col 2:16 the accurate interpretation and the final word on the text

Adventist Heretic · Jun 27, 2015

The Interpretation to end all interpretations on Col 2:16: Finally the Correct interpretation of the passage.

In the battle that rages around the issue of the Sabbath and weather we are to observe it or not, one text stands out in the center of the debate. It is Col 2:16 Therefore, Let no one Judge you concerning meat or drink or a Festival, a New Moon or a Sabbath, for these are the shadow of things that still linger.[1]`Those that say that the Sabbath is to be abandoned point to this text and say, “Paul clearly says, don’t judge anyone about the Sabbath, so stop judging us and leave us alone. If you want to keep the Sabbath then do so but why would you want to dwell in Shadow land we have the substance. What value do you find in that Old Covenant relic any way’s?”

Those who believe that the Sabbath should be kept are often perplexed and intimidated by this text, because it seems to validate the reading of the position advocated by their opponents. If they do try to interpret the text it is a piecemeal approach, no interpretation deals with all the information some of it is explained and some of it is just not dealt with at all. Some say Sabbath is still binding, but the rest of them are not, this is a modified view. Others say we should observe all the Sabbath’s New Moons and Festival’s. What is need is an interpretation that deals with ALL the assumptions & ALL the information. So let’s look at these now.

Commonly, those that advocate for abandonment, assumes that the parties in question doing the judging are Jews or Jewish believers, but the text never says that. It is also assumed that those judging are condemning them for NOT observing the Sabbath, Festivals and New Moons, but the Text never says that either. What is often over look by interpreters on both sides is that the turning point in Paul’s argument is the use of the word “Therefore” It is the dividing line between what come before and what comes after in the text. It is often pointed out that when you see the term therefore, you have to ask, "What is it therefore". Therefore sets up Paul’s response. Paul two times uses the “let know one…. concerning…. formula “Let No one, Judge/Deceive, you concerning….” This formula is in direct answer to the statements & objection raised earlier in the text. So before we get to Paul’s answer let’s look at the earlier statement & objections in the passage.

Paul begins the section his purpose for writing to the new believers in Colossae. (Vs. 2), that they be encouraged in heart, united in love and have complete understanding of Christ. Then Paul makes 2 statements about Christ in which he builds his defense to the objections, because he is dealing with two different groups in this passage. The first statements about Christ is, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (vs.3). The second is “He (Christ) is the head over every power and authority. (vs.10). In the first statement the Wisdom and Knowledge of Christ was being challenged by those of the Greek world view, this challenge came from many different sources, Philosophy of the Philosophers (v.8), Knowledge of Gnostics (v3.), Rhetoric of the Sophists (vs.4), or the Mythology & Astrology of ancient religions (vs.8) The second challenge is to the Power and Authority of Christ. This challenge comes from the Jews and the Jewish believers. This challenge is against the qualification of the believers, mainly they are not circumcised (vs.11) and they are not sacrificing (vs15).

Paul deals with these challenges by reminding them of the status Christ has gained for them. To counter the Greeks, he encourages them to continue to walk in Christ as they received him and not to be impressed with the Greeks, because all wisdom and knowledge are in Christ not the Philosophers, not the Gnostics, not the Sophist, the Astrologers and not the ancient religions they will be deceived and disqualified, by listening to the Greeks.

Paul then turns to the challenges from the Jews and the Jewish believes by reminding them because they were made complete in Christ (vs.10) He also reminds them they do not need circumcision and sacrifice because Christ had become their circumcision and their sacrifice and won the benefits of both. With Sacrifice he won the right to forgive their sins and cancel out the accusation against them, with circumcision he won the right to bring them back into the Mosaic covenant and allowed them to participate and receive the benefits of the covenant without being circumcised themselves.

Paul next draws conclusions based on these arguments. Now I will vary from the text in Colossians in that I will address the conclusions opposite of that of what is written by Paul. Paul concludes that those who are deceived by the Greeks are disqualified, because they delight in false humility, are puffed up and they have separated themselves from the source of victory over the flesh, which is Christ. Paul reminds them that they have died to the things of the Greeks and are now to be living for godly things, why go back because they have no value in restraining the flesh.

Now let looks at Paul’s statements concerning Jews and Jewish believers. This is where the controversy begins. The controversy is over weather Paul is making optional the keeping of the Mosaic Festivals, Sabbath and New Moons or was he telling Christian not to let the Jews and Jewish believers, forbid them from observing them. Based on the previous statement of circumcision & sacrifice we must conclude that Paul was not forbidding them from participating in the Mosaic festivals, why? Because the very fact that they are talking about circumcision proves that the Mosaic Covenant is still valid and binding, because you only circumcise in order to enter the Mosaic Covenant and partake of it’s benefits. Why else would Christ need to become your circumcision UNLESS HE wanted to you to enter the Mosaic Covenant and observe is requirements and receive it’s benefits? If Christ as become you Circumcision then he has made provision for you to receive the benefits and the obligations of Moses. Now the conclusion that Paul makes about No one Judging you is more about forbidding and discouraging Christians from participating. You are complete in Christ; so you have the right and responsibility to enjoy those benefits, so don’t listen to the Jews.

Paul’s conclusion, Let know one Judge (vs.16) you or Deceive (vs.18) you are the conclusion rooted in the benefits Christ has won for us. You can both be deceived and disqualified by the Greeks or you can be denied and discouraged by the Jews. Paul’s statements about being complete are in no way making optional the Sabbath. In fact his reasoning makes it very clear they WERE practicing all the requirement of Moses, including the Sabbath, New Moons & Festivals.

While there are many people who have opinions on this passages and Christian’s use this as there main defense against observing the Sabbath, the text actually tell another story. Christian have no leg to stand on when it come to advocating for the abandonment of the Sabbath, based on Colossian 2. In fact careful examination of the passage actually leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Those who were advocating for Sabbath abandonment must rethink there reasons for doing so.

[1]“Shadow of things that sill linger” is the most accurate translation of the Greek “Shadow of things to come” is a good understanding, but not a precise translation of the Greek, but is certainly better then “Shadow of thing that have come” (NIV), This is reading into the text their beliefs and assumes a past fulfillment

Adventist Heretic · Jun 29, 2015

nobody ????

tall73 · Jun 30, 2015

I will start with where I see agreement, and seek some clarifications before responding in full. I want to make sure I understand your argument before responding.

icedragon101 said:
Commonly, those that advocate for abandonment, assumes that the parties in question doing the judging are Jews or Jewish believers, but the text never says that.

It is true the text never says specifically who is judging. So is it your view that it is Jewish adherents who are NOT believers judging based on them keeping feasts without circumcision? Please clarify. In particular one was supposed to be circumcised to keep passover, which though not mentioned directly, seems important to your overall argument of entry into the Mosaic covenant.

It is also assumed that those judging are condemning them for NOT observing the Sabbath, Festivals and New Moons, but the Text never says that either.

True, it never says that.

Paul begins the section his purpose for writing to the new believers in Colossae. (Vs. 2), that they be encouraged in heart, united in love and have complete understanding of Christ. Then Paul makes 2 statements about Christ in which he builds his defense to the objections, because he is dealing with two different groups in this passage. The first statements about Christ is, “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (vs.3). The second is “He (Christ) is the head over every power and authority. (vs.10). In the first statement the Wisdom and Knowledge of Christ was being challenged by those of the Greek world view, this challenge came from many different sources, Philosophy of the Philosophers (v.8), Knowledge of Gnostics (v3.), Rhetoric of the Sophists (vs.4), or the Mythology & Astrology of ancient religions (vs.8)

We agree that Paul warns against philosophy etc. and upholds Jesus as the true Source of all wisdom over against the philosophy of men, etc. He may also be responding to a proto-gnostic view as we see hints of in I Corinthians and I John, so this too would address that with the emphasis on knowledge.

The second challenge is to the Power and Authority of Christ. This challenge comes from the Jews and the Jewish believers. This challenge is against the qualification of the believers, mainly they are not circumcised (vs.11) and they are not sacrificing (vs15).

Alright, here you lost me a bit. I can see how Jews would challenge the authority of Christ. I am not sure how that is related to the qualifications of believers. Please elaborate how those two relate.

I can understand how qualifications might be challenged, especially based on lack of circumcision, just not sure how it relates to the authority of Christ.

Paul deals with these challenges by reminding them of the status Christ has gained for them. To counter the Greeks, he encourages them to continue to walk in Christ as they received him and not to be impressed with the Greeks, because all wisdom and knowledge are in Christ not the Philosophers, not the Gnostics, not the Sophist, the Astrologers and not the ancient religions they will be deceived and disqualified, by listening to the Greeks.

Agreed.

Paul then turns to the challenges from the Jews and the Jewish believes by reminding them because they were made complete in Christ (vs.10) He also reminds them they do not need circumcision and sacrifice because Christ had become their circumcision and their sacrifice and won the benefits of both. With Sacrifice he won the right to forgive their sins and cancel out the accusation against them, with circumcision he won the right to bring them back into the Mosaic covenant and allowed them to participate and receive the benefits of the covenant without being circumcised themselves.

Now this appears to be the linchpin of your argument, that Christ's fulfilling of the sacrifice and circumcision requirements allows them participation in the Mosaic covenant, despite their lack of physical circumcision, etc.

More on this later.

Paul next draws conclusions based on these arguments. Now I will vary from the text in Colossians in that I will address the conclusions opposite of that of what is written by Paul. Paul concludes that those who are deceived by the Greeks are disqualified, because they delight in false humility, are puffed up and they have separated themselves from the source of victory over the flesh, which is Christ. Paul reminds them that they have died to the things of the Greeks and are now to be living for godly things, why go back because they have no value in restraining the flesh.

I am not sure that is only addressed to the Greeks side of the equation, but for the sake of the discussion you need not elaborate. It is the other part that is the focus of this really, so not a big deal.

Now let looks at Paul’s statements concerning Jews and Jewish believers. This is where the controversy begins. The controversy is over weather Paul is making optional the keeping of the Mosaic Festivals, Sabbath and New Moons or was he telling Christian not to let the Jews and Jewish believers, forbid them from observing them. Based on the previous statement of circumcision & sacrifice we must conclude that Paul was not forbidding them from participating in the Mosaic festivals, why? Because the very fact that they are talking about circumcision proves that the Mosaic Covenant is still valid and binding, because you only circumcise in order to enter the Mosaic Covenant and partake of it’s benefits. Why else would Christ need to become your circumcision UNLESS HE wanted to you to enter the Mosaic Covenant and observe is requirements and receive it’s benefits? If Christ as become you Circumcision then he has made provision for you to receive the benefits and the obligations of Moses.

This appears to be a more forceful re-statement of the central part of your argument. The only reason for believers to receive spiritual circumcision is participation in the Mosaic covenant, both its benefits and requirements.

I would take it from this that you would essentially be picturing them engaging in a form of Messianic Judaism, similar to what we see James and the brothers in Jerusalem participating in, as described in Acts 21?

And it appears you believe they were keeping feasts. Do you think that current believers should, or is this just an historical description of their practice, and you are mainly trying to show only that it is not an anti-Sabbath text?

Now the conclusion that Paul makes about No one Judging you is more about forbidding and discouraging Christians from participating. You are complete in Christ; so you have the right and responsibility to enjoy those benefits, so don’t listen to the Jews.

So it would be the non-Christian Jews, in your view, correct?

Paul’s conclusion, Let know one Judge (vs.16) you or Deceive (vs.18) you are the conclusion rooted in the benefits Christ has won for us. You can both be deceived and disqualified by the Greeks or you can be denied and discouraged by the Jews. Paul’s statements about being complete are in no way making optional the Sabbath. In fact his reasoning makes it very clear they WERE practicing all the requirement of Moses, including the Sabbath, New Moons & Festivals.

Apart from sacrifice and circumcision is there any other part of the Mosaic covenant you feel has changed? Are believers essentially under it all?

Also, while you don't address it directly, I think we may agree on the "handwriting" that was nailed to the cross being the certificate of death, or the sins that stood against us. Please let me know if we do not agree.

In other words, my position on that point is that it was not the law nailed to the cross, ceremonial or otherwise, but the certificate of debt, or our sins, that Jesus forgave by becoming sin for us (for it was literally Jesus who was nailed to the cross).

Adventist Heretic · Jul 1, 2015

tall73 said:
.

Alright, here you lost me a bit. I can see how Jews would challenge the authority of Christ. I am not sure how that is related to the qualifications of believers. Please elaborate how those two relate.

Click to expand...

I am not sure how you don't see it. Why would the Jews be objecting in the first place if they were not participating in the synagogue, they did not object to other religions at least not on the grounds of paticipation, because the were not participating in the Mosaic covenant. Only those who were participating in the Covenent were a problem to the Jews

I can understand how qualifications might be challenged, especially based on lack of circumcision, just not sure how it relates to the authority of Christ.

Now this appears to be the linchpin of your argument, that Christ's fulfilling of the sacrifice and circumcision requirements allows them participation in the Mosaic covenant, despite their lack of physical circumcision, etc.

This appears to be a more forceful re-statement of the central part of your argument. The only reason for believers to receive spiritual circumcision is participation in the Mosaic covenant, both its benefits and requirements.

Click to expand...

it is the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenant.

I would take it from this that you would essentially be picturing them engaging in a form of Messianic Judaism, similar to what we see James and the brothers in Jerusalem participating in, as described in Acts 21?

And it appears you believe they were keeping feasts. Do you think that current believers should, or is this just an historical description of their practice, and you are mainly trying to show only that it is not an anti-Sabbath text?

Click to expand...

A form of Messianic Judaism is where i lean and yes the text tell us that they were keeping all the feast, that is the conclusion of the passage.

So it would be the non-Christian Jews, in your view, correct?

Click to expand...

yes

Apart from sacrifice and circumcision is there any other part of the Mosaic covenant you feel has changed? Are believers essentially under it all?

Also, while you don't address it directly, I think we may agree on the "handwriting" that was nailed to the cross being the certificate of death, or the sins that stood against us. Please let me know if we do not agree.

In other words, my position on that point is that it was not the law nailed to the cross, ceremonial or otherwise, but the certificate of debt, or our sins, that Jesus forgave by becoming sin for us (for it was literally Jesus who was nailed to the cross).

Click to expand...

that is correct

tall73 · Jul 1, 2015

icedragon101 said:
I am not sure how you don't see it. Why would the Jews be objecting in the first place if they were not participating in the synagogue, they did not object to other religions at least not on the grounds of paticipation, because the were not participating in the Mosaic covenant. Only those who were participating in the Covenent were a problem to the Jews

a. I don't see how the authority of Christ challenge and the challenge about circumcision are directly related.

b. It is your contention that it is the non-Christian Jews objecting. On the other hand we know without a doubt that Christian Judaizers were wanting them to be circumcised and keep the whole law. And Paul speaks often about the circumcision issue in that context. So we can certainly see how that interpretation would make sense.

Now I will look a bit later at the central argument you are making, why would they need to be circumcised in Christ, etc. I just want to make sure I understand your position fully.

To me the authority of Jesus is cited as a response to human philosophy, etc. and then he turns to discussion of circumcision, forgiveness through the payment for sins, etc.

tall73 · Jul 1, 2015

Now I will add also I think a Messianic Judaism approach is at least more internally consistent than a traditional Adventist approach. I considered it for a time as well. And I agree that whatever you do with the Sabbath in this passage you have to do with the feasts as well.

tall73 · Jul 1, 2015

How do you interpret the food and drink portion?

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

tall73 · Jul 1, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Why would the Jews be objecting in the first place if they were not participating in the synagogue, they did not object to other religions at least not on the grounds of paticipation, because the were not participating in the Mosaic covenant.

We know historically that many met in synagogues for some years. However, in Acts we also see instances where the believers left the synagogue and met in other places.

As it relates to the immediate area:

Col 4:9 and with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here.

There are a number of links between the letter to Philemon and the letter to the Colossians. Many believe that Philemon lived in Colassae. And some tradition says he was a martyr in Colossae.

The church met in his house:

Phm 1:1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker
Phm 1:2 and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

Another house congregation is mentioned in the letter as well:

Col 4:15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

Now we know that at times Christians might attend synagogue and then meet on Sunday in another location. But it is up to you to demonstrate that they were going to the synagogue when this was not the case in a number of locations, and some evidence suggests they met in homes in that region.

Adventist Heretic · Jul 2, 2015

tall73 said:
a. I don't see how the authority of Christ challenge and the challenge about circumcision are directly related.

Define authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority. A summary defination. A person or group of people in whom the right to make decisions, to settle disputes, to determine law, the right to command, and decide matters. Paul make the argument that circumcision is not needed for salvation & participation in the Covenant in Acts 15, as well as Gal 3. Circumcision was important because with out it you could not receive any of the benefits of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant. Think of it as your membership card into Costco. without it you don't get the benefits of Costco. But say that now you brother comes along an buy's a membership card and list you and your family and all of your relatives as beneficiary. You did nothing to earn the benefits but they are yours because of his payment, you can shop at Costco any time you want. But now a dispute arises, from some other shoppers who are stock holder, can you shop there, well since you brother is also a stock holder and a member you have the rights to both benefits. You cannot be denied because you did buy a membership or a stock it was willed to you. That is what Paul is addressing. Christ has willed you the entrance requirement to the covenant, so you don't have to sacrifice or be circumcised yourself.

b. It is your contention that it is the non-Christian Jews objecting. On the other hand we know without a doubt that Christian Judaizers were wanting them to be circumcised and keep the whole law. And Paul speaks often about the circumcision issue in that context. So we can certainly see how that interpretation would make sense.

Tall I misunderstood this question. It could be either Jews or Judaizers.

Now I will look a bit later at the central argument you are making, why would they need to be circumcised in Christ, etc. I just want to make sure I understand your position fully.

To me the authority of Jesus is cited as a response to human philosophy, etc. and then he turns to discussion of circumcision, forgiveness through the payment for sins, etc.

Tall it is very clear that Paul is following a formula here 1.propasiation,2 objection, 3. conclusion, it follows a poetic A,B format. A1,A2,B1,B2,B3,A3. Tall if that were the case then why would he bring up circumcision and Sacrifice to begin with? Paul whole second argument could be deleted and you would get the same result. only in the context of a Jewish attack, I include Judaizers in on this does the passage make sense. Look at it another way Paul is defending the infant Church from twin attacks, Gentiles and Jews. The gentiles have no power and the Jews have no authority.

Adventist Heretic · Jul 2, 2015

Tall I have only 90 mins a day for computer access. so my responses will be limited.

Adventist Heretic · Jul 2, 2015

tall73 said:
How do you interpret the food and drink portion?

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

I have not given this section much thought. my initial response is that it talking about the Mosaic requirements, but upon writing this it needs to be looked at.

Adventist Heretic · Jul 2, 2015

tall73 said:
We know historically that many met in synagogues for some years. However, in Acts we also see instances where the believers left the synagogue and met in other places.

As it relates to the immediate area:

Col 4:9 and with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here.

There are a number of links between the letter to Philemon and the letter to the Colossians. Many believe that Philemon lived in Colassae. And some tradition says he was a martyr in Colossae.

The church met in his house:

Phm 1:1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker
Phm 1:2 and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house:

Another house congregation is mentioned in the letter as well:

Col 4:15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

Now we know that at times Christians might attend synagogue and then meet on Sunday in another location. But it is up to you to demonstrate that they were going to the synagogue when this was not the case in a number of locations, and some evidence suggests they met in homes in that region.

Tall this goes back to the SDA misunderstanding of the Relation of the Sabbath to the Lords Day, there is no conflict as far as I am concerned. They were doing both, synagoge and house church. Sabbath was a day of rest and the Lord's day was a festival. the difference between them was the amount of work they were allowed to do. The Lord's day was not a day of rest or a replacement for Sabbath. The early Church was quite clear on this matter. Sabbath was a sign of Creation & the 1000 years ON THE EARTH, The Lord's Day was a festival and a sign of the New Jerusalem come down out of heaven. I believe they saw it as sign of entrance into the NJ in heaven. http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571 Check it out in the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Good reference

tall73 · Jul 6, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall this goes back to the SDA misunderstanding of the Relation of the Sabbath to the Lords Day, there is no conflict as far as I am concerned. They were doing both, synagoge and house church. Sabbath was a day of rest and the Lord's day was a festival. the difference between them was the amount of work they were allowed to do. The Lord's day was not a day of rest or a replacement for Sabbath. The early Church was quite clear on this matter. Sabbath was a sign of Creation & the 1000 years ON THE EARTH, The Lord's Day was a festival and a sign of the New Jerusalem come down out of heaven. I believe they saw it as sign of entrance into the NJ in heaven. http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Early-Christian-Beliefs-Reference/dp/1565633571 Check it out in the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Good reference

I mentioned that we have evidence some were attending synagogue and then also keeping Sunday. However, the original point in my post was responding to the notion that it was non-Christian Jews who were criticizing the Christian gentiles, and so my point was that we have evidence in some cities, even in the province of Asia, that the Christians left the synagogues. Therefore they would not be around the non-Christian Jews to be criticized.

Since you now made it clear this could include so called Judaizers, then the point is not really relevant.

tall73 · Jul 6, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Tall I have only 90 mins a day for computer access. so my responses will be limited.

Understood, I have been busy myself lately. Take your time, there is no rush, and it is good for us both to look over things slowly.

tall73 · Jul 6, 2015

icedragon101 said:
I have not given this section much thought. my initial response is that it talking about the Mosaic requirements, but upon writing this it needs to be looked at.

There are not really many things dealing with drinks, however, though I have seen a few arguments in that regard. Let me know what you come up with.

tall73 · Jul 7, 2015

icedragon101 said:
Paul make the argument that circumcision is not needed for salvation & participation in the Covenant in Acts 15, as well as Gal 3. Circumcision was important because with out it you could not receive any of the benefits of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant.

Here I think essentially all the key points of your central thesis are presented in a couple of sentences. So I will look at these sentences and then go from there if needed in a more broad fashion after you respond.

The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant both include circumcision. However, I do not think that Paul is desirous of gentiles being under the Mosaic covenant. Rather he stresses the Abrahamic covenant, because it is the one associated with the promise. He in fact contrasts the promise to Abraham with the later introduced law, as he sees them playing different functions.

A key text is Romans 4.

Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Paul's emphasis is that it is faith, not circumcision that saves. And note that here he indicates the promise received by faith is the key point, not the law.

Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
Rom 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Both the Gentile believers and Israelite believers are offspring of Abraham by faith, not just the adherents of the law.

This is spelled out in more detail in Galatians 3. While you correctly cite this passage to indicate that circumcision is not needed for salvation, I do not think it gives credence to the notion that Gentiles would keep the mosaic covenant.

Gal 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

The covenant was made with Abraham. Again Paul gives preference to Abrahamic covenant as the source of salvation. The covenant with Abraham included promises, among those that all the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. The law, introduced later--the Mosaic law--does not change the covenant made with Abraham. It does not void the promise, and the requirements of law are not added to the promises as the covenant was already ratified. The inheritance comes through the promise to Abraham, without resort to the law given to Moses.

He then clarifies the purpose of the law:

Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

The law was given UNTIL the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made.

Gal 3:20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.
Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

The law was not opposed to the promise, but also did not replace it. And it was added as a guardian UNTIL Christ came. Now that faith has come, we are not under the guardian--which is the law.

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Through faith we are all in Christ Jesus' and therefore Abraham's offspring, and heirs by the promise.

It is not by law.

Now Galatians 5 spells out another important piece of the puzzle.

Gal 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
Gal 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

It is your contention that the gentiles were circumcised in Christ so they could then be part of the benefits and obligations of the Mosaic covenant. However here Paul specifically says if you accept circumcision (physical) you will be obligated to keep the whole law. Now his main point is that if you circumcise yourself in order to comply with the law for salvation you are showing that you are trying to earn salvation rather than accepting it by faith through Christ. Therefore, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

However, he also says if you accept circumcision then you will be obligated to the whole law--but this is what you are saying they are already obligated to. Paul does not agree. Gentiles are not obligated to the whole law.

They are children of Abraham by faith and participate in the promises of that covenant. Christ accomplished circumcision for them, and whether they are physically circumcised or not they have salvation by faith according to the promises made to Abraham, 430 years before the law ever was introduced.

Now you also cite Acts 15 as a key text for you. However, I again do not see this as supporting observance of the entire Mosaic law for gentiles.

The council gathered to discuss the following issue:

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

Those believers belonging to the party of the Pharisees had to requirements for gentiles:

1. circumcision

2. order them to keep the law of Moses.

Now we agree Jesus accomplishes all the circumcision that they need. However, the second point is a problem for your proposal. If Paul had taught the gentile church at Antioch that they were to keep all the Mosaic covenant, other than circumcision and sacrifice, then why would the Pharisee party be speaking about the council compelling the gentiles to keep the law of Moses? They would have already been doing it.

Moreover, the church expressly distances itself from the position of the Pharisee party in the official letter summarizing their ruling:

Act 15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers,
Act 15:23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Act 15:25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

While people have interpreted these requirements in different ways (Noahide requirements, compromise requirements, etc.) they do not equal keeping the whole law of Moses which is what the Pharisees wanted. And there would be no reason for the Pharisees to push for that if they were already doing this to start with.

tall73 · Jul 7, 2015

So Paul's answer was not that spiritual circumcision prepared Gentiles for the benefits and obligations of the Mosaic covenant, but that by the promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and their acceptance by faith, they already had all that was needed for salvation and did not need to be worried about distractions from Christ.

These could take the form of philosophies of men, or imposed requirements from the Judaizers.

Col 2:13 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,
Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Their debt of sin was already paid for. They need no more fitness to be right with God. So the food, drink, festival, new moon, sabbath, etc. are not a basis for passing judgment on them. They are shadows. Now I agree, they are shadows of things to come. Some had already been fulfilled by that point, and some have still not been fulfilled. However, the substance is Christ. And Paul did not require Mosaic law observance of gentiles. They had the substance, they didn't need to be judged on the shadow.

So the things mentioned there are just one more way to get off track from the simple gospel of Christ.

Col 2:4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Col 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

In each of these Christ, and faith in Him, is the basis of salvation and confidence with God, and the other things warned against are the distraction.

tall73 · Jul 7, 2015

Now, having said all that, those who were Jewish Christians and who saw Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah continued right on being zealous for the law. There is not problem with that.

In fact, you mentioned sacrifice being taken care of, but Paul did not balk at the notion of presenting the gifts for the vow of men at the sanctuary in Acts 21.

Here James spells out that the Jews in Jerusalem are upset because Paul has been accused of leading JEWISH believers in the diaspora from Moses, and the sanctuary, and the law. However, they do not think Paul is actually doing this.

They have no concern about the gentile believers in this regard, because they were only required to do the few things of the Acts council, and so were not under the Mosaic law.

Act 21:17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
Act 21:25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."

This arrangement made perfect sense. What Jews would accept the Messiah from Jewish believers who were getting rid of the law? James was renown for his devout law keeping, and so were the believers in Jerusalem. And the outreach was effective as James speaks of the myriads, or tens of thousands, who had believed in this manner.

Yet, what was a blessing for the evangelization of the Jewish population was a hindrance to gentiles. Circumcision, being required to keep all the law of Moses, etc. obscured the simple message of the gospel, and it was ruled to be not necessary:

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God

The gentiles could be saved as gentiles, without becoming Jews. They were still Abraham's descendants by faith. Peter related how the Spirit came on them while still uncircumcised, just as they were.

James noted that God's plan was always to gather in the gentiles.

The rule now is Christ living in us, not an external law:

Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
Gal 5:21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.

We now are dead to the law, but joined instead to Christ, to live in a new way by the Spirit.

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

The old Mosaic covenant, with its covenant words in stone, has come to have no glory:

2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

The old covenant is not the focus. Rather, already in the time of the author of Hebrews it was ready to vanish away

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

tall73 · Jul 7, 2015

I will now wait for a bit. I know it may take some time to reply to all this. When you have presented any rebuttals let me know and we can look at some of the details and see if there are other points we might come to agreement on.

Adventist Heretic · Jul 9, 2015

tall73 said:
How do you interpret the food and drink portion?

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

Tall I forgot to mention that When studying with the Messianics, they pointed out the the Gentile/Greek portion of the text was refering to the Gnostic Critics, Remember there are more then one critic in this passage. Philosophers,Gnostics, Sophists, other pagans,, Jews and Jewish Christians, the food porting could very well be refering to the objection by the Gnostics who would would have been very much against festival, feasting and food, because the believe that the flesh was bad.

col 2:16 the accurate interpretation and the final word on the text

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Similar threads