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

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You are not being honest and your absolute failure to rightly divide the word of truth and twisting of scripture is nauseating.

Thanks for the consistent supply of evidential proof.

 

[Tong2020]

Yes, I never meant to say that Paul was contrasting 2 types of faith. I was saying that his particular use of the word "faith" is determined by context. And in this particular context, his reference to "faith" implies "saving faith." By contrast, Paul uses "faith" in other contexts in which the application is different, and can speak of faith through which men obeyed the Law.

That’s clear, I think.?

To say that Israel observed the Law without faith is patently absurd, and I'm surprised you would argue this! To say that David, for example, obeyed the Law, and spoke glowingly of it in Psalm 119, and yet did not regard the Law with faith sounds crazy!

Clearly, God expected men of faith to obey the Law *in faith* when they observed the Law of Moses. Clearly, Paul was saying something else, and I'm trying to explain that.

Of course, God wanted for Israel to have faith as that of Abraham. But that matter has nothing to do with what Paul is saying about the law, that it is not of faith. It is a contrast between the law and the faith that has come to the Christians in Galatia.

<<<To say that Israel observed the Law without faith is patently absurd,>>>

I think not really.

Romans 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.

What do you think will Paul say of Israel if they sought it by faith?

Paul is saying that the Law gave a person what he deserved--if obedience, blessing, if disobedience, cursing. And if after an atoning ritual a person committed a single sin, eternal life was denied. This kind of faith pleased God, because it held people in relationship with God, but it was not the kind of faith that appropriated Saving Grace. And Paul's use of "faith" here implies NT Grace. It is faith that bypasses the guilt of sin to appropriate eternal life.

That the law gave the person what he deserved, actually add to establish what Paul says of the law, that the law is not of faith, but of works. That if they do what the law says, they shall live by it, and if they break any law, they shall pay for it according to the cursing and judgement of the law. Faith was never a consideration in keeping and doing the works of the law. So that, for as long as they do the works of the law, regardless of faith, they will live by it, not falling under judgement and condemnation by the law. It is not as if, one, when proven to have done the works of the law not by faith, that he will be as judged as to really have not kept the works of the law. That is why Paul said “the law is not of faith”

<<<And if after an atoning ritual a person committed a single sin, eternal life was denied.>>>

If a person committed a sin, sin that is a transgression of a given commandment in the law, he will be judged by the law and suffer the penalty, that is, if at all he was caught and proven guilty of trespassing the law.

The law is really not about the attaining or denial of Eternal life. For whether one, if at all it was possible, have kept the law perfectly, there was no law given that could give him life, even eternal life.

Galatians 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

Tong
R1661

 

[Randy Kluth]

@Randy Kluth @CadyandZoe
I think you guys are missing the real purpose of the sacrifices. The question shouldn't be, "what does God want" but why does He want it? The sacrifices to false gods you realise are a perversion of the real. Remember those false sacrifices came after the demonstration of the real. Why? Because the real pointed to one very important... Essential.. aspect of the sacrifices that man needed to understand. Transgression of the law demanded the death of the transgressor. In providing a substitute, God was revealing His infinite grace and mercy. It isn't about man providing or making a sacrifice. It's about God providing a substitute for our own death. Like Abraham and Isaac. That story isn't about Isaac. It's about the ram. It isn't about what Abraham provided... It's about what God provides.

I'm not sure I missed that, but I do agree with you that the sacrifices had intrinsic value as a substitute for our own death. But I do think it was important to ask What God wanted as much as Why He wanted it! If you offered the wrong thing, it would show lack of concern for the detail God wanted to put into the offering, and that could've been fatal.

It's true that at times David bent the rules and got away with it, eating the showbread in the tabernacle. On another occasion, a man was struck dead just for unlawfully touching the ark of the covenant.

So I think you're right that asking Why is very important, because it is in understanding the purpose of the offerings that we can please or displease God. It was, for example, critical that the offering be made in faith to the one true God, as opposed to being made to pagan gods.

Without faith in a personal God, there would not be the sincerity and love that God wanted as part of the offerings. And those things were as important as the offerings themselves. But the offerings were critical as a replacement for Israel's death until final redemption had come, delivering from death itself.

 

[Tong2020]

The Law of Moses made no provision for obtaining eternal life. Much the opposite, it showed a way to please God even while he remained condemned by his sin nature. Not even temporary atonement rituals could remove the guilt of sin permanently.

I agree that the Law of Moses made no provision for obtaining eternal life.

But I don’t quite agree that the Law showed a way for Israel to please God. God was not pleased that any is stoned to death or cut off from his people, nor did He desire sacrifice and offering, nor He had pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. In some sense perhaps, that is, if they would have kept the two greatest commandment (love God and neighbor) in the law.

Tong
R1662

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course, God wanted for Israel to have faith as that of Abraham. But that matter has nothing to do with what Paul is saying about the law, that it is not of faith. It is a contrast between the law and the faith that has come to the Christians in Galatia.

This is what's called an "apparent contradiction," and I'm trying to resolve this for us! But yes, as I said, Israel was expected to observe the Law by faith. Paul meant something else when he said, "the Law is not of faith."

<<<To say that Israel observed the Law without faith is patently absurd,>>>

I think not really.

Romans 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.

What do you think will Paul say of Israel if they sought it by faith?

Yes, but that wasn't the point I was making. Clearly, Jews failed to observe the Law by faith, and thus displeased God. God wanted, as I said, Israel to observe the Law with faith. Obviously, some did not. In fact, God said by one prophet that when Israel failed to offer animal sacrifices by faith, it was no better than breaking a dog's neck!

That the law gave the person what he deserved, actually add to establish what Paul says of the law, that the law is not of faith, but of works. That if they do what the law says, they shall live by it, and if they break any law, they shall pay for it according to the cursing and judgement of the law.

Here is where things get tricky. Paul is not saying the Law is not to be observed by faith. Nor is he saying that the Law is strictly consequential, without any reward. And he is not saying there was no faith or grace operating under the system of Law. It was just not faith in *Christ's work.*

On the contrary, the Law was built on the principle of grace--just a limited grace, but grace nonetheless. By Grace I mean that Israel was able to experience a dispensation of forgiveness after having sinned. They sinned, and they didn't always die. They could offer animal sacrifices, and thus have their sentence reduced or be acquitted. They could achieve limited blessings--just not eternal life, which required the appropriate flawless behavior of Christ.

Only Christ's flawless work, only his Divine work, could achieve eternal life, and the Law, with its limited faith and grace, could not achieve that--not without Christ himself. There was no equivalent consequence to Israel's behavior that could merit eternal life. The best they could achieve were earthly blessings, and God's temporary favor. So Faith and Grace operated under the Law. They just couldn't achieve a reciprocal reward in Eternal Life. They could only achieve limited earthly blessings.

This is what "the Law is not of Faith means." It means that men under the Law, even operating by faith, could not achieve eternal life by that system of law. The consequent reciprocal rewards to Israel for their obedience were earthly blessings. But it didn't achieve eternal life beyond these earthly blessings.

By "faith" Paul is referring to "faith that achieves eternal life only through Christ." "Faith" is an abbreviation for the thing Christ alone could provide for, and which we can apply only after Christ finished his work. There was no means, under the Law, by which Israel could achieve eternal life apart from Christ's work.

Faith was never a consideration in keeping and doing the works of the law. So that, for as long as they do the works of the law, regardless of faith, they will live by it, not falling under judgement and condemnation by the law. It is not as if, one, when proven to have done the works of the law not by faith, that he will be as judged as to really have not kept the works of the law. That is why Paul said “the law is not of faith”

You do understand, don't you, that those who lived by the Law achieved blessings, regardless of their sin nature, and still would die? They earned blessings, but not eternal life. They were just as subject to the principle of Grace as we who are in the NT era. And yet they were given to be able to earn things that were positive. They just couldn't avoid death. They couldn't achieve eternal life.

What I'm saying is that the principles of Faith and Grace were as present under the OT Law as they are under NT Grace. It's just that the Law was designed to achieve positive things that fell short of things that only Christ could bring. They wanted eternal life, but could not achieve it under that system. The Law was designed to be a temporary protective covenant until the eternal covenant could be ratified by Christ.

If a person committed a sin, sin that is a transgression of a given commandment in the law, he will be judged by the law and suffer the penalty, that is, if at all he was caught and proven guilty of trespassing the law.

Yes, but there was also Grace under the Law. They could confess their sin, and make restitution, and offer offerings to God, and have their sins remitted.

The law is really not about the attaining or denial of Eternal life. For whether one, if at all it was possible, have kept the law perfectly, there was no law given that could give him life, even eternal life.

Galatians 3:21
Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.

Tong
R1661

I suppose that's the whole point I'm trying to make, that the Faith and Grace present under the Law could not achieve the Faith and Grace associated with obtaining Eternal Life. The Law was not designed to achieve that kind of Faith because it did not provide for an equivalent consequence between Israel's behavior and Eternal Life. That would always have to be based on Grace, and the Grace under the Law was limited by the Law.

The Law did not offer Christ's work to achieve Eternal Life because he had not come yet. Clearly, the Law did not provide the consequent reward of faith until the work, achieving that, had actually been done! That is precisely what Paul meant by saying "faith had not yet come."

He was saying that the work earning eternal life had not yet been done. He meant that our faith had no object, with respect to eternal life, until Christ's work had been accomplished. That "faith" had not yet come. We could not believe in that work until that work had actually been done.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I agree that the Law of Moses made no provision for obtaining eternal life.

But I don’t quite agree that the Law showed a way for Israel to please God. God was not pleased that any is stoned to death or cut off from his people, nor did He desire sacrifice and offering, nor He had pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin. In some sense perhaps, that is, if they would have kept the two greatest commandment (love God and neighbor) in the law.

Tong
R1662

I'm hoping you will change your way of looking at this? Marcionism was a problem in the Early Church, and he advocated for a two god solution to the problem of the apparent contradictory systems of Law and Grace. We have had that problem in our own local church, the pastor claiming that God no longer judges men in the NT era, since He has become "the God of Grace."

That makes God into a schizophrenic, being evil in the OT or at best flaky, and in the NT "loving." There is a better answer to this in the way I'm describing it. Grace was active under the Law, and God can be uncompromising when men are hard-hearted. But God can also be gracious when we amend our ways and consecrate our lives to Him.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Why don't you show me a New Testament command for Christians to keep the sabbath day holy and also show me from the New Testament exactly how that's done. Turning keeping the sabbath day into a legalistic prescription for Christians in the New Testament after the apostle Paul specifically said no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink of in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ (yet you judge me) is flabbergasting! You can have your legalism.

The legalist requires, yes, demands Law -- just what you are doing. You seen me asking where's the Law? So don't play games with me. I'm not part of club Law seekers finders on CB.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Christ is the Law -- the Law of God -- the Law for me. He is Lord of the Sabbath; therefore the Sabbath is the Lord's. For me THAT IS MY LAW. O you self-righteous self-justifiers of the defilement of the Sabbath of the LORD GOD! Let me be a Jew rather than such bogus Christian.

 

[Tong2020]

Yes, the implication is clear that one kind of faith falls short, namely the faith of Abraham and the faith of those under the OT Law, whereas NT faith actually appropriates the thing that Abraham hoped for. OT faith is not useless because it is directed towards NT Grace. But it is only NT faith that actually achieves Salvation. OT faith was virtuous only because it waited for NT Salvation, instead of relying on OT systems of justification.

S, not even Abraham appropriated Salvation by his OT faith, even though his faith predated the Law. The Law simply confirmed what already existed in Abraham's time, that the sin nature of Man prevented all men from gaining new access to the Tree of Life. Until Christ actually came and died, OT faith did *not* appropriate NT Salvation!

Paul's point was only that Abraham recognized his own faith would not be enough to achieve Salvation. It would only achieve Salvation by relying on something beyond his own flawed record of obedience, hoping for a permanent grant of clemency.

Similarly, the faith of those under the Law properly recognized that the purpose of the Law was to show their inadequacy, and their need for God's mercy to overcome their deficiencies. True OT faith was successful because it depended on a record that transcended their own record under the Law.

That is what made Abraham's faith special, and it is also what made the faith of those keeping the Law special. They were dependent on God's mercy and not on their record of perfection under the Law. They used animal sacrifices to express sincere dependence on God's grace for forgiveness. They depended on atonement rituals to express their short-comings and their need for God's mercy.

Abraham's faith appropriated God's mercy, and was the right kind of faith. But it did not achieve Salvation until Christ came to be the object of his faith. Paul may not have distinguished one faith and another, but the implication is clear. OT faith had not yet achieved Salvation. NT faith does achieve Salvation. But the faith in both testaments will likewise achieve Salvation in the end.

I don’t take Abraham’s faith to be kind of falls short of salvation. I believe that the faith of Abraham and the faith in the NT are much the same. It is the faith through God saves man, the same faith that comes from and is of God. Read Gal.3:6-9 and Romans 4( especially v.22-24) in your Bible. I’ll not quote it here, since it’s a chapter long. Sorry for that.

Regarding Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the OT saints, I believe they are no different with us in our standing with regards salvation. After reading those scriptures I cited above, you will come to learn that all saints have essentially one and the same faith, that is, in God.

But certainly, there is difference in some other aspects. To mention a few, one is the individual experience of how faith had come to them and to NT saints. Another is that, the NT saints are in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit, while they were not. Another is the way of access to God.

Tong
R1663

 

[Marymog]

I might see some of the *requirements* of Protestant Christianity different from Luther, as well. He seemed to have a Catholic style view of the Eucharist, seeing it as an essential sacrament. I'm not opposed to calling the Eucharist a "sacrament," but as you can see, I see the value more in what it represents, symbolically, than the ritual itself.

Hey Randy,

Can you please explain to me how the Eucharist is a symbol when Jesus said:

You must eat my body and drink my blood....He that eats my body and drinks my blood....(bread of life discourse)
This IS my body/blood....(at Last Supper)

Do you see anything symbolic in those statements?

And Paul rhetorically asked the questions: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

With those rhetorical questions didn't Paul indicate, several years AFTER the death of Christ, that what the 1st century Christians were practicing was a ritual?? In your opinion is there no value in a ritual when Jesus said "Do this in rememberence of me"? Is there value in doing what Jesus told us to do??

Mary

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hey Randy,

Can you please explain to me how the Eucharist is a symbol when Jesus said:

You must eat my body and drink my blood....He that eats my body and drinks my blood....(bread of life discourse)
This IS my body/blood....(at Last Supper)

It really depends on whether you see the statement as a simile or not. I think it has to be a simile because the context demands it. You don't drink blood when you drink wine. The wine doesn't magically or even "spiritually" turn into Christ's blood.

This mistake has been made for centuries. Protestants sadly look as if they're trying to dilute the statement of Jesus when in reality that's what similes do--they make a straight forward statement actually mean something else. Nothing wrong with that--that's just how language works.

So you'll have to decide for yourself. Enough battles have been fought over words. That we celebrate Christ in the Eucharist is sufficient for me. To argue the physics or metaphysics of this just confuses the love of Christ with arguments over process. And I don't think the process is the critical thing. It is a sacrament because Jesus said to do this in *remembrance of him*--not to fight about how to approach him in the Eucharist.

Do you see anything symbolic in those statements?

And Paul rhetorically asked the questions: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

With those rhetorical questions didn't Paul indicate, several years AFTER the death of Christ, that what the 1st century Christians were practicing was a ritual?? In your opinion is there no value in a ritual when Jesus said "Do this in rememberence of me"? Is there value in doing what Jesus told us to do??
Mary

I never meant to indicate the Eucharist is not a ritual. It is a ritual indeed. It is a rite performed to show our common remembrance of Christ as our spiritual source and forgiver of our sin.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Paul in v.6-10 points to the obvious answers to his questions in v.2&5, that is, faith, concluding that those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham~ they are justified.

They are only justified *after* Christ came and died. Abraham was only temporarily justified during the OT era. His faith, however, was the right kind of faith at that time, and was directed at final justification from God, which we now know has come through Christ.

Again, Paul is not saying that Abraham by faith obtained eternal justification. Paul wasn't trying to distinguish between temporary justification and eternal justification. We have to read these words in their proper context to understand what Paul was saying.

Temporarily justified?

Romans 4:2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

That does not at all sounded temporary to me. I don’t subscribe to such idea of temporary justification. Either he was justified even then or not until later after Christ died on the cross. It is God who justifies. When He justified Abraham, He was justified. For God, there really is not a past or a future.

Tong
R1664

 

[Marymog]

It really depends on whether you see the statement as a simile or not. I think it has to be a simile because the context demands it. You don't drink blood when you drink wine. The wine doesn't magically or even "spiritually" turn into Christ's blood.

Hi Randy,

I can't see what Jesus and Paul said was "simile". They were pretty dang direct "This IS my body" "You MUST eat/drink" and "Is it not the communion of body/blood..". They didn't pull any punches in those statements. They were very direct and if you couple their statments with what the 1st century Church taught compared to what the 16th century church teaches...I don't see a simile. I see the 16th century churh (the Reformers) teaching opposite of Christ and Paul.

If the wine doesn't "magically...turn into Christ's blood" then that means you believe Jesus lied when he said "This is my blood"?

Remember, in the bread of life discourse He TOLD us we must drink his blood and then and The Last Supper he SHOWED us how to do that.

In summary he TOLD us what we MUST DO and then he showed us how to do it. How much clearer do you want Him to be?

Also, what man taught you what you are preaching??

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

This mistake has been made for centuries. Protestants sadly look as if they're trying to dilute the statement of Jesus when in reality that's what similes do--they make a straight forward statement actually mean something else. Nothing wrong with that--that's just how language works.

Hi Randy,

You have made several very interesting statements that I am trying to comprehend.

Who decides when a Christian makes a mistake in the interpretation of Scripture?

You say "Protestants sadly look as if...". Do you not consider yourself a Protestant??

Mary

 

[Marymog]

So you'll have to decide for yourself. Enough battles have been fought over words.

Hey Randy,

When I read Scripture I don't see it as letting me decide for myself. I see scripture saying that The Church decides for all of us what we are to believe. I.E. The Council of Jerusalem and in Matthew 18:17.

How do you interpret The Council of Jerusalem in Acts and Matthew 18:17? Do you interpret those passages that we all get to decide for ourselves what we want to believe??

Mary

 

[Brakelite]

But WHERE ARE GENTILES as Gentiles ever commanded to keep the Sabbath?

Why do you need a Commandment to please God? The gentiles in Acts actually asked Paul to meet with them on Sabbath. What is it about the Sabbath that so offends you?

There is no explicit instruction anywhere in the New Testament where the sabbath is commanded to be kept by the Church.

Again, why do you need one? Isn't Exodus 20 sufficient? How many times does God need to ask you to do something before you say, yes Lord?

Typical SDA straw man argument. Seventh-day Adventists

No straw man at all. The early church kept Sabbath. Sunday is a tradition and doctrine that counters The Commandments of God. Vain worship.

 

[BarneyFife]

I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. (Psalm 40:8)
Kinda like the new covenant
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5)
Pre-Mosaic law-keeping

 

[BarneyFife]

But WHERE ARE GENTILES as Gentiles ever commanded to keep the Sabbath?

Exodus 20:8-11:

8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11For 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.

The OT was the only Scripture the early church (including the Gentiles) had.

There is neither Jew nor Greek (Gentiles), there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

If you don't want to obey God, why don't you just say so and be done with it?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Temporarily justified?

Romans 4:2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

That does not at all sounded temporary to me. I don’t subscribe to such idea of temporary justification. Either he was justified even then or not until later after Christ died on the cross. It is God who justifies. When He justified Abraham, He was justified. For God, there really is not a past or a future.

Tong
R1664

He was really justified, but not in terms of receiving eternal life. Nobody received eternal life in the OT. Christ had to die for that to happen.

What the Scriptures are saying here is that the basis for *any* genuine justification requires faith of the kind that genuinely repents and embraces God's way in place of one's own independent way. They are *not* saying that Abraham had eternal life when he displayed and practiced faith.

Faith is simply the only basis by which man may please God. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." It was indeed possible to please God in the OT era, before Christ provided us with atonement. But until Christ provided that atonement, no matter how much we pleased God we did not yet have eternal life. Christ had to come and become the object of our faith for that to happen.

If Abraham did not have eternal life in the OT the basis of his righteousness did not yet provide for eternal righteousness. It was temporary until the object of his faith could be placed in the work of Christ. He was not *eternally justified* until Christ died on the cross. His righteousness was genuine and accepted on a temporary basis because it could not achieve eternal life until after Christ provided him with atonement.