On the Christians and the Law thread, I opened the discussion talking about how Chris (on FAF) had spoken about the way Christians through the years have looked at the “Ten Commandments”, which in Hebrew are actually the Ten Words.

Scripture is clear that the Ten are actually the very words of the covenant (that is, the old covenant) and are the tablets of the covenant.  They are the foundation or condensed version of what is later repeated and spelled out in the “book of the law”, the five books of Moses.

To the people of the Old and New Testament times, the Ten represented the Old Covenant.  To both ages the Ten were clearly the covenant document and there was no confusion.  This is why the matter was clear when Moses threw down the Ten as he saw the Israelites dancing to the golden calf idol—showing that they had broken the covenant.

But to us??  To us!!  To us the matter is much more confused.  We do not see the Ten as the covenant document that Scripture speaks of them as.  Instead we look at them as the ten moral precepts, the foundation of lawfulness and proper moral behavior.  Since the days of the New Testament apostles passed away, Christians have re-interpreted the Ten to mean such things.  Perhaps it is due in part to the separation of the gentile and Jewish churches?  Whatever the case, we have re-interpreted the Ten and made them into something else.  And now we’re having a hard time letting go of it.

I find it somewhat similar to the way that Jesus’ words and actions challenged the rabbinic interpretations of the Torah.  They had developed their own interpretations and staked much on them, so much that they had little room for His word.  Have we, I wonder, done something similar by minimizing the Biblical definitions of the Ten and maximizing our “uses” of the Ten?

Recently at night I quickly saw two pictures, and I inked them and put them on my art site.  They speak for themselves, but I have found it necessary to write such a long explanation for them here simply because of our re-interpretation of the Ten… our re-interpretation may shock us when we see such pictures as I drew.  Yet they are pictures that Peter and Paul painted with their words (only one of Paul’s words, though… I don’t know how to paint the other ways he referred to the Ten!).

I was a bit worried about sharing the pictures here.  I don’t know how many of us have room for them.  Yet they are so clear in Scripture.  When I showed them to my wife, they went straight to their heart, and that spoke to me.  Others on FAF identified with them, remembering what it felt like under the Law.  And we all praise God because of the final outcome.

The pictures can be found at this link:  http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2007/05/before-after.html

Blessings in Christ, in His freedom, love and in His rest.
Ramone

Hi Ramone,

Thanks for starting this thread.  I can see God has given you a gift for art–thank you for sharing it with us!

I am not disturbed by your art, but if I’m not mistaken, the second picture is your interpretation of Colossians 2:13-14:

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”

I am traveling with my family at the moment, so I can’t respond fully, but I think your concerns were addressed to some degree on the other thread.  The answer centers on what “record of debt that stood against us” refers to.  We discussed what “record of debt” or ”cheirographon” meant, and based on the word study references I posted as well as several commentaries, the consensus is that this does not mean “ten commandments” or “law”, as you’ve depicted in your second picture, but a record of our transgressions of the law.  This is the point guibox made in his comments, and I found that his point was sustained by several highly-regarded scholars (see the posts beginning here).

So I would paint your picture slightly differently.  Mine would depict a record of debt (like a mortgage)–not the Ten Commandments–as being nailed to the cross.

Ramone, as always, I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to hearing more from you and others.

Blessings in Christ,

Greg

Ramone,

I found this thread by linking on to it from FAF--thanks.

The discussion on this has become very interesting over on FAF, as a guy named River has really just taken it to Chris, and really taking great offense at Chris’s sweeping statements about the use of the Law in evangelism:

http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5470.html?1178604433

I agree with you Ramone about the feeling of being under a yoke of slavery while under the Law.

I just wonder if there is not some real misunderstanding of what the Reformed position on the Law vs, the SDA position on the law. Jackob on that thread gave an excellent assessment of the differences between a Reformed view of the Law and the SDA view. We all agree that the SDA approach to the Law is really a salvation by works using the law as a method of salvation while claiming to add grace in as well.

I don’t know why there is such an aversion to acknowledging the Decalogue as a great statement on the Law of God. When the Decalogue is interpreted in the context of the NT, and the Sabbath commandment is interpreted in its proper spiritual context as being a 24/7 experience of entering the rest of God, as Gabriel stated so well on another thread, then I see no problem with acknowledging the great moral precepts of the Decalogue, and see that these precepts are also expanded on in the New Testament.

The New Covenant theologians seem quick to jettison the decalogue because the Sabbath commandment gets in the way, and they are very fearful that somehow by upholding the decalogue, then Sabbath observance will be imposed on Christians. I don’t see the basis of these fears if the decalogue is interpreted in light of the entire Bible.

Stan

Here is the post by River that I found interesting on FAF:

Chris wrote: “Does this conform to the approach taken in the book of Acts to spreading the Gospel? I think not.”

This statement that I have not conformed to the Bible on spreading the gospel has wounded me deeply… for one thing you do not know what the results have been in my efforts for Christ.

I just thought I ought to let you know this....

I can answer the title to this tread another way too
“Love for the lost”
If I preached the letter of the law as you seem to think. Then you would be justified. But since I have preached Christ out of the law you are not justified.

Christ pointed to himself out of the old testament. There are many instances that a person can preach Christ out of the old Testament.”
-----------------------------------------------------------

I say Amen to River on this particular point, even though I don’t agree with some of his other posts on that thread.

The time honored method of evangelism by so many giants of the faith prove time and again that at least some version of the Law’s demands be preached to point out a need for a saviour.

Stan

Stan, I agree that River makes a good point, particularly when he wrote this: “There are many instances that a person can preach Christ out of the old Testament.”

I’m reading a good book on this by Edmund Clowney entitled “The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament”.

It’s been very eye-opening for me to see that Christ is found in the pages of the Old Testament and his grace was evident well before he ever set foot on this planet.

Greg

And what do you know, but River then comes up with this follow-up post which just makes the point Greg just made in his last post:

To tell you the truth Colleen, I have never had anyone accept once fall on their knees in repentance while I delivered them the message of hope in Jesus.

Once in 35 years! I have had them come to Christ within a matter of days and weeks and I don,t think I have ever repeated the same thing to any I have witnessed to, there just don’t seem to be a method accept to tell how Jesus cares and saves.

The one time a fellow fell on his knees crying out to God and repenting was when I brought the message out of the old Testament. It was God who had hold of the man, I really don’t think it depended on the portion of Bible I chose, It was all Gods doing yet I sometimes have to look back on that incident and take courage from what God did in the past.

I tell you another truth, souls coming to God under my witness, ministry or whatever you want to name it, are getting few and far between, I keep hoping some of my Adventist friends will come to a full knowledge of confidence and peace in Jesus and I have to remember the ones that did in order not to become completely discouraged.

So what I said in my post was only one part of the much bigger picture, recently I did use the commandments to try and persuade a person, the person didn’t know didly about the Bible, didn’t understand anything about much, thought that since the grandmother had been Baptist that made her Oky doky, had no concept of a need for salvation, but what the person had just done was attempt to commit suicide, life was a wreck, but there again, a person desperately needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these things so I told the person of the seriousness of God and the need of the savior using the Big Ten and then Christ death on the cross.

I got a whole eight minutes to do this in. You walk away desperately hoping you have said the right thing, you set there silently praying for God to give you the right words, you know you may never, ever, have another chance.

I understand your concern about Adventist using that in order to justify their cause for Sabbath.
I would not purposely write anything to cause damage to this forum but we still need to be aware of the powerful arsenal God has given us in his word.

I am not the sharpest needle in the yarn, I think slowly and ploddingly, I know that and so I have to keep reminding myself of certain portions of scripture that may come in handy if the need should arise. But seems like the person the Lord puts in my way I just end up blurting out something out of some scripture and maybe some experience that I have had but the Lord always seems to come through anyhow in spite of me.

I am up past my bedtime!
River
-----------------------------------------------------------
I am up past my bedtime too, as this has been a very difficult week, but I just coudn’t resist the good points River is making in these posts.

All Scripture is given for our instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), and the Decalogue was given out twice by God in two different forms, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. These are the ten basic principles of God’s eternal Law.

Greg, I understand that Clowney book is excellent.

Stan

[quote author="Stan"]I don’t know why there is such an aversion to acknowledging the Decalogue as a great statement on the Law of God. When the Decalogue is interpreted in the context of the NT, and the Sabbath commandment is interpreted in its proper spiritual context as being a 24/7 experience of entering the rest of God, as Gabriel stated so well on another thread, then I see no problem with acknowledging the great moral precepts of the Decalogue, and see that these precepts are also expanded on in the New Testament.

What is a “moral” precept? I’m not sure we can call something “moral”, as in the Sabbath commandment being a “moral” precept, and then shrug it off as not being really meaningful for NT believers. Either it is a moral, continually binding precept along with the other nine, or it is a ceremonial sign of passing, temporal application, wedged between nine other “moral” precepts.

I probably related more to Chris on the that FAF exchange than the other fellow.

Glenn,

I was not saying that the fourth commandment is a moral precept in regard to the keeping of a 24 hour day on a round planet in an industrial age. The fourth commandment as a particular day was meant for Israel alone. (See Exodus 31, and Leviticus 23 where the Sabbath is equated with all the other feast days, and in Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2) we see that the Sabbath is now an ongoing 24/7 command to enter into God’s rest. This is clearly what the 7th day Sabbath symbolized, and in fact it was a symbol of Holiness, as well as a picture of salvation. This is the only explanation as to why the man in Numbers 15 was stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day. The penalty in the OT for breaking the Sabbath was a capital punishment. If Sabbath breaking was such a serious crime in the New Covenant, and the Sabbath was to be the final test of salvation, then, why did not the apostles who wrote the epistles think the Sabbath was important?

But the entire Decalogue is upheld if we interpret the Sabbatjh command in light of what the OT and NT say about the significiance of the Sabbath.

On FAF, Dennis Fischer gives this response to the law thread discussion, which I believe makes sense:

Interestingly, the “law of Christ” includes all the timeless, moral directives in Scripture (including those in the Decalogue). After all, NINE of the Ten Commandments are reiterated several times in the New Testament as Dale Ratzlaff aptly points out in his writings. These nine, reiterated commandments from the Decalogue are a part of the “God breathed” law of Christ or the law of the Spirit. “Christ redeemed us from the CURSE of the Law” (Gal. 3:13 NASB), not from our duty to obey its moral directives. Importantly, Christians are NOT a lawless, immoral community. We actually have more moral directives or commandments than the believers in the Old Covenant had. I wholeheartedly agree with the following statement:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
It is important to realize that when we speak of the old covenant, including the Ten Commandments, being superseded by the new covenant, we are speaking of the old covenant in totality, yet at the same time we are NOT doing away with ANY of the MORAL PRINCIPLES contained within the old covenant. (Dale Ratzlaff; Sabbath in Christ, page 257)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is actually very easy to explain that the Fourth Commandment is ceremonial with its shewbread and double sacrifices pointing to Jesus. Actually, I have never met an Adventist who denied that the shewbread and double sacrifices, associated with the Sabbath, pointed to Jesus. On the other hand, telling our Adventist friends and others that the moral aspects of Ten Commandments are no longer valid creates a needless barrier and misunderstanding. In short, it rightly turns people off.

With such reasoning, many rightly think that we have truly gone over the hill, fallen in love with the Devil, as an OVERREACTION to the legalistic abuse we suffered in Adventism. Like our sabbatarian friends, we are thereby allowing the Jewish Sabbath to condition our view of righteousness. We must not allow our deficient experience with a ceremonial shadow to overrule or prejudice orthodox Christological, hamartiological, and soteriological views. Jesus was the first person to get into heaven by His good works. We also get into heaven by good works--the good works of Jesus.

His grace still amazes me,

Dennis Fischer
----------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Dennis on this one.

Ramone, what do you think of Dennis’ post?

Stan

Hi Greg,

Regarding your first comment, I made a brief comment on the other thread about my prior observation going unresponded to.  Namely, that the context in fact does point to the Law, the Ten and entire covenant.  Colossians 2 refers specifically to:

1) That which counts transgressions
2) That which commands ceremonial observances, including Sabbath

Verse 16-17 say that we do not need to be judged about Sabbath and other cermonies.  Why?  “THEREFORE”!  The “therefore” connects these things with what was said just prior—because “something” was nailed to the cross.

Again, this thing that was nailed to the cross 1) counted sins and 2) commanded ceremonial observances, such as Sabbath.

1 + 1 = 2.  It is talking about the Law, the Ten, the Covenant.

With all due respect to the theologians you cited, Greg, they are looking at this verse after having already decided that it cannot be referring to the Law, because they have constructed a theology about the Law apart from this passage.

Must run!  Will reply to others hopefully soon.

Blessings in Jesus,
Ramone

Hi Stan,

Did you catch my comments on that thread?

In re-looking at things, it seems things are pretty resolved in that thread for the moment.  I agree with what Colleen has written thus far, so I won’t add to it for now.

I don’t know why there is such an aversion to acknowledging the Decalogue as a great statement on the Law of God. When the Decalogue is interpreted in the context of the NT, and the Sabbath commandment is interpreted in its proper spiritual context as being a 24/7 experience of entering the rest of God, as Gabriel stated so well on another thread, then I see no problem with acknowledging the great moral precepts of the Decalogue, and see that these precepts are also expanded on in the New Testament.

Stan, the only answer I can give you is that there is something spiritually deeper going on here.  It is the reason that people object to the two pictures I drew, and the reason that such great lengths are gone to in order to avoid seeing the Law in Colossians 2.  It is explained in 2 Corinthians 3, and I’m sorry because this might sound offensive, but spiritually speaking there is an inability to see the whole glory of the New when holding onto the glory of the Old.

Again, what you said brings us back to the original post which I wrote to start this thread—which I don’t think anyone has replied to on this thread yet (perhaps on other threads, but again, in a somewhat indirect way).  I named this thread appropriately on this point: Re-interpreting the Ten.  We have re-interpreted the Ten to mean what you said—that they are “ten great moral precepts”.  We have taken their secondary context and made it the main context, so much so that even unbelievers refer to “the ten commandments” of this or that, such as business or dating, etc.  We have almost completely forgotten that they are a COVENANT DOCUMENT.  That is their primary context, but we have made it a MINOR thing at best.  Many people will not even acknowledge them as even that!

This is how far the glory of the Old has taken hold of Christianity today.  We resist what Scripture says because of our Re-interpretation of the Ten.  Yes, there are some good moral principles in there.  But there are good moral principles all over the five books of Moses, all through the prophets, and all through the New Testament as well.

The fact is that before our children learn the New “Will and Testament” with which their salvation is bought according to, they are taught the Old Will & Testament!  The reason is that we have not fully allowed the New Will to replace the Old Will.  The New Will does indeed teach the same greater moral laws all throughout the Old, however, it is a greater will.  It shows us the spiritual root of things, and with it comes the Holy Spirit who teaches us how to read.

Because we have been unwilling to let go of the Old Will, and because we are afraid of people going “too far” if we teach them the New Will first and as their foundation, we find it oddly necessary to rush to disclaimers whenever speaking of the Old Will as Scripture does.  There is a spiritual power behind this which keeps us from being free to talk as freely as Paul did about these things.

Must run.
Love to all of you in Jesus,
Ramone

Ramone,

I asked you if you agreed with Dennis’ post as I posted above? Maybe I missed your answer.

Ramone wrote this:

“Because we have been unwilling to let go of the Old Will, and because we are afraid of people going “too far” if we teach them the New Will first and as their foundation, we find it oddly necessary to rush to disclaimers whenever speaking of the Old Will as Scripture does. There is a spiritual power behind this which keeps us from being free to talk as freely as Paul did about these things.”
---------------------------------------------------------

Are you implying that there is some dark spirit or power that is keeping people like Dennis, Greg, Gabriel, and me from understanding the true New Will?

I notice also that it seems Colleen back-pedaled just a bit on her last post when she said this in response to Dennis:

“I agree with you, Dennis–there is never an excuse to say or even hint that the moral principles of the Ten Commandments are done away with. Romans 1 through 5 really explain that God’s moral principles preceded the law. God and His own morality (which He puts in our hearts when He indwells us when we are born from above) are eternal–and humanity has never been without God’s moral principles in the world, either before or after the law.

The thing I have found is that many people won’t hesitate to admit they are sinners; it’s their total depravity they don’t want to admit. Being a “sinner” is a matter of doing sins; many people refuse to look at the reality that they are born spiritually dead and unable to respond to God, let alone become righteous, without a Savior. I realize that the people to whom I talk about these things tend to have Adventist backgrounds as opposed to unchurched, derelict, or agnostic backgrounds, but I have found that I’ve needed to go to Ephesians 2 and Romans 3 and 5 when discussing being a sinner with people like this. The issues of law are really moot points with them because they readily admit they don’t keep the law perfectly. But depraved? No way!

No, it’s never OK to suggest that moral principles are obsolete. The old covenant with its law is obsolete and fading away, but moral principles--never.”
----------------------------------------------------------

So again Ramone, are you in complete agreement with Dennis and Colleen on these comments, and if not, why not?

Stan

Hi bro. Stan,

So again Ramone, are you in complete agreement with Dennis and Colleen on these comments, and if not, why not?

I haven’t poured over Colleen & Dennis’ comments thoroughly, just a once-read with baby making some interesting noises in the background.  I haven’t logically dissected everything to root out if anyone’s prior statements have contradicted each other or seemed to say things that should be mutually exclusive.  When I read it, it sounded good.  Basically, I agree with what I saw of what Colleen said, as well as her appraisal of Dennis’ comments.  I also agree with what she said of another recent comment of his (in a similar vein) in another place (perhaps on another thread?).

I hope that answers your question—sorry I didn’t directly indicate that.  Did you catch my comment or two in that thread?

*****

Now that you’ve pinned me on a question, Stan, I am wondering if you, Greg, Guibox or anyone else have any comments on the context of Colossians 2 which clearly points to the Law as being referred to. 

My repeated comments on the original subject of this thread seem to have been ignored as well, about the ultra-common re-interpretation of the Ten apart from their original and primary context in favor of a secondary interpretation.

*****

Are you implying that there is some dark spirit or power that is keeping people like Dennis, Greg, Gabriel, and me from understanding the true New Will?

I ought to be careful with my words.  I wrote “a spiritual power”, and that may not wholly be correct.  Paul spoke of a veil that resulted from focusing on the glory of the Old—an unlasting glory which is fading away and which the book of Hebrews says is obsolete.

I ought to be careful about what I am inferring as well, and for that I apologize.  Let me try to say it as politely as possible.

My brothers and sisters, I am puzzled.  I have little other explanation.

1) Obvious things like Colossians 2 are re-interpreted
2) Things like Acts 15 are interpreted very badly
3) I had to press to hear agreement about what Scripture’s names for the Ten
4) People seem to avoid referring to the Ten in their primary context
5) People seem to be unable to repeat Paul & Hebrews’ words about the Law without significant disclaimers

It reminds me a bit of how growing up in Adventism I never heard “God is love” very often.  And when talking to mission-fellows and people immersed in Adventism, if “God is love” were uttered, it would not be without qualification.  If the statement “we are saved by God’s grace” were uttered, it would not be without a significant disclaimer about keeping the Law.

My experience here feels very similar.  The words of Scripture about the Law seem to be scarcely just uttered when someone adds a disclaimer/qualificatory statement about their continued use.  Then, things like Acts 15 and Romans are clearly mis-interpreted to prove that Paul taught Gentiles the Law to bring them to Christ.

Although such arguments have rarely if ever been cited here, the vehemence of the reactions remind me of the fear of antinomianism which pops up every time the words of Paul in Scripture about the Law are cited to Adventists.

In sum, if we are this uncomfortable with the terms of Scripture…
If we are this worried about people taking the clear words of Scripture unqualified…
If we are unable to bear the names of the Law without disclaimer…
If we use many scholars to ignore what the context clearly shows about Colossians 2…
If we re-interpret other clear passages like Acts 15 to show the opposite of what they’re saying…
If people are cited who confuse the clear covenants of Scripture by calling Law “grace"…
If we are unable to recognize or realize the vast re-interpretation of the Ten…

What can I say?

It just fits what Paul talked about in 2 Corinthians 3 about being veiled to the glory of the New Covenant.

I don’t aim this personally at any person here, but it is just my general observation of the ‘climate’ here and general reactions from the majority.  From what I have observed, it simply uncannily fits and I can find little other explanation. 

I hope I’ve said this politely, but I fear I haven’t.  And it’s possible that my saying so now may not help things at all, and for that I apologize to you all and to God.  Still, I hope the points that I raised which have so far gone mostly unanswered, I hope they can be beneficial to someone.  God really breaks our paradigms, even about the Law, and “that one text” that seems to not fit into our system is often the key that unlocks a whole earth-shaking revelation about everything else.  (As with Col.2 and the Sabbath!)

Blessings in His love,
Ramone

[quote author="agapetos"]
Now that you’ve pinned me on a question, Stan, I am wondering if you, Greg, Guibox or anyone else have any comments on the context of Colossians 2 which clearly points to the Law as being referred to......Regarding your first comment, I made a brief comment on the other thread about my prior observation going unresponded to. Namely, that the context in fact does point to the Law, the Ten and entire covenant. Colossians 2 refers specifically to:

1) That which counts transgressions
2) That which commands ceremonial observances, including Sabbath

Verse 16-17 say that we do not need to be judged about Sabbath and other cermonies. Why? “THEREFORE”! The “therefore” connects these things with what was said just prior—because “something” was nailed to the cross.

Again, this thing that was nailed to the cross 1) counted sins and 2) commanded ceremonial observances, such as Sabbath.

1 + 1 = 2. It is talking about the Law, the Ten, the Covenant.

With all due respect to the theologians you cited, Greg, they are looking at this verse after having already decided that it cannot be referring to the Law, because they have constructed a theology about the Law apart from this passage.

Must run! Will reply to others hopefully soon.

Blessings in His love,
Ramone

Ramone, what you are accusing Greg and the other theologians of doing can be applied to you. You insist that what was nailed to the cross was the law and then fit the rest of the verses around it. Exegetically, the scales tip in our favor. ‘cheirographon’ cannot be interpreted as the ‘document of the law’. If this is the case (and indeed linguistically it is) then we must take that into consideration when looking at the rest of the verses in context.

When we do, we see that verses 12, 15, 17 and 18 jive completely with the concepts provided in the rest of the chapter.

What are the issues? Is it really the ‘law’?

- verses 4, 8 and 20-23 along with ‘those who judge’ in verse 16 speak of ascetic ritualism by the Colossian leaders in a way to get closer to God.
- vs 13-14 speak of Christ’s act of forgiveness that brings atonement, not through rituals but through the blood
- vs 15 shows the results of Christ’s act of forgiveness (principalities and powers have no power to hold our sins over our head)

All of these things work with the idea that Christ nails our sins to the cross in a loving act of redemption that outside ritualistic observances cannot do.

To say that the ‘law was nailed to the cross’ is to make vs 14 as much an “contextual island” as Daniel 8:14 to support the IJ.

The ‘therefore’ shows that being judged on ritualistic observances will NOT redeem you, it will not bring you closer to God (debasement of the body, abstaining from eating and drinking and ritualistic purity (20-21)). Because Christ has done this act of forgiveness, we need not worry about those who judge on HOW the people were keeping any of the things in vs 16.

You are assuming two things:

1) That the judges are Jewish leaders judging them for not keeping the Torah
2) That the Colossians didn’t observe the practices mentioned in vs 16

Notice Ramone, that it doesn’t say ‘let no man therefore judge you on NOT keeping days or eating’. By all accounts, the Colossians were already doing these things. These assumptions cause you to interpret vs 14 as being the 10 commandments that are nailed to the cross.

What Paul is admonishing are the Colossian ‘judges’, the rulers who were enforcing cultic practices of these things to bring them closer to God. That is the issue, not the validity of the 10 commandment law or the invalidity of the ceremonial law.

[quote author="Dennis"]It is actually very easy to explain that the Fourth Commandment is ceremonial with its shewbread and double sacrifices pointing to Jesus. Actually, I have never met an Adventist who denied that the shewbread and double sacrifices, associated with the Sabbath, pointed to Jesus.

What is Dennis talking about here? 

Perhaps we’re at a stalemate in this discussion, because everyone seems to be very settled in their views.  I just have a few more things to add for clarification, but I don’t expect my words to change too many minds.

Ramone, with regards to the meaning of Colossians 2:13-14, it would be wise to focus on the definition of the Greek word cheirographon.  Along with context, understanding this word is the key to unlocking the meaning of the text.

Without resorting to Adventist literature and by consulting a very accurate Greek reference, The Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates, we have the following:

“cheirgraphon gen. cheirogrphou, neut. noun from cher, hand, and grpho, to write. Handwriting, record of debt, a note written by the hand which makes one obligated to fulfill what is written (Col. 2:14 [cf. Eph. 2:15]).
Syn.: grmma, letter, document; epistole, an epistle, a letter; biblon apostasou (biblon, book, document; apostasou, separation, divorce [gen.]), document of divorce, separation.”

Please see this comment for more references to the Greek definition.

If cheirgraphon refers to a “record of debt”, it does not make sense to conclude that Colossians 2:13-14 refer to the Ten Commandments.  The Ten Commandments or Old Covenant are not a “record of debt”, rather, they are conditions of covenant law that the Israelites accepted in their covenant with God at Sinai.  The “record of debt” refers to the transgressions of that law.

Perhaps this can be illustrated by considering the case of a murderer.  The penal code in the U.S. says that it is a capital offense to commit murder.  The accused murderer is put on trial and the evidence of the crime is reviewed.  If the person is found guilty, he is sentenced for the crime, receiving a judgment or “record of debt” for it.

For the sinner, our “record of debt” is lengthy and grows longer by the day.  My record of debt looks a little different from yours, but I’m sure they’re both long!

Going back to our murderer, if he receives an official pardon, his sentence is said to be “overturned” or “canceled”.  But when this happens, is the law that convicted him overturned?  Absolutely not.  It is his debt that is overturned and furthermore, if the law is overturned, it can no longer perform its function to convict future murderers.

Similarly, when a sinner receives forgiveness through Jesus’ death on the cross, is the law overturned?  No.  It is the “record of debt” (or record of our sins) that is nullified and nailed to the cross.  Just as in the case of the pardoned murderer, if the law is nailed to the cross, it cannot do its job to convict future law-breakers and therefore, it cannot perform its function to drive people to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

I’ve posted this before, but this great theological truth is found even in the hymn “It Is Well With My Soul”:

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

Ramone, while these lyrics are not the final word on anything, to be theologically correct according to your view, they should really read:

The law, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,

The distinction between the law or sin being nailed to the cross carries significant consequences.  I’d encourage everyone here to think carefully and prayerfully about this conversation and not rush to judgment, but encourage each other in love and the earnest desire to know God’s will as expressed in His Word.

I’d also like to point out that Romans 7:14-25 has important implications for this conversation.  Paul says in this passage that he “delights in the law in his inner being”.  In bringing this up, I am not trying to distill down the law to the ten “words” of the Old Covenant, but clearly the law in its totality was in Paul’s view when he wrote these words.  Can we ever bring ourselves to agree with him that we delight in the law in our inner being?  If the law was nailed to the cross, what is there to delight in?

Speaking about this passage, John Piper makes the following points:

“If the law is sin, there is no gospel.  In other words, [Romans] chapters 1 to 6 fail, if [chapter] 7 can’t rescue the law, and that’s why [chapter] 7 is written.  Look at chapter 7 verse 7: ‘What shall we say then?  Is the law sin?’ After all of my (Paul’s) celebration of grace, after all of my celebration of Christ and his obedience, after all of my statements that you must die to the law, turn away from the law and believe, is the law sin?  If the answer to that question is ‘Yes,’ there is no gospel.

Look at verse 13: ‘Therefore, did that which is good (namely the law) become a cause of death for me?’ If the answer to that question is ‘Yes,’ Paul is history–there is no gospel.  If the gospel of justification by faith that I have just celebrated for the last twenty minutes implies law is sin and law is poison, it is false, and I’m a false teacher.  And you shouldn’t believe it, because there’s no hope in it, because it damns the Word of God.”

I cannot emphasize enough how important Romans 7:13 is to this discussion.  “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.”

It is our sin, not the law, that brings death, and similarly, it is our sin, not the law, that is nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:13-14).

In summary, concluding that Colossians 2:13-14 refers to the law being nailed to the cross carries significant theological consequences.  Do we agree with the same apostle who wrote these verses when he says that he delights in the law in his inner being (Romans 7:22)?  Do we agree with Paul when he says that the “law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12)?

It is my hope and prayer that we can answer “Yes” to these questions.

Greg

Good grief, Greg. Bacchiocchi couldn’t have said it any better! Well done!

SDAs are also wrong in trying to make verse 14 speak about the ceremonial law too. Bacchiocchi got flak for presenting the ‘cheirographon’ and not the ‘ceremonial law’ as being nailed to the cross simply because it differed from the traditional SDA interpretation.

The forgiveness of verses 12-13,15 only have the meaning and impact they do when we understand that our sins are nailed to the cross and can no longer be held against us! Forgiveness is not found in nailing any law to the cross. As Greg pointed out, the law brings conviction and if our government nailed the law to the court doors, what kind of anarchy would ensue!