Colossians 2:14-17: Let's get the facts, shall we?

[guibox]

Many 'Sabbath abrogators' constantly refer to this chapter to support the invalidity of Sabbath keeping when there is no basis to do so. Like many other references in the Bible dealing with the law and the Sabbath, these people twist, ignore context and take a superficial reading of these texts to bolster their 'support' to do away with the law in general and the Sabbath in particular.

You know what? Say what you want about the Sabbath. If you want to believe that it is no longer binding on Christians, then believe what you want...But please quit referring to Colossians 2 to support your opinions because it is not there and it doesn't say what you think!

And as for 'mosaic law abrogators' (like many Adventists), it doesn't say what you want it to say either!

Let's really stop taking a superficial reading of this chapter and see the context of it to fully understand what it is talking about.

guibox
______________

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of th way, nailing it ti his cross. And having spoiled prinicipalities and powers , he made s ashew of them openly triumpthing over them in it. Let no man therefore judg eyou in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days., which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

This text has been taken severely out of context, both by those trying to refer to the mosaic laws instead of the moral law in this chapter (sabbath defenders) and those trying to do away with the entire law (sabbath abrogators).

To understand this text, we must also look at the surrounding verses. What were the problems Paul was addressing?

The Colossian Heresy

The Colossian heresy being discussed by Paul was not, at its core, an issue of Jewish observances. The issues were over paganism and gnostic philosophies and leaders who were dictating what was to be followed and how.

1) pagan philosophy of elemental worship and man made traditions (vs 8)
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world and not after Christ"
* - This is hardly talking about any Jewish law or Jewish rulers enforcing scriptural laws
2) angelic worship - vs 18
3) asectic rituals of eating and drinking - vs 20-22
4) debasement of the body to uplift the spirit - vs 18,23

Throughout the whole chapter, Paul is trying to tell the Colossians that Christ is the fulness of life, not bodily, outward rituals that don't mean anything anymore. He is our forgiveness and these ascetic practices will not bring us closer to Christ.

What was nailed to the cross?

The word for ‘handwriting of ordinances’ is cheirographon. This has been explained by some as the Mosaic law by Sabbath defenders and the Moral law including the Sabbath by others trying to do away with the Sabbath.

The problem lies in the fact that the word for law is not even found anywhere in this chapter.

If cheirographon could be translated as such, it would not make sense that Christ would crucify what was holy, or that the Sabbath was "against us". Plus it would negate the previous verse that talks about Christ’s absolute forgiveness. cheirographon is a word that means “written record of sinsâ€Â. It is not the law of any sort. Christ took these ‘sins’ and nailed it to the cross, which He did when he sacrificed Himself for our sins. This was an act of absolute forgiveness. Now, look at verse 15 explaining the results of this 'nailing to the cross':

And having spiled principalities and powers, He made a shew of them openly trimphing over them in it

You see the context? Whatever it was that was nailed to the cross is directly related to 'powers' over us. No way is the law or Jewish customs or Rabbis part of this as we see this is more cosmic. Remember Paul saying that we 'wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers? Satan cannot hold our sins against us because Christ's act of atonement gave Him victory over these powers. No longer can Satan hold our sins over our head as they are 'remembered no more' by our Savior!

This whole chapter is about the forgiveness of Christ. Forgiveness cannot be found when moral laws are done away with. Instead sin and anarchy would reign. Verse 15 makes no sense when applying verse 14 to the law in general and the Sabbath in particular.

But doesn’t it say that we should not judge anyone of eating and drinking and of sabbath days?

The problem here is that Paul is not warning us against the practices mentioned here, but against “anyone†(in this case, the pagan leaders) who judged them on how they were to be keeping them. Judging from the rest of the chapter, we see that it was strict observance “Do not touch, do not tasteâ€Â. Presumably, the ‘judge’ wanted the people to observe these days in a more ascetic way “severity to the body†vs 21,23. This would include more fasting and less feasting.

Isn't it interesting that out of the blue Paul brings up 'eating and drinking'? Does that mean that we are not to eat and drink anymore? Hardly. We see that this was a part of the pagan celebrations. Though the practices derive from Jewish events, the practice of them was very pagan. The festivals were kept not according to the Jewish Torah, but to the “elements of the universe†(vs 8, 20). This is what Paul was speaking out against, hence the reason why he says, “Let no man judge youâ€Â

If Paul is speaking against the judging of the way to practice these festivals and not the festivals themselves, then Paul is promoting the Sabbath, not diminishing it. Paul is not saying 'Let no man judge you on NOT eating, drinking or keepng Sabbaths' Most likely these Colossians were already keeping these things. The problem was the judging on the WAY they were keeping it, and the admonishment was towards those who were judging them on HOW they were keeping these things as opposed to how they wanted the people to do it (more pagan).

But doesn’t it also say that “these are a shadow of things to come and the body is of Christ�

The “these†that the verse refers to is not to the five practices mentioned, but the ‘regulations’ put on them. Here are the two main reasons why:

1) The issue in verse 16 is not on the validity of the practices, but on the judgin of how to keep thee days. It logically follows the the se in vs 17 still refers to that issue

2) After verse 17, Paul again talks against the regulations ansd ascetic practices that keep people away from the forgiveness of Christ.

Logically, seeing as the “these†is preceded and followed by counsel against the regulations put upon the people, the “these†is referring to those regulations. This is made more meaningful in the context of Christ's forgiveness in the previous verses.

Paul is saying, "Why do you serve your body and your gods? Christ has forgiven you! You don't need all these rituals and philosophies of your so called 'leaders'! Christ is the body of it all. All you need is Him!"

To take verse 14 and 16 to mean that the law has been nailed to the cross is to make vs 15 null in meaning. It also ignores the context of the entire chapter and the Colossian controversy Paul faced with pagan traditions. (see also Galatians 4:8-11 for the same pagan controversy) This was not an issue of the validity of keeping supposedly abrogated Jewish laws no longer binding on the Christian.

 

[cj]

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with your thought...

"Paul is saying, "Why do you serve your body and your gods? Christ has forgiven you! You don't need all these rituals and philosophies of your so called 'leaders'! Christ is the body of it all. All you need is Him!"

.... But context must include all relevant scripture.

Ephesians  2 : 15

"Abolishing in His flesh....... the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,"

This phrase "Abolishing in His flesh" means that which was accomplished in Jesus' death on the cross, at the time He was nailed to the cross.

But lets read on, as Paul's speaking is very specific regarding the aspect of the law that Jesus' death abolished, this being the law of the commandments in ordinances.

What are ordinances? Rituals, forms or ways of living and worship, which only create enmity and division.

This is not the law of the moral commandments but the law of the ritual commandments, composed principally of the practice of circumcision, the observance of dietary regulations, and the keeping of the Sabbath. These ordinances were the main "columns" of Judaism. The moral commandments will never be abolished, but the ritual commandments were in force only during a particular time dispensationally and are therefore not permanent.

And why?

The flesh.

Genesis  6 : 3, "And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever,..... for he indeed is flesh;..... so his days will be one hundred twenty years."

Because mankind became flesh (Gen. 6:3) and was therefore kept from God and His purpose, God ordained that His chosen people be circumcised, that they put away the flesh. The ordinance of circumcision was instituted because of man's flesh. It was in the flesh that Christ was crucified. When He was crucified, His flesh, which was typified by the veil separating the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies in the temple, was rent (Heb. 10:20).

The light for understanding the above verse is found in the purpose for the abolishment of these ordinances, which is.... "that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,"

As stated above, ordinances only lead to division among men.

Further, note that Paul is also very specific concerning how many types of men the Lord considered there to be, just two, Jews and Gentiles.

That understood, lets look at this part of the verse, "... that He might create the two in Himself..."

Christ created the one new man, the church, by working God's divine nature into humanity. The working of the divine nature into humanity was something new. Hence, it was a creating. In the old creation God did not work His nature into any of His creatures, not even into man. In the creating of the one new man, however, God's nature was wrought into man to make His divine nature one entity with humanity.

Christ is not only the Creator of the one new man, the church, but also.... the sphere in which and the means by which the one new man was created.... He is the very element of the new man, making God's divine nature one entity with humanity. The Greek word rendered in here can also have an elemental significance, meaning also with, implying that the new man was created with Christ as its divine essence.

"... into one new man, so making peace,"

The Jews and the Gentiles were separated to the uttermost by the separating ordinances. But both were created in Christ with the divine essence into one new entity, which is a corporate man, the church.

The church is not only the church of God, the Body of Christ (the fullness, the expression, of the all-filling One  1:23), and the household or family, the house, the temple, and the dwelling place of God (2:19, 21-22); it is also the one new man, which is corporate and universal, created of two peoples, the Jews and the Gentiles, and composed of all the believers, who, though they are many, are one new man in the universe.

God created man as a collective entity (Gen. 1:26). The corporate man created by God was damaged through man's fall; hence, there was the need for God to produce a new man. This was accomplished through Christ's abolishing in His flesh the ordinances and through His creating of the new man in Himself.

By Christ's abolishing in His flesh the separating ordinances, that is, His slaying the enmity, and by His creating the Jewish and the Gentile believers into one new man, peace was made between all believers.


So what does any of the above have to do with Colossians 2:14?

"Wiping out the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, which was contrary to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross."

Who is the "us" that Paul is referring to? Paul was a Jew, not a gentile.

We should be aware of the fact that Jews considered Moses law, in a sense, to be the law of angels.

Acts  7 : 53, "You who received the law as ordinances of angels and did not keep it."

So because we know that there was some kind of angel worship taking place among the Church in Colossae, do not for a moment believe that it was a completely separate element from the influence of Judaism.

The background of this book is that culture had been mixed into the church life in Colossae. Originally, Christ was the unique element in the church life, yet at that time a disturbance was created because Christ was being replaced by culture. The constituent of the church should be Christ and Christ alone, yet the church had been invaded by certain elements of culture  especially religion, in the form of asceticism related to Judaic ordinances and observances (2:16, 20-21), and philosophy, in the form of mysticism related to Gnosticism and the worship of angels (2:8, 18). Hence, the central concept of this book is that nothing should be allowed to replace Christ.

This book concentrates on Christ as the Head of the Body. It reveals the profoundness, all-inclusiveness, and unlimitedness of Christ to a fuller extent than any other book in the Bible.


Now, the question is, is the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath according to moral law or ordinance?

And the answer is very obvious, the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath is according to the law of ordinances, which was abolished in Christ's flesh, in effect, being nailed to the cross.


In love,
cj

 

[guibox]

.... But context must include all relevant scripture.

Ephesians  2 : 15

"Abolishing in His flesh....... the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, so making peace,"

This phrase "Abolishing in His flesh" means that which was accomplished in Jesus' death on the cross, at the time He was nailed to the cross.

But lets read on, as Paul's speaking is very specific regarding the aspect of the law that Jesus' death abolished, this being the law of the commandments in ordinances.

What are ordinances? Rituals, forms or ways of living and worship, which only create enmity and division.

The similarity between the two texts (Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2) is more apparent than real. In the first place, the phrase "the Law of commandments" which occurs in Ephesians is not found in Colossians. Second, as Dr. Bacchiocchi says

"the dative in Ephesians "en dogmasiv–in ordinances" is governed by "enâ€â€in," thus expressing that the Law was set out "in ordinances." Such a preposition does not occur in Colossians."  

Last, the context is different. While in Ephesians the question is how Christ removed what separated Jews from Gentiles, in Colossians the question is how Christ provided full forgiveness. The former He accomplished by destroying "the dividing wall of hostility" (Eph 2: 14). This is a possible allusion to the wall that divided the court of the Gentiles from the sanctuary making it impossible for them to participate in the worship service of the inner court with the Jews.  

The wall of partition was removed by Christ "by abolishing the Law of commandments [set out] in regulations" (Eph 2:15). The qualification of "commandments contained in ordinances" suggests that Paul is speaking not of the moral Law, but of "ceremonial ordinances" which had the effect of maintaining the separation between Jews and Gentiles, both in the social life and in the sanctuary services.

The moral Law did not divide Jews from Gentiles, because speaking of the Gentiles, Paul says that what the moral "Law requires is written on their heart" (Rom 2:15).  

In Colossians 2:14, full forgiveness is granted, not by "abolishing the Law of commandments contained in ordinances," but by utterly destroying "the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was against us. The context of the two passages is totally different, yet neither of the two suggests that the moral Law was nailed to the Cross. The document in Colossians that was nailed to the Cross contained not moral or ceremonial Laws, but rather the record of our sins. Hence you cannot link the two verses together.

So because we know that there was some kind of angel worship taking place among the Church in Colossae, do not for a moment believe that it was a completely separate element from the influence of Judaism.

But it was as far as the context of what Paul was admonishing them for. The 'worship of angels' is not a Jewish practice. After Paul talks about this controversial passage (vs 14-17) and says the shadow is of Christ, he continues railing against the paganism that negates verse 17! Look at verses 18,20-22

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind...20 Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why as though living in the world are ye subject to ordinances 21 (touch not taste not, handle not 22 which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Do you see what is a shadow? The 'rudiments of the world' the 'commandments and doctrines of men' and the 'ascetic rituals'. If you want to call the commandments and the Sabbath as no longer binding on the Christian then you may do so.

However, you CANNOT call them the 'commandments and doctrines of men'. They are God's commandments and not 'doctrines of men'.

It's not even the doctrines and commandments of the Jews! The problem (as we see when we look at the whole chapter) was pagan philosophies. Commandments doesn't have to mean 'THE ten commandments (as some members of this forum have gone through great pains to point out elsewhere) but simple rules and regulations.

Therefore, these things which are a shadow in these passages are not the law at all.

The issue here is not the law but the ascetic rituals of pagan leaders. These were a 'shadow' because forgiveness is found in Christ and not rituals. The Sabbath was never 'against' us and has nothing to do with principalities and powers holding anything over us.

 

[cj]

The issue here is not the law but the ascetic rituals of pagan leaders. These were a 'shadow' because forgiveness is found in Christ and not rituals. The Sabbath was never 'against' us and has nothing to do with principalities and powers holding anything over us.

I absolutely disagree, the issue is what has risen to the surface as a result of the mixing of both Jewish practices and pagan practices.

The Jewish Sabbath is most definitely an ordinance that was to be kept by men according to Jewish practice of the Mosaic law. But this practice, as well as others, have been abolished by the death our Lord on the cross.

To say that the Sabbath was never against us is foolishness, as it is most clear that not keeping the Sabbath exposed the sin in us. And this is what it mean to be against us, in the sense Paul was using this term.

And further, it most certainly can give God's enemy a hold over men who were aware of this ordinance and failed to keep it. The hold is called condemnation, of which now, in Christ there is none.

Keeping the Jewish Sabbath or not keeping the Jewish Sabbath means nothing for those who are in Christ. For there is no condemnation whatsoever for those who are in Him.

Or so scripture says.


I'll have more time later to respond to some of the other points you made.


In love,
cj

 

[Heidi]

Guibox, first of all, you are assuming that people who know that the Sabbath is not a day of the week are non-sabbatarians when it is exactly the opposite.

Since you don't understand what the Sabbth means, you will always be in danger of breaking it and constantly asking for forgiveness. You are in disagreement with some, who also don't understand what the Sabbath means, about which day of the week it is. Therefore, there will always be some doubt because the NT doesn't say which day of the week it is, and for good reason.

Secondly, if you cannot go to church on that day of the week, or you pick up a rock, (which is what the Jews consider work), then you will break the Sabbath. This is precisely why the Sabbath cannot be a day of the week! In Israel, the Jews can't even operate an elevator because this is considered work. And since you understand the law the way the Jews do, you now have to define "work". What is relaxing and what is work? In order to know that, you have to be under the old covenant & obey OT laws which the Jews still have to do because they are not under grace.

Jesus replaced the Sabbath by his blood. He has fulfilled all the law & commandments for us. He was the perfect unblemished lamb who already paid the price for our sins! We are now no longer uner the old covenant. Therefore, whoever enter's Christ's rest, rests from his own work.

But since it is clear that you are not under Christ, you have no choice but to define what is "working" on the Sabbath, just like the Jews still do. You are still relying on OT law & your own works to get to heaven and as the NT points out repeatedly, this can never happen because only Christ's love renders us pure enough to be with God.

Therefore, honoring the Sabbath is honoring Jesus Christ our Lord which is precisely why he is called "Lord of the Sabbath." Thos who honor jesus every day of the week can never break the Sabbath. But according to your understanding of the Sabbath, you can very easily and so can the Jews.

 

[Heidi]

The OT was written to show how prefect we have to be to see God, which is why there were so many rules & regulations to follow. It also shows us that none of us can do it. The NT shows us the remedy for our imperfection which is the blood of Christ. That's why Paul tells us that we are no longer under the law but under grace. That breeds thankfulness and love which is what makes us keep the commandments. Again, the law can be summed up in one word; "Love."

But keeping the Sabbath the way the Jews do is looking in a rule book to see what "working" means, and it is exhausting. It is also a fact that because there are so many definitions and confusion about what working on the Sabbath means, it will always be broken at some point. "For whoever keep s the whole law yet syumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." So when the Jews touch an elevator, they have to wait for the Day of Atonement to feel forgiven...provided they live that long.

This is relying one one's own works to get to heaven but as Paul says, "Flesh and blood can never enter the kingdom of heaven." Works do not save, the blood of Christ saves.

 

[guibox]

Heidi, let's not turn this into another Sabbath bashing/defending thread. There is more than enough of those around.

The issue here (and I assume that you've read my first post in its entirety, if not, please do) is about trying to interpret Colossians 2 to make it say what you and others here are trying to make it say.

I have shown, and even (cj is still missing the contextual point of this chapter) that the 'sabbath has been nailed to the cross' argument is not the issue here in this chapter and not what Paul is saying at all. In fact, Paul is not negating the keeping of the Sabbath but actually promoting it if you truly look at his arguments and the context of the chapter.

However, my purpose is not to prove Sabbath keeping through this chapter but to show the illogical reasoning people use to justify its abrogation through Colossians 2.

Read the whole chapter and then read my post and make your comments on what I have said and Colossians 2.

We are not discussing Hebrews 4 here.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

This is an interesting premise, guibox, I'm going to look at this chapter in greater depth.

I find it interesting that a couple of the people who have posted here that the 4th commandment is done away with - nailed to a tree- have accused us users of icons of breaking the 2nd commandment. Apparently that commandment was not nailed to a tree.

So just exactly do they suggest was done away with? The commandment to honor God as the only God? To obey parents?

Their apologetic is confused and arbitrary.

 

[Aloha Joe]

This is an interesting premise, guibox, I'm going to look at this chapter in greater depth.

I find it interesting that a couple of the people who have posted here that the 4th commandment is done away with - nailed to a tree- have accused us users of icons of breaking the 2nd commandment. Apparently that commandment was not nailed to a tree.

So just exactly do they suggest was done away with? The commandment to honor God as the only God? To obey parents?

Their apologetic is confused and arbitrary.

The appearance of inconsistency is understandable, as it looks as if non-Sabbatarians are arbitrarily choosing which commands get thrown out and which remain. This, however, is not the case.

The Law, as a shadow of the reality to be found in Christ, was done away with in its entirety as a part of Christ's fulfilling work, and the Old Covenant was replaced entirely with the New.

The issue, then, is how the shadow that was the Law has been fulfilled by the reality that is Christ.

The earthly priesthood is no longer necessary because Christ fulfilled the need for an earthly priesthood by becoming our High Priest. The command for an earthly priesthood wasn't simply done away with; it was fulfilled in Christ. Similarly, earthly sacrifices are no longer necessary, because Christ is our sacrifice. He fulfilled the need for that command. The earthly temple and earthly ministry are no longer necessary, because we have Christ's ministry and a heavenly temple.

Similarly, the earthly Sabbath rest is no longer necessary, as Christ has become our rest. "The Sabbath was made for man." It was made for our benefit--the physical earthly rest of the Sabbath was a shadow of the true spiritual rest found in Christ. God never promised spiritual rest from the Sabbath. It was always physical. It wasn't simply abolished--it was fulfilled.

Christ's fulfillment of the Law, though, does not remove the need we have not to murder. In fact, "thou shalt not murder" was also a shadow of the reality to be found in Christ: "love your neighbor and your enemy."

The Law, the shadow, was insufficient in every way--Hebrews tells us this. The animals sacrifices were and insufficient shadow, as was the priesthood and the earthly ministry, as the reality of those shadows has God indwelling us.

Similarly, the Ten Commandments (more accurately translated "the Ten Matters," as they weren't called "commandments" in the Pentateuch) were insufficient shadows that were done away with when the realities were found in Christ. One could perfectly obey the command not to murder while hating his enemies (David specifically says he hated his)--but the reality of that shadow command is that we love not only our neighbor, but our enemy.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" was an insufficient shadow, as the reality found in Christ would have us not lust at all.

So the entire Law, including the Decalogue, was a shadow of the reality to be found in Christ. The broader, more profound principles upon which the commands of the Law hung have not been betrayed, but revealed in Christ.

I bring this before you right now not as an argument, as that would require a rather lengthy treatise and study of the Scriptures, but as a brief explanation, so that you can begin to understand why it appears that "one command was done away with, while the other nine were kept."

In His Love,
Joe

 

[guibox]

Again, let us not turn this into another Sabbath debate unless it directly relates to Colossians.

The issue with Colossians, Aloha, is that the 'shadows' spoken of here are not the 'new moon, and Sabbath' days that are being judged, but the pagan, ritualistic practices associated with them and the 'judging' being done by the pagan leaders.

These are a 'shadow' because forgiveness from sin is not found in rituals or ascetic practices where the body is debased and angels and elements of the universe are worshipped to gain a closeness to God. The issue is not the validity of the law but Christ's forgiveness and how it is merited.

The salvation rest found in Christ in no way negates the physical rest needed. This is why it was given at Creation and affirmed by divine example.

And OC's point is that (like the Sabbath) the 2nd commandment shows our love to God. If the Sabbath is a 'shadow' so is that one'. How can one be valid and the other not when they are part of the same 'love commandment' towards God?

 

[cj]

Heidi, let's not turn this into another Sabbath bashing/defending thread. There is more than enough of those around.

I second that motion.

The issue here (and I assume that you've read my first post in its entirety, if not, please do) is about trying to interpret Colossians 2 to make it say what you and others here are trying to make it say.

In a manner of speaking, this was your starting point.

But scriptures must be understood in the light of the entire word of God.

If you attempt to isolate Colossians 2 you will end up in the same environment as the URist, one in which only improper understanding will result.

Another thing to keep in mind Guibox, is that while you might be of the opinion that some here (including myself) are "trying" to "make" Colossians 2 say something incorrect, we on the other hand are convinced that it is you and not us that stands on the wrong understanding.

And I bring this up for the following reason..... if you take the position of not being open to look at the possibility that your thoughts on this matter might be short, then the only end will be one of debating doctrines and points of view. Something which scripture declares is a situation that we should stay away from. And, it is a foolish man who believes he can be in the position of understanding and dispensing truth, while at the same time ignoring truth.

I have shown, and even (cj is still missing the contextual point of this chapter) that the 'sabbath has been nailed to the cross' argument is not the issue here in this chapter and not what Paul is saying at all. In fact, Paul is not negating the keeping of the Sabbath but actually promoting it if you truly look at his arguments and the context of the chapter.

Not at all, Paul is absolutely taking a stand AGAINST ordinances, of which the Sabbath is just one...... ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY.

However, my purpose is not to prove Sabbath keeping through this chapter but to show the illogical reasoning people use to justify its abrogation through Colossians 2.

Not just the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath, but all oridinances, which is in accordance with Paul's speaking..... Paul said "wiping out the handwriting in ordinances", what single ordinance therefore did he leave out? None.

Read the whole chapter and then read my post and make your comments on what I have said and Colossians 2.

We are not discussing Hebrews 4 here.

Don't allow yourself to fall into the error of the like of the URist Guibox.


In love,
cj

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, let's not turn this into another Sabbath bashing/defending thread. There is more than enough of those around.

The issue here (and I assume that you've read my first post in its entirety, if not, please do) is about trying to interpret Colossians 2 to make it say what you and others here are trying to make it say.

I have shown, and even (cj is still missing the contextual point of this chapter) that the 'sabbath has been nailed to the cross' argument is not the issue here in this chapter and not what Paul is saying at all. In fact, Paul is not negating the keeping of the Sabbath but actually promoting it if you truly look at his arguments and the context of the chapter.

However, my purpose is not to prove Sabbath keeping through this chapter but to show the illogical reasoning people use to justify its abrogation through Colossians 2.

Read the whole chapter and then read my post and make your comments on what I have said and Colossians 2.

We are not discussing Hebrews 4 here.

And you are missing the core of the issue which is what the Sabbath means in the first place! Because you don't understand that Jesus himself is the Sabbath, then neither will you understand why Paul says it doesn't matter which day we worship!

Paul is specifically saying that it doesn't matter what we eat or drink, "or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." It doesn't matter, Guibox! Do you know why, Guibox? Do you even have a clue? No, you don't. So why does the SDA make such a big deal over something which Paul tells us not to?

Once again, Titus 2:9-10, "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because they are unprofitable and useless." They are useless, guibox. But your whole denomination is based on something useless so you have no choice but to make it a big deal. SDA's are focusing on a day of the week instead of Christ alone.

Why do you think the bible tells us to honor God's day of rest instead of the other 6 days he created the world? What do you think there is to honor about that day of rest above the other days he miraculously created the world? Have you even though about that? Or do you simply have blind obedience? Blind obedience ignores the heart of the law and only leads to misunderstanding the law.

 

[cj]

The similarity between the two texts (Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2) is more apparent than real.

Christ, meaning the Person, is the reality of all scripture. And Christ is one.

Therefore, contrary to your decalration of there being just a superficial similarity between the two texts, the truth declared in scripture is that the similarity between the two texts is as real as reality gets, as Christ Himself is the content of both scriptures.

Anyone who would argue that scripture is not just the One word of God expressed in written letters, is one who is speaking in darkness.

2 Timothy  3 : 16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,"

As the embodiment of God the Spirit, the Scripture (God's word) is also the embodiment of Christ. Christ is God's living Word (Rev. 19:13), and the Scripture is God's word/written word (Matt. 4:4).

How then can your declaration above have any validity? There is only one God and one breath of God. And this God and His breath is reality, meaning, is as real as it gets.

The fact is, the "apparent" link between the two texts is nothing other than real, as these two texts, as al scripture, is simply the one God expressed.

In the first place, the phrase "the Law of commandments" which occurs in Ephesians is not found in Colossians.

So what,........ If one pays attention to the content of the writting that both precedes and follows verse 14, one will see that Paul was absolutely speaking of the ordinances of the Mosaic law.

"And you have been made full..... (meaning perfected, which is to be made righteous, which requires at the very least the meeting of the requirements of the law of Moses. Here we have one implied connection to the Mosaic law.)........ in Him, who is the Head of all rule and authority (and only such as a result of having ".... endured the cross, despising the shame, and has (now) sat down on the right hand of the throne of God." Which is to say, Paul was clear about how Jesus became Head of all rule and authority, and that it most certainly concerns the law of Moses.)

In Him also you were......... circumcised with a circumcision not bmade with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, (from what does circumcision come, the law of Moses).....

Buried together with Him in baptism, in which also you were raised together with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who raised Him from the dead.

And you, though dead in your offenses and... in the uncircumcision of your flesh (as according to the law of Moses), He made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our offenses (Romans  4 : 25, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised for our justification." In His death Jesus met all of God's requirements according and even surpassing what was required in the law that God gave to Moses. Thus, concerning the matter of forgiveness, the Mosaic law is most certainly a factor.);

Wiping out the handwriting in ordinances (this phrase that follows Paul's speaking on forgiveness, is directly in context to our being forgiven, which is in direct context to Jesus having met the requirements of the Mosaic law. Further, Paul's specific use of the phrase "handwriting in" proves this.), which was against us (yet again implying the law of Moses), which was contrary to us (yet again implying the law of Moses); and He has taken..... it..... out of the way,.... nailing..... it..... to the cross.

And what is the cross from the viewpoint of "nailing".... nothing but that which implys the law of Moses.

The truth is, throughout his speaking in these verses, Paul continually implied that his context was the Mosaic law.

Second, as Dr. Bacchiocchi says

"the dative in Ephesians "en dogmasiv–in ordinances" is governed by "enâ€â€in," thus expressing that the Law was set out "in ordinances." Such a preposition does not occur in Colossians."

It doesn't have to, as the connection is absolutely implied throughout Paul's speaking.

Additionally though, I suggest you take some time to consider the phrase Paul used, "the handwriting in ordinances", and let us know what you find.

Finally, do not make the mistake of thinking that the Mosaic law would not be referred to as the "commandments of men", as in Titus  1 : 14 we find this implied...

"Not paying attention to Jewish myths and the commandments of men who turn away from the truth."

And again, in speaking of the Jewish Pharisees and scribes, Jesus said, "Hypocrites! Well has Isaiah prophesied concerning you, saying, "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart stays far away from Me; But in vain do they worship Me,...... teaching as teachings the commandments of men.''"

Last, the context is different..........

No, Paul only spoke one thing... the economy of God.

To you the context might seem to differ, but this is as a result of your not being clear regarding the base/foundation of Paul's speaking, and regarding the content of God's NT economy; which is to say, God's full salvation.

Seventh Day Adventists, as with all other religious believers, have not come into the experience of God's full salvation, because they are yet to see it.

Hence, they remain bound in ordinances, as opposed to the freedom which is found in Christ.


In love,
cj

 

[guibox]

Sorry cj, but you are let your preconceived interpretation of Ephesians interpret Colossians which cannot be done. Regardless of whether Christ is the centre of both, the issues and context are different.

Not taking this into consideration in only interpreting and finding the meaning of Colossians 2 does not make me guilty of the same reasoning of URists. Rather, it is taking Colossians 2:14 and then going directly straight to Ephesians 2 to find its coraboration and its meaning when it contradicts and ignores the contextual issues of the rest of the chapter of Colossians 2 that is the dangerous method of bible study.

Nowhere is the word for 'law' or the issue of the law found in Colossians like it is in Ephesians. The former talks about forgiveness outside of pagan asceticism, the latter directly about the law, its separation between Jew and Gentile and its function to Christ.

These are not the issues in Colossians no matter how bad you want to make them fit!

And Heidi, have you even read my initial post? If you haven't read it in it's entirety, there is no sense trying to reason with you. It's probably easier for you to just continue to harp on your intepretation of Hebrews 4 (of which I addressed thoroughly and of which you conveniently ignored elsewhere) and question whether I've been born of the spirit, then to actually have an open mind and discuss logically.

 

[cj]

Sorry, but by your own words you contradict yourself.

You declare that Colossians is about forgiveness..... well, by what means was Jesus able to attain this forgiveness for men?

Only one way... through the law.

You are making a basic error in attempting to separate the reality of the law from God's economy toward His creation. You can't.



Understand this Guibox..... I am fully convinced that the Sabbath exists and is a reality for men. But what I am just as fully convinced of is that this Sabbath does not exists in the form of an ordinance but in the reality of the divine life that we have received as believers. On believeing in Christ we are immediately an spontaneously brought into the true reality of God's Sabbath, which is simply the Person of Christ.

A believer does not keep the Sabbath, the Sabbath keeps the believer. Or perhaps you don't believe our Lords words when He said that man was not made for Sabbath but the Sabbath for man.

Religions such as the Seventh Day Adventist religion take this truth and make a doctrine out of it in an attempt to bring in an ordinance that is used to subdue and control men.

And it is in this that it is most wicked, in that it seeks to usurp the function of the life that is Christ in us.

The reality of Sabbath is our rest in Christ, and God's rest in Christ.

Christ is the true Sabbath for both God and man.


I notice though that you have not made much of an attempt to respond to the points I brought up.

In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Sorry cj, but you are let your preconceived interpretation of Ephesians interpret Colossians which cannot be done. Regardless of whether Christ is the centre of both, the issues and context are different.

This is man's way of looking at things, not God's way.

God's economy begins and ends in Christ, how then can you say that the issues and context are different?

The outward appearance might seem different but the reality is always God's economy being worked out in Christ.

Additionally, is the aspect of God's enemy, tHis one enemy. Therefore, while God is gaining His desired goal of Christ, He is also executing His judgement on His enemy.

This Guibox, is the real issue and context, and not the outward as you refer to. Paul was very aware that his speaking was not contending with flesh and blood but with spiritual wickedness in high places.

Everything that Paul spoke to was in the light of "the two" becoming one in Christ. There is no third with God, there is always only "the two"..... Jew and Gentile. And what seperates Jew from Gentile is the law. Paul was absolutely aware of this and as such nothing that he spoke would be without regard for this truth.

How is it that all men can come to God? Through the fulfillment by Christ of the law.

"IT IS FINISHED." Punto finale.

Not taking this into consideration in only interpreting and finding the meaning of Colossians 2 does not make me guilty of the same reasoning of URists. Rather, it is taking Colossians 2:14 and then going directly straight to Ephesians 2 to find its coraboration and its meaning when it contradicts and ignores the contextual issues of the rest of the chapter of Colossians 2 that is the dangerous method of bible study.

Nowhere is the word for 'law' or the issue of the law found in Colossians like it is in Ephesians. The former talks about forgiveness outside of pagan asceticism, the latter directly about the law, its separation between Jew and Gentile and its function to Christ.

These are not the issues in Colossians no matter how bad you want to make them fit!

I'm not trying to fit anything, God has already done that perfectly.

If one understands the true meaning of Christ, then one will be clear about what Paul meant in his speaking to the Colossians.

According to God's wisdom all men needed the law, for it proved men incapable and only God capable.

What religious folk attempt to do in order to justify their doctrines is what we see you doing, and that is bringing human logic and reasoning into scripture, with a focus on men.


What was taking place in Colossae was instigated by Satan and thus was dealt with by God according to His righteous economy for it. And what is this righteous economy ordained by God for the executing of His judgement on Satan?

God through Paul was dealing not with men but with Satan in men. And how does God deal with His enemy? Through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus; at the center of which is the cross, that which was used to fulfill the requirement of the law.

Paul's epistle to the Colossians brings us a view of Christ from a different angle than Paul's epistle to the Ephesians..... but the view is still just of the one Christ. And everything that Christ is and has attained, is what we must always see, no matter what angle we view Him from.

This is Zion, the view of Jah.


In love,
cj

 

[Bick]

Interpreting Col.2:14-17

So what is the point quibox?
Should Saturday, the Sabbath, be the special day of worship? How "holy" should it be considered?
What if someone works on the Sabbath? That is a sin punishable by stoning under the Sabbath economy of Israel.

Bick

 

[guibox]

Re: Interpreting Col.2:14-17

So what is the point quibox?
Should Saturday, the Sabbath, be the special day of worship? How "holy" should it be considered?
What if someone works on the Sabbath? That is a sin punishable by stoning under the Sabbath economy of Israel.

Bick

I''m assuming that you read the opening post of the thread?

If you didn't, I suggest that you do and you will see my point.

If you did, I am merely saying that to try and take Colossians 2 and make it mean that the Sabbath is no longer binding on the Christian is a falsehood brought about by ignoring the cultural, linguistic and theological context of the message that Paul was saying.

In actuality, what initially seems as a Sabbath abrogating argument is really a Sabbath encouragement argument...

When we look at the context of the 'judging' (and if you read my opening post you'd see that) we see that the pagan rulers were judging the people on HOW they were keeping the Sabbath and telling them how they should do it. Nowhere does Paul say that the people should not be judged on NOT keeping the Sabbath. In other words, the people were already keeping Sabbath

As far as stoning goes, stoning was also a punishment for certain types of theft and adultery. Do we do that today? One must also look at the cultural aspect of the judicial system. What about the sacrificial system? How many modern day Jews do you see sacrificing a bull on their BBQ?

Cultural context must be considered as well, Bick.

 

[SputnikBoy]

I've brought this point up any number of times before but it's a point that I feel should be made as often as need be.

While I always appreciate your posts, guibox, and the responses of cj and others, the issue of being a 'competent' Christian should surely not be dependent on one's theological knowledge. I mean, the overwhelming majority of Christians would not have a clue about many of the things we debate on this forum. Most, I'm sure, would have no inkling as to what Paul's ambiguous writings are all about. Christians, generally, are generated by habit and practice, not by Bible knowledge and, particularly, NOT by an understanding of Paul's writings.

Indeed, even 'experts' find many of Paul's scriptures somewhat problematic. From what I understand, in fact, it's the writings of Paul that have resulted in such dis-unity among the Christian Church and as to why we have so many Christian denominations. We even have, in fact, a MAJOR Christian denomination that sprang from a glaring (glaring to those with appropriate knowledge) MISREPRESENTATION of Paul's writings. Today that church is thriving, indeed prosperous, and has huge membership numbers throughout the world.

The average Christian would have no idea that Paul was NOT writing to the Christian Church 2005, but to the churches of his day. He was also addressing specific issues that had been brought to his attention by others of a specific church. Or, he was otherwise addressing issues pertaining to cultural and religious practices of the day. Many of Paul's letters were responses prompted by previous letters that we don't have access to. While we can generally work out the basic issues being addressed from the content of Paul's response/s, we don't have ALL of the facts behind certain scriptures of Paul. There's an element of educated guess-work involved.

I've looked around the church (SDA) at times at some of the older men and women in the congregation. I've wondered how many of them would know how fiercely the day that they call the Sabbath (Saturday) is so oft debated on forums such as this. They come to worship God every Saturday in their home church, totally oblivious to the idea that Jesus evidently 'abolished' their reason for being there. In their simple faith, which probably goes no further than the 4 Gospels of Jesus, they evidently feel a personal need to keep God's commands. I guess they feel that since God asked them to, then they are more than willing to do so. In their blissful ignorance, they'll be back there next Saturday morning to again spend time with God as well as to fellowship with other Christians.

Meanwhile, we on this forum will be attempting to scrutinize the writings of Paul to make them fit the cherished doctrines of our particular church. And, while there are those who get so hot under the collar that some Christians still insist in keeping the 4th-commandment Sabbath, THEY TOO will be heading for THEIR home church, as is customary, next Sunday. To these ones, it sure DOES seem to matter which 'sabbaths' one chooses to be obedient to.

 

[Radlad72]

Just to those who are trying to marry the verses from Colossians and Ephesians, it is not possible. Paul was writing to two completely different churches, with two completely different sets of issues that cannot be compared to try to win a point.

As SB has already stated, Paul was not writing these letters to the Church of New York, or Townsville, or Ontario in 2005. He was writing to 1st Century churches in the Middle-East and Europe. These churches may quite obviously have nothing in common (or very little at best) with churches of today and so we have to be careful in taking their meanings to be for us today. The churches he was writing to would most definitely understood what he was on about since it was to them he was writing. (Though Peter does say that Paul's writings are quite confusing and some people will take what he says and twist it to mean exactly what they want it to).

My two cents worth.

Rad.