας τὸ καθ̓ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον ‘he cancelled the record of our debts’ Col 2:14.
In the NT δόγμα designates imperial (or royal) decrees in two passages. According to Luke 2:1, Augustus ordained a census for the purpose of taxation through an edict. It was to be carried out under the Syrian governorship of Quirinius (→ Κυρήνιος) both in Galilee and Judea, making necessary the journey of Jesus’ parents to Bethlehem.
Nothing else is known of such an edict of Augustus. Such enrollments for taxation purposes had long been a matter of course in the Roman provinces. On the historical problem of an assessment of taxes in Judea (including Galilee) at the time of Herod the Great, who ruled his land not as a Roman province but as a client state with relative independence, → ἀπογραφή.
According to Acts 17:7, Paul and his coworkers in Thessalonica are accused by the Jews there of acting contrary to the δόγματα of Caesar because they proclaim “another,” namely Jesus, to be king. The δόγματα thus contain Caesar’s claim to be the sole ruler.
It is difficult to say what imperial decrees are being alluded to. Does Luke’s formulation (as in v. 6b) apply to the beginning of persecutions that which was the case with the later persecutions under centralized authority (under Domitian)? It is striking how he has the Jews of Thessalonica swear their loyalty before the magistrates.
In Heb 11:23 in Codex A and a few other manuscripts διάταγμα has been changed to δόγμα (probably under the influence of Luke 2:1); the reference is to the decree of Pharaoh, who demands the killing of the sons of the Hebrews (Exod 1:16, 22).
3. Acts 16:4 is informative, because here the way is prepared for later ecclesiastical usage, according to which the binding doctrines of synods are called “dogmas.” The subject here is the “apostolic decrees” (15:28f.), which do not impose on the Gentile Christians the keeping of the entire Mosaic law, but instead the keeping of the “Noachian commandments” in the authority of the Holy Spirit. Thus the subject is not “dogmatic” teachings in the later sense, but rather norms of behavior.
4. Col 2:14 speaks in a peculiar image of the forgiveness of sins (2:13): God has abolished the certificate of indebtedness (→ χειρόγραφον) which we ourselves drew up and which stands as a witness against us, when he cancelled it on a nail of the cross. It is unclear what τοῖς δόγμασιν refers to. The words are hardly to be understood as instrumental dat. with ἐξαλείψας (as if they were δόγματα, i.e., perhaps the tenets of the Christian teaching, in effect the sponge with which the recorded debts are extinguished), but probably as dat. of relationship with χειρόγραφον: it is the “certificate of indebtedness (given) in view of (definite) statutes” (not, as is often translated [e.g., RSV], “its” statutes, i.e., those which are laid down in the certificate of indebtedness). The general expression δόγματα may have been deliberately chosen in order to include the commandments of the Mosaic law within the prescriptions of the religious “philosophy” of the Colossians (E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians  ad loc., with reference to the use of the vb. in v. 20). The Colossians look at these statutes with religious anxiety and regard themselves as lost before God if they do not hold strictly to them. The author assures them that such slavery is removed in Christ.
Eph 2:15 is clearer. The author speaks, probably in dependence on Col 2:14, of δόγματα, but means particularly the law of Moses: Christ has abolished “in his flesh” (probably = through his self-sacrifice) “the law of commandments,” which consists in (a variety of) ordinances. Thus the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles, which was erected with the Mosaic law, is now removed; in the Church of Jesus Christ, composed of Gentiles and Jews, Christians are bound together in unity. The (now brought to a close) δόγματα are the rites which once separated and distinguished those Jews who were faithful to the law, even in the Diaspora, from their fellow citizens.
χειρόγραφον, ου, τό cheirographon handwritten document; signed certificate of indebtedness*
Lit.: C. BURGER, Schöpfung und Versöhnung (WMANT 46, 1975) 106–10. — E. LOHSE, TDNT IX, 435f. — SPICQ, Notes II, 968–70. — N. WALTER, “Die ‘Handschrift in Satzungen’ Kol 2, 14, ” ZNW 70 (1979) 115–18. — K. WENGST, “Versöhnung und Befreiung. Ein Aspekt des Themas ‘Schuld und Versöhnung’ im Lichte des Kolosserbriefs,” EvT 36 (1976) 14–26.
1. Χειρόγραφον occurs in the NT only in Col 2:14. Since the simple meaning handwritten document makes no sense here, it should be understood as a legal t.t. for a certificate of indebtedness personally prepared and signed by the debtor (examples in Deissmann, Light 330–34; Moulton / Milligan 687).
Only in this form (“without deletions or additions,” ägU III, 717, 24) would it be recognized by the debtor in case of any disagreement (cf. Luke 16:6f.). Similarly, in the LXX (Tob 5:3; 9:5) the term refers to a personally prepared receipt by which a person assumes responsibility for deposited money. In T. Job 11:11, out of sympathy for unfortunate debtors, Job cancels the certificate of indebtedness (χειρόγραφον). In Apoc. Zeph. 3:6ff. χειρόγραφον appears to refer to provisional notes whose contents are later entered into the heavenly “ledgers.”
In Phlm 18 Paul gives an examples of a personally attested certificate of indebtedness (with circumlocution of the t.t.) when on behalf of Onesimus he assumes responsibility for eventual debts or damages.
2. Exegesis of Col 2:14 does generally refer to technical usage and translate χειρόγραφον with bond. But this usually evokes the idea of a heavenly ledger in which debts are entered and under certain circumstances canceled. The understanding is usually that because of the cross God cancels our debt, which has been entered in the heavenly register of debts, and thus drops the charges against us (on dat. appositional τοῖς δόγμασιν → δόγμα 4).
But the assumption that χειρόγραφον is being used in its literal, legal-technical sense for indebtedness also makes good sense here (Walter). In that case it does not focus on charges made by God, but on the readers’ own fear of sin: They recognize, as it were “by their own hand,” their own guilt as binding, since it exists according to norms (δόγματα) that they in this fear consider valid; they are uncertain whether these debts really are “settled” through Jesus’ self-sacrifice (hence their efforts at further “guarantees”: cf. vv. 16–23). They are now told that God really does free them from their guilt, to which they themselves confess, for the sake of Christ’s cross, and that he, like an accountant, has “nailed” their bond to the cross and thus “dispensed” with it and filed it as completed business.
14. τὸ καθʼ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὅ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν. God has not only removed the debt; he has also destroyed the document on which it was recorded. χειρόγραφον denotes a “document,” especially a “note of indebtedness” written in one’s own hand as a proof of obligation (cf. BAG, 880, and Lohse, TDNT 9, 435). This meaning is well-attested in both the Jewish and Greco-Roman world (for details see Lohse, TDNT 9, 435). A common thought in Judaism was that of God keeping accounts of man’s debt, calling in the debt through angels and imposing a just judgment based on the records kept in the ledger (cf. Rabbi Akiba’s illustration of God as a shopkeeper, m ’Abot… 3:20)
The term “regulation” (δόγμα) is employed in a variety of ways in the NT to denote a “decree” of Caesar Augustus concerning the enrollment (Luke 2:1; cf. Acts 17:7), and the “decisions” (plural δόγματα) of the Jerusalem council (Acts 16:4). At Ephesians 2:15 the plural δόγματα denotes the individual statutes of the commandments of the Mosaic law (in Hellenistic Judaism the commandments of God were called δόγματα: 3 Macc 1:3; 4 Macc 10:2, and for further references in Josephus and Philo cf. Kittel, TDNT 2, 230–32). Here the term may be translated “binding statutes” or “legal demands” (regarding its relationship to the cognate δογματίζεσθε see on v 20). The dative case τοῖς δόγμασιν is probably: (a) causal, “because of the regulations,” so indicating why the bond or certificate of indebtedness has a case against us (Lohse, 109, 110, Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath, 350, and Schweizer, 116, as well as some earlier exegetes who supplied the participle “written” to complete the sense), rather than (b) one of obligation, i.e. the bond placed us under an obligation to keep the regulations (J. A. T. Robinson, The Body. A Study in Pauline Theology [SBT 5; London: SCM, 1952] 43; C. F. D. Moule, “Death ‘to Sin,’ ‘to Law,’ and ‘to the World’; a Note on certain Datives,” Mélanges Bibliques en hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux, ed. A. Descamps and A. de Halleux [Gembloux: Duculot, 1970] 371, 372; Caird, 195, who translates the clause: “our undischarged commitment to the decrees of the law …”), or (c) a dative of accompaniment, “the bond, decrees and all” (Bruce, 237; cf. Harris, in NIDNTT 3, 1199). (Percy’s view, Probleme, 88, 89, which connects the dative τοῖς δόγμασιν with the following clause ὅ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, so that the meaning is “the handwriting that was against, which by virtue of the ordinances [i.e. the law of Moses] testified against us,” states the reason why the “bond” could make its enmity against us effective; this suggestion has the merit of dealing with the apparently superfluous words “which was against us,” but is rather awkward to construe in spite of the parallels he presents.)
Thank you Grant
I must admit, most of that is right over my head, but what I do understand is that the Greek word translated “handwriting” (KJV) must be understood as a “note of indebtedness written in one’s own hand as a proof of obligation”, to quote your sources. The next major word, after “handwriting” (KJV), is translated by the KJV as “ordinances”. My particular interest at this point is what the relationship between the “handwriting” (KJV) and the “ordinances” (KJV) is. Since I am not able to evaluate the Greek directly, I analyzed a number of translations for this purpose, and found 4 variations:
• The first category of translations combines the “handwriting” (KJV) and the “ordinances” into a single concept, namely the Handwritten Ordinances. This sounds very much like the Law of Moses, which Moses wrote by hand in a book, implying that the Law of Moses was cancelled by the cross. Translations that do this include:
o KJV, KJ21, BRG, AKJV “handwriting of ordinances”
o NKJV – “handwriting of requirements”
o YLT – “handwriting in the ordinances”
• The second category of translations also combines the “handwriting” (KJV) and the “ordinances” into a single concept, but presents is as Debt. While the first category of translations presents the “ordinances” as the key concept, this second category gives the “handwriting” as the key concept, with the “ordinances” as descriptive of the “handwriting”. Translations that do this include:
o NASB – “the certificate of debt consisting of decrees”
o ASV: “the bond written in ordinances”
o AMP “the certificate of debt consisting of legal demands”
• The third category of translations keeps the “handwriting” (KJV) and the “ordinances” apart as two separate concepts, and say that the first causes the second – For instance, the RSV translates it as “the bond which stood against us with its legal demands”. This is similar to the NASB, but replaces the “decrees” with “legal demands”, which changes the meaning significantly because it is implied that the first (“the certificate of debt”) causes the second (the “legal demands”). Similar translations include:
o NIV: “the charge of our legal indebtedness”.
o CEB “the record of the debt we owed, with its requirements that worked against us”
o ISV – “the charges that were brought against us, along with their obligations that were hostile to us”
o RSV – “the bond which stood against us with its legal demands”
• The last category of translations also keeps the “handwriting” (KJV) and the “ordinances” as two separate concepts, but reverses the causual relationship by implying that the second (the “ordinances”) causes the first (the “handwriting”): Translations that do this include:
o CEV – “the charges that were against us for disobeying the Law of Moses”
o Phillips – “the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments”
o CJB – “the bill of charges against us. Because of the regulations, it stood as a testimony against us”
o ERV – “Because we broke God’s laws, we owed a debt—a debt that listed all the rules we failed to follow.”
o EXB – “the ·record, ·which listed all the rules we failed to follow”
Do you consider this to be a fair analysis of the translations?
The question is which of these four alternatives is what Paul intended. Firstly, although I identified four categories of translations, there are only two proposed meanings. The implication of the first category of translations is that the Law of Moses was cancelled. The implication of all three other categories is all that the record of our sins has been cancelled. Therefore the real question is: what has been cancelled?
I would say that the first category of translations, that combine the two into a single concept, namely the Handwritten Ordinances, is not correct because it is inconsistent with the context. The context, starting in verse 10, explains how Christians have been made “complete” (2:10) through “circumcision made without hands” (2:11), “baptism” (2:12) and the forgiveness of “all our transgressions” (2:13). In this way Paul seems to say that Christians have been made “complete” by the Christian initiation rites, and they do not need to conform to the “decrees” (2:20) of the Colossian “deception” (2:8), which require “self-abasement and severe treatment of the body” (2:23) to be made complete (2:10). The “cancelling out” of the record of our sins fits this context perfectly, but the cancelling out of the “ordinances” (KJV) does not fit this context because one is not made “complete” by cancelling a law.
Another reason for concluding that the first category of translations does not reflect what Paul intended is simply that the majority of the translations I analyzed imply that the record of our sins has been canceled. Of the four categories it is only the first that imply that the Law of Moses has been cancelled.
The second category, that presents it as “the certificate of debt consisting of decrees”, I do not prefer simply because I fail to understand how a “certificate of debt” can consists of “decrees”. Perhaps I misunderstand the intension of these translations.
This leaves the last two categories of translations as possible valid options. I do not think we have to choose between the two because the meaning is the same, namely that the record of our sins has been cancelled. The difference between the two translations is that our transgressions either are the result of “disobeying the Law of Moses” (CEV) or that our transgressions result in “legal demands” (RSV). Both are true and the main message remains the same, namely that all our sins are forgiven.
I conclude therefore that what has been cancelled is the record of our sins.
I will appreciate your views.
I believe your interest is in the “ordinances” of the KJV or “requirements” of the NKJV. This word in the Greek is δόγμα [dogma /dog·mah/]. This word occurs 5 times in the NT. Sometimes it is translated “decree,” “ordinances” or “doctrine.” The idea is public decrees. It was used of the public decrees of the Roman Senate. The NT uses it of the rules and requirements of the law of Moses with the implication of threatened judgment. The idea of dogma in this sense is a formalized rule.
Thus, not only was our sin cancelled but God cancelled the penalty of our sin when we believed, that is, the violation of God’s standards.
This verse is not talking about the ten commandments of God but it is talking about the the law that was written in a book not that was written in stones like the Decalogue. Please read Leviticus 23 and dut 31 in order to understand fully the meaning of this verse. Pual makes reference to the sacrificial law that was about meat and drink offerings not the Decalogue. The 10 commandments are not against us because when we are in Christ we are new creatures. Our thoughts, motivesz actions are always in harmony with the commandments of God not against them. But the law that was against us is the law of Moses. It said eye for an eye, that is totally against the conduct of a Christian. For all the infor that I’ve mentioned please read Leviticus 23 and Dut 31
Senzo, I think that I agree with your point if I understand you correctly. The point here is not that Jesus wiped out the moral standards of the Bible but that Jesus wiped out the penalty of the law.
The ten commandments and all moral law of the Old Testament were not abrogated by Jesus’ fulfillment of the law. All of them are still extant today.
It is important to remember that there were three different classifications of law in the Old Testament: 1) the moral law, 2) the ceremonial law, and 3) the civil law. The moral law never changes but the ceremonial and civil laws do. The ceremonial law oriented to worship; it depicted the coming Messiah in types, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross by sacrificial offerings, the glory of God in the holy of holies, for example. All that Jesus fulfilled by His coming, death, and resurrection on our behalf; He also fulfilled the moral law (only a perfect sacrifice was qualified to pay for our sin (Ro 8:3,4; 10:3,4). Romans 10: 4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” The civil law had to do with Israel functioning as a national entity. When God rejected Israel as a nation and turned to the church (an organism rather than an organization), He set aside all civil laws that related to the nation Israel. This is the argument behind Galatians, Romans, and many other books of the New Testament. Those books also argue that Jesus fulfilled the moral and ceremonial aspect of the “Law and Prophets.” Hebrews argues that if we revert to the types of Old Testament sacrifices, we distort what the antitype did. The type could never pay for sins (OT sacrifices), they could only point to the One who could. That is why Hebrews talks about the “finished” work of Christ (He 9 among other passages).
I just wanted to add that it was important that not one jot or tittle ( any tiny part ) would pass away because the law had to remain perfectly intact in order for Jesus to fulfill it completely on the cross. I would also like to add that the law is fulfilled in Jesus but it still exists in full force in it’s original power to condemn a person who is outside of Jesus. It is the standard that the wicked will be judged against. That is my best theology thus far. It remains to be corrected.
The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ the law was given to the nation of Israel not to the body of Christ see Ephesians chapter 2 verses 11 & 12 also the apostle Paul is the apostle of the gentiles not the 12 see Matthew 10 v 5 and Matthew 15 v 24 the body of Christ came after the cross we don’t go back before the cross to get our instructions