Skip to content

CONCLUSION: law-21 — How Does NT Vocabulary Distinguish Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Law?

Question

Does NT Greek vocabulary systematically distinguish moral law from ceremonial and civil law? Specifically, do the five core Greek law terms — entole (G1785), dogma (G1378), dikaioma (G1345), cheirographon (G5498), and nomos (G3551) — partition by content in a way that constitutes a textual (not externally imposed) distinction between law categories?

Summary Answer

The NT vocabulary does constitute a textual distinction between law categories, though not a perfectly rigid one. Four of the five core terms partition cleanly: entole without a qualifier is consistently used for moral/Decalogue content across all identifiable occurrences and never appears in abolition contexts without a narrowing qualifier (sarkines, en dogmasin, anthropon); dogma is never used for the Decalogue across all five occurrences; cheirographon appears once and its context identifies ceremonial content; and dikaioma in law-referent passages follows a singular-articular (moral standard) vs. plural-with-modifier (ceremonial ordinances) pattern. Nomos has the broadest semantic range and does not partition as cleanly — articular nomos appears in both moral and ceremonial contexts — meaning the article alone cannot serve as a categorical marker, but the overall vocabulary system shows that NT authors consistently chose different terminology when referring to what was abolished versus what continues.

Key Verses

1 Corinthians 7:19 -- "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (Entole explicitly distinguished FROM circumcision — a ceremonial rite — showing entole without qualifier refers to non-ceremonial content.)

Ephesians 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;" (The only abolition context where entole appears, it carries the qualifier "en dogmasin" — narrowing from law > commandments > in ordinances.)

Romans 7:7,12 -- "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." / "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (Entole and nomos are identified by the 10th commandment and described with affirming language — "holy, just, good.")

Hebrews 7:16 -- "Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life." (Entole in an abolition/cessation context carries the qualifier sarkines — "carnal/fleshly" — narrowing its referent to the Levitical succession law, not the Decalogue.)

Colossians 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;" (Cheirographon paired with dogmasin; context in vv.16-17 identifies the content as meat, drink, holyday, new moon, sabbath days — "shadow of things to come.")

Hebrews 9:10 -- "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." (Dikaioma in plural with qualifier sarkos — "carnal ordinances" — the clearest NT use of dikaioma for abolished ceremonial regulations.)

Romans 8:4 -- "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Dikaioma in singular articular form — "THE righteous requirement of THE law" — connected to the Decalogue identified in Romans 7:7.)

Revelation 14:12 -- "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Entole without any qualifier used for end-time saints keeping God's commandments, confirming the unqualified term continues to refer to moral/Decalogue content.)

Study Summary

This study mapped every NT occurrence of the five core Greek law terms (entole, dogma, dikaioma, cheirographon, nomos) to its identifiable law content, then assessed whether the vocabulary-to-content mapping constitutes a textual distinction between categories of law. Law-20 established the lexical data (definitions, distributions, grammar patterns). Law-21 extended it by verifying each term against its identifiable referent in context and producing the systematic mapping table.

Evidence items registered in D:/bible/bible-studies/law-evidence.db

Explicit Statements

# Explicit Statement Reference Position
E1 Jesus says "keep the commandments" (entole, G1785) and lists Decalogue commands 6,7,8,9,5 as the content. Mat 19:17-19 Continues
E2 Jesus says "Thou knowest the commandments" (entole) and lists Decalogue commands 7,6,8,9,5. Mar 10:19 Continues
E3 Paul identifies entole with the 10th commandment ("Thou shalt not covet") and calls the commandment "holy, and just, and good." Rom 7:7,12 Continues
E4 Paul lists five Decalogue commands (7,6,8,9,10) and says "if there be any other commandment [entole], it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Rom 13:9 Continues
E5 Paul writes "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments [entole] of God." Entole is explicitly distinguished FROM circumcision (a ceremonial rite). 1 Cor 7:19 Continues
E6 Paul identifies the 5th Decalogue commandment as entole: "Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment [entole] with promise." Eph 6:2 Continues
E7 Luke states the women "rested the sabbath day according to the commandment [entole]." The content is the 4th commandment. Luk 23:56 Continues
E8 John writes "his commandments [entole] are not grievous" in the context of loving God and loving one another. 1 Jhn 5:3 Continues
E9 Revelation identifies end-time saints as those who "keep the commandments [entole] of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev 12:17 Continues
E10 Revelation identifies the saints as those who "keep the commandments [entole] of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev 14:12 Continues
E11 Revelation states: "Blessed are they that do his commandments [entole], that they may have right to the tree of life." Rev 22:14 Continues
E12 Paul writes: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments [entole] contained in ordinances [en dogmasin]." Entole is qualified by "en dogmasin." Eph 2:15 Continues
E13 In Hebrews 7:16, entole is qualified by "sarkines" (carnal/fleshly) when referring to the Levitical priesthood succession law: "not after the law of a carnal commandment [entoles sarkines]." Heb 7:16 Neutral
E14 Hebrews 7:18 states "a disannulling of the commandment [entole] going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" -- referring to the same Levitical succession commandment identified in v.16 with "sarkines." Heb 7:18 Neutral
E15 Dogma (G1378) is used in Luke 2:1 for Caesar Augustus' census decree. Content: Roman civil decree. Luk 2:1 Neutral
E16 Dogma is used in Acts 17:7 for "the decrees of Caesar." Content: Roman imperial decrees. Acts 17:7 Neutral
E17 Dogma is used in Acts 16:4 for the Jerusalem Council decisions. Content: ecclesiastical decree (Acts 15:28-29). Acts 16:4 Neutral
E18 Dogma (dogmasin) is used in Ephesians 2:15 for what was abolished: "the law of commandments in ordinances [en dogmasin]." Content: ceremonial regulations creating the Jew-Gentile barrier. Eph 2:15 Neutral
E19 Dogma (dogmasin) is used in Colossians 2:14 for what was nailed to the cross: "the handwriting of ordinances [tois dogmasin]." Content specified in vv.16-17: meat, drink, holyday, new moon, sabbath days = "shadow of things to come." Col 2:14 Neutral
E20 Dogmatizo (G1379) in Col 2:20 asks "why are ye subject to ordinances?" Content specified in vv.21-22: "Touch not; taste not; handle not" = dietary/purity regulations = "commandments and doctrines of men." Col 2:20-22 Neutral
E21 In Romans 8:4, dikaioma is singular and articular (to dikaioma tou nomou = "THE righteous requirement of THE law"), referring to the moral standard of the law connected to the Decalogue in Rom 7:7. Rom 8:4 Continues
E22 In Hebrews 9:1, dikaioma is plural with genitive modifier (dikaiomata latreias = "ordinances of divine service"), referring to sanctuary service regulations. Heb 9:1 Neutral
E23 In Hebrews 9:10, dikaioma is plural with genitive modifier (dikaiomata sarkos = "carnal ordinances") referring to "meats and drinks, and divers washings" -- "imposed until the time of reformation." Heb 9:10 Neutral
E24 Luke lists entole and dikaioma as two distinct categories: "walking in all the commandments [entolais] and ordinances [dikaiOmasin] of the Lord blameless." Luk 1:6 Neutral
E25 Cheirographon (G5498) in Col 2:14 means "hand-written document" (cheir = hand + grapho = write). The Decalogue was "written with the finger of God" (Exo 31:18; Deu 9:10). Moses' book of the law was hand-written (Deu 31:24) and placed "in the side of the ark" as "a witness against thee" (Deu 31:26). Col 2:14; Exo 31:18; Deu 31:24-26 Neutral
E26 Jesus says "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." This uses nomos for what continues. Mat 5:17 Continues
E27 James identifies the "royal law" and "law of liberty" with Decalogue content: "Do not commit adultery" (7th) and "Do not kill" (6th) are cited as the specific content of the law of liberty. Jas 2:8-12 Continues
E28 In 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, the grammatical subject of katargeo ("done away") is "he diakonia" (the ministry) and "ten doxan" (the glory), not the law or the commandments. The parsing confirms katargoumenen (acc sg fem) modifies ten doxan (acc sg fem), not a neuter or masculine noun. 2 Cor 3:7-11 Neutral
E29 Paul states "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom 7:12) and "the law is spiritual" (Rom 7:14), where the law is identified in v.7 as the Decalogue (10th commandment). Rom 7:12,14 Continues
E30 Paul states: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom 3:31 Continues
E31 In Galatians 3:19, Paul uses articular nomos (ho nomos) for "the law" that was "added because of transgressions, till the seed should come." The article does not prevent a temporal/cessation context. Gal 3:19 Neutral
E32 In Hebrews 10:1, articular nomos (ho nomos) is used for "the law having a shadow of good things to come." The identified content is the sacrificial system. The article does not prevent a ceremonial referent. Heb 10:1 Neutral
E33 In Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16, anarthrous plural nomos (nomous mou, "my laws") is used for God's laws written on hearts, quoting Jeremiah 31:33. The content is moral law. The anarthrous form does not prevent a moral referent. Heb 8:10; 10:16 Continues

Necessary Implications

# Necessary Implication Based on Why it is unavoidable Position
N1 In NT usage, entole (G1785) without a qualifying term is never used for a ceremonial regulation that was abolished. Every ceremonial/cessation use of entole carries a qualifier: sarkines (Heb 7:16), en dogmasin (Eph 2:15), or anthropon (Tit 1:14). This is a complete distribution pattern across all 71 NT occurrences. E1-E14 (full entole distribution) The distribution is verifiable from the complete set. No reader can dispute the presence or absence of qualifiers in the text. Continues
N2 Dogma (G1378) is never used for God's moral commandments (the Decalogue) in any NT passage. Its 5 occurrences divide into civil decrees (2), ecclesiastical decree (1), and abolished ceremonial regulations (2). E15-E20 (full dogma distribution) The complete set of 5 occurrences is enumerable. No reader can produce a dogma occurrence referring to the Decalogue. Continues
N3 The NT vocabulary used in affirmation passages (entole unqualified, dikaioma singular articular, nomos described as holy/just/good/spiritual) is not the same vocabulary used in abolition passages (dogma, dogmatizo, cheirographon, dikaioma plural + modifier, skia, entole + qualifier). Four of five core law terms partition cleanly between affirmation and abolition. E1-E25 (full mapping tables) The vocabulary lists for each passage category are verifiable. The presence or absence of a term in each category is textually observable. Continues
N4 When entole appears in abolition contexts, the NT text adds a qualifier to narrow its referent to non-moral content. The narrowing construction in Eph 2:15 (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin) progressively restricts: the law > of the commandments > in ordinances. E12, E13, E14 The grammatical narrowing is observable in the Greek text. Both sides can verify the progressive restriction. Continues
N5 The articular/anarthrous pattern of nomos does NOT cleanly divide moral from ceremonial law. Articular nomos (ho nomos) is used for both moral content (Rom 7:7,12,14; Jas 1:25) and ceremonial/temporal content (Gal 3:19; Heb 7:11-12; 10:1). E29-E33 The article usage is verifiable from the Greek text. Passages on both sides use articular nomos, preventing a rigid article-based categorical rule. Neutral
N6 Luke treats entole and dikaioma as two distinct categories by listing them separately: "walking in all the commandments [entolais] and ordinances [dikaiOmasin] of the Lord" (Luk 1:6). E24 The conjunction "kai" (and) between the two terms in the same phrase is a grammatical fact. Both terms are "of the Lord," yet listed separately. Neutral
N7 In 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, the grammatical object of katargeo is the glory/ministry, not the law or the commandments. The accusative singular feminine katargoumenen matches ten doxan (the glory), not a neuter or masculine law term. E28 This is a grammatical parsing fact. The gender and case agreement is determinative and verifiable by any Greek reader. Neutral

Inferences

# Claim Type What the Bible actually says Why this is an inference Criteria
I1 The NT vocabulary encodes a systematic distinction between moral and ceremonial law, constituting a textual (not external) distinction. The moral law (Decalogue) is consistently identified by entole (unqualified), dikaioma (singular articular), and nomos (described positively); ceremonial/abolished regulations are consistently identified by dogma, cheirographon, dikaioma (plural + modifier), and entole (with qualifier). I-A E1-E25, N1-N4: Entole unqualified = moral content (43/43); dogma = never moral (0/6); cheirographon = hand-written ceremonial (1/1); dikaioma singular articular = moral in law-referent contexts (2/2); dikaioma plural + modifier = ceremonial in law-referent contexts (2/2). N3: Vocabulary partitions cleanly between affirm and abolish passages for 4 of 5 terms. Systematizes the observed vocabulary distributions into a comprehensive categorical claim. All components are found in the E/N tables. The systematization step -- combining multiple term-level patterns into a single "system" -- is what makes this an inference rather than a necessary implication. 5
I2 Since the NT abolition passages use dogma, cheirographon, and dikaioma + modifier (all identified as ceremonial by their context), the abolition described in these passages applies only to ceremonial law, not to the moral law (Decalogue). I-A E12 (Eph 2:15: entole + en dogmasin abolished), E19 (Col 2:14: cheirographon tois dogmasin nailed to cross), E23 (Heb 9:10: dikaiomata sarkos imposed until reformation). N2 (dogma never = moral). N1 (entole without qualifier never = abolished ceremonial). Systematizes the content identification of abolition passages into a doctrinal conclusion about what was abolished. All vocabulary data is from E/N tables. The inference step is concluding that because the vocabulary identifies ceremonial content, ONLY ceremonial law was abolished. 5
I3 All NT law vocabulary is stylistic variation, not categorical distinction. Entole, nomos, dogma, and dikaioma are interchangeable terms for the same body of law. The vocabulary differences reflect authorial preference, not theological categories. I-D E1-E25 show that entole unqualified = moral (43/43), dogma = never moral (0/6), cheirographon = ceremonial, and the vocabulary partitions cleanly. N1 states entole without qualifier is never used for abolished ceremonial regulation. N2 states dogma is never used for the Decalogue. This claim requires overriding the observable distribution patterns in N1 and N2. If the terms were interchangeable, dogma should appear at least once for the Decalogue, and entole without qualifier should appear at least once for abolished ceremonial content. Neither occurs. The claim must override E/N data to be maintained. 1,3
I4 Cheirographon in Col 2:14 refers to the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), not to the ceremonial code. I-D E25: Cheirographon means "hand-written" (cheir + grapho). The Decalogue was "written with the finger of God" (Exo 31:18; Deu 9:10). The cheirographon is paired with "tois dogmasin" (the ordinances). N2: Dogma is never used for the Decalogue. Context (Col 2:16-17) identifies content as meat, drink, holyday, new moon, sabbath days = "shadow." This claim requires: (1) reading "hand-written" as "God-written" despite etymological evidence; (2) overriding N2 (dogma never = Decalogue) since cheirographon is paired with tois dogmasin; (3) ignoring the contextual content identification in Col 2:16-22. 1,2
I5 The nomos article pattern (articular = moral, anarthrous = principle) reliably distinguishes moral from ceremonial law. I-B E29: Rom 7:7,12,14 use articular nomos for the Decalogue (moral). E31: Gal 3:19 uses articular nomos for what was "added" (temporal). E32: Heb 10:1 uses articular nomos for "shadow" (ceremonial). E33: Heb 8:10; 10:16 use anarthrous nomos for "my laws" on hearts (moral). N5: The article pattern does NOT cleanly divide moral from ceremonial. E/N items exist on BOTH sides. Articular nomos appears in both moral and ceremonial contexts; anarthrous nomos appears in both principle and moral contexts. 2
I6 The dikaioma singular/plural pattern is an absolute grammatical code: singular always = moral; plural always = ceremonial. I-B E21: Rom 8:4 singular articular = moral. E22-E23: Heb 9:1,10 plural + modifier = ceremonial. But: Rom 1:32 (singular articular) = God's righteous decree (moral, consistent). Rom 2:26 (plural articular) = law's moral requirements (breaks the "plural = ceremonial" claim). Rev 15:4; 19:8 (plural) = righteous acts/judgments (not ceremonial). Rom 5:16,18 (singular) = forensic act (not moral law). E/N items on both sides. The pattern holds in law-referent contexts but breaks in non-law-referent contexts. The "absolute code" claim extends beyond what the data supports. 2,5
I7 The vocabulary pattern was intentionally designed by God as a deliberate categorical system encoding the moral/ceremonial distinction into the Greek text. I-C E1-E25 and N1-N4 document the observable distribution patterns. The patterns are consistent. The claim adds the concept of "intentional divine design" which the text does not state. The text shows the pattern but does not explain WHY the pattern exists. This is a theological inference about divine intentionality. 3

I-B Resolutions

I-B Resolution: I5 -- Nomos Article Pattern

Step 1 -- Tension: - FOR: E29 (Rom 7:7,12,14: articular = moral); articular nomos in affirming passages tends toward moral content - AGAINST: E31 (Gal 3:19: articular = temporal); E32 (Heb 10:1: articular = ceremonial shadow); E33 (Heb 8:10; 10:16: anarthrous = moral laws on hearts)

Step 2 -- Clarity Assessment:

Item Level Rationale
E29 Plain Paul directly quotes the 10th commandment to identify the articular nomos
E31 Plain Paul directly states ho nomos was "added" with temporal limit
E32 Plain The author directly states ho nomos had "a shadow"
E33 Plain The author quotes Jer 31:33 with anarthrous nomous for moral law on hearts

Step 3 -- Weight: Both sides have Plain-level evidence. Articular nomos is used for both moral (Rom 7:7) and ceremonial/temporal (Gal 3:19; Heb 10:1). Anarthrous nomos is used for moral content (Heb 8:10).

Step 4 -- SIS Application: No clear passage governs the unclear. All cited passages are equally plain and direct. The article pattern is not self-interpreting as a categorical marker.

Step 5 -- Resolution: Strong (against the claim) The claim that the article pattern reliably distinguishes moral from ceremonial is falsified by plain-level counter-examples on both sides. The article reflects standard Greek definiteness grammar (articular = specific known referent; anarthrous = qualitative/generic), not a moral/ceremonial code. The tendency exists but is not reliable enough to serve as a categorical marker.

I-B Resolution: I6 -- Dikaioma Singular/Plural as Absolute Code

Step 1 -- Tension: - FOR: E21 (Rom 8:4: singular articular = moral); E22-E23 (Heb 9:1,10: plural + modifier = ceremonial) - AGAINST: Rom 2:26 (plural articular = moral requirements); Rev 15:4; 19:8 (plural = righteous acts, not ceremonial); Rom 5:16,18 (singular = forensic act, not moral law)

Step 2 -- Clarity Assessment:

Item Level Rationale
E21 Plain "THE righteous requirement of THE law" -- singular articular, connected to Decalogue in Rom 7:7
E22-E23 Plain "Ordinances of divine service" / "carnal ordinances" -- plural with modifier, explicitly ceremonial
Rom 2:26 Contextually Clear Plural articular, but context specifies the law's moral requirements kept by Gentiles
Rev 15:4; 19:8 Plain Plural for righteous acts/judgments, not ceremonial ordinances

Step 3 -- Weight: The pattern holds in law-referent contexts (Rom 8:4 vs. Heb 9:1,10) but breaks in non-law-referent contexts (Rev 15:4; 19:8; Rom 5:16,18) and has an exception in law context (Rom 2:26).

Step 4 -- SIS Application: The plain counter-examples (Rev 15:4; 19:8 use plural for non-ceremonial content) determine that the singular/plural pattern is not an absolute code.

Step 5 -- Resolution: Strong (against "absolute code" claim) The qualified contextual pattern is valid: within law-referent passages, singular articular dikaioma tends toward moral standard and plural with modifier tends toward ceremonial ordinances. However, the "absolute code" claim fails due to plain-level counter-examples in non-law-referent contexts. The modifier (latreias, sarkos) is the stronger indicator of ceremonial content than the number alone.

Verification Phase

Step A: Verify explicit statements

  • Each E-item directly quotes or closely paraphrases actual verse text. Verified.
  • E1-E11 state what the text says about entole with identifiable moral/Decalogue content.
  • E12-E14 state what the text says about entole with qualifiers.
  • E15-E20 state what the text says about dogma distribution.
  • E21-E25 state what the text says about dikaioma and cheirographon.
  • E26-E33 state what the text says about nomos and 2 Cor 3:7.

Step A2: Verify positional classifications of E-items

  • E1-E11 (Continues): Vocabulary scan V1 (entole for Decalogue content, affirmed as continuing). Gate 1 (referent identified by listed commandments): PASS. Gate 2 (grammar unambiguous): PASS. Gate 3 (didactic): PASS. Gate 4 (harmony): PASS. Classification stands.
  • E12 (Continues): Eph 2:15 uses entole qualified by "en dogmasin" for what was abolished. The text itself narrows from law > commandments > in ordinances. This verse uses cessation vocabulary but the narrowing construction identifies the referent as ceremonial ordinances. Gate 1: the referent is identified as ceremonial (en dogmasin). This distinguishes moral from ceremonial, which supports the Continues position (the distinction exists). Classification: Continues.
  • E13-E14 (Neutral): Grammatical facts about qualifiers. Both sides accept these observations. Classification: Neutral. Verified.
  • E15-E20 (Neutral): Factual observations about dogma distribution. Both sides can accept these. Classification: Neutral. Verified.
  • E21 (Continues): Rom 8:4 dikaioma singular articular = moral standard. The referent is identified (connected to Decalogue in Rom 7:7). Affirming language. Gate 1: PASS. Gate 2: PASS. Gate 3: PASS. Gate 4: PASS. Classification stands.
  • E22-E23 (Neutral): Factual observations about dikaioma usage. Both sides accept. Verified.
  • E24 (Neutral): Factual observation about Luke 1:6 listing two categories. Both sides accept. Verified.
  • E25 (Neutral): Factual etymological observation. Both sides accept. Verified.
  • E26 (Continues): Mat 5:17 -- Jesus states he did not come to destroy the law. V1 applies ("not come to destroy"). Gate 1: PASS. Gate 2: PASS. Gate 3: didactic. Gate 4: consistent with E29,E30. Classification stands.
  • E27 (Continues): Jas 2:8-12 identifies "law of liberty" with Decalogue content. V1 applies. Gates: all PASS. Classification stands.
  • E28 (Neutral): Grammatical parsing fact about 2 Cor 3:7-11. Both sides can verify the parsing. Verified.
  • E29 (Continues): Rom 7:12,14 = law is "holy, just, good, spiritual" where the law is identified as Decalogue. V1 applies. All gates PASS. Classification stands.
  • E30 (Continues): Rom 3:31 = "we establish the law." V1 applies. All gates PASS. Classification stands.
  • E31-E32 (Neutral): Factual observations about articular nomos in temporal/ceremonial contexts. Both sides accept the article usage. Verified.
  • E33 (Continues): Heb 8:10; 10:16 = God's laws written on hearts. V1 applies ("write on hearts"). All gates PASS. Classification stands.

Step B: Verify necessary implications

  • N1: Follows from complete entole distribution (E1-E14). Verified: the distribution is enumerable, no reader can dispute presence/absence of qualifiers. Verified.
  • N2: Follows from complete dogma distribution (E15-E20). The 5 occurrences are enumerable. Verified.
  • N3: Follows from E1-E25 by comparing vocabulary lists. The terms in each category are observable. Verified.
  • N4: Follows from E12, E13, E14. The narrowing construction is grammatically observable. Verified.
  • N5: Follows from E29, E31, E32, E33. Counter-examples on both sides are plain-level. Verified.
  • N6: Follows from E24. The conjunction is grammatically observable. Verified.
  • N7: Follows from E28. Gender/case agreement is determinative. Verified.

Step C: Verify inference classifications (source test)

  • I1: All components in E/N tables. Text-derived. Correct: I-A.
  • I2: All components in E/N tables. Text-derived. Correct: I-A.
  • I3: Claims override N1 and N2. External reasoning required to override. Correct: I-D.
  • I4: Claims override E25 (etymology) and N2 (dogma never = Decalogue). Correct: I-D.
  • I5: E/N items on both sides. Text-derived. Correct: I-B.
  • I6: E/N items on both sides. Text-derived. Correct: I-B.
  • I7: Adds concept of "divine intentionality" not stated in text. External. Does not override E/N. Correct: I-C.

Step D: Verify direction test

  • I1: Does not require any E/N to mean other than its lexical value. Aligns. I-A confirmed.
  • I2: Does not require any E/N to mean other than its lexical value. Aligns. I-A confirmed.
  • I3: Requires N1 and N2 to be stylistic rather than categorical. Conflicts. I-D confirmed.
  • I4: Requires E25 to not mean what "hand-written" means etymologically. Conflicts. I-D confirmed.
  • I5: E/N on both sides. I-B confirmed.
  • I6: E/N on both sides. I-B confirmed.
  • I7: Does not override any E/N. I-C confirmed.

Step E: Consistency checks

  • I1 (I-A): Requires only criterion #5 (systematizing). Confirmed.
  • I2 (I-A): Requires only criterion #5. Confirmed.
  • I3 (I-D): Overrides N1 and N2. Confirmed.
  • I4 (I-D): Overrides E25 and N2. Confirmed.
  • I5 (I-B): E/N items on both sides. Confirmed.
  • I6 (I-B): E/N items on both sides. Confirmed.
  • I7 (I-C): Adds external concept, does not override. Confirmed.

Step F: Verify SIS connections

  • I5 resolution: Verified. No SIS resolution possible -- equally plain passages on both sides.
  • I6 resolution: Verified. Non-law-referent counter-examples are plain-level and determine the reading.

Tally Summary

  • Explicit statements: 33
  • Continues: 16
  • Abolished: 0
  • Neutral: 17
  • Necessary implications: 7
  • Continues: 4
  • Abolished: 0
  • Neutral: 3
  • Inferences: 7
  • I-A (Evidence-Extending): 2 (Continues: 2)
  • I-B (Competing-Evidence): 2 (Neutral: 2, both resolved Strong against their respective claims)
  • I-C (Compatible External): 1 (Neutral: 1)
  • I-D (Counter-Evidence External): 2 (Abolished: 2)
Tier Continues Abolished Neutral Total
E 16 0 17 33
N 4 0 3 7
I-A 2 0 0 2
I-B 0 0 2 2
I-C 0 0 1 1
I-D 0 2 0 2
TOTAL 22 2 23 47

What CAN Be Said (Scripture explicitly states or necessarily implies)

  1. Entole (G1785) without a qualifier is consistently used for moral/Decalogue content in the NT. The complete distribution across 71 occurrences shows 43 identifiable moral/Decalogue instances with no qualifier, and every ceremonial/cessation use carries a qualifier (sarkines, en dogmasin, anthropon).

  2. Dogma (G1378) is never used for God's moral commandments (the Decalogue). Its 5 NT occurrences divide into civil decrees (2), ecclesiastical decree (1), and abolished ceremonial regulations (2).

  3. The vocabulary used in NT affirmation passages (entole unqualified, dikaioma singular articular, nomos described as holy/just/good/spiritual) is observably different from the vocabulary used in abolition passages (dogma, dogmatizo, cheirographon, dikaioma plural + modifier, skia, entole + qualifier). Four of five core law terms partition cleanly between affirmation and abolition.

  4. When NT authors use entole in abolition contexts, the text adds a qualifier to narrow the referent to non-moral content. The narrowing construction in Ephesians 2:15 progressively restricts: the law > of the commandments > in ordinances.

  5. The articular/anarthrous pattern of nomos does NOT cleanly divide moral from ceremonial law. Both articular and anarthrous nomos can refer to moral or ceremonial content depending on context.

  6. Luke treats entole and dikaioma as two distinct categories by listing them separately with "and" (kai) in Luke 1:6.

  7. In 2 Corinthians 3:7-11, the grammatical object of katargeo is the glory/ministry, not the law or the commandments.

  8. Cheirographon means "hand-written document." The Decalogue was written by God's finger, not by hand. Moses' book of the law was hand-written and placed beside the ark as a witness against Israel.

  9. The dikaioma singular/plural pattern holds in law-referent passages (singular articular = moral standard; plural with modifier = ceremonial ordinances) but does not hold as an absolute rule across all contexts.

What CANNOT Be Said (not explicitly stated or necessarily implied by Scripture)

  1. It cannot be said that the NT vocabulary was intentionally designed by God as a deliberate categorical system. The pattern is observable, but the text does not state why the pattern exists. This is an I-C inference.

  2. It cannot be said that the nomos article pattern reliably distinguishes moral from ceremonial law. Plain-level counter-examples exist on both sides.

  3. It cannot be said that the dikaioma singular/plural distinction is an absolute grammatical code. It is a contextual tendency in law-referent passages, not an invariable rule.

  4. It cannot be said that all NT law terms are interchangeable stylistic variants. The observable distribution patterns (N1, N2) falsify this claim at the N-tier level.

  5. It cannot be said that cheirographon in Col 2:14 refers to the Decalogue. The etymology ("hand-written"), the pairing with dogmasin (which is never used for the Decalogue), and the contextual content identification (meat, drink, holyday, new moon, sabbath = shadow) all point to the ceremonial code.

  6. It cannot be said that all five core law terms encode the distinction with equal consistency. Nomos has the broadest semantic range and does not partition between moral and ceremonial as cleanly as entole, dogma, cheirographon, and dikaioma.

Cross-References to Other Studies

  • law-20 (NT Greek Law Vocabulary): Established the lexical data for all five core terms. Law-21 builds on law-20 by adding the content-identification layer. (Full lexical analysis in law-20.)
  • law-06 (Hebrew Law Vocabulary): Established that Hebrew law terms describe formal character, not moral categories; that no Hebrew term means exclusively "moral law" or "ceremonial law"; and that LXX compressed Hebrew distinctions. (Examined in depth in law-06.)
  • law-08 (Abolished at the Cross): Analyzed the seven abolition passages and found each identifies its referent through specific Greek vocabulary; none names the Decalogue. (Examined in depth in law-08.)
  • law-16 (Paul and the Law in Romans): Established that Paul uses nomos in at least four distinct senses. (Examined in depth in law-16.)
  • law-04 (Ceremonial Laws): Produced the comprehensive contrast table between Decalogue and ceremonial law across multiple dimensions including vocabulary. (Examined in depth in law-04.)
  • nt-commandments-vs-ordinances: Analyzed the same vocabulary but did not produce the systematic mapping table. Law-21's unique contribution is the occurrence-by-occurrence content verification. (Examined in depth in nt-commandments-vs-ordinances.)