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

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.*

And Nobody is saying otherwise.

<<<It was just not faith in *Christ's work.*>>>

Obviously. For when the law was given, Christ’s work on earth was not yet. However, in that part of Gal.3 until verse 12, Paul was not talking about the work of Christ, but about the Law. He said that it was not of faith. In the positive, he is saying of the law, that it is of works.

Now, see what Paul was saying in verses 9 and 10. In v.9 he said those who are of faith (e.g. Abraham) are blessed. While in v.10 he said those who are of the works of the Law, are under the curse. With that, it is my understanding that even those who among Israel in the OT times, who are of faith, as was Abraham, are blessed as was Abraham. That they are blessed is because of faith and does not have anything to do with the Law, though they are under the Law and are to do the works of the Law. So that, even they who are of faith, when they happen to transgress any law, they shall be judged by it. And not that they are judged by it in that event, that it means they are no longer blessed with Abraham. No, they still are.

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.

<<<They could offer animal sacrifices, and thus have their sentence reduced or be acquitted.>>>
Could you point me to the scriptures where we can find that?

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.

That is because the law was given to Israel not for the intention that through it, they will obtain eternal life. With regards salvation, it was given to keep them under guard and bring them to Christ, and have faith, by which they might be justified, in like sense that Abraham was justified by faith. Further regarding the law, no matter how you look at the law, no law was given that would give eternal life. All there is but works that they must and must not do to keep God from sending His wrath upon them.

It is with those that Paul said the law is not of faith. And because salvation is by faith, salvation then is not by the law or is not by the works of the law.

I could see our differences in our view. You see two faiths, NT faith and faith before NT, the former as achieving eternal life and the latter as something short of that. I on the other hand see one faith, through which man is saved by God, then and now.

Tong
R1672

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Jesus was eating the Jewish Passover meal with his disciples

Jesus and his disciples were at the Last Supper of leavened bread and wine - Jesus', NEW arrangement for his disciples / followers / Christians, never seen or heard of before. Christ's authentic, Feast-- what caused you bring the subject to this discussion of Colossians 2, no wonder. But immediately the foe lead you astray, JUST LIKE he does with everybody with regard to the Sabbath in this Scripture -- trying to make it a Jewish thing.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I could see our differences in our view. You see two faiths, NT faith and faith before NT, the former as achieving eternal life and the latter as something short of that. I on the other hand see one faith, through which man is saved by God, then and now.

AMEN. God be with you.

 

[Marymog]

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.

Thank you CadyandZoe. That is an interesting interpretation. One that I have never heard before. You have put a lot of study into this. Or did someone else teach you this?

How does your interpretation (or the interpretation you were taught by some other man) line up with Jesus other statements in the Bread of Life Discourse: "whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. How do you CadyandZoe eat His flesh and drink His blood like He commanded you to do?

Several years after the death of Christ Paul taught that Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Paul also told us to examine ourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup further saying for all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. According to the interpretation that you were taught eating/drinking his body/blood is symbolic. How can we eat/drink a symbol in an unworthy manner and how does not discerning a symbol bring judgment against us???

Also, it is clear from historical Christian writings of 1st and 2nd century that they did not teach this symbolism interpretation that you teach. Why should I accept your teaching over theirs?

Thank you in advance....Mary

 

[Marymog]

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.

Thanks Randy.

So you believe that a Council that was held by the Apostles (Council of Jerusalem) "was not perfect"!!! Fascinating..... Well, I guess if the Apostles couldn't get it right no man or council after them could either.

Also, what is AoG??

Mary

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

“Works of the law” refers to the do’s and don’ts of the written code.

“Works of the law” refers to self-righteousness -- earning salvation with GOOD and lawful works.

<<the written code>> is God's Written Word - his Word according to 2Timothy 3:16, the work of God's Holy Spirit not of any do's or don'ts of men.

I think you and I actually agree on this point.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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.

Arguing in circles is no arguing, it's repeating incapability to discern.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I made no contradiction here.

You wrote,

(The gentiles in Acts actually asked Paul to meet with them on Sabbath.) For what purpose? For evangelism and not sabbath worship.

i.o.w., 'evangelism is not sabbath worship', according to MMD.

But what is Sabbath worship? Sabbath worship is seen - is read of - is DEFINED in Acts 13:43 "Now when the A.meeting of the B.synagogue /Church .. C.many of (the Church) the Jews D.and of the God-fearing proselytes, E.followed / obeyed / believed.. F.(the) speaking (of the apostles) to B,C,D.them, G.urging / encouraging / commanding them to H.continue in the I.grace of God".

TULIP and OSAS! The Power of the Gospel of Christ PREACHED! Halleluiah

 

[Jim B]

U moet tog ernstig u se hoof laat ondersoek!

Very clever, except that all one has to do is precede your message with "translate" on Google. BTW, personal insults aren't tolerated on this forum. Once more and I'll report you. Capiche?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

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.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Very clever, except that all one has to do is precede your message with "translate" on Google. BTW, personal insults aren't tolerated on this forum. Once more and I'll report you. Capiche?

<insults>? Did I say I was English? Non comprehendo. Ich verstehe nict. Je ne comprends pas. Ga ke tsebe. I didn't google. Shall I continue? I won't google, promise. I feel insulted you supposed I would google!

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
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.

Can you expound to clarify what you mean by “those who lived by the Law achieved blessings,” ?

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.

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.

Tong
R1674

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

This was not a sabbath worshipping mission for Paul and Barnabas but a mission of evangelism.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.
You think the Greeks committed, or the Christians commissioned them to do <<sabbath worshipping>>?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Only the legalistic abuse of it

That is demanding of the Lawgiver all sorts of phony Laws about the Sabbath. Now who was it now, who demanded such commands of Him again?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

this grace was given .. preach(ed) among the Gentiles : the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 to make all see what is The Fellowship of The Mystery (of God) which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

This is the New Covenant:
"THIS GRACE given .. preach(ed) among the Gentiles : the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 (that) make all see WHAT is The Fellowship of The Mystery (of GOD) WHICH from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in GOD who created all things through JESUS CHRIST."
This is the New and EVERLASTING Covenant of God's grace : JESUS CHRIST HIDDEN IN GOD.
Don't bother me any further with telling me this Covenant <waxed old>. This is the Covenant of Grace the ONLY Covenant God ever has had and never had been the covenant of human ingratitude, faithlessness, unbelief and SUPERSTITION.

 

[mailmandan]

That is demanding of the Lawgiver all sorts of phony Laws about the Sabbath. Now who was it now, who demanded such commands of Him again?

It was the Pharisees who turned the Sabbath into a burden, adding restrictions beyond what God’s law said. We also have modern day Judaizers who try to mix law and grace. Now if you seek to keep sabbath today, what about the burnt offerings which went along with them? (Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3; Numbers 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13). What about no kindling a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath? (Exodus 35:3) What about every man must remain in his place on the sabbath? (Exodus 16:29) What about no trading (Amos 8:5) and no marketing? (Nehemiah 10:31; 13:15,19) Who did God give these commands to? Israel. (Exodus 35:1)

If the seventh day sabbath is still in affect today, then why don't sabbatarians seek to obey ALL that the LORD commanded? How can you keep a certain law when you only keep part of it? If the sabbath day laws were still in effect today, then according to (Exodus 31:12-18; 35:1-3; Numbers 15:32-36) anyone who profaned the sabbath was put to death and any person who does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from his people. Does your church endorse that? What about Jewish synagogues today or the government? Since we do not live under a theocratic state as ancient Israel did under the old covenant law, no sabbatarian can live consistently under these Mosaic regulations. Now why don't you share with us exactly HOW you keep the sabbath day and also explain to us what the consequences are for not following your list of rules?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Paul was not talking about the work of Christ, but about the Law. He said that it was not of faith. In the positive, he is saying of the law, that it is of works.

Well stated. Thanks. Credit where credit owed.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

why Paul says neither justification nor righteousness nor salvation is of the Law or of works.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I could see our differences in our view. You see two faiths, NT faith and faith before NT, the former as achieving eternal life and the latter as something short of that. I on the other hand see one faith, through which man is saved by God, then and now.

True. Thanks. God be with you. FAITH IS BY GRACE; GRACE IS NOT BY FAITH. For faith is also a work, although it is of grace.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]