Guibox --

Did you miss Aaron’s comment on the other thread?  Verses 16-17 address the Torah’s practices of Sabbath, New Moons and the annual festivals.  Are these, too, pagan ascetic practices?  Can pagan extremes be considered “shadows of Christ”?

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.

Guibox, this would be a good point if “circumcision” wasn’t mentioned in the passage.  Circumcision was the rite that Jews advocated for entry into the Old Covenant.  Sabbath-keeping meant nothing if you were not part of the circumcision.  If Paul were not referring in the context to Judaizers, then we would have to assume that the Colossian “judges” (as you’ve called them) were advocating circumcision as well.

And again, can “cultic practices” be properly called “shadows of Christ”? 

What we’ve simply got here is a sandwich.  The context before verse 14 involves Jewish rituals, and the context immediately after in 16-17 mentions Jewish rituals.  Would it be insanity to assume that the thing in-between both also refers to the Jewish Law?  Not at all.

I need to also mention about the parallel language that Paul is using in the passage.  Remember he also called the Law --

1) the ministry of death
2) the ministry of condemnation
3) the letter that kills
4) the strength/power of sin

Is it coincidence that he mentions the thing nailed to the cross as being “against us” or “contrary to us”, or describes them in one book as “handwriting” and in another as “letters engraved in stone”?

What lengths are we going to in order to disprove the obvious?!?

Anyhow, it’s going to take me awhile to catch up, I think, but I shall try!

Blessings in Him,
Ramone

Glenn,

Here is the section of Numbers 15 I was referring to.

32 “While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.”
---------------------------------------------------------

A harsh punishment for literal Sabbath breaking such as above would be hard to explain if the Sabbath of the decalogue did not point to specific spritual truths. The Sabbath was a sign of Holiness unto God, and it also was a type of salvation truth, and God took Sabbath breaking very seriously in those days.

Sdas believe that the Sabbath will be the final testing truth that determines our salvation. Well how come the epistles, and the book of Revelation, including Jesus’ epistles to the seven churches never said one word about the importance of the Sabbath? Instead, the NT is abundantly clear that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ, and that by believing we enter the true Sabbath -rest (Hebrews 4)

Stan

Guibox wrote:

“I think it is a shallow view of the Sabbath to simply say it was merely a ‘day given to the Jews’. There is historical, eschaetological and Messianic significance to it that many who don’t delve into it miss.”
-------------------------------------------------------

The Jews themselves recognize that the Sabbath is a ceremonial law meant just for them. Also the Bible says that the Sabbath was given specifically to Israel (Exodus 31), and even lists the Sabbath as part of the ceremonial feast days in Leviticus 23. So we have the testimony of the Jews themselves, but we have the clear words of the OT also confirming this.

Stan

P.S.  Why is the word for “handwriting” being focused on?  There are five other words in Greek attached to it which I haven’t seen addressed here!  (If they have been, I apologize)

Again, I’m no Greek scholar, but the full expression in my parallel reads: “handwriting in the ordinances which was contrary to us”.  Here at 4TG we seem to have preferred to take the first word and constructed an explanation/theology about that without the others and at the expense of the context.

The study of words in Greek can be valuable, but it is not valuable if we go to the Greek in order to overturn what the context shows in any language.

Anonymous!  Thank you!  Your words are a breath of fresh air and I praise God with you!  Thank you so much.

The discussion thread on FAF continues t be quite lively.

Dennis comes on with this post:

Is it really that terrible and unthinkable to honor your parents, not to steal, not to use God’s name in vain, etc.? Why would we want to assault God’s moral directives wherever in Scripture they are found? I cannot find fault with God’s moral directives. Who authorized me or anyone else to denounce any of God’s moral laws? The reiterated moral laws in the New Testament do not just “happen” to be there--they are God-breathed. Obviously, God wanted to have his timeless moral laws in the New Testament as well.

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

And then Chris fires back at Dennis:

Dennis,

This will no doubt seem harsh in writing, but I do not mean it that way. Since we know each other personally, please imagine me sitting across from you, looking you in the eye and speaking to you as a brother. I am speaking frankly, but not in a mean way or an argumentative way.

What you imply in your post is hurtful. You are rather badly misconstruing what I am saying. Since you know me personally, we have met on several occasions, and have even studied the Bible together; you also know that I uphold the validity of God’s eternal transcendent law and strongly believe that Christians are held to the highest standards of morality and holiness.

What is being dicussed here is NOT whether or not we are held to God’s moral law. We most certaintly are! What we are discussing is who is the greatest most complete revelation of God and His eternal transcendent law, Moses or Jesus?

As a Christian brother, I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from any implication that those who embrace a New Covenant view of the Mosaic Law are somehow rejecting the eternal transcendent law of God. That is just not true and it is wrong to misrepresent a fellow believers position, even in an implicit way.

Please accept this sincere request as one Christian imploring another for greater love, unity, and clear communication of view points.”
---------------------------------------------------------

This is a microcosm of how heated these debates have been throughout the history of the Christian church.

Stan

Brother Stan,

I think I’m going to have to ditch my attempts to answer and keep up with the things going on at FAF, Chris, Dennis, Colleen and River, etc.  There is too much for me to catch up on.  And I’d like to try and answer the things that address the topic I titled & introduced this thread about (re-interpreting the Ten), as well as the pictures and Colossians 2 (which the pictures address).

My apologies for bowing out of that part, bro.
In Him,
Ramone

[quote author="agapetos"]Guibox --

Did you miss Aaron’s comment on the other thread?  Verses 16-17 address the Torah’s practices of Sabbath, New Moons and the annual festivals.  Are these, too, pagan ascetic practices?  Can pagan extremes be considered “shadows of Christ”?

That Jewish practices are being spoken of here is true. However, the context was not their validity but the Colossian judges who were expecting them to obey them through ascetic practices to bring them closer to the Divine.

Regardless, this has no direct bearing on the meaning of ‘cheirographon’ and the idea of forgiveness of our sins, something that cannot be exegetically or contextually (when looking at the whole of the chapter of which verses 14-17 is the meaning of it) derived if applying the law to it. Forgiveness is not obtained by nailing a moral code to the cross, but our sins that are ‘against’ us. It is not the law that is against us, Ramone. It is our sins that condemn us through the law. When our sins are forgiven, does this make the law ‘unreal’? Did it disappear? When I commit adultery and then ask for forgiveness, does the law go away and there is no more law against adultery?

[quote author="agapetos"]Guibox, this would be a good point if “circumcision” wasn’t mentioned in the passage.  Circumcision was the rite that Jews advocated for entry into the Old Covenant.  Sabbath-keeping meant nothing if you were not part of the circumcision.  If Paul were not referring in the context to Judaizers, then we would have to assume that the Colossian “judges” (as you’ve called them) were advocating circumcision as well.

Paul is not advocating circumcision or saying the judges are. He is talking about ‘circumcision of the heart’ and then speaks about baptism to show the meaning of fullness and forgiveness. As Bacchiocchi says:

In order to explain how Christ extends “perfection” (Col 1:28; 4:12) and “fullness” (Col 1:19; 2:9) to the believer, Paul appeals, not to the Law, but to baptism. Christian perfection is the work of God who extends to the Christian the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism (Col 2:11-13). The benefits of baptism are concretely presented as the forgiveness of “all our trespasses” (Col 2:13; 1:14; 3:13) which results in being “made alive” in Christ (Col 2:13). 

The reaffirmation of the fullness of God’s forgiveness, accomplished by Christ on the Cross and extended through baptism to the Christian, constitutes Paul’s basic answer to those trying to attain to perfection by submitting to ascetic practices to gain protection from cosmic powers and principalities. - Sabbath Under Crossfire

[quote author="agapetos"]What we’ve simply got here is a sandwich.  The context before verse 14 involves Jewish rituals, and the context immediately after in 16-17 mentions Jewish rituals.  Would it be insanity to assume that the thing in-between both also refers to the Jewish Law?  Not at all.

The verses before and after verses 14-17 do not speak of the Jewish Torah, nor about Jewish rituals. It speaks about ascetic practices and leaders beguiling them with words, then it speaks about divine forgiveness. Verse 16 is a continuation of verse 15. Because Christ’s act of forgiveness has taken away the power of principalities, nobody (speaking specifically of the Colossian judges) can judge you.

It is the direct result of the ‘cheirographon’ being nailed to the cross that brings meaning to the next three verses. Now, if in fact linguistically, ‘cheirographon’ does NOT mean the ‘law’, you cannot read the ‘law’ into the further revelations of verses 15-17, nor do they make any sense contextually. However, if you read the ‘record of sin’ as being nailed to the cross, the rest of the verses make complete sense.

And Dennis isn’t finished:

Colleen,

Your concluding thoughts are very accurate, “I understand that most people won’t react to these issues as we do.” Having been abused by a festal shadow does not authorize any of us to dislike or ignore where we find God’s moral commands in Scripture. This is nothing less than overreacting to our abusive past. This peculiar stance is truly “shocking” to the Christian community (as we see with this very thread). Furthermore, this antinomian stance compromises and limits our Christian witness to those we are desperately trying to reach for Christ.

As I mentioned earlier, it simply turns people off. It doesn’t even sound good to have an aversion to the moral directives in the Decalogue. We don’t have to apologize or warn people about any moral law in any part of Scripture. We must not allow a ceremonial law to frighten us into taking this extreme position; specificly, not making any reference to the Ten Commandments in evangelism. Instead, we of all people should wholeheartedly welcome the opportunity to share our faith about Jesus being the reality of the festal shadows.

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

Yes, I am with Dennis on this issue. Hang in there bro!

Stan

Something very strange happened on my last post, so I will start over:

Dennis isn’t finished yet:

Colleen,

Your concluding thoughts are very accurate, “I understand that most people won’t react to these issues as we do.” Having been abused by a festal shadow does not authorize any of us to dislike or ignore where we find God’s moral commands in Scripture. This is nothing less than overreacting to our abusive past. This peculiar stance is truly “shocking” to the Christian community (as we see with this very thread). Furthermore, this antinomian stance compromises and limits our Christian witness to those we are desperately trying to reach for Christ.

As I mentioned earlier, it simply turns people off. It doesn’t even sound good to have an aversion to the moral directives in the Decalogue. We don’t have to apologize or warn people about any moral law in any part of Scripture. We must not allow a ceremonial law to frighten us into taking this extreme position; specificly, not making any reference to the Ten Commandments in evangelism. Instead, we of all people should wholeheartedly welcome the opportunity to share our faith about Jesus being the reality of the festal shadows.

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

I am with Dennis on this one. God’s eternal law is just that wherever it is mentioned in the entire Bible.

Stan

I have belatedly completed The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He is as sick of televangelists as I am. However, he throws the baby out with the bath water. Dawkins does an inventory of every foible of religion and heaps in all on God.

Dawkins has a hate affair with religion, and rightly so. Religion is the behavior of man based upon his belief system. In most cases that belief system puts man in a favored position with God. Thus, man appropriates a mandate to do “God’s will”. Religion becomes a group-think activity in which all “outsiders” are anathema: thus, giving way to every ego-centric, triumphalistic, vengeful, greedy impulse of man. Dawkins captures them all.
Dawkins builds an anthropometric God and then demolishes Him.

Without a doubt Dawkins more than makes his case against religion. However, he fails to lay a hand on God.

The Sermon on the Mount is an expansion of the Ten Commandments. It is also the Master Plan and Vision Statement of the Messianic mission. The operative passages are Matt 5: 17, 18 “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one job or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” KJV

Matt 5: 48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. KJV

John 19: 30 “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”

The Gospel message is three fold: Christ’s sacrifice was necessary; Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient; we are complete in Him.

Our’s is to tell His story, not ours. We are His witnesses not His avengers.
When it comes to doubters we are to follow the example of Jesus: “Forgive them for they know not what they do!”

Even Dawkins could find no fault in such a witness and such generosity.

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

[quote author="Greg"] Is a life “in the Spirit” opposed to the moral qualities of the law as described by Jesus in Matthew 5-7? Further, do you agree with the apostle Paul, who said “I delight in the law in my inner being” (Romans 7:22)? 

1.  No. However, is doing nothing… ie not stealing, not killing, not coveting what your neighbor has etc. a moral quality? Or is it a plumb line by which man can be measured?

Isn’t a life “in the Spirit” so much more moral… ie cheerfully giving, lovingly helping preserve life, rejoicing with your neighbor when he is blessed?

2.  Yes.

[quote author="agapetos"] Anonymous! Thank you! Your words are a breath of fresh air and I praise God with you! Thank you so much. 

You are so welcome, brother.

[quote author="Stan"] God’s eternal law is just that wherever it is mentioned in the entire Bible. 

Does eternal have a beginning? Or are you not talking abut the 10C?

[quote author="Greg"]Do not engage in sexual relations (Neh. 13:22, Lev. 15:16)

Not a big deal, but I didn’t see where these verses prohibited sex on Sabbath. The Nehemiah text appears to apply only to the Levites, and perhaps for only that particular Sabbath, as Nehemiah was greatly concerned with the Israelites not taking the day seriously.

The second text doesn’t say anything directly about the Sabbath.  It does imply, or may imply, that any sexual activity, because of the loss of emissions, meant uncleanliness, and that uncleanliness of any kind would not be suitable for the Sabbath. But this would be an inference but it may not be a valid one.

According to the Genesis story. God married Adam and Eve just before sunset on Friday. TJZ

Anonymous, thanks for sticking around to respond to my questions.

[quote author="Anonymous"]
Is a life “in the Spirit” opposed to the moral qualities of the law as described by Jesus in Matthew 5-7?
1.  No. However, is doing nothing… ie not stealing, not killing, not coveting what your neighbor has etc. a moral quality? Or is it a plumb line by which man can be measured?

Isn’t a life “in the Spirit” so much more moral… ie cheerfully giving, lovingly helping preserve life, rejoicing with your neighbor when he is blessed?

I don’t see why we need to pit one “moral” law against another–aren’t they are all good?  For instance, what is inferior about the commands in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18?  I’ve noticed the tendency to argue in this way among some of my former Adventist brethren (and I’ve done it myself), but I’m not sure it’s fruitful.

[quote author="Anonymous"]
Further, do you agree with the apostle Paul, who said “I delight in the law in my inner being” (Romans 7:22)?
2.  Yes.

I’m glad we agree on this.  Perhaps we still disagree on Colossians 2:13-14, but is it possible to delight in God’s law if it is nailed to the cross?

Greg