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

CadyandZoe said:

Finally, Jesus eventually says what the bread IS.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Click to expand...

Finally, Jesus eventually says what the bread IS. John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

CadyandZoe said:

Eating the actual body and blood of Jesus profits nothing. The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit that gives life and it is the Spirit that Jesus will give his disciples at Pentecost.

Click to expand...

Eating the actual body and blood of Jesus is blasphemy.
The flesh profits nothing. It is the Spirit that gives life to the WORDS of Christ and it is HIS WORDS that Jesus gives his disciples and FEEDS - "NOURISHES the Body of Christ's Own" with. "Give us this day our daily Bread" - your WORDS in our hearts, o Father in heaven. Yes by your Spirit, o Lord Jesus

Randy Kluth said:

Yes, you can read the blessings read by Moses and Israel on Mt. Gerizim. That can be found in the recitation of the blessings and curses of the Law in Deuteronomy.

Blessings came to Israel through obedience to the Law, by the works of obedience under the Law. This did not mean they had no need for atonement. Indeed, the Law was replete with atonement.

No, the Law operated by men of faith. But that was not faith in Christ, without which only blessings were available, and their sins would continue to render them ineligible for eternal life...at least until Christ came, the object of our faith.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.

Now, my point is that, the blessings spoken of of Abraham and so of those who are of faith in Gal.3:9, are not those which you speak of there.

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
The law was a shadow of realities that are in Christ and will be brought by Christ and be revealed through Him and in Him.

Click to expand...

No question about that. Forgiveness was under the Law, but it was not *final forgiveness.* Redemption was under the Law, but not *final redemption.* Atonement was under the Law, but not *final atonement.* Israel was saved from her enemies many times in the OT Scriptures. But never were they *saved unto eternal life* until Christ came, in whom they could place their faith.

Faith in the OT was designed to get men to look to God with repentant hearts, crying out to Him for mercy. This then became the basis for NT faith in which we are saved by directing our repentance towards Christ, in whom we have final atonement.

Men who in the OT genuinely looked to God in repentance for forgiveness have been saved now that Christ has come. They just didn't *have* eternal salvation until after Christ had accomplished his work of atonement. Their faith was real, but it had to be completed in the work of Christ.

Click to expand...

Why I mentioned that the law was a shadow of realities that are in Christ and will be brought by Christ and be revealed through Him and in Him, is to point out the nature of the Law. That the Law isn’t the reality but was the shadow of it. And a shadow as it was, what blessing and cursing it contains were also then but shadows, not the reality for which they were a shadow of. However, even while they were a shadow, that is not to mean that they were not true. They are true, only that they are not the very thing of which they are a shadow of. I am confident that you get what I am saying here.

That said, when repentant Jews *who are of faith*, approaches the mercy seat, of course, according to the law, with the required sacrificial offering and mediation of the priest, his sins are said to be forgiven. Is his forgiveness true? My take on that is that, the forgiveness is true. Was it temporary? I can’t even imagine the idea of temporary forgiveness. Why even take it as temporary when the truth is, it cannot be reverted to non-forgiveness? While the Law was a shadow, the people were real people and God who forgives, to whom they ask forgiveness is very real. They live in real time and sin or obey in real time. If those Jews *who are of faith*, happened to transgress any of the commandments in the Law, and repent and were forgiven according to the Law, if their forgiveness isn’t true, how would they experience the life of peace and true blessing or be at rest with God? I hope you are getting what I am trying to say here. It’s not easy really to spell it out.

Scriptures say that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. But that is not to mean that the forgiveness of the sins of those who repented under the law were not forgiven, temporary or not. They were forgiven in real time. For while the mercy seat was but a shadow, the one to whom they ask for forgiveness is very real ~ God. Only that, while there was forgiveness, their sins were not forgotten, as the blood of bulls and goats cannot wash them away in them nor can they cover them to be seen and remembered no more......

Tong
R1695

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
No one denies that there is grace under the law, even before the law. Only that grace is not all the same.

Click to expand...

Grace under the Law is not the same as Grace under Christ. Grace under the Law brought genuine atonement for sin, but it had to be repeated because sin was not fully dealt with. Only in Christ is sin fully dealt with such that we need not experience Grace through continued sin offerings.

Click to expand...

Atonement for sin are repeated not to mean to atone for the same sins year after year as though the sacrifice of atonement is only effective for a year. But that sacrifices of atonement are made for every time they sin. Why they are made year after year continually is because they fail to stop sinning.

I will not here comment on the rest of your post. As I think, I have covered those in my recent response post to you.

Tong
R1696

Randy Kluth said:

I can't believe you're saying this! The whole reason God explicitly said He was giving the Law to Israel was so that they could be His People and please Him, and live in covenant relationship with Him!

I can agree with this last part. OT faith did not consummate eternal life, but it achieved that only after Christ had come and had provided his work of redemption.

Faith pleased God in the OT because it was an acknowledgement by men that they were sinners and wanted to repent, requesting forgiveness for their sins so that they could reacquire a relationship with God. This faith never obtained final redemption until Christ came to fulfill their ambition to live in a permanent relationship with God, no longer disqualified due to the sin nature of man.

Click to expand...

Indeed God said to Moses “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”(Exodus 19:5-6).

But later, it was revealed through Paul, the purpose of the Law. That it was added because of transgressions. That is the reason why it was added and given.

The law served to resolve the problem of sin. For that has got to be resolve if they were to be a kingdom of priest and a holy nation, not really so the people can please God. The law was made for their discipline, character building, and all that was needed to make of them a kingdom of priests and a holy people, more than it was made as a way for the people to please God.

Tong
R1697

Randy Kluth said:

Without Faith nobody in the OT era could please God. But even those who had Faith, who pleased God, who pleaded for and obtained the forgiveness of sin, could not obtain eternal pardon.

Click to expand...

<They> obtained, by grace given <them>, ETERNAL FORGIVENESS, no less than have you or I by the SAME grace given us, obtained ETERNAL FORGIVENESS.

If God forgives, He forgives fully and forever for Jesus' sake altogether the same and only forgiveness finished by and in and for Himself forever and his own glory forever and forever.

And who in the present era would please God without faith - which in ANY case came from Himself?

Your theories could fill volumes good for doctorate theses. For real peace and rest in Jesus, it's useless and worthless.

Randy Kluth said:

But Israel absolutely was prohibited from obtaining eternal life under the Law.

Click to expand...

SUBTLETY AT ITS DEADLIEST.
The same words the opposite meaning:
Israel under the Law was unable to obtain eternal life, not because the Law they were under prohibited them, but because faith or the lack of faith prohited them. They believed NOT, had not faith, had NO faith. The Law never granted faith or ever obtained faith; the LORD did and does, depending on his Own, Eternal, Will.

GerhardEbersoehn said:

Your accusations are false. God knows, and you know. <<I've ran across multiple such wolves>>-- YOU ARE SUCH WOLVE!

Click to expand...

Your true colors are obvious and I'm done wasting my time with you.

MattMooradian said:

Very nice distinction, BarneyFife. You make a very cogent argument for the difference between God's Law (the Ten Commandments) and Moses law of ordinances.

Click to expand...

Nobody makes this FALSE distinction as neatly and clearly as do the SDA.

MattMooradian said:

Very nice distinction, BarneyFife. You make a very cogent argument for the difference between God's Law (the Ten Commandments) and Moses law of ordinances. This does not mean that by keeping the 10 commandments we can be saved. This is where some get confused, suggesting that one like yourself is placing people under the law.

Click to expand...

It is confusion itself saying

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
Abraham was justified there and then, not temporarily even. For it is God who justifies.

Click to expand...

But that's not what Paul said! He said that as much as Abraham was justified for doing good works, for obeying God, he still could not "boast before God!" What Paul means, in short, is that Abraham's justification did not enable him to measure up to a permanent relationship with God. It was faith for forgiveness, but forgiveness that depended on God for mercy.

Click to expand...

In Romans 4:1-3, Paul clearly tells us that Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith. But that even if, according to the flesh, if he was justified by works, he could boast to man but not to God.

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
And when He justifies one, he is justified. Regarding the eternal life, it is also God who gives it, and that, as a gift. And to whom He gives it and have given it, that one would have it. And I believe Abraham was given the gift of eternal life even then. For even then, God has prepared a city, a heavenly country, for all of the men and women of faith, both before and after Christ.

Click to expand...

I believe you're wrong. Abraham did not receive eternal life "even then!" Eternal Life requires the historic work of Jesus, to atone from sin. Without this work, nobody had eternal life.

Was Abraham justified as righteous? Yes, he was indeed a righteous man, and he did obtain a measure of justification. He looked to God for forgiveness, and God gave it to him. But final forgiveness had to await the coming work of Christ. Until then, Abraham's justification was just a temporary justification. It was not yet *Salvation!*

Click to expand...

I think I have somehow addressed this in my post#799. But let me copy and paste it here with some editing for clarity.

What I am saying is that I believe that even then, God had given Abraham eternal life when He justified him. Whether that is actual to Abraham or not is outside the scope of what I said. For that is another matter. And what I am saying is that eternal life is not something that is earned ~ it is a gift. That I am saying, in that sense, eternal life is not a matter of faith.

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
That is not to say that God ignores the work of Jesus Christ regarding that. But that with God, there really is no past and future. Does God wait for the work of Christ before He could give Abraham eternal life? I don’t believe so that is the case with God.

Click to expand...

That's too theoretical for me. Yes, God is the Beginning and the End, and all that. But it did require Christ's work in history to redeem men from sin eternally. God Himself made it a necessary act *in history.* You can't get around that!

Click to expand...

Well, I am not getting around anything. I’ve told you my view and why.

As I said, not ignoring the actual work of Christ in history, anyone whom God justified even before that, were truly justified, and anyone to whom He gave the gift of eternal life before that have eternal life. For even of Jesus it was said as “the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world”.

Theoretical it may be in man’s perspective, but real in God’s perspective. And for me, God’s perspective prevails over ours.

Are you saved? Am I saved? In man’s perspective, this is yet until we fi ally meet the Lord and see Him for who He actually is. But in God’s perspective, we are already actually saved. If one ask “ are you already saved”? How shall we answer that? If we are at the time of Abraham and he was justified by God, how would Abraham answer the question?

If one ask “do you already have eternal life”? We answer yes. When he ask “could you be killed”? We answer yes. How would you explain that?

I am sorry but I am quite in a hurry. This is just my quick response to that. Perhaps, if need be, I could respond in a better way.

Tong
R1698

Jim B said:

And that is just one example of people not understanding the difference between the Covenants.

Click to expand...

Between WHICH <Covenants>; whose <Covenants>; how may <Covenants>? <Covenants> IN THE BIBLE?! God's <Covenants>?! <different> <Covenants>?!!

Going to consult an eye-specialist tomorrow.

marks said:

The Law can only condemn.

Click to expand...

"When He (the Holy Spirit) is come, He will REPROVE - REBUKE - CONVICT - CONDEMN - CHASTISE - JUDGE (v11) the world over SIN because they believe not in Me."
"There is one that ACCUSES you, Moses" - the Law. However, "This is the CONDEMNATION, THAT LIGHT IS COME into the world and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil."
The Light that is come into the world, Christ, is its condemnation, not Moses or the Law. John 3:19.

The Law has no power in itself. Though its Letter killeth the Law is a dead letter. It can only kill at the Living Word of God.

Now "as by one man's offence condemnation came upon all, even so by Christ's righteousness God's free gift of justification came upon all by One: the Man Jesus Christ" - Romans 5:18. EVEN SO, if <<the Law can condemn>>, it must, also, can justify and can bring righteousness. Which we know it cannot. So don't say <<the Law can only condemn>>. It cannot and does not condemn. God only reproves or condemns or judges or whatever the Law cannot do, by the convincing, reproving, even condemning Power of His Holy Spirit.

Tong2020 said:

Paul speaks of faith as one that comes.

Click to expand...

Now after that Christ is come, we are no longer under schoolmaster Messenger Law, but under Lawgiver Master Jesus Himself, to teach us, under Whom we for the rest of our lives shall receive instruction and upbringing in the Faith of HIM.

Randy Kluth said:

You said:
“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."

Here's what wrong with that statement. When Paul said the Law is not of faith, you're right--he is not describing whether people have faith or not. Rather, he's saying something about the effect of the Law in the end. He is saying that the Law, functioning properly, could not result in faith for Salvation.

So he was contrasting the faith of Israel, which fell short of Salvation, with the faith of Christians, whose faith does result in Salvation. At least, this is how I view these words of Paul.

We are not comparing people *today* who have faith or don't have faith, who have Salvation or not. Rather, we are comparing faith under the Law with the "faith" that Paul was talking about, which had not yet come, while the Law was still in effect.

The Law prohibited Salvation from happening yet. Once Christ had come and had done his work of redemption, "faith had come." That is, Paul was speaking of "Saving Faith," or "Faith that Saves."

Click to expand...

<<<He is saying that the Law, functioning properly, could not result in faith for Salvation.>>>
The law was not given for the purpose of resulting in faith. At the time of Moses, at the exodus, faith had come to the children of Israel. First faith came to Moses and then to them. So they have experienced God, the story we can read in the book of Exodus. Now, regarding God’s promise to Abraham, He had for Israel a purpose, to make them a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, that all nations will be blessed through them. But Israel are a stiff-necked people. So God added the Law because of transgressions. The Law was added to resolve the issue of sin, not faith.

<<<So he was contrasting the faith of Israel, which fell short of Salvation, with the faith of Christians, whose faith does result in Salvation.>>>

Well, for me, as I said, he was not really contrasting between faiths but between the law and faith. Speaking of faith, he said justification is by faith. And he pointed to Abraham to prove the truth of that. In contrast, no one is justified by the Law. To prove the truthfulness of that he points to scriptures that says “the just shall live by faith”. He proves that further by still pointing to scriptures that speaks concerning the law which says “the man who does them shall live by them.” Now “does them” refers to the do’s and don’ts of the law, the works of the law. With that, Paul said what is evident in the negative tone, that the law is not of faith. In the positive, it goes as saying that the law is of works. That scriptures is saying that man, by observing and keeping all the works therein, will live. While that is true of the law, there is this condition that Paul pointed out pertaining to that. He said “for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”

<<<The Law prohibited Salvation from happening yet.>>>

I don’t see it that way. The law never prohibited salvation, nor prohibited it from happening yet. The law is good and holy. I can’t take it as would prohibit something good as salvation nor prohibit that from happening yet, if there were people saved by God during those times. Remember, salvation is by grace through faith, as it was with Abraham.

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
I think I have addressed all that which you say here in my recent reply posts to you where you mentioned those which you say here. But let me here go over some points.

<<<What that meant was that the object of faith for eternal life had not yet come.>>>

The object of faith for eternal is the same for all time, that is, God. It is not as though it changed or that it is different with Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

That God is the source of all covenants is not in dispute. What I would argue with is the idea that God provided the same Salvation under the OT as under the NT. I don't believe that's true.

On the contrary, Paul said the purpose of the Law was to expose sin, and to thereby disqualify Israel and everybody from Eternal Life. The Law was thus a contradiction in terms. At the same time it produced hope in Eternal Salvation, it disqualified those who practiced it from having it.

Click to expand...

I was not talking about covenants, nor talking about that which you’d rather argue with. What I am talking about there is faith, the object of faith. That the object of faith is the same for all time, that is, God. And it seems to me that you won’t argue against that.

Randy Kluth said:

Tong2020 said: ↑
Notice,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Randy Kluth said:

Jesus said “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.”(John 12:44).

Paul said concerning imputed righteousness to Abraham, “It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (Romans 4:24).”

Click to expand...

People under the Old Covenant were led in a system that was intended to ultimately bring Eternal Life. But until Christ came and did his work, the Law prohibited Israel from actually having it.

What was imputed to Abraham was different from what is imputed to us in the NT. In both cases, OT and NT, righteousness is imputed to us. But righteousness in the OT was not yet allowed to be viewed as "eternal righteousness," or "Salvation."

Click to expand...

I don’t find anything in what you said there that either agrees or argue against my point that the object of faith for all time is God. I quoted those passages just for the purpose of showing you the basis of what I say about the object of faith.

<<<What was imputed to Abraham was different from what is imputed to us in the NT. In both cases, OT and NT, righteousness is imputed to us. But righteousness in the OT was not yet allowed to be viewed as "eternal righteousness," or "Salvation.">>>

Romans 4:23-24 is clear, what was imputed to Abraham is imputed to those who believe in Him who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. So, whether you believe that NT imputed righteousness is different from OT imputed righteousness, that which was imputed to Abraham is imputed to the Christians.

Tong
R1699

CadyandZoe said:

I decided to employ two posts to answer your questions. In my experience, this passage is misunderstood by many, thinking that one must take stock of unconfessed sins before eating the communion. In this view, to eat the communion before confessing all known sins, one is eating the communion in an unworthy manner. But this is NOT what Paul meant.

In order to understand the issue, we need to review a couple of verses and understand the significance of eating the Passover meal.

Exodus 12:26-28
And when your children say to you, ‘What does this rite mean to you?’ you shall say, ‘It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes.’” And the people bowed low and worshiped.

During the Passover meal, the children are supposed to ask their father what the Passover sacrifice means to them. Why is it significant. Why celebrate it every year? Why does EVERY household celebrate it? The Passover meal, though symbolic foods, tells the story of the Exodus, when God rescued his people from slavery, but only after the angel of death visited the house of every first born son of the Egyptians. Once in awhile we experience an event that transcends the "everyday" life of a single individual. Some events are so momentous, and the effects are so wide spread, that the experience itself forms the genesis of a common bond between those who lived through it. Some people remember Peral Harbor; others remember 911, while others remember the assassination of JFK. And everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news. These events are universal, important, significant experiences that each person shares in common. To memorialize them in official ways is to remember what we all share in common.

The Passover event is such a unifying and universal event that unites ALL Jews, even those who do not believe in God. It was THAT significant. For Christians, the cross is such an event; an event that transcends all history and culture and the one thing that all Christians share in common. To memorialize that event is to celebrate what we all have in common, what unites us.

1 Corinthians 11:17-22
But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

Eating the communion supper was intended to celebrate the most significant and transcendental event mankind has ever experienced. And those who eat the meal are supposed to be united by an event that they all share in common. To eat the communion in an unworthy manner, is to eat the supper in a way that minimizes or berates the event of the cross. If some are hungry while overs are gorged with food, then they are not acting like a people who share a significant event in common. A man with much food, sitting next to a man with no food is a contradiction of the spirit behind the memorial celebration. If these men truly have something in common, then the man with much food should share with the man who has none.

Click to expand...

Hey CZ,

Thank you. Your “experience”, 2000 years after the death of Christ, seems to be much different then the men of the 1st century and 2nd century. Is it possible YOU have misunderstood those passages?

When referring to the Eucharist (bread/wine) the men of the 1st century wrote Give not that which is holy unto dogs. (Didache 9:1-5) How can a metaphor or symbol be “Holy”???

Ignatius and Justin Martyr also had a much different “experience” than you. Should i believe their writings (experience) or yours?

Randy Kluth said:

No, of course they didn't lie about this. The Holy Spirit sanctioned a decision *they made.* God did not make the decision for them. Are you reading into the Bible that the Holy Spirit dictated the findings of this Council? I don't see that there.

Click to expand...

Sooooo if God did not make the decision for them God would not have corrected them if they made the wrong decision? Your theory is very confusing.

YOU SAID: I think the Council of Jerusalem was wise, but not the word of God. It was recorded in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures do not say they were God-ordained rules.

Scripture is the word of God Soooo was their the decision the word of God or not???