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

[Adventist Dissident]

 

[tall73]

Tall I am referring to Col 2. circumcision and scarifice were linked together.

I got your message that you wanted to continue. Been busy with other things.

Now, you indicated that Col 2 drink and food were references to the sacrifices. So then, if you are argument is that they were still keeping the feasts, would they not still be sacrificing according to this?

Yet you seem to suggest they were not sacrificing. What you do with the festivals you have to do with the food and drink.



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.

 

[tall73]

Tall this brings us back to what is ment by law keeping? Is it the 10 commandments, the 613, or the cermonial as well or something More?I think it is talking about relying on your performance for salvation and acceptance and justification. That is what i believe he is talking about you are to rely on Christ. Rejecting Christ's, circumcision and sacrifice would be relying on your own performance for justification and acceptance.

I would say he is certainly talking about both. The judaizers wanted them to be circumcised and to keep the whole law. We see this in Acts 15. They made it a salvation issue. He says to be circumcised would be to make Christ of no effect, because, as you said, they would be relying on their performance, rather than what He had already done. But he also talks about their freedom, because they are not under the whole law.

However, he also says that if they become circumcised they would have to keep the whole law, ie. the whole law of Moses. They were not at that point keeping the whole law of Moses.

If someone said to you that if you sign on the dotted line of the Army recruiter you would now be under all the regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it would be clear what they meant.

By signing on the line you become part of the Army. You are then subject to their rules. But it would not really need to be said to someone already in the army, already subject to the code if they were re-upping for another tour.
They are already under the code.

If the gentiles were already observing all of the mosaic law anyway, he would have no reason to tell them that they would be under the whole law.

 

[tall73]

I don't think he is talking about doing away with the Law all together, this would contradict, Jerimiah's & Paul's statements on the Law in the heart and doing them.

What does the statement about the law written on the heart mean? The only other place that I am aware of that specifically mentions the law written on the heart is Romans 2.

Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality.
Rom 2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.


This is of course part of the argument from 1:18 to 3:20 regarding everyone being guilty under sin. Both the Jew and Gentile have sinned and will be judged. But in this section he also mentions that some gentiles do by nature what the law requires. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.

Now is he speaking about these gentiles spontaneously, naturally keeping the feast of trumpets? Or the Passover?
No, he is speaking about righteous moral principles which they show are written in their nature. They are doing what is right based on their response to God and the law He has put in them.

We see in the NT that Paul points out a number of times that the law is not the main standard for knowing righteousness any longer. Now the focus is life in the Spirit, vs life in the flesh. Jesus living out His righteous life in us. It changes it from an external observance to an internal desire to do His will when we walk in the Spirit.

 

[tall73]

Of course, the context says nothing about training wheels for the law until they are ready for the whole thing. Or else they would have just said to the judaizers that they could wait a bit and then the gentiles would get around to their demands of keeping the whole law. They did not do that.

The letter to the churches spells out the ruling. It does not even mention the portion about Moses in the synagogue. And in some of the gentile areas they were no longer meeting in the synagogues, having been put out. Only certain requirements from the law were put on them.

That does not mean they are free from general moral principles. They were still to live by the Spirit. The issue was the pharisees claim that they were to be under the whole law of Moses.

 

[tall73]

"15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,”i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise"


Paul's says once a covenant is established it is Permanate, 1.cannot set it aside, 2. Cannot add to to it,
notice that the Mosaic covenant did not set aside the Abrahamic covenant.

The issue is one of precedence. The performance, or lack of performance under the Mosaic covenant did not set aside the unilateral promise of the Abrahamic covenant. So the efforts of the gentiles to earn their salvation by adherence to Mosaic requirements was futile.

They were under the promise of Abraham.


But as to the old covenant, it was set aside. And the new covenant is likewise a unilateral covenant, not like the Mosaic, because the promises of the people were faulty:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

[tall73]

Act 15:24 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:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 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.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

This is the actual letter that went to the gentile churches. The position of the judaizers was rejected. Only certain necessary things were required and no greater burden was placed on them. There is no mention of later going on to keep all the law as the judaizers wished. There is no mention of growing into other commands of the law.

Now if the law was really something they should be keeping, why not encourage them to do it? Why refer to the message as troubling? Why would the council intentionally delay them observing something that they should observe?

Years later James still holds to the same requirements.

Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

 

[tall73]

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Gal 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Gal 5:26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

[Dave-W]

Sorry - but I seriously disagree with both options.
They both completely ignore the ongoing calling and requirements for Jewish believers.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The issue is one of precedence. The performance, or lack of performance under the Mosaic covenant did not set aside the unilateral promise of the Abrahamic covenant. So the efforts of the gentiles to earn their salvation by adherence to Mosaic requirements was futile.

They were under the promise of Abraham.


But as to the old covenant, it was set aside. And the new covenant is likewise a unilateral covenant, not like the Mosaic, because the promises of the people were faulty:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

no disagreement on the difference in the legal arrangement, what we are talking about is the substance of the covenant. The new covenant does not change the righteous requirement in the Mosaic covenant, stealing is not OK under the New Covenant, Adultery is not OK under the New Covenant, Idolatry is not OK under the N.C. and you will agree with me on the, the question is how does this apply to the Sabbath. All of the requirements were amplifed and extended under the N.C. How is the Sabbath amplified and extend under the N.C. You view is that it is abolished. I cannot see that. logically it does not make sense.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Sorry - but I seriously disagree with both options.
They both completely ignore the ongoing calling and requirements for Jewish believers.

OK since you are affliated with the MJ community i will assume that you keep the Sabbath. So what does it mean. Especially since Sabbath is mentioned in the very passage.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Act 15:24 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:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 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.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
Tall are you purposely leaving out the Section on the Sabbath? Looks kind of fishy? What does that section mean?n How does it apply
This is the actual letter that went to the gentile churches. The position of the judaizers was rejected. Only certain necessary things were required and no greater burden was placed on them. There is no mention of later going on to keep all the law as the judaizers wished. There is no mention of growing into other commands of the law.

Now if the law was really something they should be keeping, why not encourage them to do it? Why refer to the message as troubling? Why would the council intentionally delay them observing something that they should observe?

Years later James still holds to the same requirements.

Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

 

[Dave-W]

OK since you are affliated with the MJ community i will assume that you keep the Sabbath. So what does it mean. Especially since Sabbath is mentioned in the very passage.

The Sabbath is a sign between the Jews and God forever. It is not required for gentile believers.

What is wrong with both statements is it TOTALLY IGNORES the fact that Acts 15 applies to gentile believers ONLY - not Jewish believers.

 

[tall73]

What is wrong with both statements is it TOTALLY IGNORES the fact that Acts 15 applies to gentile believers ONLY - not Jewish believers.

Indeed. The question at hand was what to do with the Gentile believers. The Pharisee faction said circumcise them and command them to keep the law of Moses. That was not agreed to.

 

[tall73]

no disagreement on the difference in the legal arrangement, what we are talking about is the substance of the covenant. The new covenant does not change the righteous requirement in the Mosaic covenant, stealing is not OK under the New Covenant, Adultery is not OK under the New Covenant, Idolatry is not OK under the N.C. and you will agree with me on the, the question is how does this apply to the Sabbath. All of the requirements were amplifed and extended under the N.C. How is the Sabbath amplified and extend under the N.C. You view is that it is abolished. I cannot see that. logically it does not make sense.

Exo 31:12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Exo 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Exo 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exo 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

In Acts 21 the Jewish believers went on zealously keeping the Sabbath and all the rest of the law. The Sabbath was not abolished.

Note also that the new covenant is made with the house of Israel.

 

[Dave-W]

he question at hand was what to do with the Gentile believers. The Pharisee faction said circumcise them and command them to keep the law of Moses. That was not agreed to.

Exactly. That was the formula for formal conversion to Judaism.

 

[tall73]

Tall are you purposely leaving out the Section on the Sabbath? Looks kind of fishy? What does that section mean?n How does it apply

I am purposefully quoting the actual text of the letter sent to the gentile churches. That was the decision. That was what seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to them. The discussion about Moses being read every sabbath was not in that letter. It was not a part of the communication sent abroad, not part of the final ruling that they received.

Now as to what it means, that is debated. Some see it as a compromise. Others see it as simply what was already required of gentiles, as even referenced in the Torah, even if they were not living in Israel, or had not joined themselves to Israel, etc. Some see them as Noahide requirements, etc.

For instance, we know that blood was forbidden in Noah's time apart from just the Israelites.


Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

And in the section of the law that spells out sexual immorality it is referenced that even the Canaanites and Egyptians were punished for doing some of the things in that chapter:

Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Lev 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Etc.

The larger point is that the council did not require the gentiles to become Jews in order to be accepted in Christ and His salvation. And even the Scriptures foretold that the Gentiles would be included. You are placing the greatest weight on a portion that was not even in the final letter detailing the decision. And certainly no part of that letter spelled out that they were to work their way up to keeping the whole law. It said just the opposite. They only placed on them certain requirements.

 

[tall73]

Exactly. That was the formula for formal conversion to Judaism.

Which is why Paul made a big deal of this in Galatians, and why I quoted it a number of times.

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

The Gentile believers were saved by faith, as gentiles, without circumcision. They started by the Spirit. But some wanted them to then become Jews, to be circumcised and keep the whole law, get salvation. It was not needed.

Circumcision was not just circumcision. Circumcision was conversion and put one under the whole law. The council indicated a gentile didn't have to become a Jew to be saved. Peter's example spells out that the gentiles received the Holy Spirit just as they were, uncircumcised, gentiles. God included them with no requirement at all to become Jews.
Right after James verifies the experience of Peter and quoted the prophets that agreed that this would happen.

Then they make it plain that the notion that they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses was not accepted.
They did not have to become Jews. This was seen as a "burden", because it was not necessary for the gentiles to become Jews in order to be in Christ. And it would certainly hinder their evangelistic efforts, needlessly.

 

[Dave-W]

Some see them as Noahide requirements, etc.

For instance, we know that blood was forbidden in Noah's time apart from just the Israelites.

The reference to blood in Acts 15 is a bit enigmatic. It can be taken a number of different ways. Tall - you put it down to eating blood. But that actually is covered by "things that are strangled." Strangling was understood to make the blood congeal in the veins and therefore not be properly removed by draining.

It could also be a reference to menstrual blood. But that would be also covered under the prohibition of pornia - anything which violates Torah sexual standards.

That leaves "shedding of innocent blood" from the Noachide laws. That is how I interpret it.

 

[Dave-W]

Which is why Paul made a big deal of this in Galatians, and why I quoted it a number of times.

Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

Correct. Paul discouraged gentiles from converting to Judaism and thus becoming liable for the Law.

So why do you think he (Paul) circumcised Timothy? (making him liable for the Law)