Bible Study What does it mean for the law to get nailed to the cross? (Col. 2:13-14/ Eph. 2:11-16)

[jocor]

If you choose to change the words of the bible then you can get it to say anything you like.

Removing the word "is" in Col 2:17 is not changing the words of the bible. It is removing man made words added to the text. The word is in italics in the KJV because it is NOT in the Greek text.

Rom 14:3

- Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

In context, including verse 2, this verse is referring to meat eaters not despising vegetarians and vegetarians not judging meat eaters. It has absolutely nothing to with eating unclean animal flesh.

1Ti 4:1

¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 - Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 - Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 - For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 - For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Verse 5 is the key to understanding the passage. Where is food "sanctified" (set apart) by the Word of God? Leviticus 11 and De 14. That is where we learn what was sanctified as food and what wasn't. If it is sanctified as edible in one of those chapters, then it may be prayed over and eaten. We are NOT to receive unclean animal flesh with thanksgiving. It is to be refused.

 

[jocor]

Since we are in the New Covenant, you would need to prove your point with a scripture reference from the New Testament, since the law was changed, because the Priesthood Changed. Hebrews 7:12

The only change in the law referred to here was the command requiring a son of Aaron to be high priest. That law was changed long ago by Yahweh's oath.

So yes, if you want any point that you make to be valid, concerning the Church, and the New Covenant, please provide the scriptures from the New Testament writers that shows it is a sin to eat shrimp or pork.

The dietary laws existed before Yeshua. Yeshua and the Apostles obeyed the dietary laws (Yeshua being sinless and Peter's testimony in Acts 10 that he never ate unclean). It is up to you to prove it is no longer sin without twisting Scripture.

Please show the scripture from the New Testament where it is a sin to "not observe" the Passover according to Moses.

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.​

 

[JLB]

The only change in the law referred to here was the command requiring a son of Aaron to be high priest. That law was changed long ago by Yahweh's oath.

Let's just see...

11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. Hebrews 7:11-13

Sorry, the whole entire Levitical Priesthood has been removed, under which the law was administered, and replaced with a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, with Jesus as High Priest.

Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi.

No Levitical priesthood = No law of Moses.


Now we are under the law of Christ, with Him as Mediator of the New Covenant.

So when He as High Priest, and Mediator of the New Covenant, says... because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”, then it's not a sin to eat pork or shrimp.

The law was nailed to the cross.


JLB

 

[JLB]

The dietary laws existed before Yeshua. Yeshua and the Apostles obeyed the dietary laws (Yeshua being sinless and Peter's testimony in Acts 10 that he never ate unclean). It is up to you to prove it is no longer sin without twisting Scripture.

Hear the response ....And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”
Acts 10:15

Here is where Jesus pronounced all foods pure...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? Mark 7:19

Paul also learned this truth from Jesus -

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14

If a person lacks faith in Jesus Christ, and still wants to rely on himself to keep the law of Moses, then that person has a faith issue.

Anything that is not from faith is sin.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23


The main problem I see in this is, the person does not believe Jesus has the authority to purify foods, as YHWH, but considers Jesus as just a man, like Moses or Peter, or Paul, and not the Lord of Israel, our Great God and Savior.

looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Titus 2:13


Once you realize that Jesus created all things, and upholds all things, you will have faith in what He says.

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:16-17


My prayer to God the Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that you would know the depths and riches of who Jesus Christ is.

Our great God and Savior, who became flesh, and took our place to receive the punishment He did not deserve, that we would receive our place in Heaven, that we didn't deserve.


JLB

 

[jocor]

Hear the response ....And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” Acts 10:15

You would like the interpretation of Peter's vision to mean the dietary laws are abolished. Peter gave us the true meaning of the vision:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. ​

Yahweh used common and unclean animals to teach a lesson about men. You have no right to add your own interpretation to the interpretation Yahweh gave Peter.

Here is where Jesus pronounced all foods pure...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? Mark 7:19

Your interpretation is arrived at by taking Yeshua's words out of context. Mark 7 begins by telling us the disciples (men living under Old Covenant laws) were eating clean food with dirty hands. They were not eating unclean meat. Yeshua ended his teaching by saying;

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Mt 15:17-20

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus

that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Romans 14:14

The word "unclean" is the Greek word "koinon" meaning "common", not unclean. Something can only be common if someone esteems it to be so. He will therefore not eat it whereas someone else may consider the same thing not common and will eat it. However, only Yahweh can declare something unclean making it inedible for all mankind.

If a person lacks faith in Jesus Christ, and still wants to rely on himself to keep the law of Moses, then that person has a faith issue.

Anything that is not from faith is sin.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23

The main problem I see in this is, the person does not believe Jesus has the authority to purify foods, as YHWH, but considers Jesus as just a man, like Moses or Peter, or Paul, and not the Lord of Israel, our Great God and Savior.

It doesn't matter if one believes "Jesus" is YHWH or not. What matters is that you are reading your own interpretation into the text and denying the context (eating clean meat vs. being a vegetarian).

 

[JLB]

You would like the interpretation of Peter's vision to mean the dietary laws are abolished. Peter gave us the true meaning of the vision:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Yahweh used common and unclean animals to teach a lesson about men. You have no right to add your own interpretation to the interpretation Yahweh gave Peter.

It's not my interpretation. It's the words of Jesus the Lord God, who purified all foods.

because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? Mark 7:19


Jesus plainly taught that natural food can not defile us spiritually... thus purifying all foods.

There is no longer a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile, dividing them over such issues as food.

Gentiles were not under the law of Moses which prohibited such foods to be eaten.

Paul stated the same thing.

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself;... Romans 14:14

Your interpretation is arrived at by taking Yeshua's words out of context. Mark 7 begins by telling us the disciples (men living under Old Covenant laws) were eating clean food with dirty hands. They were not eating unclean meat. Yeshua ended his teaching by saying;

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Mt 15:17-20

...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? Mark 7:19

again

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself;... Romans 14:14


I'm sorry you don't trust what The Lord Jesus says, and simply believe Him, as the Truth.

Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. Romans 3:4

God is the true, and every man a liar.

Jesus is the Truth.


The law has been nailed to the cross, having been made obsolete, it has vanished away, having been abolished in His flesh.
Colossians 2:14, Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 8:13

The law and the prophets were until John... Luke 16:16

But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Romans 7:6


JLB

 

[jocor]

Jesus plainly taught that natural food can not defile us spiritually... thus purifying all foods.

He did no such thing. He plainly taught that natural food eaten with unwashed hands cannot defile us spiritually.

Gentiles were not under the law of Moses which prohibited such foods to be eaten.

The distinction between clean and unclean animal flesh existed in Noah's day. The fact that only two pigs, for example, were brought on the ark proves they could not be eaten or else the species would have become extinct. Yet, seven pairs of clean animals were brought on the ark for food and sacrifices after they exited the ark. Until plant life grew back, they ate the clean animals.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, spiritual there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, but one in Christ.
Satisfied!

That's the way I see it. The law was against various people in various ways. It was even against the Jews themselves. The law legislated distance between man and God and his people and would only allow men (and women) to only come as close to him as the law allowed, and for as long as allowed. For example, by law only the High Priest was allowed to go behind the curtain into the Holy of Holies where God came down to meet man.

This is how the law was against women and legislated their distance from God and the community of God's people:
"19‘When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening." (Leviticus 15:19 NASB)

This is how it was against men:
"16‘Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening." (Leviticus 15:16 NASB)

This is how it was against certain gentiles and those of mixed race:
"2“No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD. 3“No Ammonite or Moabite shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall ever enter the assembly of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 23:2-3 NASB)

But God in his wisdom and power made a way to bring all men and all women of all races and nationalities to himself, in effect taking the laws that were against them and which legislated their distance from him out of the way. He nailed the debt of those laws to the cross in Jesus marking them 'paid in full'--satisfied--by making men and women, Jew and gentile, new creations in Christ. What the law could not do (bring mankind close to God) God did by joining them in newness of life to the body of Christ thus breaking down the barrier of the law that stood between them and God and the community of God's people.

"...God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him." (2 Samuel 14:14 NASB)

"10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,11according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." (Ephesians 3:10-12 NASB)

"...to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:24 NASB)

Christ is the power and wisdom of God to bring lawfully alienated and estranged men and women to himself without violating the law that estranged them. Because we cease to be men and women, Jew and gentile in the eyes of God when we become new creations by the Spirit of God, we are brought near to God, and the laws that used to prohibit that closeness get laid aside as unneeded now. What law is necessary to legislate a closeness to God we now have in complete and total fullness in Jesus Christ? Those laws don't get violated and destroyed in Christ. They get laid aside. God sees no violation of those laws when he sees us in Christ.

"28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28 NASB)

 

[ezrider]

He came... The promise of Christ is not future .. as you said

There is no arguing that Jesus came, but was Jesus the son of Man the promise that came, or was the promise that which Jesus assure his disciples in that he would send forth His Spirit, the Comforter? That was the promise foretold by the prophets.

The promise of Christ, that he would send forth the Spirit certainly was fulfilled in the past, even at the day of Pentecost. But that continues to be promise to all generations; it is a promise that is, was, and shall be.

 

[jocor]

But God in his wisdom and power made a way to bring all men and all women of all races and nationalities to himself, in effect taking the laws that were against them and which legislated their distance from him out of the way. He nailed the debt of those laws to the cross in Jesus marking them 'paid in full'--satisfied--by making men and women, Jew and gentile, new creations in Christ.

In the first sentence, you have the law being taken "out of the way", ie; nailed to the cross. In the second sentence, you have the "debt of those laws" being nailed to the cross. Which is it?

You cannot make such an accusation against the Law unless you first prove that the "χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν" (handwriting of ordinances) refers to the Law.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

In the first sentence, you have the law being taken "out of the way", ie; nailed to the cross. In the second sentence, you have the "debt of those laws" being nailed to the cross. Which is it?

Both.
The law can no longer, for example, keep a Moabite (if one existed) out of the assembly of God. It gets taken out of his way in regard to barring him from the assembly when he believes. Nor is there any debt of law to be fulfilled by the Moabite in remaining outside the assembly of the people of God, and being punished by the law if he does enter the assembly.

The point being, that law wasn't destroyed, as the church loves to assert. It has been abolished as in 'laid aside'--unneeded and obsolete now because of what Christ has done for the Moabite....and the woman, and the man, and the gentile, and the Jew. Hallelujah, hallelujah, amen!

 

[JLB]

He did no such thing. He plainly taught that natural food eaten with unwashed hands cannot defile us spiritually.

Jesus teaches us, that there is no food that can enter us, that will defile us, because it does not enter the heart, but the stomach, and is eliminated.

There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” Mark 7:15,18-19


Food can not defile a person.

Paul plainly learned this doctrine, from Jesus.

I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; Romans 14:14

You cannot make such an accusation against the Law unless you first prove that the "χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν" (handwriting of ordinances) refers to the Law.

I have already proved this to you, very clearly from the scriptures.

The law of Moses, not something else, but the law of Moses, is what was against the children of Israel.

24 So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: 26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you; 27 for I know your rebellion and your stiff neck.If today, while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the Lord, then how much more after my death? Deuteronomy 31:24-27

It was the what Moses had written, [Moses Handwriting] in the book of the law, that was a witness against the children of Israel.

having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:14

"It" is the subject of the handwriting of requirements, and "it" is what was nailed to the cross, "it" is what was taken out of the way.

The book of the law of Moses, with everything written in "it', has been nailed to the cross, and taken out of the way.


...having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us,...

Paul uses the language from the law, when he wrote to the Colossians, teaching them that everything written in the book of the law of Moses, that was against them, had been nailed to the cross, and taken out of the way.


Please show me from the law, where it says "something other than" the law of Moses was against them.


JLB

 

[JLB]

So you agree that in the New Covenant, we don't observe the same commandments as they did, under the law of Moses?

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:3-4

The righteous requirement of the law was obedience. Obedience to do all that is written in the law, or be cursed.

Now we are to obey the Spirit of God by walk according to the Spirit.


again


25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Romans 2:25-29

Righteous requirements of the law... are there un-righteous requirements of the law?

Of course, this is the very thing Paul condemned.

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.Romans 10:1-4

Those that believe it is a sin to:

Eat Pork
Eat Shrimp
Have leaven [yeast] in there home during Passover week.
Not be circumcised.
Not keep the feast's day's
Wear mixed clothing of a cotton and linen blend... etc...

Seek to establish their own righteousness, that is from the law of Moses.

If you think it is a sin [unrighteousness] to wear linen-cotton blend clothing, and so you don't wear that clothing, because it is forbidden by the law of Moses, then you are seeking to be justified [declared righteous] by this law of Moses.

Christ is the end of the law, for righteousness.

Trying to keep the law of Moses, to be right with God is seeking to establish your own righteousness.

The law was nailed to the Cross, having become obsolete, it was abolished in His flesh, and is vanished away.
Hebrews 8:13, Ephesians 2:14, Colossians 2:15


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You cannot make such an accusation against the Law unless you first prove that the "χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν" (handwriting of ordinances) refers to the Law.

'Handwriting'. That instantly excludes Rabbinical ORAL tradition.

But there is a connection between the actual written law of Moses and Rabbinical add-on law, which Paul is in fact addressing in the Colossians 2:13-23 passage. You see when a person believes in Christ and the various laws that governed the literal physical attributes and shortcomings of fallen men and women no longer apply to the new creation in Christ they have become so also the Rabbinical add-on laws that existed to enforce those Mosaic laws become powerless and void and inapplicable to the believer.

Let me explain it this way. If the actual laws of Moses regarding the outer things of this life (circumcisions, foods, bodily emissions, etc.) are not needed and are inapplicable to new creations in Christ and have no power to legislate and inhibit a relationship with God that they already have perfectly through Christ, how much more, then, do the Rabbinical add-on laws and the Rabbi's who made them no longer have authority and power over the believer to legislate their position and status with God. Thus the 'therefore' in Paul's discourse:

The law of Moses has been nailed to the cross in regard to any outstanding debt you owe to them (vs. 13-15).
"Therefore..." (vs. 16)
Don't let anyone try to tell you what you must do in regard to the Rabbinical add-on laws concerning those now powerless laws of Moses to legislate my distance from God (vs. 16-23).

For example, if the Mosaic law of circumcision no longer has any power to keep the believing, but uncircumcised fellow from being in covenant with God, then it surely follows that any ridiculous Rabbinical requirement concerning literal circumcision also has zero power to keep the believer from being in covenant with God, and God's people. That's what Paul is saying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Amen!

 

[jocor]

Both.
The law can no longer, for example, keep a Moabite (if one existed) out of the assembly of God. It gets taken out of his way in regard to barring him from the assembly when he believes. Nor is there any debt of law to be fulfilled by the Moabite in remaining outside the assembly of the people of God, and being punished by the law if he does enter the assembly.

The point being, that law wasn't destroyed, as the church loves to assert. It has been abolished as in 'laid aside'--unneeded and obsolete now because of what Christ has done for the Moabite....and the woman, and the man, and the gentile, and the Jew. Hallelujah, hallelujah, amen!

The law concerning Ammonites and Moabites was only for a specific time. We read in 1 Chr 11:39 about Zelek the Ammonite and in 1 Chr 11:46 about Ithmah the Moabite, both mighty men serving in Israel's army. We also have the Moabite Ruth in the genealogy of Yeshua. Therefore, that law was not abolished or laid aside because it was nailed to the cross, but because the time limit expired long before Yeshua's death.

 

[jocor]

'Handwriting'. That instantly excludes Rabbinical ORAL tradition.

But there is a connection between the actual written law of Moses and Rabbinical add-on law, which Paul is in fact addressing in the Colossians 2:13-23 passage. You see when a person believes in Christ and the various laws that governed the literal physical attributes and shortcomings of fallen men and women no longer apply to the new creation in Christ they have become so also the Rabbinical add-on laws that existed to enforce those Mosaic laws become powerless and void and inapplicable to the believer.

Let me explain it this way. If the actual laws of Moses regarding the outer things of this life (circumcisions, foods, bodily emissions, etc.) are not needed and are inapplicable to new creations in Christ and have no power to legislate and inhibit a relationship with God that they already have perfectly through Christ, how much more, then, do the Rabbinical add-on laws and the Rabbi's who made them no longer have authority and power over the believer to legislate their position and status with God. Thus the 'therefore' in Paul's discourse:

The law of Moses has been nailed to the cross in regard to any outstanding debt you owe to them (vs. 13-15).
"Therefore..." (vs. 16)
Don't let anyone try to tell you what you must do in regard to the Rabbinical add-on laws concerning those now powerless laws of Moses to legislate my distance from God (vs. 16-23).

For example, if the Mosaic law of circumcision no longer has any power to keep the believing, but uncircumcised fellow from being in covenant with God, then it surely follows that any ridiculous Rabbinical requirement concerning literal circumcision also has zero power to keep the believer from being in covenant with God, and God's people. That's what Paul is saying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Amen!

You have not defined the cheirographon except to say it means "handwriting". I agree it does not refer to Rabbinic oral laws. I believe it refers to the record of our sin debt. The word (a legal term used in courtrooms) was used in historical writings to refer to the debt owed by someone. Our sin debt was nailed to the cross because our sins were upon Yeshua. When he was nailed, our debt was nailed. No laws were nailed.

 

[JLB]

Yahweh's laws have unrighteous requirements??? 2

No YHWH's law is the law of Christ.

The law of Moses was temporary, in which now if we sin, we confess our sin to God and He is faithful to cleanse us of unrighteousness.

If we were instead to sacrifice an animal for our sin, then that would be unrighteous, since animal sacrifices for sin have been abolished.

This person seeks to establish there own righteousness from the law of Moses.

If you keep any part of the law, such as circumcision, or clothing laws, or feast days, then you are obligated to keep all the law.

3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. Galatians 5:3


Again, if to you, it is a sin, to wear clothing made from both cotton and linen, because the law of Moses forbids it, then you are trying to be just in the sight of the Lord by keeping this law of Moses.

You are seeking to establish your own righteousness, a righteousness that comes from keeping the law.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Define divine?

Part of the Godhead. Let's just let jocor answer and then you two can hash it out in another thread, okay?

I haven't had a lot of time or energy to contribute to my own threads lately and I don't want to see them get closed before I participate in them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You have not defined the cheirographon except to say it means "handwriting". I agree it does not refer to Rabbinic oral laws. I believe it refers to the record of our sin debt. The word (a legal term used in courtrooms) was used in historical writings to refer to the debt owed by someone. Our sin debt was nailed to the cross because our sins were upon Yeshua. When he was nailed, our debt was nailed. No laws were nailed.

It's both because not only is the debt of the law symbolically nailed to the cross marked 'paid in full'. But the law itself specifying the punishment due the offender gets nailed to the cross, too. So, in that sense the law itself becomes obsolete and unneeded now (that is, 'abolished'--not destroyed. Don't confuse the two.). Example:

"20“He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:20 NASB)

In Christ, this law is abolished--that is, it has no application or relevance to the person who believes in Christ. And so in that sense, not only is the debt of punishment due for our violations of this law nailed to the cross with Jesus, but the law itself gets 'put to death', so to speak, in that it is no longer against us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

jocor, just put this thing to rest and in one sentence make it clear if you think Jesus is part of the divine Godhead. Then you two can take this scuffle outside somewhere.

Please, don't get my thread closed by sinking any further down into this derailing discussion. Just answer the question for him simply and plainly and then let's get back to talking about the law.