Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[mjrhealth]

Let's be clear, the Jews never believed that the Law would save them. Paul never believed that obeying the law would save him. The Jews always believed that the Messiah would save them. They believed that if the entire nation would keep the entire law for one day, then the Messiah would come. Then he would save them from their enemies.

So then, the burning question in the minds of the Jews, at that time, was whether or not one stood condemned before the law or not. Was Paul, the individual, blameless before the law or not? He claims to have been blameless before the law. One day, according to him, he found that he wasn't. He describes this as "I was once alive but I died." Not only did he find that he was condemned before the law, he found that it was impossible for him to avoid coveting. If HE could never live a day without sin, then surely the rest of his nation wouldn't be able to do that either. His entire nation stood condemned and there was NO hope that God would send a messiah to save them. (In their minds, they didn't need to be saved from sin; they needed to be saved from their enemies.)

After explaining the hopelessness of the situation, Paul starts chapter 8 with the announcement that those in Christ Jesus are free of condemnation. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." Paul discovered that it wasn't the law that brings life; it is the Spirit that brings life. And once an individual is seeking life by the Spirit, he no longer needs to seek life by a Law that is only able to condemn one to die. Obeying the law could never absolve anyone of condemnation. He proved that in chapter 7.

I don't disagree with you. But I wasn't answering that question. Paul says that the law itself was weak. And I was coming to terms with THAT idea. I understand that WE are weak, of course. But Paul was arguing that the Law itself had a weakness.

Curse of the Law, you should look it up, it goes far deeper, mentioned in the OT

 

[CadyandZoe]

About the cloth part, I agree, however we are still obligated not to mix the holy with the profane. Specific NT instructions exemplify this, for example with unequal marriages. The introduction of so called Sunday sacredness is another example that through tradition has become in some churches a doctrine that denies a specific Commandment directly related to worship.
"In vain do they worship Me etc etc etc."

Where in the New Testament does it tell Gentiles to keep the Sabbath Day? Where in the New Testament does it say that Sunday is a sacred Day? I don't think we will find support for either of these two ideas. What if I wanted to start a church where everyone decides to meet on Wednesday? What text in the New Testament would contradict such an idea?

In other words, if one feels obligated to take a day off work to Remember the Sabbath Day, why must it be Saturday? Why must we celebrate on Sāturni diēs (Saturn's Day)? In other words, if one were to push this idea to it's logical conclusion, Sabbatarians are worshipping a false god because they worship on Saturn's Day. Do you worship Saturn? I don't think you do. I don't either. But what is to be done? All the days of the week are named after the sun, the moon, and the planets and the gods associated with them. In other words, technically speaking, there is NO day of he week that isn't profane.

What makes a day special, convocated, or holy? Is it the day of the week? I don't think so. A day becomes holy when the entire church takes the same day off to Remember the Sabbath Day. It doesn't matter if that day is Saturday, Sunday, or Wednesday. Right? Because remember, the ACTUAL Sabbath day is the day that God rested. Right? THAT's the day we remember. Right?

 

[CadyandZoe]

There is nothing in the context that suggests anything other than moral instruction. If you don't understand this, you won't understand what he said.

Again, Paul is speaking from a Jewish perspective. Only the Jewish people were promised "do this and live", speaking of the Mosaic Law. God made no such promise to the Gentiles. And so, speaking from that perspective, Paul argues his point that he was unable to "do this and live" because his members were at war with his mind. He agreed with the law in his mind, but he did the very thing he didn't want to do.

We can not, from that argument, conclude that Gentiles must keep the Sabbath because Paul made his argument from the Ten Commandments. First of all, think about the Tenth Commandment. What does it ACTUALLY command? The law about murder says, "thou shall not kill" The Tenth commandment says, "thou shall not WANT to kill". The law about theft says, "thou shall not steel", the Tenth commandment says, "thou shall not even WANT your neighbor's stuff" Thou shalt not commit adultery. The Tenth: "thou shalt not lust after you neighbor's wife."

I wonder why some people are so focused on "Keep the Sabbath day", they seem to forget "thou shalt not covet"? The hidden challenge in the Ten Commandments is this. Not only does God want you to ACT righteous, he commands you to BE righteous. And the joke on Sabbatarians is this. Keeping the Sabbath Day holy is one way to ACT righteous, but it will never MAKE me righteous. I can never change who I am. I am an evil sinner who, left to myself, will never BE righteous.

Thus Paul referred to himself as a wretched man. Until I am able to admit that I am a wretched man, I will never come to understand the profundity of the Ten Commandments and why I need a savior.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

If what you say were correct, that ANY <church thinks to meet and dedicate time to the Lord> itself, it is <audacious> by all means!

Okie Doke. I find you to be quite baffling. I hope that one day you can find a way to communicate without embittering souls and perhaps might find a way to reach us . . . since you feel that we are sick. And if we are sick and need the Truth, why not have compassion, grace, and mercy in your hearts for us? Certainly, that is how I feel about you.

You are forgiven.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

You'll have to wait forever

That's because you haven't been Transformed. Anyone who has been Transformed by Christ cannot help but tell their story . . . it is what they "live" for.

I'll pray that you would experience the Power of God, and it will be through experiencing His Power, that you will discover the necessity of being kind, especially to the Brethren.

 

[Brakelite]

Curious: The attitude that you share, here . . . are all people in the SDA churches like you?

Don't know. What attitude am I showing here?

 

[Brakelite]

The One Commandment you seem to be concerned about, the Sabbath Day, is an OT religious day. I'm certain that God does not make that a rule in the NT time period. And I'm certain the Scriptures do not teach that we need to observe it. I know the Bible really well.

Yet you can't produce one scripture that categorically repudiates Sabbath keeping. And history reveals, even in the book of acts, Christians continued to observe Sabbath for several centuries after Christ and who prophetically revealed that such a practice was to be expected. Christianity is a Bible faith. Not solely a new testament faith.

Where in the New Testament does it tell Gentiles to keep the Sabbath Day?

Why should it have to? And the rest of your post is so convoluted it is impossible to respond to.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Don't know. What attitude am I showing here?

So . . . no. The answer is No. Your co-church members are not confrontational and combative like yourself. Whew! I'll bet if I walked into one of their churches, they wouldn't be rude, but warm and welcoming.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Why should it have to? And the rest of your post is so convoluted it is impossible to respond to.

Rude.

 

[mailmandan]

That Sabbath of YOURS, does not exist in Scripture ANYWHERE EXCEPT with the Pharisees Jesus' main haters and resisters. Side with them, they will welcome you with wicked gleefulness, be assured.

Utter nonsense and once again, sabbath keeping with all it's rules and regulations, was part of a covenant with Israel (Exodus 16:23, 29; 31:12-18; 35:1-3; Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3, 32; Numbers 15:32-36; 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13; Amos 8:5; Nehemiah 10:31) that is not binding on Christians/the Church/the body of Christ under the new covenant. (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[mailmandan]

Falsities in YOUR version of Colossians 2:16 -
<<food or drink>>;
<<in respect to a festival>>;
<<a new moon>>;
<<or a Sabbath day>>;
<<things which are>>;
<<a mere shadow>>....
<<but>> the substance belongs to Christ;
all and any combination of the above;
the single overall impression--

INDEED IN WHOLE IT IS NOTHING THAN FALSITY.

NEW LIGHT ON CEREMONIAL SABBATHS AND COLOSSIANS 2:16

An unbiased reading of Colossians 2:16 will show that this is talking about not just "ceremonial Sabbaths." The words "ton sabbaton" or "sabbath days"; are the same words translated "Sabbath day" in Exodus 20:8 in the Septuagint (the Jewish translation of the Old Testament into Greek).

Look at Paul's reasoning, "Let no one judge you regarding a,

• festival - yearly Sabbaths,
• a new moon - monthly Sabbaths,
• or a Sabbath day - weekly Sabbaths (or if you wish Sabbath days)"
• CHRIST, he goes on to say is the "Substance", these things were shadows.

When this passage is compared with Galatians 4:9 an obvious connection in Paul's teaching is revealed:

"But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years."

Verse 10 flatly states, "you observe...",

• days (weekly Sabbaths, corresponding to "Sabbath days in Col. 2)
• months (new moons, corresponding to "a new moon" in Col. 2)
• seasons (the 7 feasts, corresponding to "festivals" in Col. 2)
• and years (the sabbatical year and the 50th year of Jubilee)

Obviously Paul is clearing speaking about the observances of all Jewish holy day, including the Sabbath.

The Sabbath & Sunday

 

[Brakelite]

Rude.

Honest.

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Honest.

Blocked.

 

[Brakelite]

So . . . no. The answer is No. Your co-church members are not confrontational and combative like yourself. Whew! I'll bet if I walked into one of their churches, they wouldn't be rude, but warm and welcoming.

Confrontational and combative. Okay. Your fairly new here and we haven't spoken often so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Get to know me better before you throw around the accusations.

 

[Brakelite]

This level of hatred at a Christian website

is our father [still] the Devil?

Of course this isn't rude at all.

 

[BarneyFife]

I don't oppose you, rather, I oppose your harsh attitude. I'm 100% certain that you don't go to church and talk to ANYONE, face to face, as you "talk" to many here. If we attended the same church, I'm certain that I'd leave because of how you treat others (if you were allowed to continue without consequence).

1 John 3:14 NIV - "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death."

May the Lord grant you the most incredible of Blessings.

Perhaps you feel my attitude is harsh because I'm easily annoyed by fits of illogical expression.

For instance:

• You say here that you're sure I behave differently at church.
• And yet you say that if you went to my church you would leave because of my behavior.

Can you see how little logical thought is evident in this expression?

It's practically impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who insists on "talking" simply for the sake of "talking," making feelings a priority of expression.

Case-in-point:

Why don't you try speaking plainly about this most incredible Blessing you wish the Lord would grant me?

 

[BarneyFife]

Like you all say. <Your beefs and beliefs outlined> in this thread PROVES you have NEVER thought for yourself. Same lists and lists, same rhetoric, and, SAME OLD ATTITUDE of omniscience and infallibility and SUPERIORITY. I was a Seventh Day Adventist for a quarter of my life.
I have believed in Jesus Christ Saviour Lord and God through the Grace of God all my life DESPITE my times and deeds of most horrific defiance of that Mercy and Love of God. His faithfulness saved me, from all my sin, as from the hypocrisy of SDAdventism.

Got it. You're not here to do either of us any good. You're just here to criticize and attack.

 

[Brakelite]

Where in the New Testament does it tell Gentiles to keep the Sabbath Day?

If you love Me, keep My Commandments..... He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 

[BarneyFife]

Let's be clear, the Jews never believed that the Law would save them. Paul never believed that obeying the law would save him.

Yes, let's be quite clear. The Jews did, in fact, believe that the law would save them from their sins. Practically everyone knows that. I was taught that in Sunday School and church as a child. What they were looking for the Messiah to do was to save them from the despised yoke of the earthly empire of Rome.

I'm not sure what you meant in the post (realizing of course that it wasn't addressed to me, personally) but it appears that you contradict yourself several times. For some reason, many people on this forum have a hard time keeping things simple. And thus, confusion and miscommunication ensue.

It is significant that Paul selected the tenth commandment, for it is not merely a sample of the rest, it contains the principle that underlies all sin. His use of this commandment in such a context reveals a deeper meaning to it than the mere words literally express. He saw in it the prohibition not only of desire for the certain things specifically mentioned in the commandment but also of desire for anything divinely forbidden. In other words, the law prohibits any kind of selfish and sinful desire, and it was this that Paul would not have known “but by the law.” He discovered that true obedience to the commandments of God was not mere outward conformity to the letter of law but a matter of the mind, heart, and spirit (v. 14; cf. ch. 2:29). Conversely, sin is not the mere external breach of the letter of the law, but is a deep-seated condition of mind, mood, habit, and character, from which spring the sinful acts (see Matt. 5:28; 1 John 3:15). However, the initial effect of this profound discovery on Paul’s unregenerate heart was to stir up his corrupt nature to sinful opposition (Rom. 7:8).

In other words, the tenth commandment reveals that conversion--the new birth--is necessary to keep the other nine on a spiritual level. This is why Christ marvelled that Nicodemus knew nothing of being born again.

 

[BarneyFife]

That's because you haven't been Transformed.

Now, see, you talk about "embittering souls" and in the very next post you accuse someone of being unconverted. That's not nice. I get jumped on all the time about being harsh and direct, but you can scour this entire website and you will not find me once telling someone they are not saved, converted, are going to hell, etc. I just lay out the facts as I see them and wait for the deluge. You could stand to come down off your high horse. (That's me being direct--to tell someone they are not regenerate is condescending and judgmental in the way that Jesus condemned.)