Colossians 2

[jocor]

jocor said: ↑
May I ask what you consider to be "ceremonial law"? Since that is not a Biblical term, the definition varies from person to person.

All the literal stipulations found in the law on how to worship God, be separated from God, and clean for God.

(Yes, I said 'be separated from God'. I.e., the curtain in the Holiest of Holy place in the Temple.)

By "how to worship God", does that include stipulations against idolatry, making graven images, taking His name in vain?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree with covenant status. Do you believe the rest we have in Messiah replaces the physical Sabbath rest?

As a spiritual matter, yes, Christ replaces it...makes it obsolete.

The literal requirement was a shadow of the spiritual requirement. Now that the spiritual intention has been fulfilled in Christ far more perfectly and effectively than a literal day can fulfill it we can lay the illustration down as being not NEEDED anymore. What rest can a literal day bring us into that Christ has not already brought us into? Except the literal need to rest, and that does not HAVE to be done in accordance with specific laws that were designed to teach us spiritual truths and in actuality have no spiritual power anyway.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

By "how to worship God", does that include stipulations against idolatry, making graven images, taking His name in vain?

Yes, but if you try to make those a matter of legalistic law you may end up prohibiting that which in actuality may be quite 'okay' for the Christian to do, but maybe not expedient to do, i.e. eating food sacrificed to an idol and thanking God for that food. The point being, instead of looking at them legalistically, we now look at them through the eyes of the Spirit.

 

[jocor]

What you are trying to do is making the law of Moses a matter of practical law. Some of it is, some of it is not. But the point is, it is no longer a matter of covenant law.

Your status in the covenant is no longer determined by the literal stipulations of the law of Moses. Christ is the New Covenant through which that happens--and in a much more non-discriminatory way than the law of Moses determined covenant status, in fact, in a completely non-discriminatory way, giving no consideration of race, or gender in regard to the matter of covenant privilege.

So, nobody can argue with some of the practical applications of the law of Moses, but to insist all of them have to be done for practical reasons, and more importantly for reasons of covenant is completely false.

I agree my status is not determined by the law of Moses. I disagree that the law of Moses (the Law of Yahweh) is not New Covenant law.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 says;

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, says Yahweh:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, says Yahweh, I will put my law [Torah] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.​

Jeremiah and any Israelite hearing or reading those words knew what Torah was. The Torah mentioned here is the same Torah given to Moses, except for the sacrificial laws/temple laws that were fulfilled. Yahweh magnified the Torah through Yeshua and showed us the deeper intent of it.

 

[jocor]

As a spiritual matter, yes, Christ replaces it...makes it obsolete.

The literal requirement was a shadow of the spiritual requirement. Now that the spiritual intention has been fulfilled in Christ far more perfectly and effectively than a literal day can fulfill it we can lay the illustration down as being not NEEDED anymore. What rest can a literal day bring us into that Christ has not already brought us into? Except the literal need to rest, and that does not HAVE to be done in accordance with specific laws that were designed to teach us spiritual truths and in actuality have no spiritual power anyway.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.​

Anyone that causes another to work instead of rest on the Sabbath works ill towards his neighbor and shows a lack of love (albeit ignorantly). Our rest in Messiah is a spiritual rest from sin and from trying to be justified by our works. It has absolutely nothing to do with replacing our physical rest. If that was the case, then we wouldn't need a good night's sleep either. Messiah would provide it. Not to mention my point above about animals working seven days. Does Messiah give them rest as well?

 

[jocor]

Yes, but if you try to make those a matter of legalistic law you may end up prohibiting that which in actuality may be quite 'okay' for the Christian to do, but maybe not expedient to do, i.e. eating food sacrificed to an idol and thanking God for that food. The point being, instead of looking at them legalistically, we now look at them through the eyes of the Spirit.

"Legalistic law" is using the law to be justified. Obeying the law out of love and respect for our Creator and Father can NEVER be considered legalistic. Christians have used terms like "legalistic" simply to discredit those that obey Yahweh's commandments. Ironically, they don't use it for those who obey Yeshua's commandments. You never hear someone who obeys the "law of Christ" being called "legalistic", but try and obey the Law of Yahweh and you are suddenly fallen from grace!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...except for the sacrificial laws/temple laws that were fulfilled.

Bingo!

It is these worship laws that constituted covenant law for the Israelites. They have been replaced with the NEW Covenant, Jesus Christ and faith in his name. This is plainly taught in Hebrews. But the interesting thing is the New Covenant does not abolish the old covenant, but satisfies and fulfills it so that it is no longer REQUIRED to perform the old covenant law of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. Christ made them obsolete and no longer needed to accomplish what Christ now does for the people of God in drawing them near to God in Covenant with him.

The worship cycle itself (days, and months, and years) is no longer required simply because the once required sacrifices made on those designated days don't have to be made anymore. The Bible says that is why they were designated--to offer up the required sacrifices. Since the sacrifices are no longer REQUIRED to be offered, the cycle of days they were to be made in has no more covenant significance either.

 

[Deborah13]

I agree my status is not determined by the law of Moses. I disagree that the law of Moses (the Law of Yahweh) is not New Covenant law.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 says;

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, says Yahweh:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, says Yahweh, I will put my law [Torah] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.​

Jeremiah and any Israelite hearing or reading those words knew what Torah was. The Torah mentioned here is the same Torah given to Moses, except for the sacrificial laws/temple laws that were fulfilled. Yahweh magnified the Torah through Yeshua and showed us the deeper intent of it.

Moses Law
Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Lev 24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
Law of Messiah
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So we see there is a very clear in Moses' Torah, not a tradition of the Pharisees, that demands equal retribution by physically punishing the abuser. But the Torah of Moshiach says to forgive, don't return evil for evil.

Which Torah should we follow, clearly we cannot follow both, so how do we know which is pleasing to God?
How do we live in two Torahs? How do we live in two covenants, it seems we must choose one?
Kehillah in Galatia 6:2
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
2 Bear one another’s burdens (TEHILLIM 55:23) and thus you will fulfill the Torah of Moshiach.

http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+6:2&version=OJB

 

[Deborah13]

Bingo!

It is these worship laws that constituted covenant law for the Israelites. They have been replaced with the NEW Covenant, Jesus Christ and faith in his name. This is plainly taught in Hebrews. But the interesting thing is the New Covenant does not abolish the old covenant, but satisfies and fulfills it so that it is no longer REQUIRED to perform the old covenant law of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. Christ made them obsolete and no longer needed to accomplish what Christ now does for the people of God in drawing them near to God in Covenant with him.

The worship cycle itself (days, and months, and years) is no longer required simply because the once required sacrifices made on those designated days don't have to be made anymore. The Bible says that is why they were designated--to offer up the required sacrifices. Since the sacrifices are no longer REQUIRED to be offered, the cycle of days they were to be made in has no more covenant significance either.

:amen Excellent explanation.

Me: The old covenant is not abolished but has been made obsolete (old vs new).

 

[Deborah13]

"Legalistic law" is using the law to be justified. Obeying the law out of love and respect for our Creator and Father can NEVER be considered legalistic. Christians have used terms like "legalistic" simply to discredit those that obey Yahweh's commandments. Ironically, they don't use it for those who obey Yeshua's commandments. You never hear someone who obeys the "law of Christ" being called "legalistic", but try and obey the Law of Yahweh and you are suddenly fallen from grace!

I think that's because the person who says they observe Moses Law is not clear that they know they will not earn justification by doing them. Or they tell others that they must be doing them or they are somehow less holy.

You never hear someone who obeys the "law of Christ" being called "legalistic", but try and obey the Law of Yahweh and you are suddenly fallen from grace!

No, anyone who thinks their justification and sanctification is of works, any works, is legalistic.
Works are the product of being justified and sanctified in Messiah.
A pure life and good works are a sign that one is responding to the Spirit. Walking in the Spirit.

Look at King David, was he justified by the law of Moses? Obviously not, there isn't any sacrifice for willful sin in the law of Moses, only death. If I'm wrong about that please someone show me where it is in Moses' Torah.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"Legalistic law" is using the law to be justified.

That is definitely one definition of 'legalism' found in the Bible. But practically speaking there is another. When we keep laws for the sake of keeping laws without consideration for the intent of the law we are engaging a form of 'legalistic law'.

I like to use the example of the man....no, wait....the woman, (that's for you Deborah, lol), who pulls into the vacant parking lot of an abandoned office building to use the pay phone out in front of it but parks 12 spaces away in this completely empty parking lot because those first 12 spaces are reserved for the handicapped. While it's most certainly true that by the letter of the law she can not park any closer than the 12 spaces reserved for handicapped people, the practical fact is it is infinitely unlikely that twelve handicapped people will pull into that parking lot while she is on the phone. And that's what kind of legalistic 'law' person I used to be. But don't get me wrong, legalism as I'm speaking of it does have a place in the life of the Christian in regard to obeying for the sake of conscience. The point being, law keeping believers tend to come across to the rest of us as legalistic in the manner I'm speaking about, not just in the matter of trying to be justified by law keeping.

Obeying the law out of love and respect for our Creator and Father can NEVER be considered legalistic.

Well, I think I just showed you that it can. I honestly think it would have been legalistic of David (as I'm speaking of that term) to munch on the show bread. Just my opinion, because we know about the poor old sap who got toasted for touching the ark in his sincere effort to keep it from falling. Was God just cutting David some slack? Or was it really just legalistic for him to not eat the bread? I'm in favor of the latter.

Christians have used terms like "legalistic" simply to discredit those that obey Yahweh's commandments. Ironically, they don't use it for those who obey Yeshua's commandments. You never hear someone who obeys the "law of Christ" being called "legalistic", but try and obey the Law of Yahweh and you are suddenly fallen from grace!

I couldn't agree more. I have learned a lot of valuable insights from law keeping believers. I'm with you on this one, bro. The church can learn a lot of honest hard hitting truth about the church from you folks. I sure have.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just so our non-law keeping brethren know, the Holy Spirit falls on law keeping congregations, too, you know.

Just thought I'd throw that in.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

:amen Excellent explanation.

Me: The old covenant is not abolished but has been made obsolete (old vs new).

Thank you. Now you made me sorry I poked fun at you in my post, lol.

Oh, those hot coals of kindness heaped on the head sure do hoit!

 

[jocor]

Bingo!

It is these worship laws that constituted covenant law for the Israelites. They have been replaced with the NEW Covenant, Jesus Christ and faith in his name. This is plainly taught in Hebrews. But the interesting thing is the New Covenant does not abolish the old covenant, but satisfies and fulfills it so that it is no longer REQUIRED to perform the old covenant law of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. Christ made them obsolete and no longer needed to accomplish what Christ now does for the people of God in drawing them near to God in Covenant with him.

I agree. This does not hold true for the ten commandments. All ten stand for believers today. They are to be written on our hearts.

The worship cycle itself (days, and months, and years) is no longer required simply because the once required sacrifices made on those designated days don't have to be made anymore. The Bible says that is why they were designated--to offer up the required sacrifices. Since the sacrifices are no longer REQUIRED to be offered, the cycle of days they were to be made in has no more covenant significance either.

I disagree. You are giving me your opinions. I need you to back them up with Scripture. The sacrifices were fulfilled, the days and what they foreshadow were not. Where does the Bible say the days were "designated" to offer up the required sacrifice? Did you mean to say sacrifices were designated on certain days? The Passover sacrifice was fulfilled by Messiah. Yet, Paul said, "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Cor 5:8. He was referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It did not end simply because the sacrifices were fulfilled.

 

[jocor]

Moses Law
Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Lev 24:20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
Law of Messiah
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So we see there is a very clear in Moses' Torah, not a tradition of the Pharisees, that demands equal retribution by physically punishing the abuser. But the Torah of Moshiach says to forgive, don't return evil for evil.

Which Torah should we follow, clearly we cannot follow both, so how do we know which is pleasing to God?
How do we live in two Torahs? How do we live in two covenants, it seems we must choose one?
Kehillah in Galatia 6:2
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
2 Bear one another’s burdens (TEHILLIM 55:23) and thus you will fulfill the Torah of Moshiach.

http://legacy.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians 6:2&version=OJB

"The Torah of Moshiach says to forgive, don't return evil for evil" and so does the Torah of Yahweh:

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am Yahweh.​

An eye for an eye ... was not understood literally in Israel as Ex 21:26-27 and early Jewish writings such as Josephus show. It simply meant that equal restitution be made. If a person lost an eye because of the fault of another, the other was required to pay pecuniary damages that would equal the cost of an eye.

Yeshua taught and lived by Yahweh's Torah. He, however, magnified it as it is written:

Isa 42:21 Yahweh is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
​

He did this through Messiah's teachings.

 

[Deborah13]

"The Torah of Moshiach says to forgive, don't return evil for evil" and so does the Torah of Yahweh:

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am Yahweh.​

An eye for an eye ... was not understood literally in Israel as Ex 21:26-27 and early Jewish writings such as Josephus show. It simply meant that equal restitution be made. If a person lost an eye because of the fault of another, the other was required to pay pecuniary damages that would equal the cost of an eye.

Yeshua taught and lived by Yahweh's Torah. He, however, magnified it as it is written:

Isa 42:21 Yahweh is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
​

He did this through Messiah's teachings.

I used the scripture that Jesus referred to, it is there in Lev.
What do you mean it shouldn't be taken literally? Can you show me scripture that explains what it does mean? or a scripture that says don't take that scripture literally?

Yup, there it is again in Exodus. I don't see how one can pick and choose which Torah to take literally?

 

[Deborah13]

Thank you. Now you made me sorry I poked fun at you in my post, lol.

Oh, those hot coals of kindness heaped on the head sure do hoit!

 

[jocor]

That is definitely one definition of 'legalism' found in the Bible. But practically speaking there is another. When we keep laws for the sake of keeping laws without consideration for the intent of the law we are engaging a form of 'legalistic law'.

That is a dangerous belief. What if your understanding of the intent is wrong? Christians believe the intent of the Sabbath rest is the spiritual rest in Jesus. Wrong! Its intent is to set apart a day for man to physically rest and have time set aside to worship and commune with Yahweh; to turn from our own pleasure and enjoy Him. It is also a shadow of the Millennial rest we will have after six days (6,000 years) of work on earth. Because of their faulty understanding of its intent, they trample all over what Yahweh calls holy, sanctified and blessed.

I like to use the example of the man....no, wait....the woman, (that's for you Deborah, lol), who pulls into the vacant parking lot of an abandoned office building to use the pay phone out in front of it but parks 12 spaces away in this completely empty parking lot because those first 12 spaces are reserved for the handicapped. While it's most certainly true that by the letter of the law she can not park any closer than the 12 spaces reserved for handicapped people, the practical fact is it is infinitely unlikely that twelve handicapped people will pull into that parking lot while she is on the phone. And that's what kind of legalistic 'law' person I used to be. But don't get me wrong, legalism as I'm speaking of it does have a place in the life of the Christian in regard to obeying for the sake of conscience. The point being, law keeping believers tend to come across to the rest of us as legalistic in the manner I'm speaking about, not just in the matter of trying to be justified by law keeping.

I'm sorry to hear that you used to obey Yahweh's commandments, but now you don't. Yahweh desires obedience. That is all throughout Scripture. He never said, "Obey my commandments unless it is more convenient not to." Yeshua said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." He did not say, "If you love me, keep my commandments except when no one is around."

Well, I think I just showed you that it can. I honestly think it would have been legalistic of David (as I'm speaking of that term) to munch on the show bread. Just my opinion, because we know about the poor old sap who got toasted for touching the ark in his sincere effort to keep it from falling. Was God just cutting David some slack? Or was it really just legalistic for him to not eat the bread? I'm in favor of the latter.

Since Yeshua said it was not lawful for David to eat the showbread (Mt 12:4), you are implying that Yeshua was being legalistic. It is obvious that David was shown mercy, but why? As I understand it, health and life take precedence over the law. If my ox is in a ditch on Sabbath, it is permissible to get him out. If my neighbor's tree fell on him, it is permissible to work hard on the Sabbath to free him. If David was hungry, it was permissible to eat the showbread for the sake of his health.

 

[jocor]

I used the scripture that Jesus referred to, it is there in Lev.
What do you mean it shouldn't be taken literally? Can you show me scripture that explains what it does mean? or a scripture that says don't take that scripture literally?

Yup, there it is again in Exodus. I don't see how one can pick and choose which Torah to take literally?

Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her (premature birth, not death), and yet no mischief follow (no death): he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow (death by murder), then thou shalt give life for life, (death by accident did not lead to the death penalty)
Exo 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exo 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry this out literally with equal justice. For example, if I burn my neighbor, will my body be burned in the exact same way and to the same degree? What if they burn me more than I burned my neighbor? Will they be able to knock out the same tooth I knocked out of my neighbor? How? With a chisel? Can they inflict the same wound on me that I inflicted on my neighbor? The Jews had difficulty seeing these things carried out literally. According to their ancient writings, they exacted the commensurate pecuniary damages).
Exo 21:26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
Exo 21:27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. (In these cases, an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth were not carried out literally).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree. This does not hold true for the ten commandments. All ten stand for believers today. They are to be written on our hearts.

Without question. It's just that the fourth Commandment gets fulfilled in the new way of Christ and faith in his name, not abolished. Just as the other Commandments get fulfilled in the new way of Christ and faith in his name.

I disagree. You are giving me your opinions. I need you to back them up with Scripture. The sacrifices were fulfilled, the days and what they foreshadow were not. Where does the Bible say the days were "designated" to offer up the required sacrifice?

37 'These are the appointed times of the LORD which you shall proclaim as holy convocations, to present offerings by fire to the LORD -burnt offerings and grain offerings,sacrifices and drink offerings, each day's matter on its own day - 38 besides those of the sabbaths of the LORD, and besides your gifts and besides all your votive and freewill offerings,which you give to the LORD..." (Leviticus 23:37 NAS)

Did you mean to say sacrifices were designated on certain days?

I'm saying the cycle of holy days were appointed for the purpose of making the required offerings to God. Now that those sacrifices are no longer required as a matter of covenant law, there's no reason for the cycle of holy days designated for the purpose of offering up those sacrifices.

The Passover sacrifice was fulfilled by Messiah. Yet, Paul said, "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Cor 5:8. He was referring to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It did not end simply because the sacrifices were fulfilled.

It was not abolished, that I agree (Christ said he did not come to abolish the law). What changed was we now keep it in the new way of Christ and faith in him. From the passage we see that means no longer using a literal lamb, but the person of Christ, and keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread in regard to spiritual leaven, not literal leaven. Which is just what I said is the new way to serve God, through Christ (our Passover sacrifice), and faith in him (the life of unleavened, faithful obedience to him).