Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[GerhardEbersoehn]

("shadows of things to come"), Hebrews 4

?????

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Where in the New Testament does it tell Gentiles to keep the Sabbath Day?

Ah mate, You got it the wrong way round, there was this instance when the Gentiles asked to keep the following Sabbath Day. Yes, serious.

 

[marks]

You don't get any points for one word responses. It's difficult to tell whether you're being facetious or serious.

Or, sometimes what happens with me, I click to post prematurely, leaving an unintelligable fragment for me to find and fix!

:

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Got it. You're not here to do either of us any good. You're just here to criticize and attack.

You got it, right-- I'm here to get things, right,

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

So . . . no. The answer is No. Your co-church members are not confrontational and combative like yourself. Whew! I'll bet if I walked into one of their churches, they wouldn't be rude, but warm and welcoming.

You need experience

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Utter nonsense and once again, sabbath keeping with all it's rules and regulations, was part of a covenant with Israel (Exodus 16:23, 29; 31:12-18; 35:1-3; Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3, 32; Numbers 15:32-36; 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13; Amos 8:5; Nehemiah 10:31) that is not binding on Christians/the Church/the body of Christ under the new covenant. (Colossians 2:16-17)

There is a difference between <<sabbath keeping with all it's rules and regulations [which] was part of a covenant with Israel>> -- which I do not deny -- and the Pharisees' rules and regulations which was no part of God's Covenant with Israel. Not for nothing warned Paul the Church against the beguilers with enticing words which have nothing Scriptural about them. You are so typical, so prosaic, so easily walked over, it's killing so boring.

 

[BarneyFife]

You are dodging the Truth.

"I know you are, but what am I?" Really?

You believe, without foundation, that the Ten Commandments are different somehow than the other commandments and ordinances of the Mosaic Law.

Since you don't seem to have read it, I'll quote it to you from the initial posts:

There is a strange belief on the part of many that the great God-written law of the Ten Commandments was actually a part of the ceremonial law of Moses which contained scores of specific regulations. They do not see the decalogue as being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship. Neither do they see the clear limitation which the Bible sets for this moral code by calling it the TEN Commandments.

Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US
Now let’s take a closer look at the ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to repose in the “side of the ark ... for a witness against thee.” It is interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the Ten Commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be a law which was “against” them. Even in the New Testament we read the same descriptive language in reference to that law. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Certainly there was nothing in the Ten-Commandment law that could be defined as “contrary” to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not “against” those early Christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying, etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a tremendous protection to them and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul’s exalted description of the Ten-Commandment law to recognize that those eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross. After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7, Paul wrote these words, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (verse 12). Then he continued in verse 14, “For we know that the law is spiritual ...”

If the Ten-Commandment law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak of a past law. He said, “the law IS holy ... the law IS spiritual.” In other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense: “WAS against us ... WAS contrary to us.” It is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and one was past.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

There are many reasons why The New Testament did NOT tell Gentiles to keep the Sabbath Day. First, keeping the Sabbath Day is the sign of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Second, Paul teaches us that we are not under law but under grace. And finally, Paul tells us not to allow anyone to judge us based on the fact that we DON'T keep the Sabbath day. Get it?

You surely got it. You and you pastor like it that you got it.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Colossians 2 is not an isolated proof text against Sabbath keeping. Paul wouldn't have had a problem with non-believing Jews observing the Sabbath, nor with Jewish believers observing the Sabbath. His interest was only in making it clear that it was no longer a required law for Christians.

Paul wrote the whole Letter to the Colossians <<His interest (having been) only in making it clear that (the Sabbath) was no longer a required law for Christians>> --- never seen a word of such interest of Paul. Not in Colossians, never elsewhere. I smell a rat ... a man .. Okkert, het jy jou privates gewas?!

 

[BarneyFife]

In your view, we are not obligated to keep all 613, only the ten.

The number 613 (presumably the mitzvot) is a figure that bounces around in Sabbath-decrying circles, and is not even agreed upon by Jewish orthodoxy as being accurate.

You have been trained by your teachers to think of the Ten Commandments as distinct from the rest of the commandments and since Keeping the Sabbath Day is one of the Ten, then you believe you are obligated to rest on Saturday.

We all have teachers. Why don't we stop pretending that we don't? Christ said to Peter: "Feed My lambs; feed My sheep." (John 21:15-17)

You are critical of those who rest on Sunday, the Lord's day, which is the day that the Lord rose from the dead.

No, but I am critical of the practice. My honesty and sense of urgency compel me.

And thus, for the sake of your holy day, you cause division in the church.

I have no holy day.
But God does:
But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: (Exodus 20:10)
Ye shall keep My sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 26:2)

And yes, my interpretation of Romans 7 and 8 is correct. I wouldn't have taught it to you if it wasn't.

I'm sure this will settle a lot of debates once word gets out.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

because only his (Christ's) work redeemed us. Everything Israel did under the Law fell short of eternal life, no matter how righteous it had made them.

But what you do matters because his works makes you, being 'not under the Law', righteous so you do not fall short of eternal life. I thank you Lord that I am not like that man under the Law.

 

[mailmandan]

GALATIANS-- not Colossians.

Colossians does not say clearly or darkly, <you observe> -- YOU say it does, clearly darkly!

Colossians has none of YOUR <<• days (weekly Sabbaths, corresponding to "Sabbath days in Col. 2)>>. Least of all was "Sabbatohn" in Colossians, "the Weekly Sabbath Day" OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND FAITH in any way <corresponding> to the "days superstitiously observed by observation" in Galatians. You say it was, Paul said it was not.

Colossians has none of YOUR <<• months (new moons, corresponding to "a new moon" in Col. 2)>> which, <"a new moon"> also is non-existent <in Col. 2>.

Colossians has none of YOUR <<• seasons (the 7 feasts, corresponding to "festivals" in Col. 2)>> which <"festivals"> also are non-existent <in Col. 2>.

Colossians has none of YOUR <<• and years (the sabbatical year and the 50th year of Jubilee)>>

These are ALL, YOURS, Not Paul's; not Colossians'. You must think we are illiterate or blind or stupid or all together.

I’ve been in conversations with numerous SDA’s and misguided teachers of the law in general on various Christian forum sites over the years who have proven themselves to be spiritually blind.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I LOATH HYPOCRISY; I DETEST PRIDE, BECAUSE IT ESTEEMS ITSELF BETTER THAN THE DUNG THE TRUE CHRISTIAN CONSIDERS HIMSELF UNDER THE LAW.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I’ve been in conversations with numerous SDA’s and misguided teachers of the law in general on various Christian forum sites over the years who have proven themselves to be spiritually blind.

Great achievement, seeing you are physically blind not to see no correspondence where no correspondence exists.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The number 613 (presumably the mitzvot) is a figure that bounces around in Sabbath-decrying circles, and is not even agreed upon by Jewish orthodoxy as being accurate.

So what? Your teachers cherry picked the laws you like and forsake the rest. Right?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I fighted and fighted and lekker fighted!

Post script to that stifled gibe, Yes, I am that dung between the hind-legs of the Law. Only God in his mercy would mind.

 

[BarneyFife]

So what?

Uh, you brought it up, right?

Your teachers cherry picked the laws you like and forsake the rest. Right?

The laws that foreshadowed Christ are not compulsory. However, the ones that improve spiritual life may and, in some cases, should be observed. The laws I like??? What all do you know about the history and formation of the Seventh-day Adventist church? The members of the church, for the most part, are agreed on essential points of doctrine, which number roughly a half-dozen. The pioneers of the church were very anti-creedal.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The laws that foreshadowed Christ are not compulsory. However, the ones that improve spiritual life may and, in some cases, should be observed. The laws I like??? What all do you know about the history and formation of the Seventh-day Adventist church? The members of the church, for the most part, are agreed on essential points of doctrine, which number roughly a half-dozen. The pioneers of the church were very anti-creedal.

God's Law is God's Laws - all of them. The only thing that makes them worth the stone or paper they are written on, is the fact God gave his people his Law. To sort them out, this one is good for this, that one is no good for that or however else separated and categorised, is good exercise. But if Christ revealed Himself to sinner, sinner knows everything to His Glory and no one will teach sinner anything.
That's what gives me the creeps, every dick tom n herrie think they're university professor material. Those in Christ are all equal in Christ.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Not so amazing. There are mean people at church.

Nice. I think we all know what this implies. By disagreeing with you, you consider me an enemy. But intimating that I am a child of the devil is okay. I see.

Sorry, can't oblige your ultra-sensitive demands. I know you said "asking" but I think we all know what's going on here. I'm being virtually demonized by "love."

Passive-aggressive much? This means I'm stupid as well as evil.

This entire post is just patronizing, self-righteous ballyhoo. Your condescension knows no bounds. You know nothing about me or my walk with the Lord.

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

We can cease our discussion any time you like, since they have been such that I am not anxious to continue them. I won't take much more of your hypocritical bullying, in any case.


Simply unbelievable. You've got some nerve, you have.

You're not taking this Faith seriously and I have no patience with such an attitude. Welcome to the Block List.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

You need experience

Thanks. Welcome to the Block List. You do not take our Holy Faith seriously, and thus I have no patience for this nonsense anylonger.