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

[charity]

Have you ever read that Psalm as the thoughts and mind of Jesus, as He grew upon this earth, became a man?

It seems much like Psalm 22, and many of them, the heart and mind of Jesus as He lived in this world. Things that David couldn't possibly say of himself, but he was a very special prophet, showing the heart and mind of our Savior.

Much love!

Hi @marks,

David had a great God, didn't He? Who spoke through him.

Reading 22:6, 'But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. 'I am reminded of a little journey of discovery I had in relation to David's prophetical words concerning the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the word 'worm' (H8438: translated 'crimson', 'scarlet' and 'worm'), to which He likens Himself. For the worm referred to is a maggot which is crushed to produce red die, it was used to die the thread which Rahab placed in her window as a sign to those who would deliver her from the destruction which was to come, it was the means of saving her life, and was a sign also of her faith in the God of Israel. Our Lord Himself gave His life to deliver us from destruction, His shed blood a crimson flow, shed that we too may live through Him.

It was used also in the coverings of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and in the temple, at God's instruction. A little word, a little maggot, yet having big significance in the outworking of God's purpose.

How great God is! How perfectly constructed His word! So full of wonder and delight.

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Marymog]

Yes. I decide. God gave us a Bible and it is up to each one of us to read it, study it, and make application.

Thank you CZ

Soooooo You decide? Fascinating....Putting your theory to the test.....that each individual Christian gets to decide what a false interpretation is..... means that God is ok with every Christians interpretations and none of us are wrong. After all, YOU get to decide, I get to decide, Joe gets to decide, the Baptist church leaders get to decide, Lutheran church leaders get to decide, Fred Phelps gets to decide, David Koresh gets to decide....and all of us are right even though we disagree with each other??? Hmmmm.....

Did you know for about the first 300 years of Christianity different churches had different epistles that they read from and they disagreed on which epistles were God inspired. It was The Church that decided FOR YOU what epistles were God breathed. Since you obviously trust The Church on what epistles were God breathed why don't you trust The Church on how to interpret those epistles?

How do you know that you are not fulfilling the "destruction" warning in 2 Peter 3:16 when YOU decide?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog Catholics are desirous for spiritual food and Godly approval, thus need to know from whence such things come. Jesus also was hungry for the same, which is why He went into the wilderness fasting. The devil comes to Catholics with the same temptation he offered his Creator...make this bread and your troubles are over. What was Jesus reply? "Man cannot live by bread only, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God doth man live". The bread of life is not His literal flesh, but His identity...His character...and it is these things which we must take upon ourselves by faith if we are to live.
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
12:1 ¶ I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Nt about the flesh. It's about the Spirit. My words, they are Spirit and they are life.

Wow...soooooo the devil ONLY comes to Catholics with the same temptation he offered his Creator??? The devil doesn't go to any Protestants with those temptations??? Fascinating....

Does that mean Protestants are never wrong...even though they disagree with each other and sometimes agree with The Church? Silly me...of course Protestants are wrong if they agree with The Church....it is only when they disagree with The Church they are right...that is unless YOU tell them they are wrong!!!

 

[Marymog]

'I am the living bread which came down from heaven:
if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:
and the bread that I will give is My flesh,
which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves,
saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life;
and I will raise Him up at the last day.'
For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.'
(John 6:51-55)

Hello @Marymog,

There is only one authority that I accept where the words used by the Holy Spirit in His Word are concerned, and that is that same Word, for only by carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture will we be sure that we have the truth.

* Just as the body lives temporarily by eating bread, so the new life is nourished by feeding upon Christ in our hearts by faith.

* 'Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.' That this verse does not refer to the Lord's Supper is clear from the fact that it was not then instituted; and that the words could not have been understood (as they were): also , it would shut out all who, from age and infirmity or other cause, had not partaken of that supper. It also cannot refer to the Mass, as there is no drinking at all in the Mass. By comparing verses 47 & 40, with verses 53-54 it will be seen that, 'believing on Christ,' is exactly the same thing as 'eating' and 'drinking' of His flesh and blood.

* Except you feed on Christ in your hearts and partake of His life (for the blood is the life), ye have no life in you.

* The Hebrews used the figure of eating and drinking in regard to the assimilation of knowledge. In Exodus 24:11. it is used of being alive, for the subjects of the verse saw God yet lived! (or 'did eat and drink') So 'eating and drinking' denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and inwardly digesting truth or the words of God. See Deu. 8:3; Jer. 15:16 and Ezekiel 2:8:-

'And He humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not,
neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only,
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.'

'Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and Thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart:
for I am called by Thy name, O LORD God of hosts.'

'And thou shalt speak My words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear:
for they are most rebellious. But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee;
Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;
And he spread it before me; and it was written within and without:
and there was written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe.'
(Eze 2:7-10)

* No idiom was more common in the days of our Lord.
* The idiom, 'flesh and blood' referred to the whole person.

Thank you
In Jesus Name
Chris

Thanks Chris!

I don't see an answer to my questions about Jesus use of the word “gnaw”.....which literally means "chew".....and how that equates to the theory that we are to eat His word. I wonder what man started teaching that and when? I can't find the history on that teaching. Do you know when it started?

The early Christians were accused of being cannibals which means non-Christians were left with the impression that they were eating/drinking His body/blood when they gathered in their churches! From that one historical ancient anti-Christian writing we know that the Christians that lived in the Apostolic age didn't believe that they were instructed by the Apostles to "chew" on His words. Two thousand years ago non Christians couldn't comprehend how the Christians were eating Him. Two thousand years later some Christians can't comprehend how we are still fulfilling Jesus teaching that we must eat Him to have life in us. They couldn't comprehend it and I see you can't either.....I have tried to help you understand but I can't make you understand it.....none the less, I appreciate your heart felt response.

Jesus told us in the bread of life discourse that we must eat/drink Him and then later on he showed us how to do it at the Last Supper. Several days later, after his resurrection the first thing he did with his disciples (you and I are his disciples) on the road to Emmaus was teach them about Scripture and then he took bread and blessed it, He broke the bread and gave it to them.....Just like He did several days earlier with His Apostles at The Last Supper. Upon Him doing this their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.

Before he was crucified He TOLD us and SHOWED us what me must do. Right after he rose from the dead the first thing he did was re-enact The Last Supper with his disciples because he TOLD us to do it in memory of Him. He, once again within just a few days time, was SHOWING us what we must do....what a great teacher he was!!! But some men teach theory that as Christians we don't have to do that in memory of Him and even if you do it's not very important....it's just a symbolic ritual that means nothing!! I guess their eyes are still closed unlike the disciples eyes on the road to Emmaus!

Several years later Paul reiterated all this by teaching us with two rhetorical 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?

Mary

 

[Nancy]

Hi @marks,

David had a great God, didn't He? Who spoke through him.

Reading 22:6, 'But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. 'I am reminded of a little journey of discovery I had in relation to David's prophetical words concerning the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the word 'worm' (H8438: translated 'crimson', 'scarlet' and 'worm'), to which He likens Himself. For the worm referred to is a maggot which is crushed to produce red die, it was used to die the thread which Rahab placed in her window as a sign to those who would deliver her from the destruction which was to come, it was the means of saving her life, and was a sign also of her faith in the God of Israel. Our Lord Himself gave His life to deliver us from destruction, His shed blood a crimson flow, shed that we too may live through Him.

It was used also in the coverings of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and in the temple, at God's instruction. A little word, a little maggot, yet having big significance in the outworking of God's purpose.

How great God is! How perfectly constructed His word! So full of wonder and delight.

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Hi Chris,
Boy, would I have loved to have you as a mentor. Your study habits are awesome and, much is above my understanding.
Thank you for all of your kind and very thought out posts sister.

 

[marks]

That's a very good point...which makes our own attitude to the law even more inexplicable considering we are supposed to be created in His image.

Yes, created in His image, not in the "image" of the Law He gave to Israel as a covenant with them.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I find no sense in that God puts an obstacle that prohibits them to enter life (salvation), them who are under the law or under the old covenant, to whom He intended to make a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

The thing is, the law was not added for the purpose of attaining salvation. And if the law was not intended for that, it could not be said that by it, Israel was prohibited to attain salvation. Besides, salvation is by grace through faith.

Tong
R1708

I see the prohibition in the fact that the Law condemns their actions, thereby denying them entrance to God's kingdom. The Law makes provision for their sins to be covered, yet, just the same, they need to be justified.

But yes, the Law was not given to give Israel eternal life.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hi @marks,

David had a great God, didn't He? Who spoke through him.

Reading 22:6, 'But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. 'I am reminded of a little journey of discovery I had in relation to David's prophetical words concerning the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the word 'worm' (H8438: translated 'crimson', 'scarlet' and 'worm'), to which He likens Himself. For the worm referred to is a maggot which is crushed to produce red die, it was used to die the thread which Rahab placed in her window as a sign to those who would deliver her from the destruction which was to come, it was the means of saving her life, and was a sign also of her faith in the God of Israel. Our Lord Himself gave His life to deliver us from destruction, His shed blood a crimson flow, shed that we too may live through Him.

It was used also in the coverings of the tabernacle in the wilderness, and in the temple, at God's instruction. A little word, a little maggot, yet having big significance in the outworking of God's purpose.

How great God is! How perfectly constructed His word! So full of wonder and delight.

Praise God!

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Amen!

I remember the first time I read Psalm 22, I had no idea what it was, but when I read the first line I was electified. When I read, but I am a worm, I was in tears.

I think it was in a Targum I read the Jewish idea that the "worm" is what remains of the man who God has destroyed, "the worm that dieth not".

I love His Word!!

Much love!

 

[CadyandZoe]

Thank you CZ

Soooooo You decide? Fascinating....Putting your theory to the test.....that each individual Christian gets to decide what a false interpretation is..... means that God is ok with every Christians interpretations and none of us are wrong. After all, YOU get to decide, I get to decide, Joe gets to decide, the Baptist church leaders get to decide, Lutheran church leaders get to decide, Fred Phelps gets to decide, David Koresh gets to decide....and all of us are right even though we disagree with each other??? Hmmmm.....

Did you know for about the first 300 years of Christianity different churches had different epistles that they read from and they disagreed on which epistles were God inspired. It was The Church that decided FOR YOU what epistles were God breathed. Since you obviously trust The Church on what epistles were God breathed why don't you trust The Church on how to interpret those epistles?

How do you know that you are not fulfilling the "destruction" warning in 2 Peter 3:16 when YOU decide?

Curious Mary

Yes, I decide. I don't accept your premise that the scriptures are special literature such that a person with a high school education is unable to read and/or understand them. Even if someone is not familiar with the Greek or Hebrew language; even if someone has neither the time or skill involved in Biblical exegesis; ALL adult human beings can discern a rational, argument that makes sense of the text. I don't accept an authoritarian based Biblical exegesis for two other reasons: 1) telling me what the text means allows me to disengage from the text such that I never make contact with the truth such that I internalize it. and 2) the Catholic church places itself in the place of God, putting itself in between God's word and its intended audience.

I also don't accept your premise that the Catholic church decided which books belong in our Bible. This is a grave misunderstanding of history. Those who collected the canon into a single book weren't asking "what books do we want in our Bible?" No. They were asking "which books of the Bible did the people of God always understand to be scripture?"

And this is really going to blow your gasket. I believe, I am free to decide for myself which books are scripture. All human beings, including me are obligated by God to believe the truth. And he has given every human being the means to make contact with the truth. If I discover, perchance, that a book of the Bible turns out to be a forgery (hypothetically speaking of course) I am obligated to reject it (not that this would ever happen. The principle of the matter is what I am trying to convey.

God will not allow me to hand my mind over to another person and absolve myself of any responsibility. That is not going to happen. As we are seeing today, authoritarian based sources of knowledge lead to great evil.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation. “Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).

Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).

At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.

THE CEREMONIAL LAW IS AGAINST US
Now let’s take a closer look at the ceremonial ordinances that Moses wrote in the book. They were to repose in the “side of the ark ... for a witness against thee.” It is interesting to note that the curses and judgments of this law spelled out penalties for transgression which were totally missing from the Ten Commandments. For this reason, the ceremonial law was considered to be a law which was “against” them. Even in the New Testament we read the same descriptive language in reference to that law. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Certainly there was nothing in the Ten-Commandment law that could be defined as “contrary” to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not “against” those early Christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying, etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a tremendous protection to them and favored every interest in their lives. We have only to read Paul’s exalted description of the Ten-Commandment law to recognize that those eternal principles were never blotted out or nailed to the cross. After quoting the tenth commandment of the decalogue in Romans 7:7, Paul wrote these words, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (verse 12). Then he continued in verse 14, “For we know that the law is spiritual ...”

If the Ten-Commandment law had been blotted out at the cross, would Paul have spoken in such glowing language of its perfection and spirituality? He did not speak of a past law. He said, “the law IS holy ... the law IS spiritual.” In other words, it was very much alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense: “WAS against us ... WAS contrary to us.” It is certain he was not speaking of the same law. One was present and one was past.

Sorry but the entire Mosaic Law-including the decalogue was rendered inoperative by the blood of Jesus! Man has separated the Mosaic Law into its civil, ceremonial and Moral (the ten) into these categories for purposes of defining which part of Jewish life was controlled by which part of the Law! but Israel knew it as just the Mosaic Law all 613 commands, which include the decalogue!

And as Paul bears testimony it was not the ceremonial law that was against us:

2 Corinthians 3:7-8
King James Version

7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

The law or decalogue was given as a ministry of death not life! It was to drive Israel to thir Messiah-Jesus!

 

[Marymog]

Yes, I decide. I don't accept your premise that the scriptures are special literature such that a person with a high school education is unable to read and/or understand them. Even if someone is not familiar with the Greek or Hebrew language; even if someone has neither the time or skill involved in Biblical exegesis; ALL adult human beings can discern a rational, argument that makes sense of the text. I don't accept an authoritarian based Biblical exegesis for two other reasons: 1) telling me what the text means allows me to disengage from the text such that I never make contact with the truth such that I internalize it. and 2) the Catholic church places itself in the place of God, putting itself in between God's word and its intended audience.

Hi CZ,

Really?? Sooo the Ethiopian eunuch and the disciples on the road to Emmaus needed someone to tell them what the text means but YOU don't.

We were warned that some unstable people distort Scriptures to their own destruction but YOU are not one of those people.

The elders of The Church in the 1st century were told to "Keep watch over themselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers" but 2,000 years later YOU don't need God ordained elders to look out for you.

You don't accept authority even though Scripture says the Holy Spirit gives The Church leaders authority. Where those Holy Spirit ordained elders "in between God's word and its intended audience"?? (the answer is YES because as you may recall some men distort Scripture to their own destruction)

The first century Christians were told to "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls.." but YOU don't need anyone to rule over you because you have a high school education.

If, as your theory goes, "ALL adult human beings can discern a rational, argument that makes sense of the text" then how do we decide which interpretation makes the most "sense" and is not a false teaching? I know....I know YOUR interpretation, with your high school education, makes more sense than that any Biblical theologian who is familiar with Greek, Hebrew, Jewish tradition, ancient history etc.! You will always be right, wont you?

I am not saying these things to inflame you or argue with you. I am just hoping you will see how your theories, when put into practice and compared against what Scripture says, are bankrupt.

Keeping it real...Mary

 

[Marymog]

I also don't accept your premise that the Catholic church decided which books belong in our Bible. This is a grave misunderstanding of history. Those who collected the canon into a single book weren't asking "what books do we want in our Bible?" No. They were asking "which books of the Bible did the people of God always understand to be scripture?"

A grave misunderstanding of history???????????????????????

PLEASE....Share the history you were taught on how we got 27 books in our NT? Who are these "people of God" you are talking about that 'always understood what scripture was'?

Mary

PS...I don't think I have ever discussed my interest with you like I have others on this site. I love history and love to teach it so I already have my understanding of the history of the bible based on my research. I am just curious if your history of the bible is different!

 

[Marymog]

And this is really going to blow your gasket. I believe, I am free to decide for myself which books are scripture. All human beings, including me are obligated by God to believe the truth. And he has given every human being the means to make contact with the truth. If I discover, perchance, that a book of the Bible turns out to be a forgery (hypothetically speaking of course) I am obligated to reject it (not that this would ever happen. The principle of the matter is what I am trying to convey.

God will not allow me to hand my mind over to another person and absolve myself of any responsibility. That is not going to happen. As we are seeing today, authoritarian based sources of knowledge lead to great evil.

Well, I didn't blow a gasket but I can understand why a person would when they hear that from you. You are your own authority on Scripture, it's interpretation AND what should be called Scripture......That is Supreme Authority in my opinion. The authority on what should be called Scripture goes waaaaay beyond the average Christians authority!!

With your supreme authority you have an authoritarian based source of knowledge!! I wonder what that could lead to?????


Good luck....Mary

 

[CadyandZoe]

Hi CZ,
If, as your theory goes, "ALL adult human beings can discern a rational, argument that makes sense of the text" then how do we decide which interpretation makes the most "sense" and is not a false teaching?

Practice, practice, practice.

By the way, there are no more people alive who can testify about what Jesus actually taught. So now the Bible is our "overseer."
Any Catholic "authority" is in the same boat as I am. There are NO inspired interpretations; there is only inspired scripture. One does NOT need to be a bishop, a cardinal or a pope in order to obtain the true interpretation. Does that scare you? It should. That is why we need courage Mary.

Matthew 9:2
“Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.”

Matthew 9:22
“Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well.”

Mark 10:49
“Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you.”

Luke 20:40
For they did not have courage to question Him any longer about anything.

John 16:33
These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.”

Revelation 21:8
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Courage Mary, Courage.

 

[CadyandZoe]

A grave misunderstanding of history???????????????????????

PLEASE....Share the history you were taught on how we got 27 books in our NT? Who are these "people of God" you are talking about that 'always understood what scripture was'?

Mary

PS...I don't think I have ever discussed my interest with you like I have others on this site. I love history and love to teach it so I already have my understanding of the history of the bible based on my research. I am just curious if your history of the bible is different!

What books did you read in order to learn about how the Canon was assembled?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well, I didn't blow a gasket but I can understand why a person would when they hear that from you. You are your own authority on Scripture, it's interpretation AND what should be called Scripture......That is Supreme Authority in my opinion. The authority on what should be called Scripture goes waaaaay beyond the average Christians authority!!

On what do you base this opinion?

 

[Behold]

People who refuse to recognise the validity of the 4th Commandment are refusing the authority of He who gave it. It really is that simple. People can argue to and fro and debate all the reasons they think why the Sabbath is now irrelevant, but those reasons they concoct and arguments they invent, are nothing more nor less than a rejection of the authority of the Lawgiver.

Jesus is the Lord of Shabbat.
He healed on the Sabbath to show you, that the Law is lower then the God who made it.

Jesus has all power in heaven and on earth......the law and the commandments do NOT.

We, the born again, are not under the law, we are "under Grace".

So, when you try to exist under the commandments, or the Law, you are existing outside of God's Grace.

WE are the children of the NEW TESTAMENT, the NEW COVENANT, not the Old.
See, God found FAULT with the Old and replaced it.
Dont live there, Backlit.
Live in the New Testament.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

EGW was a false prophet.

The shoe seems to fit YOU --- no matter who wrote this, Advancement in Christian experience is characterized by increasing humility, as the result of increasing knowledge. Everyone who is united to Christ will depart from all iniquity. I tell you, in the fear of God, I have been shown that many of you will fail of everlasting life because you are building your hopes of heaven on a false foundation. God is leaving you to yourselves, “to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart.” You have neglected the Scriptures. You despise and reject the testimonies because they reprove your darling sins and disturb your self-complacency. When Christ is cherished in the heart, His likeness will be revealed in the life. Humility will reign where pride was once predominant. Submission, meekness, patience, will soften down the rugged features of a naturally perverse, impetuous disposition. Love to Jesus will be manifested in love to His people. It is not fitful, not spasmodic, but calm and deep and strong. The life of the Christian will be divested of all pretense, free from all affectation, artifice, and falsehood. It is earnest, true, sublime. Christ speaks in every word. He is seen in every deed. The life is radiant with the light of an indwelling Saviour.

I know too many characterizing words I would have liked to use-- which is not good for me.

 

[marks]

While the law does condemn, it does not mean it is not good and not holy, nor that it is not good for those who sin.

Yes, the law was added because of transgression, and it is for the ungodly. However, condemnation is not the intention of the law. As the Law came from God, so Paul rightly said it is good and holy. And as it is good, the intention why it is given is good. I believe you know too well what are the good intentions of the law. It is in the scriptures.

Tong
R1709

I'm not saying the Law isn't good, Scripture is very clear on that.

Romans 3:19-20
19) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The Law cannot make one righteous, it only brings the knowledge of sin.

Romans 4:15
15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Because the Law cannot make you righteous, but does condemn your sin, it works wrath. This would be different for the One Who had no sin. The Law gave life. The One Who keeps the Law shall live by doing that. Jesus had life in Himself, and He perfectly kept His Own Law.

Romans 7:9-13
9) For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10) And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11) For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

The Law will not condemn the one who has no sin, but all of us have sin, therefore we are all condemned.

OK, I realize that I was in error!

The Law does not condemn Christ.

But to all the rest of us, it can only condemn. It cannot make us righteous, and none of us are shown righteous according to the Law. For us, the Law makes sin to become "exceedingly sinful", it only declares our guilt.

This is how I think of it.

Much love!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Thank you for referring me to Colossians 2:14-19: verses 20-23 sum it up beautifully too, don't they:-

No, I don't think 21-23 can be a summary of 14-19.

You explained 14-19 so well, as, let's say, spiritual, not physical. 21-23 is literally fleshly, in clear and sharpest contrast with the things before verse 20. Only verse 18 is comparable with 21-23 and Paul says don't be beguiled by such pretentious people.
EVERYTHING before verse 20, from 12:1 speaks of things Paul CONSOLES AND ENCOURAGES the Church - the Body of Christ's Own, with.

TRADITION makes everything before and after verse 20, 'Jewish' while NOTHING in Colossians is concerned with things 'Jewish'. In Colossians the Church has to do with the WORLD, and verses 21-23 deals with malpractices of the world -- as does verse 18.

So in every way - from left to right as well as from right to left TRADITION has been the corrupting agent on behalf of the devil himself to create confusion and misinformation, the very things Paul warns the Church about and against, condoning what is truly Christian and condemning what is purely worldly, ascetic, gnostic, mystic fraud, deceit and in fact, vice.

I say THIS OBVIOUS and all important CONTRAST between 12-19 before and 21-23 after verse 20 is CARDINAL BUT IS EVER BEMUDDLED REVERSED AND SMOOTHED-TALKED AWAY, by, and with TRADITION-- EVIL SATANIC TRADITION.

See post #892/893 below