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

[Adventist Dissident]

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.

Tall no one is advocating for circumcision. You are trying to make the passage apply to a situation that dose not apply. It is like talking asking the question what is the Capital of Canada, you answer Texas is a State. True statement but not relevant to the conversation. the question is not weather you should be circumcised but weather you keep the Sabbath. Your logic seems to be that because they did not circumcise they did not keep the Sabbath. That connection has not been proven. It is like saying because I get into Sam's club via Jesus membership, does not mean I get to take a bag of chips with out paying for them. Unless you prove the chips were free and covered in your initial entrance requirement you are still obligated to pay for them. You have not done that. One is talking about entrance requirements, the other is talking about worship and obedience to Christ. Under Christ do you have to keep any part of the things written and preserved in Moses? The answer is yes "the righteous requirements of the Law will be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:4, "Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Cor 5:7,8 Far from doing away with the festivals he promotes observance of them. Paul is arguing the entrance requirement have been paid for, so you don't have to pay for them yourself, by paying for them yourself you are negating Christ work. He is not saying the Law has been done away with.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

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.

Tall I have my Initial conclusion on acts 15.
"5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question."

I want you to note there are 2 question
1. the question of circumcision
2. the question of the Law of Moses

1. the question of circumcision :
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Notice there are 3 things in this passage. 1. Acceptance, 2. The Holy Spirit, 3. A purified Heart. in this passage they are addressing the subject of circumcision. circumcision was the entrance requirement and the sign of acceptance, Paul forgoes the ritual BECAUSE the Holy Spirit has been given to them and we are not to discriminate because he has purified there heart. This speaks to the purification issues in Judaism which vs 20 is addressing.

20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

all three foods polluted by idols , Sexual immorality and Meats strangled animals blood. Were about pruification. This would have been particular offensive to the Jewish hosts.

Paul states that this is the fulfillment of Amos 9:11,12, David house being restored. Question How can David's house be restored with out observance to the Law and Sabbath?

2. Now to the issue of the Law of Moses

"For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Now why is this in the text. It makes no sense if they were doing away with it? the law and the Sabbath. Pauls is saying lest make it easy for them tell them to stay away from the things that will cause them to be impure in the eyes of the Jews and let them teach them the rest.

 

[Viren]

Jesus redefined the ten commandments.

For example take the 5th commandment "honor your father and mother"

In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus states:

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9)

"Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." (Matthew 12:50)

"For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law-- a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' (Matthew 10:36)

So that's just one example of Jesus changing the way the ten commandments is understood. The earthly father becomes God the Father, a mother becomes a fellow disciple.

He also changed the Sabbath from a day of the week to an eternal rest in Hebrews 4:3.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

He also changed the Sabbath from a day of the week to an eternal rest in Hebrews 4:3.

That is simply not the case , the context of the books of Hebrews is about not loosing faith in Christ when you are on the verge of victory. The author is using an example of a story the JEWS would tell while attending synagogue. These Jewish believer were abandoning Christ and hiding in the synagogue. He is using the story of the Jews unfaithfulness when looking at the overwhelming circumstances and doubhting God and loosing faith. He is saying that they are in the same type of postition. If they give up now they will miss out on the rest to come.

 

[tall73]

Tall no one is advocating for circumcision. You are trying to make the passage apply to a situation that dose not apply. It is like talking asking the question what is the Capital of Canada, you answer Texas is a State. True statement but not relevant to the conversation. the question is not weather you should be circumcised but weather you keep the Sabbath.

The question is partly what is meant in Gal. and Acts 15, and there certainly were people advocating circumcision there. However the reason it is raised is not because we think you endorse physical circumcision. It is the second part of the statement you seem to miss every time. If they were already keeping the who law he wouldn't have to warn them that being circumcised would obligate them to the whole law.

And the question is not just about Sabbath. You are advocating feasts etc. As I mentioned in one of my latest posts you are arguing for both, but seem to argue for the Sabbath on a different basis. So I am suggesting we deal with one thing at a time.

 

[tall73]

Your logic seems to be that because they did not circumcise they did not keep the Sabbath. That connection has not been proven. It is like saying because I get into Sam's club via Jesus membership, does not mean I get to take a bag of chips with out paying for them.

Once again I am still not even to the Sabbath part yet. You are advocating feast keeping. I am still stuck on that.
You are using different arguments for the Sabbath.

Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Cor 5:7,8 Far from doing away with the festivals he promotes observance of them. Paul is arguing the entrance requirement have been paid for, so you don't have to pay for them yourself, by paying for them yourself you are negating Christ work. He is not saying the Law has been done away with.

Paul is not there arguing for a literal observance of the feast of unleavened bread by removing leaven from the house, but for removing the contaminating leaven of sin in the church by removing sexual immorality.It is an analogy.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

[tall73]

1. the question of circumcision :
8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Notice there are 3 things in this passage. 1. Acceptance, 2. The Holy Spirit, 3. A purified Heart. in this passage they are addressing the subject of circumcision. circumcision was the entrance requirement and the sign of acceptance, Paul forgoes the ritual BECAUSE the Holy Spirit has been given to them and we are not to discriminate because he has purified there heart. This speaks to the purification issues in Judaism which vs 20 is addressing.

20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

all three foods polluted by idols , Sexual immorality and Meats strangled animals blood. Were about pruification. This would have been particular offensive to the Jewish hosts.

The rules on idols, sexual immorality and meats strangled and blood are certainly not just about circumcision. And they are things in the law. So he has already moved on to the law discussion at this point. But you have lumped them in with circumcision and thereby interrupt the main thought. These things were the necessary requirements laid on them as opposed to laying the whole requirements of the law of Moses as a Jewish convert would experience.

Paul states that this is the fulfillment of Amos 9:11,12, David house being restored. Question How can David's house be restored with out observance to the Law and Sabbath?

James was speaking, not Paul. James quoted the passage, and it shows two groups--the house of David, and the rest of mankind. The Gentiles are in that latter group.

2. Now to the issue of the Law of Moses

"For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
Now why is this in the text. It makes no sense if they were doing away with it? the law and the Sabbath. Pauls is saying lest make it easy for them tell them to stay away from the things that will cause them to be impure in the eyes of the Jews and let them teach them the rest.

James was the one speaking. And you cut off the thought in the middle. That is why your quote starts with "for", because he is drawing the conclusion from the preceding statement. He said "for the law of Moses..." because He had just been referencing the law of Moses in regards to the Gentiles. The provisions they laid on the Gentiles were from the law, and were the things required of Gentiles outside of Israel.

Once again, no one is claiming the law was done away with, or the Sabbath. The Jewish Christians went on keeping both. And the Gentile Christians were required to keep the portions that applied to Gentiles outside of Israel--which they were.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

. So I am suggesting we deal with one thing at a time.

I f you were dealing with one thing at a time we would still be dealing with Col 2

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Once again I am still not even to the Sabbath part yet. You are advocating feast keeping. I am still stuck on that.
You are using different arguments for the Sabbath.

Tall do you think I am unfamiluer with the arguments? the logic goes like this,

paul said don't circumcise,
if you do then you must keep the whole law (everything),
since circumcions is not required the sabbath is not required.

The problem with this Just because everything is not required, does not mean that All has been done away with.





Paul is not there arguing for a literal observance of the feast of unleavened bread by removing leaven from the house, but for removing the contaminating leaven of sin in the church by removing sexual immorality.It is an analogy.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
[/QUOTE] i don't know how you got that out of the text. I read it and it says they were keeping the feasts, but there was a stain on the feast and they were to remove the stain. How you got the feast was not literal I don't know. What insight do you have?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

The rules on idols, sexual immorality and meats strangled and blood are certainly not just about circumcision. And they are things in the law. So he has already moved on to the law discussion at this point. But you have lumped them in with circumcision and thereby interrupt the main thought. These things were the necessary requirements laid on them as opposed to laying the whole requirements of the law of Moses as a Jewish convert would experience.

James was speaking, not Paul.

my bad.

James quoted the passage, and it shows two groups--the house of David, and the rest of mankind. The Gentiles are in that latter group.

there is 2, Ok the gentiles are one, who is the other?

James was the one speaking. And you cut off the thought in the middle. That is why your quote starts with "for", because he is drawing the conclusion from the preceding statement. He said "for the law of Moses..." because He had just been referencing the law of Moses in regards to the Gentiles. The provisions they laid on the Gentiles were from the law, and were the things required of Gentiles outside of Israel

Tall I did not cut out "for" out of the passage I quoted it. I noticed you did not anything with the purification issues I raised.

Once again, no one is claiming the law was done away with,( (yes you are) or the Sabbath. The Jewish Christians went on keeping both. And the Gentile Christians were required to keep the portions that applied to Gentiles outside of Israel--which they were.

Tall this just dose not make any sense, gentile were not required to keep the law before coming to christ. what exactly are you talking about here.

 

[tall73]

I f you were dealing with one thing at a time we would still be dealing with Col 2

I posed a question directly related to Col 2 but you did not respond. You say they did not have to sacrifice. But then you say that the list which includes, in your view,

meat offerings
drink offerings
new moon
feasts
sabbaths

are not things that they are being told NOT to do, but things they are qualified to do.

How does this make sense when it includes meat and drink offerings? You are doing one thing with one part of the list and another with another part.

And other texts certainly do come into play. But you seem to be using different arguments for feasts and the Sabbath.

 

[tall73]

Tall do you think I am unfamiluer with the arguments? the logic goes like this,

paul said don't circumcise,
if you do then you must keep the whole law (everything),
since circumcions is not required the sabbath is not required.

The problem with this Just because everything is not required, does not mean that All has been done away with.

The council spelled out what was required of Gentiles.

i don't know how you got that out of the text. I read it and it says they were keeping the feasts, but there was a stain on the feast and they were to remove the stain. How you got the feast was not literal I don't know. What insight do you have?

Because in the actual feast they would remove leaven from their homes.

In this passage he is not advocating actual removal of leaven from the homes. He is advocating removal of sin from the church, because sin acts like leaven, spreading throughout the whole "lump" of dough, the body of believers.

It is an analogy.

 

[RDKirk]

Not in Philippi. The congregation in Philippi was wholly Gentile. No synagogue there, no Jews, and certainly there was no inclination of the Romans in Philippi to listen to Jews....which was the reason they used to arrest Paul and Silas.

So if not in Philippi--which turned out to the the congregation Paul was most pleased by--then we cannot presume that the Council expected to ride on the back of Jewish preaching already done. That can't be the meaning of the passage.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Acts 15:29 refers to the specific practices of Graeco-Roman idol worship.

 

[RDKirk]

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)

No, it did not make him liable for the Law. That liability did not come from the act itself. Jews weren't the only people who did or had ever circumcised. It was a practiced among a number of ancient peoples--the act of cutting off one's foreskin isn't what put them under the Law, it was that the act signified that one had placed one's faith on the Law, and the placing of one's faith on the Law made one liable under the whole Law.

Paul--even with the letter to the Gentiles in his pocket--circumcised Timothy for the tactical purpose of avoiding that as an unnecessary political issue as he maneuvered among the Jews. But because Timothy did not believe circumcision "did anything"--he had no faith in circumcision-- it didn't do anything.

 

[tall73]

Ok the gentiles are one, who is the other?

The house of David. David was not a Gentile.


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.

 

[tall73]

James was the one speaking. And you cut off the thought in the middle. That is why your quote starts with "for", because he is drawing the conclusion from the preceding statement. He said "for the law of Moses..." because He had just been referencing the law of Moses in regards to the Gentiles. The provisions they laid on the Gentiles were from the law, and were the things required of Gentiles outside of Israel

Tall I did not cut out "for" out of the passage I quoted it.

I didn't say you cut "for" out the passage. I said you ignored that the word "for" was signifying that the sentence that starts with "for" is the conclusion of the forgoing argument, not a new argument.

He referenced the things in the law that were required of Gentiles outside of Israel. Then He referenced the preaching of the law....his ruling was in keeping with the law.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The last sentence is tied to the one right before it. Both are discussing the law, not circumcision.

I noticed you did not anything with the purification issues I raised.

I did do something with them. I noted that the commands were actually what was required of Gentiles outside of Israel, not just a collection of purification issues.

If they were going to go just with purification issues then there are many, many more in the law. In fact all of the law dealt with holiness, purgation, purity, etc. because God dwelt in the sanctuary in the midst of an unclean people.

 

[tall73]

Tall this just dose not make any sense, gentile were not required to keep the law before coming to christ. what exactly are you talking about here.

But they were. In several forms. First of all they had to keep the requirements given to Noah. Those were still in the Torah.

Also Paul indicates that they obeyed the law, and were judged on the law, though they did not have the law:

Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

But more specifically, dealing with sexuality:

Lev 18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 18:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
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 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Lev 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Lev 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Lev 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Lev 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Lev 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Lev 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Lev 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Lev 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Lev 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
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.
Lev 18:26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
Lev 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
Lev 18:28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
Lev 18:29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.


God judged even the Canaanites by principles in these commands, and cast them out of the land when they did not obey them.

 

[tall73]

RDKirk,
Good to see you around these parts.

 

[Dave-W]

No, it did not make him liable for the Law. That liability did not come from the act itself.

Of course it did. Did not Paul say this?

Galatians 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

So Timothy does not fall under "every man?"

because Timothy did not believe circumcision "did anything"--he had no faith in circumcision-- it didn't do anything.

Really? You are denying the plain meaning of the text by over-spiritualizing it. You are damaging the text of scripture.