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

[GerhardEbersoehn]

If the Power of Jesus’ Resurrection cannot convince one of its consequences for the Sabbath Day-of-rest OF GOD, nothing will.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

He is expecting the reader understands how he uses words by their context,

Paul, king of ellipsis and synecdoche and alliteration champ, ever with and of profoundest meaning!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

if one teaches that to be saved, one must keep the Sabbath only on the 7th day,

I don't know of anyone teaching this (without doekies-omdraai). However it is God's Word which teaches <one must keep the Sabbath only on the 7th day>. For example, that is exactly what the words, "remember the Sabbath to KEEP IT HOLY", means; and remember, it is speaking specifically of "The Seventh Day Sabbath : OF THE LORD GOD"-- of "the Seventh Day GOD THUS CONCERNING SPAKE", both "in time past through the prophets" and "in these last days BY THE SON .. IF JESUS GAVE THEM REST", at all!
So it's extremely precisely <<only the 7th day>> but not so extremely exactly with regard to what man is supposed to work or not to work ... while most people think its is extremely exactly what man is supposed to work or not to work on the Sabbath Day while they are impermissibly lenient about which day of the week exactly it is.

 

[Tong2020]

Sorry, brother, but we disagree. Jesus was not righteous because he observed the Law. He was righteous from birth before he did anything under the Law. He was God in the flesh. He had no need to observe the Law to be cleansed of sin. And that was the purpose of the Law, to temporarily cleanse from sin.

Jesus had a different reason for observing the Law, and that was to show himself as the Redeemer from sin, and to show that this was the purpose of the Law. The Law had always been designed to lead to eternal redemption through Messiah. Inasmuch as it only provided temporary atonement, it showed the need for Messianic atonement to last forever.

So Jesus came down to earth to live under the Law not to keep the Law, but to show that the Law had been designed to lead to faith in him. He practiced the Law by modeling himself as the ultimate Redeemer, and not as a sinner in Israel who had to observe the Law to obtain temporary atonement.

Jesus certainly had no need to observe the Law except that he could only do what God his Father wanted him to do. And God wanted him to observe the Law for reasons different than for how it applied to regular Israelis. He came to fulfill his role as Redeemer, and didn't seek atonement for himself. In this sense he was most certainly *not* under the Law!

Yes we disagree in that we view quite differently, perhaps in some matters pertaining to Christ’s coming in the flesh as to be born of a woman and born under the law. Perhaps too because of our differences on how we take Jesus as being God and man.

<<<RandyK: Jesus was not righteous because he observed the Law.>>>

He was, in view of being the man. But I agree in view of being God.

<<<RandyK: And that was the purpose of the Law, to temporarily cleanse from sin.>>>

While that may be one purpose, Scriptures tell us this, that the purpose of the Law was to keep under guard the people of God and be their tutor to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith.

<<<RandyK:So Jesus came down to earth to live under the Law not to keep the Law...>>>

Jesus himself said he came to fulfill the Law.

<<<RandyK: Jesus certainly had no need to observe the Law >>>

There is every reason and need for Jesus to observe the Law, in view of His being man born under the Law, a Jew, circumcised, in covenant with God, like his brethren according to the flesh.

Buy yes, I would agree that in the ultimate sense that Jesus’ relationship with the law is different from Israel.

Tong
R1639

 

[Tong2020]

True, but there is a broader context to this, with respect to Paul's ability to communicate.

2 Cor 10.10 For some say, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.”
11.6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.
Eph 6.19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel...

Paul was aware that his language had to be spiritual to communicate the spiritual things of Christ. So he had to rely on divine revelation to communicate his message. And as an untrained speaker he had to rely on the good will of his listeners to understand his arguments. Wicked men would not be convinced, and undoubtedly tried to poke holes in his arguments and try to point out inconsistencies.

The "matters" Paul spoke of involves the *righteousness* that Christians are called to demonstrate in their lives. We are to persevere in our testimony because God is patient with all, knowing that we are all saddled with the condition of a Sin Nature. God wants us to testify in the midst of persecution, so as to reach all with the Gospel of Christ's forgiveness.

The truth remains. If many wish to confuse Paul's teaching, having evil motives, this doesn't help those who are truly trying to understand Paul's words. The claim that he is inconsistent rings in our ears even as we try to find congruency in his theology. Having a backdrop of confused theology makes it difficult to understand Paul, who is indeed difficult to understand regardless, due to his untrained speech, our lack of knowledge of the ancient culture, and the need to focus upon spiritual things.

I do not find the scriptures you quoted as speaking anything about his writings being difficult to understand nor implies so.

We differ in opinion. If there is any difficulty in understanding the writings of Paul, I would not have it on Paul. Many perhaps say he is inconsistent and lack this and that, and point to that as the reason why they find difficulty in understanding his writings. But I don’t. I know it could only be on me.

Tong
R1640

 

[mailmandan]

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

religion
θρησκεία (thrēskeia)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's Greek 2356: From a derivative of threskos; ceremonial observance.

It would be good if Christians avoided making sweeping statements that just aren't true. :)

James 1:26 - If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is useless. This man's religion is vain, empty, devoid of power, lacking in content, nonproductive, dead and of no eternal value. James 1:27 - Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. There is absolutely nothing wrong with "pure and undefiled religion" but there is certainly something wrong with "impure and defiled religion."

 

[mailmandan]

Question: "Some people I know tell me that the Ten Commandments are part of the law and do not apply to us today. They say that as Christians we are free from the law. Is that right?"

Answer: "No, it is not right. And I hope you'll not be misled by these false opinions. It is very important to understand what the New Testament means when it says that Christians are free from the law. It certainly does not mean that they're free from the obligations of the moral law of God and are at liberty to sin."

Noted world evangelist, Billy Graham, taken from his MY ANSWER column in the newspaper

The life of discipleship flows out of the new command to love one another as He loved us. (John 13:34) Love fulfills the law. (Romans 13:8-10) References for the moral aspect of 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant. (Colossians 2:16-17)

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. - Acts 14:15
2. You shall make no idols. - 1 John 5:21
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. - 1 Timothy 6:1; Ja,es 2:7; James 5:12
4. Keep the sabbath day holy. - Not binding on the Church - Colossians 2:16-17
5. Honor your father and your mother. - Ephesians 6:1-2
6. You shall not murder. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 John 3:15
7. You shall not commit adultery. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
8. You shall not steal. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 4:28
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Romans 13:9-10; Colossians 3:9-10
10. You shall not covet. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 5:2

 

[Tong2020]

Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man. Why? Three reasons.
First, to rest. To stop work and cease concerns about making money, spending, carnal concerns etc . To lay aside worldly cares for one day, and focus on Christ and His ministry to the world. To recharge the batteries so to speak. Doing good for your neighbor. Sharing the gospel with strangers. Fellowshipping with like minded Christians in the presence of God.

Two. To remember from whence we came. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation.
"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy... for... Because... In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
If the Christian Church had honored the true Sabbath, remembering the Lord of creation throughout it's existence there would now be no suggestion in the church of theistic evolution or such anti biblical nonsense. Sabbath keepers l are true creationists.

Three. Remembering the Sabbath is a recognition that without Christ, we can do nothing. It is a recognition of utter dependence upon Christ for all things, particularly salvation. It is a physical real time expression of our spiritual rest in Christ, our surrender to and our recognition of His authority in our lives, and an expression of our faith in Jesus' word which says, if ye love Me, keep My Commandments.

@GerhardEbersoehn has his own understanding of a connection between the Sabbath and the Resurrection. I respect his passion and love for Christ, and I'm unsure as to the reasons for his particular stand on that issue, but he is certainly fully entitled to them. He has a large amount of angst against the church I support, but we do agree on certain basic truths. The Sabbath is still absolutely totally relevant to Christianity as are the other nine Commandments. To attempt to set it aside is totally antithetical to common sense and to Jesus own words when He said, I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill. We also agree I believe that doing away with the Sabbath, for whatever reason but in particular to replace it with Sunday, is purely a Catholic invention and to follow that tradition is a conscious submission to papal authority over and above the authority of God's word, both written by His own finger in the decalogue, and spoken by His own self from Mt Sinai to all the people... Including the many Egyptians and others who were with them. God did not then say, this is just for Jews.
Two more points. History declares that the Sabbath was kept by the Christian Church by non Jewish peoples in Italy, France, north Africa Great Britain and elsewhere, for many centuries after the time of the apostles. These people were subsequently persecuted as heretics by the Catholic Church, because they refused to submit to papal authority on the day of the sun god.
One could say that Sabbath keepers are actively avoiding idolatry by refusing to honor the Catholic day of the sun.

<<<Backlit:First, to rest. Two. To remember from whence we came. Three. Remembering the Sabbath is a recognition that without Christ, we can do nothing.>>>

Also @GerhardEbersoehn

Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

When I look at the very commandment itself, this is what I get out of it.

Concerning the Sabbath day, the children of Israel were commanded to remember it, to keep it holy. What day is that? It refers to the day after God had finished creation, that is on the 7th day since He began creating on the 1st day. It is that particular day that they were to remember and to keep holy. It is that day that God blessed and hollowed. It does not refer to any other day than the 7th day, that day right after God finished creation.

What is there to remember? That it is God who created all creation in 6 days. That on that 7th day, the Sabbath day, God rested.

What is there in remembering that? Well, remembering it, by that itself, is keeping it holy. It is an act of worship to God and acknowledging Him as the Creator of all things, that he is God. It is honoring God above all else. This for me then is what God was commanding of Israel, to worship and honor God. If there is a commandment of God for Israel that clearly commands them to worship and honor Him, this is it. Then we see right next to that is the commandment for Israel to honor father and mother. God rightfully places the commandment of honoring Him before all else, even before father and mother.

The commandment continues to tell Israel how they should remember that day. God said “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.“ God told them to do all their work in six days, and the 7th day make it the Sabbath of the Lord. Of days spoken, they are not specific days such as (in our language today) Sunday, Monday, Tuesday....or Saturday. Just that, six days they do all their work and on the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord. It is on that 7th day that they were to do no work and rest. But apparently Israel had that day to be the day called Sabbath (according to their calendar). By resting on that day, they keep in remembrance the Sabbath day which God blessed and hallowed and in which He rested from all His works. In doing that, they honor God.

Now, Jesus Christ said of this Sabbath, that it was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. It is so, for on that day, they could rest. And they are kept under guard in many sense. They won’t forget who their God is. They could momentarily rid of themselves of the evil in the world and be at rest with God. They could replenish their strength and be ready to work for the next six days. And more...which is for their own good and benefit.

The Sabbath was made for man~ that day of rest with God.

That’s how I see the Sabbath commandment ~ a commandment to worship and honor God for who He truly is and for the good that He have created and done for man, and to rest with Him. It is not what day one remembers that Sabbath day of the Lord spoken of in the commandment that is the heart of the matter, but the desire of man to worship and honor God and rest with God.

I have this thoughts. If honoring father and mother brings long life on earth to the man, how much more will honoring God bring to the man?

Tong
R1641

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The Fourth Commandments says keep the Sabbath Day apart from the six days in which the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. But man makes them the same. Man works on any and every day as he pleases or resents; man ceases to work and or rests every or all days of his life indiscriminately. He pays no attention – he does not remember – the Lord’s Day of finishing the works of God, or of resting in His Own works.

God never ceases to work or He must cease to be.

On the Seventh Day it says God “finished his Works which He had done – which God had worked on the Seventh Day. These were other works than of the six days before that God “finished” and “blessed” and “hallowed the Seventh Day”, for. These blessed and hallowed works of salvation of his, “God finished on the Seventh Day” – on none other.


God did not work his rest on the six days before, nor worked his six days’ works on the Seventh Day after. His rest was God’s work of, and his work on, His Sabbath-Rest-Day, “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD”.

So the Commandment commands to remember the Seventh Day for the Lord’s SABBATH-WORKS ON IT WHICH WERE GOD’S WORKS OF REDEEMING his creature, man, through THE MIGHTY ONE, THE SON, the LORD JESUS CHRIST SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. Through Him only was God well-pleased and founded He Divine Eternal Peace and Joy in the which God also let man share in remembering the Lord’s Day-of-Sabbath-rest works.

 

[mailmandan]

The Fourth Commandments says keep the Sabbath Day apart from the six days in which the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. But man makes them the same. Man works on any and every day as he pleases or resents; man ceases to work and or rests every or all days of his life indiscriminately. He pays no attention – he does not remember – the Lord’s Day of finishing the works of God, or of resting in His Own works...

Question: Who was God speaking to in Exodus 20 when He said, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates."

Answer: Exodus 20:2 - I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, bondage. - The Israelites.

Although God's rest on the seventh day (Genesis 2:3) did foreshadow a future sabbath law, there is no Biblical record of the sabbath before the children of Israel left the land of Egypt. *Nowhere in Scripture is there any hint that sabbath keeping was practiced from Adam to Moses.

Look at Deuteronomy 5:1-15, which gives the commandments to Israel. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive.

Nehemiah 9:13 - Then You came down on Mount Sinai, And spoke with them from heaven; You gave them just ordinances and true laws, Good statutes and commandments. 14 So You made known to them Your holy sabbath, And laid down for them commandments, statutes and law, Through Your servant Moses.

The Word of God makes it clear that sabbath observance was a sign between God and Israel: "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested." (Exodus 31:16-17)

In Deuteronomy 5, Moses restates the Ten Commandments to the next generation of Israelites. Here, after commanding sabbath observance in verses 12–14, Moses gives the reason the Sabbath was given to the nation Israel: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." (Deuteronomy 5:15)

*Nowhere in the New Testament is the Church commanded to keep the weekly sabbath day and to the contrary we find -- (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[CadyandZoe]

Isa 1 is not difficult. It is God, acting the part of a man irate over meaningless gifts passed to him, to cover up insincerity and back-stabbing. "I hate your feasts." In other words, I hate the pretense of religious worship, the feigned love for Me, when really you haven't changed. You haven't given up your own independent ways of sin to live for me, in true love and righteousness.

God wasn't saying He hates formal religion and ritual. He was saying He hates *dead religion,* or *false religion.* It was expressed like an exasperated man who says to his faithless wife, "I can't stand you any more!" But in reality, the man loves his wife and longs for her to return to her 1st love.

At some point God actually does fall out of love with many of the Israelis, and casts them away forever, because they have no thought of returning. They've made their decision, and so they're banished. This is all that's being said. We shouldn't read more into it than is intended by the context.

There is no real antagonism being expressed here for the Law. The Law was precious both to God and to the worshipers of God because it was the means of reconciliation, and the means of pleasing God. It was the basis for a temporary covenant relationship that existed in the hope of a better, eternal one.

That's why the longest Psalm of the Bible is dedicated to expressing love for the Law in a multitude of ways. Psalm 119. To understand the heart of God is to hear Jesus say, with emotion: "those who do these requirements the least shall be least in the Kingdom of heaven." If Israel wanted to please God under the Old Covenant, it was by loving the Law.

Today, we express the same kind of devotion in embracing the Kingdom of God alone, and its righteousness. If we do, then "all these things shall be added to you."

The Apostle John, in 1 John, expressed the importance of not just saying you love God, but by expressing these sentiments by obeying Christ's commandments, and by devoting ourselves to be like him. Loving the Law in the OT is loving God's word just as it is in the NT. It is all about loving God's word to us in whatever time we find ourselves. It isn't, of course, just a ritual, or a catelogue of rules. Much more than that, it is God speaking to our conscience.

If God so spoke to Israel, verbally, in the OT to Israel to keep rituals, this was just as important as following God's word to our conscience today. Anyway, this is how I think about it. Just wanted to share that.

If God loved religion, why would he care if my heart was in it or not?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

religion
θρησκεία (thrēskeia)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's Greek 2356: From a derivative of threskos; ceremonial observance.

It would be good if Christians avoided making sweeping statements that just aren't true. :)

I'm going to ignore your insult, thinking that I didn't know about that verse. It would be better if Christians didn't quote verses out of context, giving them meanings that the author never intended.

In his own words James is talking to "those who think themselves religious", in the context of his teaching on "double-mindedness." In the arena of religion, a man is double-minded if he performs the praxis but doesn't live out the meaning of the praxis in everyday life. With the man's praxis he declares his love and devotion to his God, but if he disregards the lowly, his "everyday" behavior betrays his actual motives.

Religious praxis means nothing if it doesn't fulfill or justify real, authentic, genuine love for God.

My SDA uncles were genuine lovers of God and they demonstrated their love for God in their love for others.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think Paul also uses the word "law" differently, depending on context.

I completely agree with you. Great point!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Could I suggest that the gift of grace... Christ's righteousness... Not only grants us eternal life, but also a life well lived now. A life that reflects the light of the Lightgiver. A life of experiential real time righteousness that is empowered to overcome sin, and even has the healing power that frees us from the real time consequences of sin... Addictions and evil habits of character which if not overcome will count against us in the judgement.

Yes, that needs to be said, and it's sometimes hard to say in a climate of unbelief. When we speak of "faith," often the idea is understood by unbelievers and even some Christians as "believing for" something. But sometimes it means we *know something* and simply base our present experience on Christ as the source of that experience. We don't just "believe for" it, but we already have it.

Faith is the substance of things we *already have,* the evidence of things we know and yet remain unseen.

 

[Tong2020]

Paul was not saying that the Law did not operate by faith, but only that it was unable to produce the results of Saving Faith.

The Law, operating by faith, produced mixed results because there was an exact correlation between the level of obedience and the results in terms of blessings and curses. The smallest infraction would produce a curse, which is enough to disqualify one from eternal life.

Grace does not operate this way because it is a given that all of mankind have the Sin Nature, and are thereby disqualified from eternal life. Grace offers Christ's spiritual life, which is perfect, as a gift to us so that when we choose to live in it we bear the same corresponding results that Christ obtained, namely eternal life.

It was *Israel's observance of the Law* that proved, and was intended to prove, that their faith could not result in eternal life. The smallest sin betrayed them, and relegated them to failure.

And so, the Law operated with the understanding that Saving Faith was not possible under that system, since fallen man would always produce enough sin to disqualify him from eternal life. The Law was therefore "not of faith," ie not of Saving Faith, which produces eternal life.

Gal. 3: 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”

What is your understanding of that?

The verse before that, have this quote from the OT scriptures “the just shall live by faith.” Also, Paul referred to Abraham’s faith. Then after, he said “Yet the law is not of faith”. If you are saying that the faith there isn’t what you call “saving faith”, then what becomes of Abraham’s faith? What becomes of the saying that the just shall live by faith?

It seems that you are saying that when Paul said “the law is not of faith”, he is actually saying that the law is of faith but not of “saving faith”? I find that unlikely.

If in “the law is not of faith”, faith there is not “saving faith”, what makes that of what Paul was saying in Gal.3:12 in relation to the context?

In my view, faith there is used by Paul in contrast to work, the works of the law, as he refers to that work. Faith there is not anything but the same faith spoken in “the just shall live by faith” and the faith spoken of as that of Abraham.

Paul is using "faith" as a shortcut for the words "Saving Faith." He is speaking of the new Christian system that does not defeat hope in eternal life, the "faith" for eternal life--something that the Law frustrated. The Law gave men temporary hope in a temporary atonement, but it proved that all men disqualify for eternal life because of the exact correspondence between our Sin and the resulting curse. Saving Faith must therefore come *apart from* the Law, which consigns all men to death. Eternal life comes only apart from the Law, through the gift of Christ, through Grace.

Gal.3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

What do you understand by that? What did Paul mean in saying “we are no longer under a tutor”? What has that got to do with the matter that faith has come?

Paul figures the law as a tutor, a paidagógos to be more accurate, as that who will bring them to Christ, and was saying there that it will cease to be, after faith has come. Faith here is said to be something that is awaited to come. Now, it is the Christ that is awaited to come, we all know that. This faith therefore cannot be divorced from Christ. So that the law then was coming to its end when Christ came. It is at this point in salvation history that faith is said to have come to Israel.

If I were to use a figure for faith in like manner Paul did of the Law as our tutor, I would say that this faith is our justifier. Now we know that Jesus Christ is the justifier, and that one is justified by Jesus Christ.

Much could be said really about this. But perhaps, this is good for now.

Tong
R1642

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes we disagree in that we view quite differently, perhaps in some matters pertaining to Christ’s coming in the flesh as to be born of a woman and born under the law. Perhaps too because of our differences on how we take Jesus as being God and man.

No, I don't believe that our differences are that major. We likely both believe in the basic creeds of the Church. Your view is a common view, and in no way do I think your view is heresy, nor should you think my view is heresy. We both believe Jesus is God and man.

<<<RandyK: Jesus was not righteous because he observed the Law.>>>

He was, in view of being the man. But I agree in view of being God.

For me this separates God in two, which goes beyond distinguishing the two natures of Jesus, God and man. If Jesus was righteous by virtue of being God, he was by default righteous as God became a man. The man had to be righteous at the moment God was revealed as such, and not only on condition he keeps the Law.

In fact, the unity of Father and Son is so indivisible that the Son could only do what the Father did. And the Father did not subject the Son to criteria that made his deity subject to laws that applied to sinful Israel. At best, Jesus was subject to the Law in terms of expressing his essential Deity. And doing that he *could not* put himself under requirements to have sins atoned for that he *did not have!*

<<<RandyK: And that was the purpose of the Law, to temporarily cleanse from sin.>>>

While that may be one purpose, Scriptures tell us this, that the purpose of the Law was to keep under guard the people of God and be their tutor to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith.

If only one purpose of the Law was to provide atonement for sin, then Jesus was *not* under the Law! If he lived under the Law, both its era and its requirements, it was not out of the necessity for personal atonement for sin. It would only be to express himself as the ultimate Redeemer from sin on behalf of Israel and the world.

In other words, Jesus did not have to keep the Law for himself. He only kept it to show Israel what he came to do in providing the final sacrifice for sin. Keeping the Law then was just a run up to the actual event that would make all of the ceremonies moot. It was just an act of identification with sinful Israel to show his support for their temporary redemption, or covenant relationship, under the Law. He was showing God's side of the agreement to keep Israel in covenant relationship under terms of the Law.

<<<RandyK:So Jesus came down to earth to live under the Law not to keep the Law...>>>

Jesus himself said he came to fulfill the Law.

Fulfilling the Law is different from keeping the Law in order to benefit from its provisions of atonement. Jesus came to provide final atonement, and in that way "fulfilled" the Law. He did not follow the Law to benefit from its atonement for his personal sin, which he did not have.

<<<RandyK: Jesus certainly had no need to observe the Law >>>

There is every reason and need for Jesus to observe the Law, in view of His being man born under the Law, a Jew, circumcised, in covenant with God, like his brethren according to the flesh.

Buy yes, I would agree that in the ultimate sense that Jesus’ relationship with the law is different from Israel.

Tong
R1639

Well, we have that much. What you're talking about here is the need for Jesus to live a life that fulfilled prophecy--not a life that had to observe rules that provided for his own personal redemption.

That's certainly not what Israel pursued by they observed the Law! They needed to remain in relationship with God by observing laws that provided for temporary atonement for sin.

Jesus did not have to do that. He only had to express his Father's wish to portray God's side to this covenant relationship with Israel. Jesus fulfilled the Law as God, and not as sinful men.

 

[Tong2020]

You ignored the obvious so you could focus on the obscure. Jesus said the law will always be in effect. Always. He didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill. Fulfill doesn't mean cancel. Paul observed the Sabbath. The church observed the Sabbath. No mention of teaching of a change to the weekly Sabbath. Paul observed the feasts of the old Jewish economy such as passover, which had become obsolete, but the weekly Sabbath was never indelibly linked with the ritual and feast days of the sanctuary service which were shadows of the coming redemption in Christ. The weekly Sabbath was always a separate instrument.

Are you in the belief that all of mankind, from the beginning of human history, know of the Sabbath day and of the Sabbath commandment?

Tong
R1643

 

[Randy Kluth]

I do not find the scriptures you quoted as speaking anything about his writings being difficult to understand nor implies so.

We differ in opinion. If there is any difficulty in understanding the writings of Paul, I would not have it on Paul. Many perhaps say he is inconsistent and lack this and that, and point to that as the reason why they find difficulty in understanding his writings. But I don’t. I know it could only be on me.

Tong
R1640

Paul wasn't perfect, but the message was not about any supposed claim to perfection. The Scriptures accurately present the truth, but the truth is: Paul wasn't perfect, nor are any of us. We all have a Sin Nature, which must be atoned for by Christ. We benefit from that when we receive Christ at the center of our being, making him Lord over our entire life.

Paul spoke of his being an untrained speaker. That was one thing. He also taught the non-native Gentiles, for whom Jewish culture was foreign, to inform them of things that would be difficult for them to understand. This is why he wrote the Scriptures to begin with.

Paul also expressed how spiritual things need to be spiritually discerned, and suggested that some are less than serious, and deliberately misconstrue the message of the Gospel. This makes things more difficult for those who want to spiritually discern things. If you think Paul was clear enough in his teaching, I would agree with you. If you think Paul is easy to understand, you're dreaming. ;)

Maybe we're not completely disagreeing on this? My main point is, if we want to understand Paul we have to clear away the confusion. And we have to apply words as he means them in context, and not by interpretive fallacies that attempt to use the same words, such as "law" and "faith," in the same way in different contexts.

It has helped me personally to recognize that Paul used "shortcuts" in his phraseology, to avoid going down "rabbit holes," replete with glossaries and footnotes. ;) Understanding this has helped me to understand Paul much better, I feel. You'll have to navigate your own way through Paul's way of expressing things.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If God loved religion, why would he care if my heart was in it or not?

You're defining "religion" as a perfunctory observance, which of course would not require sincerity--it would only require the performance of rituals and ceremonies. Obviously, I'm not defining "religion" that way, since God required not just the outward observance of these rituals, but actually that they be done in sincerity of heart.

So our problem seems to be that you're expressing "religion" as a hollow performance, whereas I believe that God gave these ceremonies to Israel, knowing they could be performed sincerely or not. When they were performed sincerely, they benefited Israel. They provided temporary mitigation for their sins, and kept Israel in covenant relationship with God. And they were blessed.

But when Israel feigned love for God, and continued to perform the rituals of the Law, this was indeed "dead religion." And it certainly wasn't what God had intended.

I see this mistake all the time with Christians. They read in the Gospels how horrible Israel was in the time of Jesus, being that they rejected him as Messiah, rejected his Gospel of righteousness, and ultimately crucified him. And they read in the OT Prophets how horrible Israel was at certain times in their history, just prior to the Assyrian and Babylonian judgments.

Sadly, this gives the false impression that Israel was *always bad,* and that the Law had been a pretense at trying to get Israel to live in righteousness. But in reality, there were times when Israel, as a nation, repented and lived in conformity with the Law, in true sincerity. And there were always those who remained sincere, even in bad times for the nation.

In other words, sometimes Israel as a nation was obedient, and at other times, only a small remnant remained faithful. We read about the unfaithful times for the nation because it was at that time that Jesus died for *all sin.* He had to die when Israel was at its worst, in its greatest rebellion.

But that never meant that Israel was always in rebellion--only that they had the Sin Nature in them, and were always prone to rebellion. If so, then the Law was successful at times, and a failure at other times. It was a spiritual marriage at times, and at other times, a divorce.

God's purpose, ultimately, was to divorce the nation in terms of the perfunctory rituals of the Law, which had, once again, lost their meaning in the time of Jesus. And Jesus became the new basis for a covenant relationship between God and Israel.

At any rate, the rituals of the Law had only been intended to be a temporary covering for sin, until Christ himself had come and become the source of spiritual life without any further need for an atoning sacrifice.

It's just that in the present age, the Jewish People largely hinder a remnant of Christian Jews from turning the nation back to God through Christ. But it will happen, I believe. It will happen through God's judgment against those who are hindering national salvation for Israel.

If the nation was always evil, by default, and had always been incompetent under the Law, national salvation would never be possible. Only a small remnant would be saved.

But if Israel had been faithful as a nation under the Law at times, it proves that the entire nation can indeed live in sincerity under the Law of God. And this indicates that the Israeli nation can be saved through Christianity, as well. This kind of salvation has as much to do about salvaging the nation physically as it does about the nation returning to a real covenant in our age.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

4. Keep the sabbath day holy. - Not binding on the Church - Colossians 2:16-17

Utter presumptuousness, arrogance, cheek, defiance, BASED ON not non-Scripture, but on Antichrist anti-Scripture.