Why worry about the Ten Commandments, if you are disregarding the Sabbath? (2)

[ThreeAM]

He says that all the law and the prophets are based on these 2

these are the spirit of all the laws.

and my original point was Paul tells us that we are not to judge people based on whether or not they keep the sabbath holy days or food/drink laws

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


the passage I quoted above clearly shows that it is not to be an issue.

This verse should be included as it helps identfy exactly which sabbaths Paul was writting about. The cermonial law feast days sabbaths were offered year by year and had food sacrifices that symbolically prefrigured Christ but made nothing perfect. Those sacrifices or nolonger needed because the TYPE has met the ANTITYPE. The Shadow has met the object that it symbolized.

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Heb 10: 1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The 4th commandment of the Moral Law says NOTHING about food or drink and the 4th commandment gives the exact reason for the commandment. The 4th commandment is not a shadow of the body of Christ but rather a memorial to God as the Creator of Man.

Exd 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

[woobadooba]

original point Paul says Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

nice of you all to avoid this point, maybe Paul is in rebellion in this passage.

In rebellion? No. In context? Yes.

Where are you?

 

[ThreeAM]

Passage Colossians 2:6-23:
6As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
7Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.


hmm interesting that paul lumps the sabbath right in with everything else that christ overcame for us. as i said before If you want to judge others based on the keeping of the sabbath, you are in direct violation of scripture

We judge no one on the issue of the Sabbath and you should do the same.

God will be the Judge of who is obedient and who is not obedient and who has followed His will and of those who choose to follow their own will. It is our job to try to encourage others to follow God's word. And God's word says:

Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

 

[wild01]

In rebellion? No. In context? Yes.

Where are you?

I quoted it in context look back a few posts,
btw holyday takes care of the "cermonial law feast days sabbaths" as you call them 3

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

these are 3 se4perate things holydays new moon festivals and sabbath days

 

[woobadooba]

I quoted it in context look back a few posts,
btw holyday takes care of the "cermonial law feast days sabbaths" as you call them 3

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

these are 3 se4perate things holydays new moon festivals and sabbath days

No, you didn't. Paul wasn't speaking of the 7th day Sabbath here. If he were then he disagreed with Isa. 66:23, who spoke of the Sabbath day as being eternally binding.

 

[rstrats]

wild01,

re: "...the passage I quoted above [Colossians 2:16 ] clearly shows that it is not to be an issue."

How have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church (verse 17) - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?

 

[wild01]

No, you didn't. Paul wasn't speaking of the 7th day Sabbath here. If he were then he disagreed with Isa. 66:23, who spoke of the Sabbath day as being eternally binding.

research before you refute
Strong's Greek Definition for # 4521

4521 // sabbaton // sabbaton // sab'-bat-on //

of Hebrew origin 07676 // tbv // ; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n

AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on
which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy
every seventh day of the week
1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day
2) seven days, a week

 

[ThreeAM]

I quoted it in context look back a few posts,
btw holyday takes care of the "cermonial law feast days sabbaths" as you call them 3

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

these are 3 se4perate things holydays new moon festivals and sabbath days

Wild01 a text out of context is a pretext for error. You are not using the full context.


Read Col. 2:17 then see what Paul calls a shadow of things to come. in Hebrews 10:1 clearly cermonial feast offered sacrifices year by year.

 

[wild01]

wild01,

re: "...the passage I quoted above [Colossians 2:16 ] clearly shows that it is not to be an issue."

How have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church (verse 17) - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?

thank you for actually respecting the text and critiquing my interpretation rather than attacking. I still believe that in context it is refering to the fact that the day is no longer sacred and that we rest in spirit. just as we are circumcized in spirit.
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
he also says that these are a shadow things to come
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
this indicates to me that the sabbath rest was a shadow of the rest we have in christhowever your critique is a definsible position. thanks.

 

[wild01]

Wild01 a text out of context is a pretext for error. You are not using the full context.


Read Col. 2:17 then see what Paul calls a shadow of things to come. in Hebrews 10:1 clearly cermonial feast offered sacrifices year by year.

3 I quoted it in context, you know this because you quoted my quote.
heb 10:1 does not use the word sabbath, col 2:16 does. the word as I have shown refers to the 7th day(see strongs definition in previous quote.)
Passage Hebrews 10 :
niv
Hebrews 10

Christ's Sacrifice Once for All

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

 

[ThreeAM]

research before you refute
Strong's Greek Definition for # 4521

4521 // sabbaton // sabbaton // sab'-bat-on //

of Hebrew origin 07676 // tbv // ; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n

AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on
which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy
every seventh day of the week
1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day
2) seven days, a week

Yearly feast days were called Sabbaths. Note the Feast of Trumpets occured on the 1st day of the 7th month that could fall on any day of the week yet it was called a sabbath because it was a feast day.

Lev 23:24 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.

 

[wild01]

different language different word
07677 // Nwtbv // shabbathown // shab-baw-thone' //

from 07676 ; TWOT - 2323d; n m

AV - rest 8, sabbath 3, 11

1) Sabbath observance, sabbatism
1a) of weekly sabbath
1b) day of atonement
1c) sabbatical year
1d) of Feast of Trumpets
1e) of the 1st and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles

it can mean 7th day but it also has other meanings

 

[wild01]

anyway I've wasted enough time here,
Ive gotta get back to work, if you want to remain under the law that's between you and God, but please stop telling everyone else they should,

Passage Galatians 5:1-12:
Galatians 5 hcsb


Freedom of the Christian

1 Christ has liberated us into freedom. Therefore stand firm (A) and don't submit again to a yoke of slavery. (B) 2 Take note! I, Paul, tell you that if you get circumcised, Christ will not benefit you at all. 3 Again I testify to every man who gets circumcised that he is obligated to keep the entire law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace! (C) 5 For by the Spirit we eagerly wait (D) for the hope (E) of righteousness from faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accomplishes anything; what matters is faith (F) working through love. (G)
7 You were running well. Who prevented you from obeying the truth? (H) 8 This persuasion did not come from Him who called you. (I) 9 A little yeast leavens the whole lump of dough. 10 In the Lord I have confidence in you that you will not accept any other view. But whoever it is who is troubling you will pay the penalty. (J) 11 Now brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross (K) has been abolished. 12 I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves castrated!

 

[ThreeAM]

3 I quoted it in context, you know this because you quoted my quote.

Well you did not include the very next verse which explains which Sabbath days Paul was discussing so you were in fact out of context.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

heb 10:1 does not use the word sabbath, col 2:16 does. the word as I have shown refers to the 7th day(see strongs definition in previous quote.)
Passage Hebrews 10 :
niv
Hebrews 10

Christ's Sacrifice Once for All

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

Yes Hebrews 10 does show which law Paul considered a shadow of good things to come.The Cerimonal feast day Sabbath were shadows of things to come [Christ] they were annual sacrifices. The seventh day Sabbath is a weekly Sabbath not an annual sabbath.

In Col. 2:16 Paul was discussing Annular sabbaths which were are a shadow of good things to come. That is why you should stay within context.

Col. 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[ThreeAM]

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

The second covenant is God's will it cannot be added to or taken away from after Christ confirmed it by shedding His blood.

Christ wanted baptism so He was baptised. Christ wanted the Ten Commandments included so He was obedient and ask others to do likewise. Christ wanted the Lord's Supper included so He shared it before His death. Christ never recommended the abolishing of the Sabbath before or after He shed his blood confirming the New Covenant. Christ never even said the words the first day of the week. Sunday as a day of worship cannot be added after Christ shed his blood confirming the New covenant.

 

[ThreeAM]

different language different word
07677 // Nwtbv // shabbathown // shab-baw-thone' //

from 07676 ; TWOT - 2323d; n m

AV - rest 8, sabbath 3, 11

1) Sabbath observance, sabbatism
1a) of weekly sabbath
1b) day of atonement
1c) sabbatical year
1d) of Feast of Trumpets
1e) of the 1st and last days of the Feast of Tabernacles

it can mean 7th day but it also has other meanings

Different words different language maybe, but same exact origin.


sabbaton {sab'-bat-on}
TDNT ReferenceRoot WordTDNT - 7:1,989of Hebrew origin 07676Part of Speechn nOutline of Biblical Usage
1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy every seventh day of the week b) a single sabbath, sabbath day 2) seven days, a week

 

[Redwolf]

No, you didn't. Paul wasn't speaking of the 7th day Sabbath here. If he were then he disagreed with Isa. 66:23, who spoke of the Sabbath day as being eternally binding.

It is remarkable how nine commandments are fine but one is not. I wonder who would benefit from such a move? If you take a close look at the one in question, you will see who made it, why it was made, and who sealed its worth.

Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.

"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts: "1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."
​

 

[Cliff2]

It is remarkable how nine commandments are fine but one is not. I wonder who would benefit from such a move? If you take a close look at the one in question, you will see who made it, why it was made, and who sealed its worth.


Peter R. Kraemer, Catholic Church Extension Society (1975),Chicago, Illinois.

"Regarding the change from the observance of the Jewish Sabbath to the Christian Sunday, I wish to draw your attention to the facts: "1) That Protestants, who accept the Bible as the only rule of faith and religion, should by all means go back to the observance of the Sabbath. The fact that they do not, but on the contrary observe the Sunday, stultifies them in the eyes of every thinking man.
"2) We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides the Bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a rule to guide us. We say, this Church, instituted by Christ to teach and guide man through life, has the right to change the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We frankly say, yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she made many other laws, for instance, the Friday abstinence, the unmarried priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of Catholic marriages and a thousand other laws.
"It is always somewhat laughable, to see the Protestant churches, in pulpit and legislation, demand the observance of Sunday, of which there is nothing in their Bible."

​

At least he is being honest with himself.

 

[Wavy]

wild01,

re: "...the passage I quoted above [Colossians 2:16 ] clearly shows that it is not to be an issue."

How have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church (verse 17) - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?

I'm going to have to agree with rstrats here. Firstly, the "handwriting of ordinances" (cheirographon tois dogmasin) is not the law, as wild01 says (no offense).

This a legal phrase. In short, by blotting out our "certificate of debt", Christ put "paid" into our account. Paul is saying something similar to Matthew 6:12.

Some say the reason no man is to judge us in verse 16 is because verse 14 supposedly says the law was blotted out. This makes no sense.

For one, what was blotted out was "against us". The law was never "against us". Some might then try to use Deut 31:26 as proof, but keep in mind that the "against thee" is neither in the Hebrew nor Greek (LXX) text. It just says "witness/testimony".

Secondly, even if "against thee" was implied, it was against them if they did not keep it. If Paul was saying no one should try to tell us to do it because of verse 14, then that would again be incorrect because if it was only against them (Israel) for not doing it then Paul can't reverse it and say because it was "against us", we shouldn't do it.

Thirdly, the book of the law placed in that physical setting (in the side of the ark) by the Levites was where it was against them (assuming "against thee" is implied, although, again, it is not in the text). So if verse 14 was talking about the law, Christ would have had to blot out that specific book in its physical setting (which wasn't there in Yeshua's day).

Fourthly, as I said before, the actual Greek says those practices are (present active indicative) a shadow of things to come (present participle), not shadows of Yeshua. Hardly can they be such if they were blotted out.

Fifthly, the passage is clearly speaking of anyone judging them about doing those things with their manmade, ascetic practices. Here's an excerpt from a study I wrote a while back:

The first thing to notice is that these are all practices which are observable and physical (meaning one can be seen doing them), and consequently subject to outside invasion of pagan asceticism. Paul is not randomly spouting Mosaic ordinances as a way to sum up the complete torah of Moses. This is seen with the phrases “in eating” and “in drinking”. The NLT, for example, translates en brosei kai en posei as “for what you eat or drink”, attempting to propagate the belief that Paul is speaking of clean vs. unclean and telling the Colossians that no one should deter them from eating what they want (i.e. unclean meat as defined by the torah). But this is illogical. There are no Mosaic prohibitions on certain drinks except in the cases of Nazarite vows and priests. Hardly would Paul have used this lesser concept of the torah as a way of telling the Colossians that they don’t need to observe the torah. Surely he wasn’t communicating that the Colossians were being judged about Nazarite vows, or that they were priests. That is arbitrary nonsense and is groundless.

The translations of “eating” (SEC #1035) and “drinking” (SEC #4213), as literal bibles like the YLT and the LITV render these two Greek words, are much more plausible and most likely to correspond to Paul’s train of thought. Some men forbad eating meat altogether according to 1 Timothy 4:3. In Rome, some were judging others for eating meat as opposed to vegetarianism (Romans 14:2). The Essenes, for example, were vegetarian. Some ancient practices of Gnosticism had fasting rites. The Roman religion also offered meat and wine as sacrificial offerings to idols. To many, as seen in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10, eating or drinking something offered to an idol was considered koinos (SEC #2839), or unacceptable to consume. Any and all of these factors could be what Paul is addressing with en brosei kai en posei. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, by William Robertson Smith, declares:

“The question is not altogether between lawful and unlawful food, but between eating and drinking or abstinence. Asceticism rather than ritual cleanness is in his mind. The Law is not ascetic in its character, its prohibition of meats rest on the view that they are unclean, and drinks are not forbidden, save in exceptional cases, and then not for ascetic reasons.” (Volume 3, pg. 530)

The moedim (Hebrew word SEC #4150) or appointed times, are mentioned next in verse 16. Note that the author says no one is to judge the Colossians in part of a feast, new moon, or sabbath. The word for “part” (SEC #3313) is used 43 times in scripture and always creates a division, that is, one element of a whole versus another. Paul is not saying that no one should tell them to celebrate these biblical practice at all. He’s saying that when it comes to these practices, no one is to judge them in part of them, or with the ascetic rituals mentioned; that concerning what the moedim consists of (how you observe them), no one should tell them what to do with their manmade traditions. Strict observance of Jewish customs (or rather, Yahweh’s laws) was characteristic of both the Essenes and the Gnostics because of their mystic understanding of the universe and spirituality: the “philosophy”, “deceit”, “tradition of men”, and “rudiments of the world” in Colossians 2:8, not the torah. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary explains:

“Understood in this manner, the passage means either (1) that the “philosophy” of the errorists was a system instigated by the elemental spirits (perhaps thought of the powers of evil) or (2) that it was a system having the elemental spirits as its subject matter. The second meaning is more likely the one intended by Paul, for we know from 2:18 that the Colossian heresy made much of the ‘worship of angels.’” (Volume 11, pg. 198)

This is why Paul stresses all throughout this epistle the truth about all things of wisdom and true knowledge being in the Father and Messiah (2:3), and that the fullness of divine nature dwells in Messiah (1:19, 2:9), according to the will of the Father. This is a direct slap in the face of Gnosticism, which claimed special, spiritual knowledge of the universe and of the soul had to be attained to be saved.

If there are any questions or refutations, I'd gladly receive them. In short, Paul was telling people not to judge them for observing those practices but the body of Christ (soma tou christou) with "which are a shadow of things to come" as a parenthetical expression.

He's not contrasting the shadow with the "body". This is seen in Hebrews 10:1 where the shadow is clearly contrasted with the "image". Also, the specific context of Hebrews 10:1 deals with the earthly tabernacle system as is seen from that very verse and from here:

[bible]Hebrews 8:5[/bible]

So it seems that from what I have read so far since my last post in this thread is that I disagree with both parties. Except, of course, rstrats.

 

[jochanaan]

He says that all the law and the prophets are based on these 2

these are the spirit of all the laws.

and my original point was Paul tells us that we are not to judge people based on whether or not they keep the sabbath holy days or food/drink laws

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:


the passage I quoted above clearly shows that it is not to be an issue.

So, by similar logic, can we consider lifetime homosexual and polyamorous partnerships valid alternative forms of obeying the Seventh Commandment? After all, they are still in the "spirit" of marriage.