Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

dmatic,

You wrote:

“A Sabbath command was given before the 'Old Covenant' was even ratified at Sinai, and before God had given Moses the Tables that He had cut out and inscribed with His own Hand.”

He also instructed them to remove leaven from their houses prior to including this requirement in the law at Sinai (Exodus 12), but—whether it was found in the original mention or in the codified law—it was nonetheless a new commandment, underscoring the Israelites’ need to forever after commemorate the Exodus.

This was true of the Sabbath observance as well. It was mentioned (with reference to the manna collection) a few weeks before it was codified (at Sinai)—but we have no evidence of it being commanded to any other people, or even to these people at any time prior to the Exodus. Until Christ came, the deliverance from Egypt was the greatest event to be commemorated in Israel’s history. It is the reason for the Passover (Ex.12:26-27), and is even given as a reason for Israel’s keeping the Sabbath (Deut.5:14-15).

The prophets predicted a greater deliverance in the future, which would eclipse the Exodus in importance, and would cause that event to no longer be commemorated, but would be remembered in its place (Jer.16:14-15; 23:7-8). This event is described as God’s gathering His people, not out of Egypt, but out of every nation. Some people see this as fulfilled in the return from Babylon, in 586 BC, and others look for a future fulfillment in the gathering of the Jews back to their land in the end times. I do not see it either of these ways, but I believe it is talking about the gathering of all of God’s people (Jew and Gentile) into the New Covenant, in this present age (John 10:16; 11:51-52).

My reasons for this view are too numerous to mention here, but Paul does tell us that the experiences of the exodus generation were a “type” of our own experience of redemption (1 Cor.10:6, 11 [Greek]).

If I am correct, then the “second (greater) exodus” has already taken place in the death and resurrection of Christ (see Luke 9:31 [Greek]). This means that those rituals that were designed to remember the first exodus (as Jeremiah predicted) have been replaced with those that commemorate the new exodus (1 Cor. 5:7;11:23-26).


You wrote:

“Anyway, it seems clear to me, that the laws of the first covenant were not done away with, because there was nothing wrong with them!”

Childhood, in the individual, is eventually done away with when maturity replaces it. This is not because there is anything wrong with childhood. It is simply that childhood is not God’s ultimate plan for human beings.

You wrote:

“…about Hebrews 8:13...You'll note that the word "covenant" does not appear in the text. The chapter is speaking of the Old Levitical Priesthood, where, as verse four indicates that Jesus would not be a priest according to the law of Levitical Priests.”

It is true that there is no word “covenant” in Hebrews 8:13. However, verse thirteen is a commentary on the Jeremiac citation found in verses 8 through 12. This quote says, “I will make a new covenant” (v.8). The writer of Hebrews, after quoting these words, writes:

“In that he says [ellipsis], he has made the first obsolete.”

We must ask what belongs in the ellipsis. The contents must be sought in the quotation from Jeremiah, since it is introduced by a reference to what “he says.” In that quotation, we must find something that contrasts with “the first,” in verse 13. Sure enough, the answer can be found there! There we find a reference to a “new covenant” followed mention of a previous covenant. There is, thus, a "first covenant" and a "second covenant" mentioned in the passage cited.

Also, just before the quotation from Jeremiah, the writer has already spoken of a “first” and a “second” something (v.7). Though the word “covenant” is also absent from verse 7, the last words in the previous verse (the natural antecedent to his thought in verse 7), make reference to “a better covenant, which was established on better promises.” There is, therefore, no reason to limit the obsolescence, mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13, as applying only to the priesthood, but, rather to the inferior covenant (v.6) as a whole.

In any case, the writer has already pointed out that the changing of the priesthood heralds a corresponding “change of the law” (Heb.7:12). In other words, the law of Moses knows of no priesthood, other than the Aaronic. To exchange priesthoods requires an exchange of constitutions, or legal codes, by which the respective priesthoods are established.

If there is a new priesthood, there must be a new law. Thus reasons the author of Hebrews. Therefore, even if this author were saying, in 8:13, that the old priesthood is obsolete (as you contend), then, by his own earlier statement, this would necessitate that the old law is also obsolete.

You wrote:

“I believe that the Apostles taught adherence to the Feasts and Sabbaths of God...i.e. even Paul while encouraging the keeping of the Feast of Unleavened Bread said some place: ‘Let us therefore keep the feast in sincerity and truth and not with the leaven of malice etc.’”

You may think the apostles taught such things, if you wish. However, the statement in 1 Corinthians, to which you refer, does not support the contention. It clearly speaks of a spiritual feast—not the abstinence from physical leaven, but from “the leaven of malice and wickedness.”

It is hard to understand how an honest reader, lacking an agenda, could mistake Paul’s meaning as completely as your use of the passage suggests.

Your reference to "Pauline antinomians” is not applicable, as far as I know, to anyone at this forum. We all believe in obeying the commandments of the Messiah. Some of us simply disagree with you as to what the Messiah did and did not command us to do. You say He commands us to keep the Sabbath. I find no evidence of any such command in the New Testament. You base this, it would appear, entirely on your view of Matthew 5:17-20, which I have addressed in a previous post (and which you have not countered).

You wrote:

“The commandments were not nailed to the tree.”

Nor did I ever say that they were. There was no need to nail them to the tree. They had committed no offense. They completely fulfilled their purpose, which is why they are no longer needed. They are like a faithful tutor, who can be happily discharged, once the child has learned his lessons (Gal.3:23-25).

You wrote:

“Col 2:16-17 can be read, in my humble opinion thusly: Let no man but the body of Christ judge (teach) you therefore, in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath, which are a shadow of things yet to come (and are therefore, important!).”

Why can’t we trust Paul (or the Holy Spirit in Paul) to use the words that correctly communicate his thoughts. To say that “no man” really means “no man but the body of Christ” is to import a modifier that is nowhere hinted at in the context, and which, if included, makes Paul’s meaning the opposite of what he actually chose to write. Also, to change the word “judge” (a negative concept in the passage) to the idea of “teach” (bearing positive connotations) again twists Paul’s letters in just the manner that Peter says the “unstable and unlearned” people do (2 Peter 3:15-16). Your rationale for distorting Paul’s statement is given in the following words:

“If this is what Paul said, it is more easily seen to agree with Y'Shua's teaching regarding these things. If he was saying what many of you think he was saying, then I am having trouble discerning how this agrees with Y'Shua's commands and instructions.”

This is because you are holding on to a particular interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20, which has earlier been refuted, and which you have not returned to defend. Apart from this one passage in Matthew, there certainly is nothing in the teachings of Jesus to contradict the plain meaning of Paul’s statement in Colossians. If a person finds a contradiction between Matthew 5:17-20 and Colossians 2:16-17, then one of the two passages is being misunderstood by that reader. To solve the problem, you insert whole phrases into Pauls’ statement, in order to make him say the opposite of what he actually said. This is too high a price to pay for harmonization. It would be wiser to take both passages as they are written, and to understand the Matthew passage as I suggested earlier. This way, nothing needs to be twisted, and no contradiction presents itself.

You wrote:

“Further reading to the end of the chapter seems to confirm my understanding of the passage where verses 20-23 conclude: 'Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances after the commandments of men?'”

If the “food and drink…festivals, new moons [and] Sabbaths,” of Colossians 2:16, are the “commandments and doctrines of men,” of verse 22, it can only be that the former, which were commanded by God to the Jews under the Old Covenant, have not any abiding relevance to Gentiles of the New Covenant. Thus, anyone teaching Christians to keep such ordinances is doing so without divine sanction, and, in doing so, is teaching “commandments and doctrines of men."

You wrote:

"The true body of Christ holds to the head, and teaches what He taught us to teach, which, according to Mt 23:2,3 and Mt 5:17-19 is adherence ot what Moses taught, and not to what men were teaching.”

I would explain Matthew 23:2-3 similarly to the way I explained Matthew 5:17ff. Jesus was not an enemy of the Mosaic law.

In suggesting that Jesus’ instructions to observe everything that the scribes and Pharisees taught from “Moses’ seat,” is to be taken in an absolute sense, you thereby make it also mandatory for disciples to observe all of the rabbinic (human) traditions that the Pharisees taught from that chair. This verse, taken in its absolute sense, does not help your position nor mine, but actually would support the Roman Catholic view that anything (even traditions) which are taught “ex cathedra” are to be followed by Christians. This would eventually lead to the canonization of every Catholic heresy (including “Beaster”) that you abhor.

Though Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:2-3 are presented in absolute-sounding terms, it is not uncommon for Him to use such terms when employing hyperbole in His teaching. His point is (I believe), “When the word of God is being taught from Moses’ seat, obey it, regardless how hypocritical the teacher may be, or how little he himself obeys it.”

Since these words were spoken while the Old Covenant was still in force, any part of the Torah that was correctly advocated by the Pharisees was to be observed (including the parts about sacrifices, which neither you nor I follow). Once Jesus rose from the dead, it was no longer that which was taught from “Moses’ seat” that was followed by the disciples (since their meetings were not necessarily held in synagogues, where Moses’ seat dominated), but rather, Christians are to be instructed in “all things that [Christ] commanded” (Matt.28:20). This body of commands, so far as we know, contained no reference to Sabbath-keeping.

You wrote:

“I hope I am not making myself an enemy of yours, because I hope I am speaking the truth. I realize that there are many that disagree with me on this, and they think they understand what Paul is writing, but to me, it seems that they sometimes could be called paulines, rather than Christians because when there seems to be a contradiction to what Jesus taught, from that which they think Paul was teaching, they go with theri understanding of what they think Paul was talking about.”

No one has ever become my enemy by telling me the truth.

Paul identified himself as a “Christian” (Acts 26:28-29) and denounces any tendency on anyone’s part to say “I am of Paul” (1 Cor.1:12-13). There are two possibilities here. Either we are misunderstanding Paul, or you are misunderstanding Jesus. Since I am simply taking the plain meaning of Paul’s statements, and you are taking a highly disputable meaning of Jesus’ statements, I will take my chances with my present view of things.

You wrote:

“Many, in His day, as today, according to Peter, didn't understand what He was saying because they were unlearned and unstable and twisted his writings as they did the other scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-17)”

This is a warning that you should take more seriously, given your handling of Colossians 2 (above) and of Romans 14 (below).

You wrote:

“…all those so-called protestants are submitting to [Roman Catholic authorities] as their mother by agreeing that they have the authority to change God's law! I wonder how they also influenced the translations throughout the years. My suspicion is that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove them to be deceivers, as does history.”

Protestant translators have made their translations from manuscripts that predate the rise of Roman Catholicism. I do not know how you think the Roman Catholics influenced these translations.

Also, to say that the Dead Sea Scrolls can tell us anything about the Roman Catholics is naïve in the extreme. The Dead Sea Scrolls make no mention of Christianity, contain no New Testament documents of any kind, and cannot tell us anything about the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church.


You wrote:

“Romans 14:5 in my opinion is easy, because it is not even speaking of the sabbath day, nor is it mentioned. I think Paul was talking about celebrating ‘birthdays’.”

Given the fact that a primary concern of the Book of Romans is to reduce the conflict between Jews and Gentiles in the church (e.g., 2:17-20, 26-29; 3:1, 9; 11:18-21), it seems obvious that those who “esteem every day alike” were those (apparently Gentile Christians) who did not follow the practice of others (apparently Jewish Christians) who esteemed “one day above another.” It fits the general argument of the book to say that the Gentiles looked down on what they regarded as the legalism of the Jewish brethren, while the latter were critically judging the liberty of the Gentile brethren. To import the notion of “birthdays” is astonishing! Is this how far one must go in twisting Paul in order to uphold a Judaizing doctrine today?


You wrote:

“I'd like to ask you, Steve, why you refer to dietary instructions as "ritual practices"? Whereas I agree spiritually with your statement that ‘ritual practices have their fulfillment in Christ’ I disagree that they are not to be kept and taught. I believe that Y'shua made perfectly clear that they should be taught and kept at matt. 5:17-19. I am perplexed how anyone could disagree that He clearly made that command a part of His instruction for His Disciples to teach all nations to do and observe what He taught.”

I see a clear distinction between a matter of righteousness and a matter of ritual. The former is moral in nature. It reflects the character of God, and can be summarized by the words, “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Paul said that this one sentence adequately summarizes every legal obligation of the Christian (Rom.13:8-10) and James referred to this command as “the royal law”—i.e., the King’s law (James 2:8). James probably called it this because of Jesus’ words in John 13:34—“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another…” Following the logic of Hebrews 8:13, one might even add, “In speaking of a new commandment, he has made the first obsolete.”

Any rule that could not be anticipated by this command (or by its twin command, “Love the Lord your God…) is not a matter of moral righteousness. For this reason, Christians do not murder, commit adultery, steal, dishonor their parents, bear false witness, etc. It is because these actions are innately unloving. Anyone possessing the love of God would know that these things are unacceptable behavior.

Then there are the ritual laws. It is in the nature of a religious ritual that it symbolically points to something spiritual (Heb.9:9). A ritual law could not instinctively be deduced from the royal commandment to love God or men. Such laws would have to be specially spelled-out by God in order for even a righteous and loving person to know that they should be done.

There is nothing about them that is inherently loving or unloving. They are not, in themselves, demanded by God's character. There is a certain arbitrariness in God’s commanding them, except insofar as they must be as they are in order accurately to reflect spiritual realities. Holy days, holy places, sacrificial practices and unclean foods are all clearly in this category.

A perfectly loving man would not know that he should make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year, or to cease working on the seventh day, or to abstain from eating food with blood in it, or to offer an ox as a sacrifice, instead of a horse, if not for specific commands to this effect. His love for God and for his neighbor would not instruct him in these things, because they are not aspects of love, but of ritual. They symbolically point to spiritual realities of which we otherwise would have no knowledge, and thus serve as “tutors” until those realities actually arrive. As such, they are “shadows” (Col.2:17/Heb.8:5; 10:1) that vanish when the full light of day has come, as it has in Christ (Luke 1:78-79).

This is why I refer to dietary laws as rituals. Why do you not?


You wrote:

“If Paul was discouraging them from keeping God's, then there may be a case that he was a false apostle. (deut. 13) But, I have not so concluded, though his writings are difficult to understand, without contradiction.”

His writings are not as difficult to understand, once one ceases to impose unlikely meanings upon Jesus’ words, and begins simply taking the rest of the New Testament at face value.

You wrote:

“For example, Paul says that we do not annul the law through faith, but rather, establish the Law! (Romans 3:31) How is not teaching God's Law a part of ‘establishing it?’"

Paul says that his teaching of justification by faith (Rom.3:28) is not contrary to (does not void) the law, but, rather, establishes what the Torah itself teaches—that is, Paul’s doctrine confirms the Torah’s own teaching on the subject of justification (Rom.3:31). To prove this point, he immediately presents (from the Torah) the example of Abraham, who was justified by faith (Rom.4:1-3). Paul’s train of thought is not difficult to follow, unless one is striving to ignore it and to establish, on Paul’s authority, a teaching that Paul denounced.

You wrote:

“Verse 21 of chapter four does make it seem like he had been speaking about 'the Law', but I cannot say that I understand him. You may say that is because I am not spiritual, and that may be, but Paul ‘SEEMS’ to contradict, both himself, and more importantly, Jesus' teaching on this matter.”

You create unnecessary problems for yourself by insisting on a bizarre interpretation of one statement of Jesus, and then trying to unnaturally shoe-horn every passage that proves your interpretation incorrect into the straight-jacket of that one thesis. I have genuine compassion on you. I would hate to do my biblical studies under the restraint of such an unwieldy burden. Why let yourself be brought under such a yoke of bondage—I don’t mean bondage to the law, but bondage to such a crippling set of presuppositions?

You have argued humbly. I appreciate that. Perhaps it bespeaks a teachable spirit. I hope that it does. I will know if this is the case when you stop repeating Matthew 5:17ff as a mantra, and actually demonstrate that your interpretation of that passage has more merit than the interpretation I have given earlier.

Blessings!

[Guest]

Thank you both for your responses, which I have printed to read later this evening or tomorrow, but as I was highlighting, I read the following:

You have argued humbly. I appreciate that. Perhaps it bespeaks a teachable spirit. I hope that it does. I will know if this is the case when you stop repeating Matthew 5:17ff as a mantra, and actually demonstrate that your interpretation of that passage has more merit than the interpretation I have given earlier.

Well, I hope to someday be humble, and I do sincerely hope to have a teachable spirit, I do want to know the truth. If I am wrong, I do want to know it. truly. However, your explanation of Matthew 5:17-19 has not caused me not to wonder how Christians seem not to care what He seems to clearly teach here. I still wonder, but I will continue to study and pray and seek his explanation, but I must be honest with you, that as I have sincerely (I believe) prayed about this very thing in the past, I "hear" Him speak to my heart confirmation that He said and meant what it seems that He said and meant!

And, I have figured out how to try to avoid the smiley face.......thanks to your good suggestion to use brackets brother Paidion!

Later, Lord willing....(I look forward to reading your replies!)

thank you again, and

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Steve, Thank you for your considerable response. I'm not sure what to address first, because your post reveals many problems. I'll start with your response to my point, in answer to someone's objection that since we don't have record that God instructed those before "Sinai" to keep his sabbath day holy, that He has "changed" in His "law". I am content to leave this point at the fact that we don't know what He instructed to the 'fathers', therefore we cannot argue from our ignorance!

Your second section was bothersome to me somehow, where you seem to be calling God's perfect Law "childish". Your implication that we do not need to concern ourselves with obedience to His righteous instructions, because they are childish and we are so grown up and mature is revealing. I have noted this type of attitude amongst many, in the past, when we have discussed the importance of obedience to Gods commandments, when some thought of themselves more mature and more spiritual so that they did not need to concern themselves with these immature and irrelevant commands. generally, I have noted that these peole are mostly puffed up and fleshly, and mostly with little discipline in their lives, though one man, in particular comes to mind that is an exception to this. He, thought like you do, and is one of the most humble and loving men I knew, except when it came to discussing obedience to God's commandments. he seemed offended by the discussion, because he was definitely a Paulite. Most others, though, seemed most like the world, just doing what was right in their own eyes...thinking they were right in God's. They usually seem to feel pretty good about themselves and follow their feelings. One wonders if they have really found the hard narrow path that leads to life.

To your next section of comments regarding Heb 8. It is good that you acknowledge that the improtant word "covenant" is missing from verses 7 and 13. It seems clear to me that the chapter is speaking of Jesus our high priest. Verse four shows that if he were on earth he would not even be a priest, since he was not of the line of Levi...but moving to verse 7 it seems evident that the "first" is referring to the priesthood of the "first 'covenant' " Verse eight declares that God is not pleased with "them". The them refers, to those He covenanted with, including the priests. He is most certainly NOT speaking of not being pleased with His instructions and commandments!

the writer then goes on to talk about the better "New" or "Renewed" covenant that God will make with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. (BTW, you have not answered of what house you consider yourself to be of)

verse 10 declares that God would put His laws (no mention of "new laws!) (The "Old ones were fine!) into the minds and write them in the hearts of the members of the Houses of Israel and Judah. That He will be a God to them and they shall be to Him a people, and promises that, not only will the priests 'know' Him, but that ALL will know Him, from the least to the greatest! What a great promise! For many years, the priesthoods of various sects have 'lorded it over' the laymen...and still are BTW! But, this is going to change, when all people will know God, and learn from Him, not needing the priestly class to "teach' them about God! So, in verse 13 when He says a "New" (Priesthood) he hath made the first old. Now, that which is decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away!

I believe that a study of this chapter will show that it is not God's laws that are passing away....having grown old and decaying....but it is the temporary "Priesthood" and those things added because of transgressions to the Laws of God.

You accused me of not addressing your addressing of Matthew 5:17-19 and your spin. Please forgive me. I am trying to get to all the refutations that your posts require, but earlier, you seemed to chide me for not getting to refutations of your article, so I turned my attention to it. Please be patient. This is a huge issue, and it may take some time to work our way through it. I'll try to be succinct, but that's asking a lot! I'm just a poor man seeking God's kindgdom and His righteousness. I am also trying to heed Jesus' warning to beware of false teachers, who claim to represent Him by coming in His name, but are deceiving many!

I'll try to begin to address your Matt. 5 comments in the next post!

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Steve, If I correctly followed your thoughts on Matthew 5:17-19, you think that Jesus was only talking to those who were still being required to offer sacrifices, before His ratifying of the New Covenant, and therefore, have no relevance, nor practical application, to us today.

And you called my "interpretation" of Jesus' words "bizarre".

I believe that Jesus spoke only the words His Father instructed Him to speak and that when He said that "Heaven and earth would pass away but His words would never pass away" (Lk. 21:33) I believe Him! So, of course, I hold them very dear. I don't dismiss them as lightly as you seem to have done. I believe that His words are spirit and are "Life", and from His words I live. It concerns me more than a little that you hold Jesus' words and instructions in derision. Apparently, you assume that when Jesus said "Whosoever, therefore, breaks even the least of the commandments (from the Law and Prophets) and teaches others so, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven..."(Mt. 5:19), that He was only speaking to those still "under the "Old Covenant"? Interresting.

I believe that one of the greatest, if not The greatest deception of our day, is the dismissal of God's commandments, and the people's willingness to have it so, as they propagate the mystery of law-less-ness!

Obviously, we have a big differnece in how we regard the words and teachings of the Messiah! May I ask you, Steve, If Jesus' words can be replaced by "Pauls", why can't Paul's be replaced? And then, what other wind of doctrine will come to replace it?

I believe God to be Eternal, not temporary. I believe that He changes not, (Mal. 3:6) and "Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever..(Heb. 13:8} I think the faith, once delivered to the saints is the same faith, as when Jesus taught it!

You suggest that verses 23-24 of Mt. 5 prove that Jesus was only talking to those still under the Old Covenant, those required to offer sacrifices but that is not what my version says. It says: "Therefore, if thou bring thy GIFT to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave thy GIFT before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy GIFT!" I still believe that it is OK to offer God gifts, and in fact, "God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Cor. 9:7) If these gifts, to which Jesus was referring were animal sacrifices...it would seem rather cruel to the animal to be tied up there until one could find the offended brother and then do what it took to be reconciled. This process may take an hour, a day, a week, or longer! I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't want us to just leave the "animal sacrifice" there at the altar for all that time, while trying to be reconciled. I think the teaching is that God is very interest6ed in our horizontal relationships and that we should be interested in them too! And we should keep them all reconciled as we seek God! Obviously, still a relevant command!

As to Jesus coming to fulfill the Law and the Prophets rather than annulling the commandments and their teachings. Jesus did come to fulfill the Law, but definitely NOT to end it! By fulfilling it, He confirmed it. He lived it. He fully preached it. He explained it. He 'deepened' it. he showed us its spiritual nature. He agreed with all of it! He, always, throughtout His entire minstry taught others to keep His Father's commandments, even going so far as to tell the guy who asked Him how he could inherit eternal life to "If thou wilt enter Life...Keep the Commandments"! Mt 19:17 Actually, as i've tried to explain before, He taught the opposite of what you are counseling with your "interpretation".

Gotta go, for now.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

I plan to re-address Col 2 next time, Lord willing, and some of your other accusations then. But, until then, maybe you could answer why you think it bondage to obey God? I really don't get that.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Well, I've graciously been given another fifteen minutes! So, I'll at least start where you wrote Steve:

Why can’t we trust Paul (or the Holy Spirit in Paul) to use the words that correctly communicate his thoughts. To say that “no man” really means “no man but the body of Christ” is to import a modifier that is nowhere hinted at in the context, and which, if included, makes Paul’s meaning the opposite of what he actually chose to write. Also, to change the word “judge” (a negative concept in the passage) to the idea of “teach” (bearing positive connotations) again twists Paul’s letters in just the manner that Peter says the “unstable and unlearned” people do (2 Peter 3:15-16).

This was apprently in response to my writing mt paraphrase:

Col 2:16-17 can be read, in my humble opinion thusly: Let no man but the body of Christ judge (teach) you therefore, in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath, which are a shadow of things yet to come (and are therefore, important!).”

Somewhere you implied that I simply inserted the "except for the body of Christ" part with no suport from the passage, but I will try to clarify by first showing the passage the way the KJV has it, and then commenting.

Col. 2:16-17 :"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days (supplied by the translators) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (The "is" is not in the original either.)

Firstly, the word translated as "judge" is "krino' in the Greek, and is #2919 in Strong's and it is defined: "krino, as a verb, means, to distinguish, choose, give an opinion upon, judge"

The same word, interestingly, is used twice in Romans 14:5 and has been translated into "esteemeth" Further, the word means: (1) to approve, esteem, to prefer (2) to be of opiniion, deem, think, to be of opinion (not sure if that is a typo but it is repeated in my copy of Strong's) (3) to determine, resolve, decree. (4) to judge (4a) TO PRONOUNCE AN OPINION CONCERNING RIGHT AND WRONG

You will hopefully see that my substitution of the word "teach" as in giving an opinion of what is right and wrong, is not at all, in my opinion, out of line here! I really am just trying to understand. And hopefuly discern the truth of Paul's meaning.

Also, you'll note that the phrase "body of Christ" is a more proper rendering of the text than inserting the word "is" into it. I simply placed it, right behind the the command not to let a man "determiine" for you what is right and wrong, regarding these things, but let the body of Christ do so! I, obviously, do not have a copy of the original letter from paul, but, it would not surprise me in the least if what he said was in agreement with Jesus, as he counseled the Galatians not to let others, besides the body of Christ sway their opinions of these important matters from the Law! as in holy days, the sabbath, meat and drink, etc, because these are a shadow of things YET TO COME IN THE FUTURE! This, by the way, also shows that they have all been fulfilled is error. These things and teachings are important! BECAUSE they are a shadow of things yet to come!

Hopefully, this helps you Steve. I know I am challenging your concept of what you have held dear, which is your understanding of how things are. Please don't be afraid to be wrong about something. It's happened to most of us!

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

dmatic,

I will allow myself to be wrong, but you'll have to pardon me for not allowing this to be the time.

Is there anyone who knows the Greek language that will support your taking a phrase at the end of a lengthy sentence (Col.2:16-17, in particular), and causing it to modify the earliest clause in the sentence, rather than that which is proximate to it? I have encountered no translator who has suggested this to be legitimate. Do you know Greek? Is there an obscure rule that you know of that allows you to convolute the sentence structure in order to preserve a favorite doctrine? I know of none.

Your treatment of krino is extremely naive. It is not the way of responsible Greek exegesis to simply pick a favorite meaning for a word from a list in the back of the Strong's Concordance. There is such a thing as considering the structure of the sentence in deciding which of the words fits the writer's purpose. You wish to substitute the word "teach" for "judge." Thus, Paul's clause would be "Let no man teach you..."

However, "teach" is not one of the meanings of the word krino—even in your preferred list. You would like to adopt the reading "give an opinion upon" because, taken without any sentence around it, that phrase could overlap one possible meaning of "teach."

But the word is found in a sentence. If you wish to import "give an opinion upon" into that sentence (in the place of krino), you will have the sentence read: "Let no man give an opinion upon you" — a sentence whose meaning bears no resemblance to the meaning of "Let no man teach you." In fact, "Let no man give an opinion upon you" is identical in meaning to "Let no man judge you"—the very meaning of Paul's words that is most obvious and that is so fatal to your interpretation.

There was a time when the leading apostles gathered to decide whether the Gentile Christians were to be required to keep the ceremonial laws of Moses. We call it the Jerusalem Council, and they met precisely because there were people saying exactly what you say, namely, that Christians must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Paul strenuously disagreed with them, and the council was called to settle the question. The council came down on the side of Peter and Paul. Their decision was that the Gentile believers were not required to keep the ceremonial laws, though they should avoid some of the more offensive practices that might alienate them from those who have heard Moses taught in their synagogues since time immemorial (Acts 15:19-21).

Your theology is on the wrong side of Acts 15 and Galatians—and, since you have not been able to provide a contrary case, I would also say Colossians 2:16-17.

[Guest]

Somewhere you implied that I simply inserted the "except for the body of Christ" part with no suport from the passage, but I will try to clarify by first showing the passage the way the KJV has it, and then commenting.

Col. 2:16-17 :"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days (supplied by the translators) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (The "is" is not in the original either.)

Perhaps my years of Greek study can assist in translating this passage correctly.
It seems, Dmatic, that you want to translate the passage:

Let no man therefore teach you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.

That is, "Let no one except the body of Christ teach you concering food, or drink, etc."

You are understanding the word "but" in the sense of "except". However, that little word "de" is never used that way in the New Testament.

The NASB translates it as "now" in most instances --- not meaning "the present time" but as an introductory word. Here are some examples. I bolded the word "now", the NASB translation of the word "de". I agree that this is the usual meaning of the word:

Matthew 1:22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
Matthew 2:1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying,...
Matthew 3:1 Now in those days John the Baptist *came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying,
Matthew 3:4 Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
Matthew 4:12 Now when Jesus heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee;
Matthew 8:18 Now when Jesus saw a crowd around Him, He gave orders to depart to the other side of the sea.

If Paul had meant "but" in the sense of "except", he would have used "ei mā"[Strongs 1508] or "parektos" [Strongs 3924]. If you look up "de" [Strongs 1161] you will never find "except" as one of its meanings.

Interstingly enough, the NASB does translate the word as "but" in the verse in question:

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. Colossians 2:16,17 NASB

However, you can see that "but" in the above quote does not mean "except". Rather it means "yet".

I think the NASB and the ESV are correct in translating "body" as "substance". Contextually, this seems to be the meaning. For it indicates that food and drink regulations and regulations concerning festivals, new moons, and sabbaths, are a "shadow" of what is to come. But the "substance" or "reality" of what is to come is Christ.

By the way, the NIV translates the word "sōma" as "reality" in this verse.

The word "body" is used in the sense of "substance even in English. For example, a letter consists of the heading, the body, and the signature.

[Guest]

Of course, Steve, I'll pardon you for thinking you're right about this! You have the disease of most of us, thinking you're right about every thing you think about! Solomon said it this way: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes...!"

The answers to your questions posed in your initial paragraph are "No". I'm not trying to be a Greek scholar, which must be evident by my "extremely naive" treatment of the word "krino". Thanks for pointing that out, by the way, though I'm not really sure how to take your critique. A compliment or a slam? Hmmmm. You must think that I think more highly of myself than I ought to think. That's probably regrettably still true, though I am trying to work on that! I'm still trying to become more like a little child and if that is naive, then your compliment shows that I'm making progress!

Anyway, if I must, I'll still try to defend the use of the word "krino" as in "Let no man "krino" you...." as meaning let no man give you his opinion on what is right and wrong about meat and drink, about holy days and new moons (months) or about the sabbath...for these things are important and they are a shadow, pointing to the substance of what is yet to come in the future!

It's hard for me to believe that you find the use of the word "teach" in this place to be so offensive, as i think it closely describes what Paul is counseling here. He is saying don't let any man influence you regarding these things, with his opinions of whether they are right or wrong....but let the body of Christ.

Actually, if you think about what you are saying, you'll see that it is your position that is untenable. If you were actually obeying what you think Paul was commanding, then why would you even listen to him? Is he not a man? Why not, then, just do whatever is right in your own eyes? Don't let anybody tell you anything! Please! There's been enough of that attitude going around form millenia and I, for one, am tired of its lies!

"Let no man judge you"...How, in the world can you even obey this? The only way is to be unteachable, and not listen to anyone! Or obey all of these instructions from the body of Christ...so as not to give an occasion for judgment from any man. How, do you "not let any man judge you" Steve? If a man were to start judging you would you go over to him and force him not to judge you? Would you literally shut his mouth, in obedience to this command from Paul?

Actually, I am naive enough to hope that Paul was not a false apostle, though, many of his day had so judged. Nor do I believe the false reports about him that men continue to propagate. I believe he did not teach disobedience, nor disregard, for God's commandments. I think he is misunderstood by many, and I hope to defend him from these false accusations that he taught people not to do the Laws of Moses.

We can discuss the council at Jerusalem, but if you don't mind, I'd like to iron out these issues first....

Like: Can you answer the questions I've posed in previous posts? Such as:

Which of the two houses, that God is renewing His covenant with, do you consider yourself to be a part of?

Why do you consider obedience to God's commandments "bondage"?

Do you really consider God's just, holy, and perfect commandments to be childish?

Why do you think Jesus' words pass away, even though He said that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would never pass away?

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Of course, Steve, I'll pardon you for thinking you're right about this! You have the disease of most of us, thinking you're right about every thing you think about! Solomon said it this way: "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes...!"

dmatic why does it have come from you in this way? and then you have the nerve to say "peace" at the end.