What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

August 23, 2016

On 8/19/2016 at 6:47 PM, Green Cochoa said:

For the record: the above is a significant misquote of the scriptures, with the change of just one important word. It should read instead:

"the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (KJV).

Do you see the difference? The ordinances were not "against us." The handwriting was. Knowing this little detail helps us to understand the usage of the word "against." No one in his or her right mind would presume from this text that handwritten things were detrimental to us. This then begs the question of what does "against" mean in the verse. I have already explained this carefully, yet the myth persists that the laws of God would be against us. Such could hardly be further from the truth. Those laws have always been for our benefit.

Let's look again at the meaning of "against," courtesy of BlueLetterBible.org:

Blotting out ^G1813 the handwriting ^G5498 of ordinances ^G1378 that was against ^G2596 us, ^G2257 which ^G3739 was ^G2258 contrary ^G5227 to us, ^G2254 and ^G2532 took ^G142 it ^G846 out of ^G1537 the way, ^G3319nailing ^G4338 it ^G846 to his cross; ^G4716

Lexicon Results

Strong's G2596 - kata

κατά

Transliteration

kata

Pronunciation

kä-tä' (Key)

Part of Speech

preposition

Root Word (Etymology)

A primary particle

TDNT Reference

n/a

Vines

View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage

down from, through out

according to, toward, along

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 480

AV — according to 107, after 61, against 58, in 36, by 27, daily + 2250 15, as11, misc 165

Of those words in that definition, I would choose "toward" as being a superior translation in the text in question. In other words, the meaning of the word allows for the text to read as follows:

<< Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was toward us, which was opposite us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; >>

Words and definitions matter.

If you sit across from me, it does not mean that you cross me.

If you sit opposed to me, it does not mean that you oppose me.

If you sit facing against me, it does not mean that you are against me.

…and if you are "against" me or my ideas, you definitely are not "kata" me.

You are making a mistake here. Paul also used the word hupenantios in the same sentence. It is translated as "contrary" in the KJV. It's meaning is as follows:

Quote

5227 hupenantios hoop-en-an-tee'-os from 5259 and 1727; under (covertly) contrary to, i.e. opposed or (as noun) an opponent:--adversary, against. see GREEK for 5259 see GREEK for 1727

It is from this word and the evidence from the OT that I take my position. The only law given to the Israelites that God said was a witness against them, and the only covenant that would be a witness against them. No other covenant entered into by the coi with God, and no other law given to them, contains the provisions that this law does. The 10 commandments contain no curse for disobedience. The ceremonial laws contain no curse for disobedience. Only the law/covenant given on the eve of the Israelites entrance in Canaan contains such language. This is very significant. It cannot be ignored.

August 23, 2016

2 hours ago, jackson said:

You quoted me as saying those feasts of the Lord will be continued in Heaven. I did not say this. I think Rachel said this.

Actually, I said they would be continued in the New Earth. I don't know whether they will be celebrated "in Heaven" when we are separated from "the land". The Israelites did NOT keep the Feasts during their 40 years wandering under the approbation of the LORD.

August 23, 2016

2 hours ago, jackson said:

Speaking of the Roman church and her daughters apostate Protestantism

Rev . 17:4-5And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

2 Thes 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

These passages describe apostate Christianity pictured as spiritual Jerusalem - The church of Rome being the mother of harlots and apostate Protestantism her daughters.

These last day abominations will again lead to desolation, not by God's "surrogate" heathen army, but rather by the Lord , Himself.

Thanks Jackson. Great little mini-study there.

To me - the prophecy concerning the "abomination" and the following "desolation" had more than one fulfillment. Which suggests the possibility of another fulfillment - a final one.

#1 - Nebuchadnezzar #2 Titus of Rome #3 the final one

The "ten kings" will burn "the harlot". I believe those "ten kings" will be last days powers. Which means "the harlot" has to actually EXIST in the last days. It has to be a LITERAL place, for the "ten kings" to target it. If it's something worldwide, how could they target it?

I guess you could say they will burn Vatican City, but I personally, I believe the Temple will be restored/rebuilt at Jerusalem, on "the mount". I believe the "son of perdition" WILL actually sit in THAT TEMPLE "showing himself that he is god". That "son of perdition" MAY be a future Pope. I don't know. It's possible. The "son of perdition" otherwise known as "the little horn" or the "image of the beast" will deceive the entire world into serving him (excepting those people who "fear the LORD").

The Popes recent ecumenism suggests a reunification of all false religions under one leader. Possibly at Jerusalem - in the very last days.

August 23, 2016

1 hour ago, jackson said:

Joeb, I agree with you that it is hard to reconcile any of God's laws as being both for our good and yet being against us. But there are other verses intimating the same that you need to explain, if you are to argue that some law other than the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross.

Acts15:5       But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. 15:6   And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. ............ 15:10          Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Acts 15:19    Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 15:20   But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

In addition you have to explain why John identified the feast days, as found in the law of Moses, as of the Jews but never said that about the Sabbath as found in the Law of God. Obviously their observance was terminated, but if not nailed to the cross, then when and how?

John  2:13   And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

John 5:1   After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

John 6:4   And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

John  7:2   Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

John 11:55   And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

John  5:9   And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

Rev 1:10         I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Paul called the ceremonial law a carnal law and said it was imposed on the Jewish nation until the time of reformation, which begins at the cross. He differentiated it from the Law of God which he called spiritual.

Heb 7:14      For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 7:15      And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,   7:16          Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Heb 9:10       [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

Rom 7:14     For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

I think it is clear that the ceremonial law was a shadow instructing us on the work of the Messiah to come and that its duties were no longer binding on Christians. But,, if you maintain that it was some other law that was nailed to the cross, then you will have to show from scripture just where when and how the ceremonial law did terminate.

When the reality that a "shadow" points to comes into being the "shadow" pointing to the reality is no longer necessary. It has served it's purpose. It doesn't need to be opposed to us to cease to be in force.

I'm still interested in why you think that the ceremonial laws, pointing to Christ, were opposed to the Jews? Where is the evidence that they were under a curse because of them? Show how Deuteronomy chapters 7-34 are not significant. You haven't even begun to address this. Show how this law/covenant with prescribed blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience is not relevant. Explain why you think that the fact that God said that this law/covenant was to be a witness against the coi/Jews is insignificant.

This is a covenant that very few of us have studied. I wasn't even aware of it until a couple of weeks ago and I've spent a lot of time in Bible study and reading in the last 40 years. In the couple of weeks I've been studying into it I can find nothing to support the idea that any of the ceremonial laws contained curses for disobedience or that God said they were to be a witness against the coi/Jews. To then say that they must be what Paul was referring to when he says the ordinances are contrary/opposed to us is more than a little suspect. Three weeks ago I would have bought your argument. Today? I don't because of the Biblical evidence that doesn't support the idea.

We were told by Ellen White that we really needed to study the OT because there was much we could learn from it that we don't yet understand. I believe this is one area we have not properly understood because the evidence I've run across is just so clear. No supposition is necessary. It's all there in black and white.

I'm not looking for an argument with you, but so far you haven't addressed a single text I've pointed out. Can't we just study to learn truth instead of argue?

Show me scripture that says the ceremonial laws contained curses for disobeying them. I can't find any. Also, how much time have you spent studying this particular covenant/set of laws? I've asked for the evidence more than once and so far you've ignored my requests. Do you see a request for more evidence a desire to argue?

August 23, 2016

jackson,

I would recommend the book, "Practical Lessons from the Experience of Israel" written by a Jew (F.C. Gilbert) who wrote the book after becoming a SDA. He was a strong supporter of Ellen White and the SOP. I have learned a lot about the questions you've asked me here from reading this book, but his evidence is so extensive it is impossible to put into this format. So, if you're really interested you can see how all the texts you are quoting were applicable to the Jews.

You can download the book in .pdf format for nothing. Just do a Google search for the title. His book really opened my eyes as to what was really going on in Jesus' day and in Paul's day. This is NOT meant to be a non-responsive response. It's the best answer I can give you short of me writing out a few hundred pages of evidence. BTW, Gilbert documents everything he says both from the Bible and the writings of the Jews themselves. This book is NOT supposition.

August 24, 2016

10 hours ago, jackson said:

Dan 9:11 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.

I personally believe "the handwriting of ordinances" were the charges against every descendant of Adam. That being said, here another way to look at it.

The LORD spoke His commandments, and THEN hand wrote them on stone. So the Ten Commands were "handwriting".

So the Ten Commands WERE "handwriting" and they WERE "ordinances" (laws).

Israel entered into a BLOOD COVENANT with the LORD - to keep the Law which HE had given them. The COVENANT said "you do this (the Law)" and "I'll do that (bless you)". "You don't keep the Law" and "I will remove My blessings (that's what a curse is)."

That BLOOD COVENANT included "all that the LORD has said". "ALL" included the prophetic as well as the "moral" laws.

They entered into a BLOOD COVENANT to "obey the LORD". IF they obeyed - God would bless and protect. IF they disobeyed - God would remove His protection and blessing.

I don't understand how you can teach that obeying this (the ten) is MORE IMPORTANT than obeying that (everything else). They either obeyed or disobeyed.

August 24, 2016

The LORD commanded that EVERY sacrifice be brought to the "door of the Tabernacle" to "the place where the LORD chooses to put His name".

Do you know how many times the phrase "the priest will make atonement for him (or them)" is found in the Book of Leviticus? A LOT!!

During the period of the Sinai Covenant, you could NOT find "atonement" for transgression in any other way.

Daniel and all the captives in Babylon FELT their sin had NOT been "atoned for" BECAUSE there was no "place" to bring a sacrifice and receive atonement. THAT is WHY they wanted the Temple restored. Strict Jews today still feel the same way. It's not because of some national pride thing. It's because they are seeking "atonement".

The WAY you end the sacrifices - is to "change" the priesthood.

This CHANGE is allowed ONLY if you have a NEW Covenant.

A NEW Covenant - with Israel - is allowed because the first "husband" of Israel died. He was the One they were "married" to by the Sinai Covenant.

You must show that the pre-incarnate Son of God IS the One whom they "married" at Mt Sinai. That's not difficult.

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/11-The Mediator.pdf

August 25, 2016

On 8/19/2016 at 11:53 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

You say the "handwriting of ordinances" was those laws which were written by the hand of Moses at the dictation of the LORD. That would include the Law concerning clean and unclean foods, the Law concerning quarantine of those with disease, the Law concerning the separation of anyone with a "flow of blood", the Law concerning debt slavery, the Law concerning charging interest to a fellow Israelite.

The celebration of the "LORD's appointed Feasts" could NOT have been nailed to the cross, because there are Scriptures pointing to Feasts in the New Earth.

I believe the WAY in which the Feasts are to be celebrated was changed when the priesthood was changed from Aaronic to Melchizedek.

The Feasts - which were prophetic, will be celebrated as memorials of those things which Christ did for us.

The specific laws I'm speaking about were given just before the entrance to the Promised land. They did not include the 10 commandments nor the ceremonial laws. Go read chapters 7-34 of Deuteronomy. It is very clear that this is a separate set of laws and a separate covenant. The evidence is clear. No other set of laws includes blessings and curses written into them. None. No other covenant/law was given by God to the COI specifically to be a witness against them when, not if, they rebelled. The language is too clear to miss.

August 25, 2016

In the first place God's handwriting was originally written with His finger on a tablet of stone, and when Moses broke it in a fit of anger, God instructed him to hew out another stone tablet of which God wrote on the second tablet with the same set of ten.

Isn't it wonderful we have a Father in heaven who is willing to give us patience for the ongoing vicissitudes of life if we're willing to ask?

God is Love!~Jesus saves! :prayer: :offtobed:

August 25, 2016

13 hours ago, joeb said:

The specific laws I'm speaking about were given just before the entrance to the Promised land. They did not include the 10 commandments nor the ceremonial laws. Go read chapters 7-34 of Deuteronomy. It is very clear that this is a separate set of laws and a separate covenant. The evidence is clear. No other set of laws includes blessings and curses written into them. None. No other covenant/law was given by God to the COI specifically to be a witness against them when, not if, they rebelled. The language is too clear to miss.

OK. Let's read Chapter 5.

NKJ Deuteronomy 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. 2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 "The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 4 "The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 5 "I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He said: 6 `I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

7 `You shall have no other gods before Me.

8 `You shall not make for yourself a carved image-- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

11 `You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

12 `Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

16 `Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

17 `You shall not murder.

18 `You shall not commit adultery.

19 `You shall not steal.

20 `You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

21 `You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

This IS the Covenant which the LORD made with Israel just before they crossed into the promised land. THIS is the Covenant with the blessings and curses.

Moses wrote it on a scroll - so they could later hear it read every seven years. (They could not get the original out of the Ark.)

Israel had broken this Covenant many, many times. The LORD did not wipe out those who broke this Covenant. He provided a means of atonement - the sacrificial system and Aaronic priesthood, which were symbolic, and pointed forward to THE TRUE means of atonement - Jesus. When the true MEANS was in place, the old means (priesthood/sacrifices) was "changed".

Changing the priesthood (therefore the sacrifices) does NOT do away with the Feasts of the LORD.

August 25, 2016

10 hours ago, jackson said:

Not so, Seventh Day

Ex 34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon [these] tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Colossians 2:14 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; (KJV)

It doesn't say "the handwriting" by Moses. It just says "the handwriting". This could just as easily be "the handwriting" by God, of ordinances that was against us".

Paul does call the 10 Commands, "the ministry of death written and engraved on stones" (2Cor 3:7).

You either have to blot out the Ten Commandments right along with every other command, OR you can realize that violation OF these Laws (handwritten by God) - THAT is the charge against us. That is the record that stands against us.

You don't have to "blot out" the Law. You blot out the record of our violations OF that Law.

A "ministry of DEATH" is certainly "against us". But WHY is it "against us". Reason: because we cannot keep it - not with all our efforts. For us (alone) it IS a "yoke of bondage".

When we believe in HIM - then He writes His Law on our hearts. Then it is no longer a "yoke of bondage." But it's the SAME LAW. Only our relationship to that Law has changed.

Some understand the "yoke of bondage" to be the Oral Torah of the Pharisees, thus leaving in place all the Laws given to Israel by God.

You don't have to do THAT either - if you understand that the "yoke" was the Law without the Spirit of Christ to enable obedience.

August 25, 2016

What was the intent of the letter resulting from the Council in Acts 15?

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:8-11) ... "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." (vs 28-29).

What "impact" would this have on Gentile believers? Does it cancel the requirements of the 10 Commandments written by God, just the law written by Moses, or both?

August 25, 2016

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

What was the intent of the letter resulting from the Council in Acts 15?

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:8-11) ... "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." (vs 28-29).

What "impact" would this have on Gentile believers? Does it cancel the requirements of the 10 Commandments written by God, just the law written by Moses, or both?

The "Oral Torah" - the added laws of the Pharisees were for one purpose. It was to make sure Israelites KEPT the Written Torah. These laws represent mans efforts to keep the Law by their own efforts. Yes - they were a "burden" and a "yoke", but they represented the larger "yoke" - which was The Law of God without the Spirit of God.

August 27, 2016

The people on this thread who want Colossians 2:14 to say that some part of God's Law was rendered obsolete by being nailed to the cross can't seem to get their message across without relying on their own words, assumptions, and traditions, which they try desperately to add to what Scripture actually says.

The underlying assumption (if you want to set aside of any of God's Law of Moses) is that God's Law (which Jesus lived by) was somehow bad or defective and that people would be better off without it. That assumption is not taught or supported anywhere in the Old Testament, which consistently refers to God's Law as something that is good and perfect and desirable.

The New Testament also speaks of God's Law as something good and desirable -- all of it. People have handicapped their own understanding of Scripture when they think that all or part of God's Law of Moses is obsolete. They unavoidably read the New Testament out of context. They imagine the NT to be written by people who are like themselves, when in fact the NT was written by people who were like Jesus -- living every day according to all of God's Law because it is all good and beneficial and appreciated. Also, in trying to justify from Scripture the notion that part of God's Word is obsolete, people have to twist the few scriptures that can be misconstrued to support that idea. Wasn't the story of Eve and the serpent sufficient to convince us that we should not disregard any of God's Word?

When people who don't appreciate God's Law of Moses read about the "ministation of death" in 2 Corinthians 3:7 they imagine that by these ominous-sounding words Paul is proclaiming that God's Old Testament Law was somehow bad and defective because it causes death. Not so. Part of what they are missing is the context provided by the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20 Moses assures the people that God's Law is not too difficult to follow (and Paul quotes him on this in Romans 10) and then Moses said, "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil." and " I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life." Thus, according to Scripture, God's Law has two purposes or "ministrations" -- life and death -- and both purposes are good and beneficial. If you think about it, we'd be hooped if God's Law did not cause death for those who choose evil because there would be no way to rid the universe of evil people and evil itself. The "ministration of death" aspect of God's Law will be very necessary at the final judgment, and all those who have chosen life will fully appreciate that aspect when finally all evil is destroyed. The other part of the context that people often miss is that just a few verses prior to 2 Corinthians 3:7 Paul says that his own New Covenant ministry also results in both life and death, depending on the condition of the hearts of the hearers: "For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life." (2 Cor 2:15-16) Paul describes his own ministry as having the same two aspects or ministrations -- life and death -- that God's Law has.

Since Paul testified that he personally believed everything that agrees with the portion of Scripture that the Jews referred to as "the Law" -- the books of Moses (Acts 24:14) , and since Paul taught that all of the Old Testament Scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and since the Bereans confirmed that Paul's message was true by searching the Old Testament Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12), why are you folks trying to prove that Paul was mistaken -- that part of the OT is supposedly not profitable, and that part of the books of Moses are supposedly obsolete, and that Paul supposedly taught a message that would have been impossible to confirm in the OT Scriptures? Are you wanting to prove absolutely that your gospel is not the same gospel that Paul taught?

August 27, 2016

I'm curious Ron A. Do you understand the "weak and beggarly elements" to be pagan cult worship?

I don't. I believe the "weak and beggarly elements" were the animal sacrifices BECAUSE they could "not cleanse the conscience".

Galatians 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?

In verse 21 of the same chapter, same letter, Paul said, "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law". Paul was writing to people who desired to be "justified by works of the law" - in other words - to be justified through the offering of sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple, to receive "atonement" by an Aaronic priest.

Even IF these WERE converts from paganism, they were now turning to another form of "weak and beggarly elements".

Paul uses the same word "bondage" to describe the Sinai Covenant.

Same letter. Same chapter.

Galatians 4:24-25 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- (NKJ)

The "bondage" the Galatians were turning to, was "righteousness by works of the Law", rather than "righteousness by faith" through Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb 9:14 NKJ)

So - what were the "dead works"??

Here's verse 13. I quote from the NIV
Hebrews 9:13 "The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean."

The "dead works" were those that only "purified" the outside, but could not cleanse the heart.

Hebrews 7:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God."

NKJ Hebrews 9:8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing [still had standing] . 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience-- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NKJ)

The "fleshly ordinances" are "obsolete" and "annulled" - because it IS the "time of reformation".

August 27, 2016

The ENTIRE Sinai Covenant is now "obsolete" and "annulled".

Why? Because it was a marriage covenant - and the "husband" of Israel DIED.

But God had a LAW from creation - BEFORE the Sinai Covenant. Adam and Eve were expected to obey that Law.

It included work for 6 days, rest on the 7th day, man/woman "marriage", obey the LORD, and "Do not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".

They broke that LAW.

God promised a deliverer to crush the Serpent's head. It was a "covenant of promise". They were introduced to animal sacrifice, which was symbolic of the deliverer to come.

Promises were made to "Abraham and his Seed" (Jesus Christ). The Law which was four hundred and thirty years later (the Sinai "marriage" Covenant) cannot annul the covenant of promise.

In Christ, we become partakers of that "covenant of promise".

Does that MEAN we can ignore the Ten Commandments? No. Those commands are repeated in the writings of Paul, as the standard for Christians. That LAW existed BEFORE the Sinai Covenant.

Does that MEAN we can ignore the Feasts of the LORD? No. Those "appointed times" were evident BEFORE the Sinai Covenant, and will again be celebrated in the New Earth - including the Sabbath of the 7th Day (Isa. 66:22-23).

"The LAW was our Tutor to bring us to Christ" (Gal 3:24). Why would we just throw it away, and never study it? Of course we would not! I am NOT - as Ron asserts, throwing away the Torah.

I am asserting - with Paul, that "after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor" (Gal 3:25).

The NEW COVENANT is made with Israel and Judah. It is a NEW covenant of marriage (Israel redeemed IS the "bride of Christ"). We are NOW betrothed by THAT New Covenant. The "marriage" has not yet been consummated, but the betrothal is LEGALLY BINDING.

Under the NEW Covenant, the LORD writes His Law on our hearts - including love for His appointed times. The only thing that is NOT written on our hearts - (it does not need to be written on our hearts) is "atonement" through a Levite priest by the sacrifice of a salted dead animal, and the presentation of grain offerings.

August 28, 2016

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I'm curious Ron A. Do you understand the "weak and beggarly elements" to be pagan cult worship?

This is off topic for this thread, so I will be brief.

The original readers of Paul's letter to the Galatians would have known what Paul meant by the terms he used. We don't know what Paul meant by some terms because we don't know the full context, specific issues, or the terminology used by those on the other side of the issue Paul was addressing in Galatia. So we are left speculating about what exactly Paul meant. The use of speculation to try to overturn the clear Word of God is not a valid method of Bible study. God's Word clearly tells us that the Levitical priests were to offer the regular daily sacrifices "throughout your generations" (Exodus 29:42, etc.) and that not a stroke of the portion of Scripture that the Jews referred to as "the Law" would pass away until heaven and earth pass away and everything is fulfilled (Matt 5:17-19).

August 28, 2016

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Paul uses the same word "bondage" to describe the Sinai Covenant.

Are you sure Paul is referring to the covenant that God made with the Israelites at Sinai? That was a God-initiated covenant, which is universally spoken of in Scripture as a good thing. When Israel obeyed the terms of the covenant it brought freedom, it only brought bondage and exile when they disobeyed.

On the other hand, the Jewish sages claim that the traditions of "Oral Law" also originated at Mt. Sinai. Somebody in Galatia was apparently wanting the Gentile converts to submit to the man-made traditional proselyte training and initiation program which culminated with the proselytes making a solemn covenant before God to obey the traditions of Oral Law in addition to God's Law of Moses, after which the proselyte could be circumcised and be accepted into fellowship and would be considered "saved" by supposedly being turned into a Jew. This proselyte program was a method of "salvation" using man-made methods. Because this traditional proselyte program supposedly originated at Mt. Sinai, it wouldn't be surprising if they spoke of the proselytes making their covenant at Mt. Sinai to obey the Oral Torah that also supposedly came from Mt. Sinai. In that case Paul would not be referring to God's covenant with Israel at Sinai, but rather the proselyte's covenant which put him into bondage to the man-made traditions of Oral Law that supposedly came from Mt. Sinai. The proselyte's covenant was something that was not required of native-born Israelites.

Because Paul is contrasting the children born to Sarah as a result of God's promise as opposed to the children born to Hagar by man-made scheming, the man-made method of salvation through the traditional proselyte program very much matches the Hagar example as opposed to those who become heirs of Abraham as a result of faith in Messiah.

Yes, I have done a bit of speculating here to try to understand Galatians 4 in a way that agrees with Paul's own testimony about himself and agrees with the rest of Scripture so that Paul is not a false teacher and a hypocrite.

August 28, 2016

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The ENTIRE Sinai Covenant is now "obsolete" and "annulled".

As you know, you are making this up. It does not say this in Scripture.

In Revelation 11:19 it says, "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple." Which covenant is contained within that ark?

August 28, 2016

We do have three very different and distinct views expressed here, by three people who really study.

Ron believes NOTHING can be changed until "all is fulfilled". I'm not sure what "all" includes. If it's all of eternity to come, I could not agree with that. He has stated his belief that the sacrifice of animals will continue into the millennial kingdom.

Ron believes that only the Oral Law of the Pharisees was rendered "obsolete" and "annulled". The problem I have with that view, is that the Oral Torah was never God's Law.

Jackson believes only the handwritten "Law of Moses" was "nailed to the cross" (As if it came from Moses, and not from God Himself). There are problems with that view also. Tithe, clean foods, and several other things we still do, would be "nailed to the cross". Moses also hand wrote a copy of the Ten Commands.

Jackson's view was taught by Ellen White, so it is the predominant, prevailing view among SDAs.

Rachel believes the entire Sinai Covenant with Israel was rendered "obsolete" and "annulled" when the "husband" died, because the Sinai Covenant was a "Covenant of Marriage". We are now betrothed to new "husband" by a New Covenant of Marriage. The terms of the New Covenant are "believe in Me" and "I will write My Law on your heart." So God still has a law. His "law" includes the 10 Commands and more. HIS "appointed times" were in place from creation - before the Sinai Covenant. So of course, they are/will be included in the New Covenant.

Rachel believes the only thing "rendered obsolete" (not renewed) under the New Covenant is the exclusive Aaronic priesthood and the presentation of dead animals to the LORD.

Three different views.

August 28, 2016

13 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Ron believes that only the Oral Law of the Pharisees was rendered "obsolete" and "annulled". The problem I have with that view, is that the Oral Torah was never God's Law.

I agree that Oral Torah was never God's Law. Where does Scripture say that any part of God's Law was rendered obsolete or annulled?

I think you get the "obsolete" part from a misreading of Hebrews 8:13, where it says something is made old, and at the time Hebrews was written it was ready to disappear in the future, like at the imminently expected return of Messiah.

It looks like you are trying to get "annulled" from Hebrews 9:10, by pulling the "time of setting things right" from the future into the present or past. As we can see from what Jesus said in Matthew 24, he did not expect things to be set right at his first coming.

Both of your interpretations directly contradict what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17.

August 28, 2016

On 8/22/2016 at 1:02 AM, jackson said:

John  2:13   And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

John 5:1   After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

John 6:4   And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.

John  7:2   Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.

John 11:55   And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

They are the Feasts of the LORD. The Jews kept the Feasts of the LORD. Other cultures did not.

Leviticus 23:2-3 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them:`The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Leviticus 23:4 `These are the feasts of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times.

Leviticus 23:37 `These are the feasts of the LORD which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations,

Leviticus 23:44 So Moses declared to the children of Israel the feasts of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 2:4 the set feasts of the LORD our God.

Ezra 3:5 the appointed feasts of the LORD

Zechariah 14:16 "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.1 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Here "the nations" (not just the Jews) are all expected to go up to worship the LORD for the Feast.

A "holy convocation" IS "a sacred assembly".

Leviticus Chapter 23

Sabbath of the 7th Day - a "sacred assembly" - no work

Feast of Unleavened Bread - (1st day and 7th day) a "sacred assembly" - "no customary work"

Pentecost - a "sacred assembly" - "no customary work"

Feast of Trumpets - "a sabbath rest" - a "sacred assembly" - "no customary work"

Day of Atonement - "a sabbath of solemn rest" - a "sacred assembly" - "no manner of work"

Feast of Tabernacles - (1st day and 8th day) - a "sacred assembly" - "no customary work"

August 28, 2016

4 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I agree that Oral Torah was never God's Law. Where does Scripture say that any part of God's Law was rendered obsolete or annulled?

I think you get the "obsolete" part from a misreading of Hebrews 8:13, where it says something is made old, and at the time Hebrews was written it was ready to disappear in the future, like at the imminently expected return of Messiah.

It looks like you are trying to get "annulled" from Hebrews 9:10, by pulling the "time of setting things right" from the future into the present or past. As we can see from what Jesus said in Matthew 24, he did not expect things to be set right at his first coming.

Both of your interpretations directly contradict what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:17.

So Ron,

Do you believe the "all" WILL be fulfilled at the Second Coming? So after that event, something (don't know what) could be rendered "obsolete". Is THAT (the SC) "the time of reformation" (Heb 9:10) ?

August 28, 2016

34 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

He has stated his belief that the sacrifice of animals will continue into the millennial kingdom.

I doubt I have stated that, since I don't talk about the millennial kingdom.

What I do believe is that Moses was telling the truth about when he said the sacrifices were to be offered "throughout your generations", and that Jesus was telling the truth when he said not a stroke of the portion of Scripture known as "the Law" would disappear until heaven and earth pass away, and that if God has changed his mind about the sacrifices he is very capable of telling people so in the same scope and with the same authority that the original instructions were given (as God did when he wanted Abraham to stop sacrificing Isaac).

August 28, 2016

Hebrews 8:10 "'For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Isra'el after those days,' says ADONAI: 'I will put my Torah in their minds and write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 "'None of them will teach his fellow-citizen or his brother, saying, "Know ADONAI!" For all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest, 12 because I will be merciful toward their wickednesses and remember their sins no more.'" 13 By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether." (CJB)

Ron,

You seem to be saying that the Sinai Covenant is only "in the process" of vanishing. It is STILL in effect. We today are STILL under that covenant.

I don't believe we can be "betrothed" to another WHILE we are still married to the former "husband".

Paul calls the risen Christ "another" husband.

Romans 7:2 "Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband."

Romans 7:4 "In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God."

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Transliteration kata		Pronunciation kä-tä' (Key)
Part of Speech preposition		Root Word (Etymology) A primary particle
TDNT Reference n/a	Vines View Entry

Sign In

What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

Recommended Posts

joeb

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Robert

FLO

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

joeb

joeb

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

joeb

LifeHiscost

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

JoeMo

8thdaypriest

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

8thdaypriest

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity