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

[Randy Kluth]

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.

Yes, technically, it is more direct than a simile. It is a kind of figurative language metaphor. These are quite direct, and yet are not literal. This is normal language technique. You cannot argue that "He is a wolf" means the man is an actual wolf. "She is a rat" does not mean she's an actual rat. Neither is "this is my blood" mean the wine is actually Christ's blood. This is a simple grammatical figure of speech.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

I'm very independent-minded. I was a follower of Watchman Nee, a Chinese leader and author. I read his books, and was enamored with his teaching on the word of God. He also didn't let denominational divisions keep him from crossing those lines to fellowship with all true Christians. Neither do I.

I can tell you how to achieve objective truth. You compare your direct experience of God's love with explicit statements contained in the Scriptures. You will not go wrong.

It also helps if you show regard for experienced teachers of good character, and judge what they teach by the explicit teaching of the word of God. You will grow, but will not become a follower of Man, but of God.

To not let in the ministry of teaching from men and women God has called to do that is a big mistake. But to embrace everything they teach without showing preference for your understanding of Scriptures is also a mistake.

Don't follow a denomination, but be loyal to one. God can use any of them, if they haven't gone down the wrong path for too long. Find one nearby where you can be helped and help others, and God will use you where you are.

 

[Randy Kluth]

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

We all make our own decisions in life. That's what I'm referring to. You have to decide whether you accept the verdict of a particular council or not.

Some councils of respected elders will undoubtedly make some good decisions. It does not mean everything they do will be 100% correct. The Jerusalem Council was not perfect. They arbitrarily set rules on their own, and not directly from God. Still, God gave them wisdom, and I think they made good rules.

There were other ecumenical councils in history, and denominational councils. Undoubtedly some things they did were wise, and perhaps some were wrong-headed. We have to decide.

Even if we stick with a denomination that holds to some wrong teachings, if there is enough good there we can remain and do well.

That's actually what I'm doing now. I'm AoG and certainly do not agree with all of their teachings. And the pastors know it. But my wife and I are doing just fine.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
Now in verse 10-11, in contrast to those of faith, Paul tells us of those of the works of the law, that none will be justified for the reason that “the just shall live by faith.” It is at this point that Paul said of the law, that it is not of faith. That since the law is not of faith, is why no one will be justified by the works of the law. Had the law been of faith, then there will be justification.

Paul is saying, in his somewhat-obtuse way, that these "works of Law" are works done by those who don't have faith, who are trying to find intrinsic value in observing the Law without faith. In such a case, the Law only serves to condemn them because it was the purpose of the Law to show that all are disqualified form eternal life who have a sin nature.

By contrast, Paul is suggesting that those under the Law who actually had faith in what the Law represented would appropriate the mercy that the Law suggested was necessary. Man could never be redeemed by his own record of obedience alone. He required one who perfectly obeyed the Law, and did work on our behalf that could not be disqualified. Not only so, but our Redeemer had to be Divine so that his forgiveness represented God's forgiveness for all sin.

Under the Law men either operated under true faith or not. When Paul said the Law is not of faith he's describing how Israel depended on the Law apart from faith. That is what he meant by saying "the Law is not of faith." In other words, those who depend on obedience to the Law are not of faith, because they are failing to see that depending on the Law only condemns them for having a sin nature.

“Works of the law” refers to the do’s and don’ts of the written code. They are works for Israel to do, which if kept, they will live by them, as no curse and judgment according to the law will fall upon them. It bounds all the children of Israel, both those who have or have not faith, even the stranger within their gates, who sojourns with them or are their servants, native born or not who are circumcised.

I already explained in one of my response post, that the matter of having or not having faith has nothing to do with what Paul is saying about the law, that it is not of faith. He is by that, telling what the law is not. He is by that making a contrast between the law that has come to the Jews and the faith that has come to the Christians in Galatia. That the former is not of faith and the latter needless to say, is. He did not say “the law is not of faith”, to make a contrast between Israel (as depending on obedience to the Law for justification) and the Christian (as depending on faith). He is contrasting law and faith, not people nor about people.

Tong
R1667

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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.

No philosophy helps understanding the Law. Nothing makes Law 'moral', or, 'divine'-- not faith, not common sense, not ceremony or whatever spirituality. Law, in God's Word, is moral being God's Word. Nothing of man like need of forgiveness or need of a way to forgiveness makes God's Command 'moral' or not moral. When God speaks, man must do or die. If God says Don't eat, but man eats, he shall die! When God says, Kill! but man does not kill, man must die! When God says You shall not kill, and man kills, he must die himself. If God says you must not divorce your wife or even marry a woman who is divorced but you marry her, you shall surely die because you are disobedient to God, not because of all the heartbreak for everyone you caused, because when God tells his prophet, divorce your wife and marry this prostitute, you do as God commands or die..

But when God commanded his own and chosen People, Remember the Sabbath, BUT CHANGED HIS MIND, HIS WILL, HIS FAITHFULNESS, AND HIS SABBATH, AND SWOPPED HIS PEOPLE, REJECTED HIS BELOVED, FORGOT HIS FAITHFULNESS, NEGATED HIS POWER, AND RESENTED HIS PROMISES : HE DID SO WITHOUT A WORD!

The prerequisite, God's COMMAND the only thing that could make the Sabbath no longer moral and obligatory -- is nowhere! So THIS VERY DAY the deafening noise from the bristling swarms of BOGUS CHRISTIAN divines, drowns The Word of God with their philosophies and wisdom for lack of simply a single Command! <'Where is the command?'>! the command NOT to remember or keep GOD'S, Sabbath? Antinomians, Sabbath haters, present God's Command or shut up!

 

[Tong2020]

Who denies?
Whom did the LORD save, any who did not stand on their feet planted by the LORD in That Day in Jesus Christ by faith?
NONE!
Therefore what you actually, in fact but covertly declare, is that those who stand on and by the LORD'S Day are NOT in Christ nor have entered into His rest. Shameful. Smug judge no. 2 on this forum.

Those are your opinion, not mine.

I just said “Those who are in Christ have entered into His rest”. Is there anything offensive in that?

You don’t deny that, you say. So, you agree with it. Aren’t you, by what you say there, saying that to yourself since you don’t deny it?

Tong
R1668

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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??

Stop <interpret> and start <see Scripture saying>!

 

[Randy Kluth]

“Works of the law” refers to the do’s and don’ts of the written code. They are works for Israel to do, which if kept, they will live by them, as no curse and judgment according to the law will fall upon them. It bounds all the children of Israel, both those who have or have not faith, even the stranger within their gates, who sojourns with them or are their servants, native born or not who are circumcised.

I already explained in one of my response post, that the matter of having or not having faith has nothing to do with what Paul is saying about the law, that it is not of faith. He is by that, telling what the law is not. He is by that making a contrast between the law that has come to the Jews and the faith that has come to the Christians in Galatia. That the former is not of faith and the latter needless to say, is. He did not say “the law is not of faith”, to make a contrast between Israel (as depending on obedience to the Law for justification) and the Christian (as depending on faith). He is contrasting law and faith, not people nor about people.

Tong
R1667

I don't think we can separate the people who were under the Law, Israel, from the system of Law itself. So they operated by faith under the Law at times, and sometimes did not. But even when they served the Law by faith, "faith had not yet come."

What that meant was that the object of faith for eternal life had not yet come. That is what I mean by saying that Paul used "shortcuts" in his theological expressions. He had to abbreviate things or he would become too long-winded. He expected us to recognize that he meant Christ was the object of our faith for eternal life.

So Paul was not saying that Israel didn't operate by faith under the Law. He was only saying that the faith that results in eternal life had not yet come, and did not operate that way under the Law, because Christ had not yet come.

The way the Law operated also had grace, just like NT Grace, the difference being, once again, that NT grace provided for eternal life, and OT grace did not. OT grace brought temporary forgiveness of sins, until the next sin was committed. So sin was never completely done away with, in terms of redemption. Final redemption had not yet come.

But the Law did enable Israel to experience blessings that they did not deserve. They were able to avail themselves of grace by which their sins were pardoned, and they could therefore present their obedience with the reward of blessing. They could avoid some of the curses of their failures.

This kind of limited grace still did not achieve for them eternal life. For that Christ had to come and do a perfect work, a divine work, to forgive their sins for all time on behalf of God and His Son, who completely suffered all of their sins.

The limited grace under the Law, therefore, was not the faith that was to come, which would provide for eternal pardon and eternal life. The Law was not of faith, because even though it achieved righteousness, and some blessing, it still could not achieve eternal life. They earned a reward for their obedience, but their obedience was not perfect enough to replace what only Christ could do.

What Paul was saying was that the faith Christians were to have in Christ had not yet come until Christ actually performed his task of eternally redeeming us. That "faith" had not yet come while the Law was still in effect.

The Law had faith, and it produced righteousness, through grace, achieving a limited reward. But the reward Christ brought had not yet come, and that "faith" had not yet come. The things that men could "earn" under the Law was limited, and could never produce eternal life. That had to come when "faith" came.

When Paul talks about us not "earning" Salvation, he is not talking about earning blessings alone. He is talking about earning eternal life.

So it requires faith to obtain grace for something we don't deserve. We do good works, but they never earn for us eternal life, because our sins need to be forgiven and disposed of. Apart from Christ, works under the Law could achieve both righteousness and blessings. But they could not achieve eternal life, because grace needed to cover man's sins completely, and not just for the moment. Christ had to do this by extending his spiritual life as a gift to us.

Abraham exercised faith in order to obtain grace, just as later Israel would obtain grace under the Law. That's because grace only comes by faith, it being that forgiveness is not something that can be earned. And it is able to obtain eternal life once Christ has come and accomplished his work of final redemption.

Paul used "faith" as the means of grace, both obtaining pardon for sin during the era of Law, and finally achieving eternal redemption after Christ came. So "faith" was all important before the Law, during the Law, and in the Christian era.

As such, the Law was not of faith because it only obtained limited pardon, and in fact, disqualified Israel for eternal life. The faith by which they obeyed the Law at the same time prevented them from obtaining final grace. Thus, "faith had not yet come."

 

[Tong2020]

No philosophy helps understanding the Law. Nothing makes Law 'moral', or, 'divine'-- not faith, not common sense, not ceremony or whatever spirituality. Law, in God's Word, is moral being God's Word. Nothing of man like need of forgiveness or need of a way to forgiveness makes God's Command 'moral' or not moral. When God speaks, man must do or die. If God says Don't eat, but man eats, he shall die! When God says, Kill! but man does not kill, man must die! When God says You shall not kill, and man kills, he must die himself. If God says you must not divorce your wife or even marry a woman who is divorced but you marry her, you shall surely die because you are disobedient to God, not because of all the heartbreak for everyone you caused.

But when God commanded his own and chosen People, Remember the Sabbath, BUT CHANGED HIS MIND, HIS WILL, HIS FAITHFULNESS, AND HIS SABBATH, AND SWOPPED HIS PEOPLE, REJECTED HIS BELOVED, FORGOT HIS FAITHFULNESS, NEGATED HIS POWER, AND RESENTED HIS PROMISES : HE DID SO WITHOUT A WORD!

The prerequisite, God's COMMAND the only thing that could make the Sabbath no longer moral and obligatory -- is nowhere! So THIS VERY DAY the deafening noise from the bristling swarms of BOGUS CHRISTIAN divines, drowns The Word of God with their philosophies and wisdom for lack of simply a single Command! <'Where is the command?'>! the command NOT to remember or keep GOD'S, Sabbath? Antinomians, Sabbath haters, present God's Command or shut up!

Again that is your mind and opinion over what I said, not mine.

Regarding the Sabbath, read my post in the link below.

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

As a general comment to your post here, I would point out that God had replaced His former covenant with His people whose mediator was Moses, with a new covenant whose mediator is Jesus Christ. In the former, God gave them His Law, a written code, the Law of Moses. In the latter, God gave them His Law, the law of the Spirit written in the minds and hearts of the people, the Law of Christ.

Now, even Moses told the children of Israel concerning Jesus Christ “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,...”(Deut.18:15). God, the Father Himself said to Jesus’ disciples “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matthew 17:5).

Let’s hear what Jesus says. He said we must shall love the Lord God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. He said that on those two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”(Mt. 22:37-40).

If we obey and do those two commandments, do we by that fulfill the law, do we by that fulfill the ten commandments? Yes. How about you, what is your answer to that? So, unless your answer is no, then the Christian who obeys and do those two commandments fulfills the law, the ten commandments, even then so, the Sabbath commandment.

So, additionally regarding the Sabbath, let me say this. The Sabbath in the old covenant is kept according to the code or to the letter ~ literally and physically so to speak. The Sabbath in the new covenant is kept according to the Spirit and spiritually so to speak. Though whether the Christian want to keep it literally and physically as well, in like manner as was in the old covenant or in the custom of the Jews or not, is of no matter. For as long as he do so by faith and keep it according to the Spirit.

Finally, let me end with this saying:

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

Tong
R1669

 

[mailmandan]

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.

Exodus 20:2 - I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, bondage. Written to Israel.

Moses gives the reason the sabbath was given to the nation Israel: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the sabbath day." (Deuteronomy 5:15)

The Word of God makes it quite clear that sabbath observance was a sign between God and Israel: "The Israelites are to observe the sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested." (Exodus 31:16-17)

Although God's rest on the seventh day (Genesis 2:3) did foreshadow a future sabbath law, there is no Biblical record of the Sabbath before the children of Israel left the land of Egypt. *Nowhere in Scripture is there any hint that Sabbath keeping was practiced from Adam to Moses.

Exodus 35:1 - Then Moses assembled the whole congregation of Israel and said to them, "These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 For six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on that day must be put to death. 3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath day." Have you put anyone to death lately for working on the sabbath day?

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

The church (ekklesia) that Jesus built is found in the New Testament and not the Old Testament. Mathew 16:18 - And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

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)

New Testament. Ephesians 3:1 - For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

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

My commands to be obeyed are found in the New Testament and are for believers and not for Israel under the law of Moses. If you want to remain under the old covenant of law and pervert the gospel by teaching salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works, why don't you just say so and be done with it? Mixing the old and new covenants and law with grace is not obeying God, yet modern day Judaizers seem to believe they are the only one's who do obey God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

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

Jesus was speaking metaphorically. How do I know? Jesus was eating the Jewish Passover meal with his disciples. The meal itself is called a Seder, which literally means "order". The meal is like a play, with a script by which the participants recall the Exodus event. In the middle of the table are six food items arranged on a plate and there are glasses filled with wine. "Each of the six items arranged on the plate has special significance to the retelling of the story of Passover—the exodus from Egypt—which is the focus of this ritual meal." (Wikipedia) Each of the items is held up, in turn, by the host, who gives the interpretation of the symbol. The symbols are interpreted according to a "Midrash"

The Last Super was essentially a Seder, a Passover meal. Only this time, Jesus gave new interpretations for two of the Seder items. Instead of saying something like "this matzah represents the haste in which we fled Egypt" Jesus reinterpreted the matzah to represent his broken body.

Luke 22:19
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

What does he mean? What is the this? He is commanding his disciples to change the interpretation of the Seder meal, in order to remember his broken body when they break the matzah. "Do this", that is, "break the Matzah as a memorial to my suffering."

During the Passover Meal, the host would raise one of three glasses of wine and give the interpretation of the symbol. During the last supper, Jesus reinterpreted the meaning of one of the wine glasses.

Luke 22:20
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

Once again, Jesus is giving new meaning to one of the wine cups. In other words, the cup of wine represents the blood that Jesus would shed on the cross, which will establish the New Covenant.

Finally, in order to do as Jesus asked, Jewish believers must practice the Seder according to the new Midrash Jesus gave it. The breaking of the Matzah represents the breaking of his body, and the pouring out of the wine represents his blood being shed on the cross. Gentiles do not celebrate the Passover (some Christian believers might) so Paul the apostle established a communal dinner in which Christians might also remember Jesus' broken body and his death on the cross. Catholics practice the Eucharist and Protestants practice communion. To the degree that someone remembers Jesus' broken body and his shed blood, to that degree he or she is doing as Jesus commanded. The essential purpose is to remember his broken body, not to ingest his broken body.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I just said “Those who are in Christ have entered into His rest”.

You did not <just say>. You responded to
GerhardEbersoehn said: ↑
Ah! Where were <the Israelites> who were <<to observe the Sabbath>> "when in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the Seventh Day rested"? They were "IN ADAM" - "the first man Adam" JUST LIKE in these Last Days the "Israel of God" are inclusive and included in "the Last Adam the Lord" Jesus Christ who "made the heavens and the earth, and on the Seventh Day rested".

 

[mailmandan]

Why do you need a Commandment to please God?

So you have no specific command in the New Testament for Gentiles to keep the sabbath? Thought so.

The Sabbath & Sunday

The gentiles in Acts actually asked Paul to meet with them on Sabbath.

For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship. Acts 13:43 "Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God."

Acts 14:1 "In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks."

Acts 17:4 "And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Acts 18:4 "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

What is it about the Sabbath that so offends you?

The sabbath doesn't offend me. I'm only offended when misguided teachers of the law turn sabbath keeping into a legalistic prescription for believers in the New Testament. So what are the requirements to keep the sabbath for New Testament believers according to you? What are the consequences for failing to do so according to you?

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?

I've said yes and have done many things that God has asked me to do. Now where does God specifically command me and the entire body of Christ to keep the sabbath day in the New Testament?

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

It's a straw man. The early church gathered on Sunday. (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) You are stuck in the old covenant. So why are you so offended by Sunday worship? In LEVITICUS 23:5-11, Look at verse 11: "And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it." The day after the Sabbath is Sunday.

Read on specifically looking at Leviticus 23:15 - "'You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. You shall count fifty days to the DAY AFTER THE SEVENTH SABBATH; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord.'" This is the Feast of Pentecost. It was one of the compulsory feasts of Israel.

Note on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday God's people were commanded to worship. God says, "On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work. It is to be perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations." (Leviticus 23:2)

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

As a general comment to your post here, I would point out that God had replaced His former covenant with His people whose mediator was Moses, with a new covenant whose mediator is Jesus Christ. In the former, God gave them His Law, a written code, the Law of Moses. In the latter, God gave them His Law, the law of the Spirit written in the minds and hearts of the people, the Law of Christ.

There is no <<former covenant>> of God's ever <replaced with a new covenant whose mediator is Jesus Christ>. The New Covenant whose Mediator is Jesus Christ is God's Eternal and therefore only Covenant ever New Covenant. GOD HAS HAD NO 'Old Covenant' or any covenant that could get old, till this day. <The old covenant> is just another futile attempt by Christians to justify themselves in their hatred of the Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD.

You legalist theologians demanding Law for the Sabbath under the New Covenant,
first go look for that Law UNDER THE NEW COVENANT IN THE OT, CONFIRMED, IN THE NT, No.1.

Next: Open your eyes to the ABSENSE of any New Covenant Law which should cancel the Fourth Commandment, No.2.

Then look for and BRING the New Covenant Law that introduces "another day thereafter" -- "after" or other than "the Seventh Day GOD, CONCERNING SPAKE, God the day The Seventh Day from all His Works Rested", No.3.

AND BRING THE LAW'S COMMAND where God in the New Covenant command the First Day of the week should be remembered and kept holy, No.4.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship. Acts 13:43 "Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God."

O my -- help us.

Acts 13 the whole chapter is about Paul proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ which he did specifically on two days of the week named "sabbath". Now what's that but <evangelism> and <sabbath worship>? Both! Both on "sabbath" days!

The cherry on the cake however is YOU contradicting YOU, writing here, <<For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship. Acts 13:43 "Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God">> .. continue Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath which you so loath and say NEVER HAPPENED in the NT <under the new covenant> BUT HERE SAY, IS <sabbath worship>?

If this is not confusion, what can be confusion?

<Sabbath worship> supposed not as worship or idolizing the Sabbath, but as the worship of True Believers of Jesus Christ on the Sabbath, and 'evangelism', are one and the same, not opposites and antagonists like you make them appear.

"When the meeting of the Church of God-fearing reborn sinners followed Paul and Barnabas", they followed the Gospel, Christ, as the result of the Gospel, of Christ, having been "spoken" / "preached" / "proclaimed" to them, as they were urged "to continue in the grace of God" -- Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath. YOU REALLY, HONESTLY SAY, THIS WAS NOT THE Gospel of Jesus Christ IN ALL ITS POWER, "PREACHED"? How phony can you get?

 

[mailmandan]

There is no <<former covenant>> of God's ever <replaced with a new covenant whose mediator is Jesus Christ>. The New Covenant whose Mediator is Jesus Christ is God's Eternal and therefore only Covenant ever. GOD HAS HAD NO 'Old Covenant' or any covenant that could get old, till this day. <The old covenant> is just another futile attempt by Christians to justify themselves in their hatred of the Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD...

Oh my -- help us indeed. With this type of flawed logic above attached to a straw man argument it's obvious that it's impossible to reason through the scriptures with you. There is a clear difference between the old and new covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6 - who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

Hebrews 8:7 - For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been for the apostles to share the gospel with misguided teachers of the law back in the 1st century who could not let go of the old covenant of law and embrace the new covenant.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<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!

Perhaps, but that was not the point of the scriptures I quoted. The point is that the law are of works, not of faith. Do you not see that in the passage in Romans 9:31-32?

Tong
R1671

 

[mailmandan]

O my -- help us.

Acts 13 the whole chapter is about Paul proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ which he did specifically on two days of the week named "sabbath". Now what's that but <evangelism> and <sabbath worship>? Both! Both on "sabbath" days!

Where else would you expect to find Jews and God-fearing proselytes in the 1st century in order to evangelize them? In a synagogue on the sabbath day. After the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God. As new believers, they would be now follow Paul and Barnabas and be urged to continue in the grace of God.

The cherry on the cake however is YOU contradicting YOU, writing here, <<For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship. Acts 13:43 "Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God">> .. continue Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath which you so loath and say NEVER HAPPENED in the NT <under the new covenant> BUT HERE SAY, IS <sabbath worship>?

I made no contradiction here. Just as in Acts 14:1 "In Iconium they entered the synagogue of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks." This was not a sabbath worshipping mission for Paul and Barnabas but a mission of evangelism. The mission continued to reach more Jews and Greeks on the sabbath, which you could expect to find them in the synagogue. Again, this is not about promoting sabbath worship for the church in the New Testament, but is about evangelism.

Acts 17:4 "And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Acts 18:4 "And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks."

I don't loath the sabbath. Only the legalistic abuse of it. Learn the difference.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Perhaps, but that was not the point of the scriptures I quoted. The point is that the law are of works, not of faith. Do you not see that in the passage in Romans 9:31-32?

Tong
R1671

As I've been saying, these are what I'm calling "shortcuts," or abbreviated statements. What does the Law being of "works" mean? It means the Law required works that brought blessings by faith, but could not completely remove sin, thus denying a person faith in a final atonement.

"Works" means works that retain residual guilt from sin--enough to condemn a man to death, with no hope of resurrection. It does not mean that doing "works" are bad, or that the works of the Law didn't achieve anything. They simply couldn't achieve eternal life, which comes only when Christ becomes the object of our faith.

The Law had good works, but it didn't have faith in Christ until he actually came. So the works of the Law failed to achieve eternal life.

But faith in Christ does obtain eternal life. The Law is works that do not achieve eternal life. Faith is Christian faith that does obtain eternal life. There was faith in the Law, but it did not achieve eternal life because it was based on the works of men *before Christ.*

Paul was *not* saying there is no faith in the Law. Rather, he was saying there was no faith that leads to eternal life in the Law. "Faith" is therefore a short cut for "faith for eternal life."

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus was speaking metaphorically. How do I know? Jesus was eating the Jewish Passover meal with his disciples. The meal itself is called a Seder, which literally means "order". The meal is like a play, with a script by which the participants recall the Exodus event. In the middle of the table are six food items arranged on a plate and there are glasses filled with wine. "Each of the six items arranged on the plate has special significance to the retelling of the story of Passover—the exodus from Egypt—which is the focus of this ritual meal." (Wikipedia) Each of the items is held up, in turn, by the host, who gives the interpretation of the symbol. The symbols are interpreted according to a "Midrash"

The Last Super was essentially a Seder, a Passover meal. Only this time, Jesus gave new interpretations for two of the Seder items. Instead of saying something like "this matzah represents the haste in which we fled Egypt" Jesus reinterpreted the matzah to represent his broken body.

Luke 22:19
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

What does he mean? What is the this? He is commanding his disciples to change the interpretation of the Seder meal, in order to remember his broken body when they break the matzah. "Do this", that is, "break the Matzah as a memorial to my suffering."

During the Passover Meal, the host would raise one of three glasses of wine and give the interpretation of the symbol. During the last supper, Jesus reinterpreted the meaning of one of the wine glasses.

Luke 22:20
20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

Once again, Jesus is giving new meaning to one of the wine cups. In other words, the cup of wine represents the blood that Jesus would shed on the cross, which will establish the New Covenant.

Finally, in order to do as Jesus asked, Jewish believers must practice the Seder according to the new Midrash Jesus gave it. The breaking of the Matzah represents the breaking of his body, and the pouring out of the wine represents his blood being shed on the cross. Gentiles do not celebrate the Passover (some Christian believers might) so Paul the apostle established a communal dinner in which Christians might also remember Jesus' broken body and his death on the cross. Catholics practice the Eucharist and Protestants practice communion. To the degree that someone remembers Jesus' broken body and his shed blood, to that degree he or she is doing as Jesus commanded. The essential purpose is to remember his broken body, not to ingest his broken body.

Wow, what an excellent presentation! Thanks for that. My wife and I participated in Pesach once. It is indeed intended to be symbolic. The one who explained it to us was the wife of a former Orthodox Jew. I'm told conversions from Orthodox Judaism are rare. I don't really know.