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

[Dave-W]

You may not like my way of saying it, but the bottom line is they had different practice from the time of the council on. It was the attitude that changed, and that was unfortunate, and still is to this day.

Of course Jerusalem had a different practice. After James was murdered, Shimon ben Clopas (Our Lord's cousin) took over the church in Jerusalem. Just after the turn of the first century, he was approached by Yochanan ben Zakki, leader of the Sanhedrin which was now located in Yavneh. (after the destruction of the temple) to help him make the post-temple liturgy for the emerging sect of Rabbinic Judaism. So both under James and Shimon, it was VERY Jewish.

But on the practices of Jerusalem vs the Pauline congregations; Paul and James BOTH understood and supported the differentiation. Gentile Christianity did not have to look like Judaism. But the option of being VERY Jewish was supported as well. What was unfortunate was that subsequent generations of church leaders did not share that viewpoint and tried to tie all sectors of Christianity into the same lock-step.

 

[tall73]

Of course Jerusalem had a different practice. After James was murdered, Shimon ben Clopas (Our Lord's cousin) took over the church in Jerusalem. Just after the turn of the first century, he was approached by Yochanan ben Zakki, leader of the Sanhedrin which was now located in Yavneh. (after the destruction of the temple) to help him make the post-temple liturgy for the emerging sect of Rabbinic Judaism. So both under James and Shimon, it was VERY Jewish.

But on the practices of Jerusalem vs the Pauline congregations; Paul and James BOTH understood and supported the differentiation. Gentile Christianity did not have to look like Judaism. But the option of being VERY Jewish was supported as well. What was unfortunate was that subsequent generations of church leaders did not share that viewpoint and tried to tie all sectors of Christianity into the same lock-step.

I think we are on about the same page on this.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Of course Jerusalem had a different practice. After James was murdered, Shimon ben Clopas (Our Lord's cousin) took over the church in Jerusalem. Just after the turn of the first century, he was approached by Yochanan ben Zakki, leader of the Sanhedrin which was now located in Yavneh. (after the destruction of the temple) to help him make the post-temple liturgy for the emerging sect of Rabbinic Judaism. So both under James and Shimon, it was VERY Jewish.

But on the practices of Jerusalem vs the Pauline congregations; Paul and James BOTH understood and supported the differentiation. Gentile Christianity did not have to look like Judaism. But the option of being VERY Jewish was supported as well. What was unfortunate was that subsequent generations of church leaders did not share that viewpoint and tried to tie all sectors of Christianity into the same lock-step.

this is interesting, could you please source this.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Then why did you draw the contrast with the genitive construction used in all the other instances when speaking of the day of judgment?

You seemed to be arguing against yourself, as you presented the best argument against your own assertion. The constructions are not the same.

And the parallel construction speaking of the Lord's supper, WAS a celebration that pertained to the Lord. So it is not by any means outside the meaning of the phrase to see it as a celebration.

you mean a festival. A festival would not conflict or be seen as a replacement.

 

[tall73]

you mean a festival. A festival would not conflict or be seen as a replacement.

Well in this case it could be any kind of appointed time I suppose, but I didn't have reference to the Sabbath question yet, just the general notion that it refers to a particular day, either of the week, or year, a particular time they would be aware of. Otherwise, there would be no reason to mention it.

 

[tall73]

Now Ice, what DaveW-Ohev and I were discussing is the reason I have a different take on the Col. text than you may.

I see the Jewish Christians in the NT as going right on keeping the law and the Gentiles not being required to do so. So the gentiles would not be put under the Mosaic law, and this was particularly rejected in Acts 15.

Hence while the feasts and new moons and sabbaths are undoubted signs of things to come (and signs of things already done) the gentiles would not be bound by them, and could focus on the substance.

On the other hand Paul does not say they cannot keep it either.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Ok Tall73, a few points.

1. I see your point, but I don't see it in the text. Not in Acts 15, or Gal 3 or 4. The circumcising argument goes in favor of keeping not making them optional, in other words they are complaining they they aren't keeping all of it because they are not circumcised or are not sacrificing.

2. when you link the covenant of creation & the temple system & the church you begin to realize that the church if fulfilling the original mission of Adam & Eve in the garden to recreate images bearer and extend the boundaries of the garden, thus filling the whole earth with His glory. To recreate the Garden of Eden Experiance and thus fulfill the original comission/covenant by God, you need 3 things , a Holy People, A Holy Place & A Holy Time. being born again allows one to reenter the garden of Eden/Holy Place, God creates the holy person, God create the holy place, and God create the holy Time

 

[tall73]

Ok Tall73, a few points.

1. I see your point, but I don't see it in the text. Not in Acts 15, or Gal 3 or 4. The circumcising argument goes in favor of keeping not making them optional, in other words they are complaining they they aren't keeping all of it because they are not circumcised or are not sacrificing.

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.

No, it is right there in the text. They want them to keep the whole law. They are not keeping the whole law. It doesn't say they want them to be circumcised and start sacrificing. They want them to be circumcised and keep the law. They want them to become like Jewish converts.

The church rejected that. Here is letter that gave the decision:


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."

They did not require the gentiles to keep the whole law. The Jewish believers did keep the law.

Later in Acts 21, the position was the same:

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."

James was concerned about the Jewish believers in the diaspora keeping the law, but did not require that of the gentiles.

There was no requirement for the gentiles to keep the law.

 

[tall73]

Ok Tall73, a few points.

1. I see your point, but I don't see it in the text. Not in Acts 15, or Gal 3 or 4. The circumcising argument goes in favor of keeping not making them optional, in other words they are complaining they they aren't keeping all of it because they are not circumcised or are not sacrificing.

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.

They would be obligated to keep the whole law IF they accept (physical) circumcision. He does not say they are already obligated to it.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

15
1. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Notice Tall, The only thing on the table is Circumcision. Notice where the complint is coming from Judaea. What do they practice in Judaea, The Mosaic covenant. ALL of it. These converts were not being circumcised. NOW TALL, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CIRCUMCISION? It was to make a disctinction between the saved and the lost. It was the membership card if you will that allowed you to partake in the Mosaic Covenant and recieve the benifits. Without it you were not fully accepted and could not recieve the benifits of being part of Israel. WELL HERE IS THE PROBLEM, When Christ met the requirement of circumcision he made it possible for anyone Jew or Gentile to be brought back into the covenant WITHOUT being circumcised. That is what these Guys are complaining about . Not weather they should keep the 10 commandments.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. I think that this is the exact same thing. But I will leave that for later. The question is What is the New Covenant for? He is going to tell us in a second.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: this is problematic because he is quoting Amos 9,11,12 which is spoken of the New Covenant as rebuilding Davids tabernacle or linage. Well How do you rebuild something you say is not valid and binding? It does not make sense.

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. The question is not weather they are to keep the Law, but what additional requirements are they going to impose on the gentiles so as not to offend there Jewish hosts when they attend the syanagoue on the Sabbath. See the next verse.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. NOW TALL, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THIS PASSAGE?? What dose it mean? They are still going to the synagoge and they know they will hear Moses preached and will get that teaching. Now he specifically says mentions Sabbath in the passage. So it looks like what you are saying is Wrong.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Now this is a problem, but there seems to be a contradiction in the text, they are still going to Syagogue on Sabbath, they are still hearing Moses, they are rebuilding the tents of David & yet they are not to obey the Law??? Makes ZERO sense.

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.

33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.

34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

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.

They would be obligated to keep the whole law IF they accept (physical) circumcision. He does not say they are already obligated to it.

I see no contradiction in this text. Christ has already been circumcised for you so you don't need it again. that does not mean no Sabbath keeping.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Tall I need a reply, To point 2 in post #87, in the NC we are all Priest and we all can enter back into the garden of Eden and Experiance the presence of God.

 

[tall73]

Tall I need a reply, To point 2 in post #87, in the NC we are all Priest and we all can enter back into the garden of Eden and Experiance the presence of God.

Please show me the texts you are basing point two on so I can consider them.

 

[tall73]

15
1. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Notice Tall, The only thing on the table is Circumcision. Notice where the complint is coming from Judaea. What do they practice in Judaea, The Mosaic covenant. ALL of it. These converts were not being circumcised. NOW TALL, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF CIRCUMCISION? It was to make a disctinction between the saved and the lost. It was the membership card if you will that allowed you to partake in the Mosaic Covenant and recieve the benifits. Without it you were not fully accepted and could not recieve the benifits of being part of Israel. WELL HERE IS THE PROBLEM, When Christ met the requirement of circumcision he made it possible for anyone Jew or Gentile to be brought back into the covenant WITHOUT being circumcised. That is what these Guys are complaining about . Not weather they should keep the 10 commandments.

Actually Christ made it possible to be SAVED without being circumcised. The gentiles did not have to be Jews to be saved.

And circumcision was not just about the Mosaic covenant, but was also the Abrahamic covenant. And it was in that covenant that the promise that brought salvation was guaranteed, before there was a law for Israel.

But note below, circumcision was not all they wanted. The text says they should be commanded to keep the law of Moses. That was what the pharisees wanted in addition to circumcision. If all they wanted was circumcision, because the gentiles were already keeping the rest, they could have said that.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. I think that this is the exact same thing. But I will leave that for later. The question is What is the New Covenant for? He is going to tell us in a second.

Circumcision meant keeping the whole law of Moses. But that is not what the council decided for the gentiles. Christ already provided salvation.

16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: this is problematic because he is quoting Amos 9,11,12 which is spoken of the New Covenant as rebuilding Davids tabernacle or linage. Well How do you rebuild something you say is not valid and binding? It does not make sense.

He is rebuilding the tent of David, or lineage, yes. Jesus was the fulfillment of the Messianic promise, and was of the line of David. God revealed His messiah who accomplished this.

Who ever said that Jesus' being of the line of David was not valid?

 

[tall73]

I see no contradiction in this text. Christ has already been circumcised for you so you don't need it again. that does not mean no Sabbath keeping.

If he says they will be obligated to keep the whole law if they are circumcised, it means they are not already keeping the whole law.

 

[tall73]

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. The question is not weather they are to keep the Law, but what additional requirements are they going to impose on the gentiles so as not to offend there Jewish hosts when they attend the syanagoue on the Sabbath.

Are you suggesting that
-idols
-fornication
-blood, and animals with blood still in them due to strangling

were not already referenced in the law?

These are not additional things. And it does not say "yeah, let's stick the law on them AND some other things."

It says:
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."

These requirements would help smooth things over with their hosts. Others see various reasons for them. But they are not additional things. And it did not say they had to keep the whole law.

And James recognized that in Acts 21.

 

[tall73]

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. NOW TALL, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THIS PASSAGE?? What dose it mean?

I take it for just what it says. Moses is still preached every sabbath in the synagogues. Many of the Gentile believers were going there, which was why they laid the requirements on them to not be so offensive to the Jews.

However, it does not say they had to keep the whole law. It says they only had to keep those requirements.

Moreover, not every Christian continued to meet in the synagogue, because some were put out of it.

And of course, this line you are referencing did not get included to the letter that actually went to the gentile churches. James included it as part of his rationale as to why they only laid certain commands on the gentiles, so they could better co-exist in the synagogue. It is not like this was a rare thing. God fearing Greeks already attended synagogues in the diaspora.

They are still going to the synagoge and they know they will hear Moses preached and will get that teaching. Now he specifically says mentions Sabbath in the passage. So it looks like what you are saying is Wrong.

Why would it not mention the Sabbath since that is when Moses was read at the synagogue? Note that they were only required to keep certain things. The Sabbath was not among them.

They are not Jews. They do not have to become Jews to be saved. The assertion of the Pharisee part that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses was rejected.

 

[tall73]

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Now this is a problem, but there seems to be a contradiction in the text, they are still going to Syagogue on Sabbath, they are still hearing Moses, they are rebuilding the tents of David & yet they are not to obey the Law??? Makes ZERO sense.

Come again? Are you saying this is a contradiction in the Bible? Or are you speaking of the textual variant present in the TR and western text?

Really, however, there is no problem. The pharisee party wanted the gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law. The council said no, just do x,y,z, etc. so they don't get too disgusted with you at the synagogue, just as there were already Greek God-fearers in the synagogues of the diaspora.

It all makes sense if you don't equate synagogue attendance to hear the reading of the Scriptures (one of the only places you could regularly hear them), to the gentiles suddenly needing to become Jews to be saved. Jesus did all that was needed.

 

[tall73]

they are rebuilding the tents of David

No, not they. God rebuilt the tent of David through His Messiah.The result was the gentiles then come seeking Him:

Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

And James wanted to make sure not to trouble those who were responding to God's call by placing undue burden's on them. So instead he just placed a few requirements.

 

[Dave-W]

this is interesting, could you please source this.

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: Now this is a problem, but there seems to be a contradiction in the text, they are still going to Syagogue on Sabbath, they are still hearing Moses, they are rebuilding the tents of David & yet they are not to obey the Law??? Makes ZERO sense.

Only to the extent that women attending an assembly are not required to "love their wives as Christ loved the church;" or grandparents not being required to "obey your father and mother" who are already dead. Differing requirements for different groups are standard fare. Did someone who was from the tribe of Dan have the same instructions and requirements as the Levites? Could Naftali produce an Israelite king?

If you can understand that, how is it you cannot comprehend that the gentiles were not required to follow Moses?