Date:   4/30/2004 12:30:28 PM ( 21 y ago)
Hits:   1,629
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=630833

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

New Law

The OT quotes are included mostly for the purpose of establishing the fact that God Himself never changes. Some people get the idea that if God's rules for his people change that somehow God has changed too, so I include the verses to establish his unchanging nature. I also include them to show that even when the written code was in effect, God still wanted people to serve him from the heart, not just externally (Hosea 6:6 for example).

The context of Ezekiel 11:20 is that God is speaking to his people Israel, to whom the statutes were given. I can't see how it would help establish the keeping of the statutes for Christians.

Quote: The verse in question: Col. 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; "

I believe the key phrase in question is "Let no man therefore judge you in...". I would agree for now that the 'therefore' refers to verse 14. Could you clarify why this phrase means what you say? "Let no man command you to keep the Law" are not the same words as were written, so I would need some explanation as to why you say it means that. End Quote


I'm no Greek scholar, but I looked up the word translated 'judge' which is krineto, and it carries the meaning of a legal passing of judgment. So the context tells me that this legal judgment is no longer valid. The whole passage (thru end of chapter) says this to me: "Your sins are taken away, so don't let anyone enslave you again to rules and regulations. You are not of this world any more, so why do you submit to it's ordinances?"

In Mark 2:26-28 Jesus points out that even under the Law, the Law could be broken without sinning. His statement, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" shows that, even then, the purpose of the Law was not to permanently bind people to the letter of the law. Romans 7:6 says "that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter".

Again, looking at the whole of Scripture, I cannot see how the Law can be applied to Christians. For it to apply at all, it must all apply, and that would include penalties for the breaking of any part of it. No such penalties are mentioned in the NT.

It's quite obvious that circumcision is not required. You would take that to mean that only circumcision has been overturned, but I take it to mean the whole Law is overturned, since it says in James 2:10-11, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill." It's all or nothing.
----------------------------
Old Law
Col. 2:16 does not say that we aren't to let men tell us to keep the law, it says not to let them judge us. Indeed, in Matt. 7:1 we are told not to judge. That doesn't mean that He won't judge us. As to verse 20, the ordinances talked about here are not the ordinances of the Law:

Col. 2:20-22 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as thoughl iving in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men? "

Seems to me that the ordinances spoken of in verse twenty are after the commandments and doctrines of men. Like when Paul wrote in Tim. 4:3 about people forbidding to marry and commanding to not eat meat.

I often find that it is important to separate what a verse says from what others say that it means. Mark 2:25-28 does not say that the Law can be broken without sinning. 1 John 3:4 actually says "sin is transgression of the law." True, we are to obey the spirit not the letter. Can you demonstrate to me how that means that violation of the letter will go unpunished? I agree that our focus should be loving Yahweh, not keeping the letter of the law alone. But we can't say "I'm now walking in the spirit, now I don't have to keep the letter."

James 2:10-11 doesn't say "You can't change a part of the law and leave the rest." It says "whosoever shall... offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Hebrews 9:17 says "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." If you have a testament you can change any part of it that you want to before you die, and leave the rest intact. I believe that we should follow the Old Testament except where Jesus amended it.
------------------------------
New Law
Going back to Col. 2:14 I forgot to point out that the phrase "handwriting of ordinances" is exactly that-- ordinances (laws), not sins. If it meant 'sins' the word used instead of 'ordinances' would probably have been 'transgressions' or something similar.

Also, if Col 2:16 refers to only man-made ordinances, then why are these called "a shadow of things to come" in vs. 17? This would imply that man's ordinances were a forshadowing of Christ's sacrifice!

Quote: Col. 2:16 does not say that we aren't to let men tell us to keep the law, it says not to let them judge us. Indeed, in Matt. 7:1 we are told not to judge. That doesn't mean that He won't judge us. End quote

I'm sure we could argue all day about the meaning of the phrase "Let no man therefore judge you in...". To me, judgment implies a law to be kept.

Quote: But we can't say "I'm now walking in the spirit, now I don't have to keep the letter." End quote

That's not what I'm saying. Instead, I'm saying, "I'm now walking in the spirit, now I don't have to be concerned about the wording of the Law, because I will naturally do those things that please the Lord."

Quote: If you have a testament you can change any part of it that you want to before you die, and leave the rest intact. I believe that we should follow the Old Testament except where Jesus amended it. End quote

Ah, but we died to the law (Rom. 7:4). It's too late to change the terms after you die!
----------------------------------------
Old Law
As to your first point: Can you bring forth sources that support your interpretation of that phrase? According to Thayer's the "handwriting" was a written record of a debt that one owes to someone. So then what would an actual handwriting of ordinance that is against us be? It would be the record of the laws that you broke. "Handwriting-ordinances-against us" "Bill of debt-law-against us"

I was not saying Col. 2:16 refered to man-made ordinances. I said "As to verse 20, the ordinances talked about here are not the ordinances of the Law." The ordinances in verse 20 were man-made ordinances.

What if the phrase "Let no man judge you in..." means exactly what it says? I don't think that we need to look for implications in this phrase, it looks like it's pretty clear-cut. I vote for a literal interpretation.

If you do get to the point where you hear Yahweh's voice daily and He tells you what to do, you sure won't have to worry about keeping the law. But does that mean that you can never slide? No. Also, you generally don't go from baptism to perfection instantaneously, so you're going to want the Law around for a while until you get your sea legs, so to speak.

Yes, we died to the Law, but what does that have to do with Jesus changing the Law before He died?
------------------------------------
New Law
I'm not using 'sources', just reading the Scriptures myself. But when Thayer's says "Bill of debt-law-against us" it seems to mean exactly what I'm saying-- it is the Law that was against us, not our breaking of it (sin).

But regardless of whether it was our individual list of sins or the Law itself that was taken away in vs. 14, the fact remains that those Laws of vs. 16 were "a shadow of things to come", i.e. not permanent, and that vs. 14-15 are the reason for it.

Your full quote regarding Heb. 9:17 was,
Quote: "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." If you have a testament you can change any part of it that you want to before you die, and leave the rest intact. I believe that we should follow the Old Testament except where Jesus amended it. End quote

Verse 15 shows that Jesus' death was "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament". Those transgressions could not be redeemed without the terms of the testament being met; therefore the Law was fulfilled at his death -- not before it. You're saying that Jesus 'amended' the Law before he died (since that's the only time a testament can be changed), but Col. 2:16 is all about what happend at the Cross , not before it. You pointed out that a testament can't be changed after death, yet that's exactly what happened-- at, and not before, Jesus sacrifice, the "shadow" laws of vs. 16 were replaced by the permanent, once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

As I said before, if a particular law is still in effect after the Cross, then where are the legal penalties listed in the event that it is broken? Why does Paul not say, for example, "This is the penalty for a believer who violates the Sabbath, or makes a graven image, etc."? When a Christian sins, he simply asks forgiveness, because he has grieved the One he loves. If it were a matter of law, payment would be demanded.

Hebrews 7
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The old is gone, the new has come. Since the OLD testament is, well, old, and has been replaced by a NEW testament, the burden of proof is on you. In other words, rather than saying an old law is in effect unless specifically overturned by the new, we must say that an old law is NOT in effect unless it is specifically reinstated in the new.
-------------------------------------
Old Law
Col. 2:17 doesn't say "Which were a shadow of things to come;..." it says "Which are a shadow of things to come;"

You said: "Those transgressions could not be redeemed without the terms of the testament being met; therefore the Law was fulfilled at his death -- not before it." Could you please carefully explain these statements? In particular:

1) why do you say that "the law was fulfilled" means that the entire law was anulled?
2) could you explain what these terms of the testament are?

I'm not saying that if we commit adultery we should sacrifice an animal. The scripture is very clear that forgiveness is from Yahweh, not from the blood of bulls and goats. When I say that we should keep the Law, I mean that there are certain things we shouldn't do and we should ask for forgiveness if we do them, and try not to do them. There are also things the Law requires us to do, and not doing them would be sin. That's what I'm saying.
-------------------------------------------------
New Law
As I've stated before, legally there is no difference between a testament that's annulled or broken, and one that's fulfilled, because the end result is the same. A broken or annulled contract is no longer in effect, and a fulfilled contract is no longer in effect. Parts of a fulfilled contract do not continue as if they had a life of their own apart from the whole thing, so if the contract is no longer in effect then no part of it is. In fulfilling a contract or testament, it is quite unreasonable to think that every single detail it contains must be specifically "ended"; when the contract is ended, everything it contains is ended as well.

"The terms of the testament" refers to the Old Law, the Laws of Moses. In conjunction with the fact that there is also a new Priesthood with the New Testament, no part of the old remains since it was all a part of the old priesthood. All of the laws, down to the smallest detail, were tied up in the Levitical priesthood. Now that that priesthood is ended, the laws attached to it are ended as well.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that many of the 10 C's are reinstated in the New Testament. We obey commands such as not committing murder because it's obviously condemned in the NT, not because it's in the 10 C's from the OT. The very fact that we no longer need to sacrifice animals for sins should be a clear indication that the Levitical system is no longer applicable. The "certain things we shouldn't do" are those that are reinstated in the NT, alll under the general principle that "love does no harm to its neighbor". The old Law can no longer 'require us to do' anything, but of course the new law can.

If you have a rental contract for example, it is illegal to enter into a new rental contract while the old one is still in force. No new contract can be legal and binding until the old one is either annulled or fulfilled and agreed to by both parties. We cannot live under two contracts or testaments at a time.
--------------------------

This debate is ongoing, so if there's more I'll post it later.

 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.06 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=630833