Slade wrote: > I would like to give you my understanding > of the Handwriting of Ordinances you mentioned > and see if it jives with your understanding.
I appreciate you making to effort to understand passages like this one. I have observed too often on TruthTalk that when a passage that seems to contradict a viewpoint is brought up, it is often ignored rather than dealt with. So thank you for explaining your understanding of the passage. Slade wrote: > When you were dead in your transgressions and the > uncircumcision of your flesh, He [Abba] made you > alive together with Him [Yeshua], having forgiven > us all our transgressions, having canceled out the > <certificate of debt consisting of decrees> > (KJV: handwriting of ordinances) against us, which > was hostile to us; and He [Abba] has taken it > [the certificate of debt] out of the way, having > nailed it [the certificate of debt] to the cross. > When He [Abba] had disarmed the rulers and authorities; > He [Abba] made a public display of them [the rulers > and authorities], having triumphed over them > [the rulers and authorities] through Him [Yeshua]. > (Col 2:13-15) > > What was nailed to the tree? Whatever it was, it is > an IT not a THEM. Do you see that? Yes, I agree. Slade wrote: > It is a singular entity: the certificate of debt - > not the commandments (plural) of YHVH. The certificate > of debt is the "proof" (so to speak) that you deserve > torment in the Lake of Fire and that gets nailed to the > tree. That's my understanding of the passage. Your perspective here is shared by many and certainly has merit. Nevertheless, I think there is something more involved in this particular passage. If you consider the whole flow of thought, what precedes the text is some contrast between being established in faith versus being spoiled by philosophy and rudiments of this world. Immediately preceding Col. 2:14 is the idea that Christ has forgiven our sins, and therefore it is easy to think that perhaps verse 14 is speaking about a "certificate of debt" being held against us. However, the passage soon picks up again the theme that he had started with, which was how people might get spoiled through philosophy and traditions of men. In particular, he mentions the kind of debates that rage over meat, drink, respecting a holy day, new moon, or sabbath, and worshipping of angels. Then he mentions in verse 20 a concept that we should not be subject to ordinances. He mentions some general examples of what kind of ordinances he is talking about: touch not, taste not, handle not. I have a difficult time not thinking about the legal system that evolved from the Torah. It seems to me that this is very much in line with what Peter expressed in Acts 15 when they were debating whether or not Gentiles should observe Torah in the same way as Gentiles. Act 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? Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. As we know, the decision of the apostles and elders and the whole church at Jerusalem was that Gentiles were not expected to keep the Torah. This is significant, especially in light of your recent comment that all believing Gentiles are Jews. All Gentiles might be grafted in, and are now children of Abraham by faith and by their connection to Jesus Christ, but the way in which this happened was totally apart from Torah, and there is no expectation for them to abide by the decrees of Torah in the way that it was delivered to Moses. In the way that you dealt with Colossians 2:14, it seems to me that you primarily considered "cheirographon" to be a "certificate of debt," and it certainly might be understood that way, but you seem to have ignored the word "dogma" which is in the plural and should be seen to refer to decrees or precepts. It still has some merit based on linguistic analysis alone to perhaps perceive a certificate of debt showing transgressions and sins, but I think the context of the passage (both before and after, as explained above) suggest that this "document of ordinances" being referred to is the Torah and resulting traditions of men that come from studying Torah (e.g., that which led to the Mishna). This seems especially true when we contrast other passages with similar themes, such as Acts 15:10, mentioned above, and the following consideration from Ephesians 2:15. Ephesians 2:15 appears to be a parallel passage to Colossians 2:14. In this passage, he uses the Greek word "nomos" (law) instead of "cheirographon" (handwriting). "Nomos" is the Greek word used for "Torah." Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: This passage carries the same theme of written ordinances, but identifies them as ordinances in Torah. Furthermore, it speaks about the enmity being caused by these ordinances in Torah, the enmity between Gentiles and Jews and between Gentiles and God. How was this enmity annulled? By the cross. This seems to be the identical theme in Colossians 2:14, and so it should not be ignored. Therefore, I believe that "handwriting of ordinances" refers to a document containing ordinances written down on paper with ink. The emphasis on "handwriting" is important to grasp, because the ordinances themselves are not against us, but writing them down and creating a kind of legal contract with them is. The "handwriting" was meant simply as a school teacher, to get us started in the right direction. Clinging to it when something greater has been manifest is foolish and wrong. When we have the living word to abide in our hearts in a dynamic way, why cling to the written word, letter for letter? The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Slade wrote: > Were she to come to me and say that I have to do all > the prescribed Rabbinical Shabbat traditions in order > to properly separate the Shabbat from every other day, > I would throw Colossians 2:16-17 in her face because > she is not to judge me in how I keep Shabbat because I > DO keep Shabbat, but I do it my way. I can imagine someone like Glenn giving the same answer to you if you felt that he did not honor Sabbath properly. :-) Aren't you really just drawing the line of legality in a different place? Slade wrote: > Meanwhile, Paul was writing to a group of converts who were > being told by a bunch on unbelievers that they didn't have > to do the feasts days as outlined in the Tanakh. I think it might have been just the opposite situation. Considering the turmoil over circumcision, it seems more reasonable to me to assume that the situation in Colosse was one whereby Judaizers were teaching Torah commandments concerning observance of the moedim. Do you have any evidence or reason to suspect that the Colossians were being challenged by "unbelievers" or by anyone who was preaching that the moedim should not be observed? Slade wrote: > As a side note, all the festivals of YHVH are "things > which are a shadow of what is to come," but a better way > to translate that passage in Modern English is: "which are > a shadow of things coming and the Body of Messiah." This > phrase parallels the shadow and the body of Messiah as one > and the same. Do away with one and you do away with the other. > Look to the Greek and verify using Strong's and B.A.G. > (page 170, column 2) and see it for yourself. It seems to me that doing away with a shadow does not do away with the object causing the shadow, but doing away with the object causing a shadow would do away with the shadow. Therefore, doing away with Christ would do away with the festivals, but doing away with the festivals does not do away with Christ. One way to get rid of a shadow is to get better lighting on the object casting the shadow. I believe that this is very much what has happened with the coming of Christ. Slade wrote concerning Colossians 2:20-3:4: > This passage seems to cause a bit of confusion as well > because we don't think it through logically. It's easy > for the Antinomian to misconstrue the words of Paul > to say that we are now above the Law of Moses, when it > is the elementary principles of the world that are above. Picking up sticks is a rudiment of the world, wouldn't you say? Eating bacon is a rudiment of this world too. Slade wrote: > Manmade religious practices, manmade dos and don'ts > are all stupid if they contradict Scripture. Christmas > and Easter, for instance, are but two examples of > "elemental principles of the world." Now you seriously do not think that Paul had Christmas and Easter in mind when he wrote this passage, do you? Even if that was a problem in his day, I don't understand any "touch not, taste not, handle not" associated with Christmas and Easter. Slade wrote: > All deeds are judged according to what is written > in the books (plural) of Torah, but your salvation > is determined by another book. the Book of Life. I believe this, but I think many people, especially Jews, are going to be surprised about how Jesus interprets Torah when he does the judging. :-) Matthew 25 clues us in on that. Slade wrote: > I will paraphrase the middle portion of the text for > you so you can see it in its glory: having been built > on the foundation of the Apostles [New Testament Writings] > and the prophets [the books of Joshua thru Malachi], > Christ Jesus Himself [The Torah, i.e. Genesis thru > Deuteronomy] being the cornerstone. > Isn't that cool? LOL. I was with you right up until you posted your interpretation of this verse. I see apostles as living ministers, not "New Testament WRITINGS" and prophets also as living in the church, not "the BOOKS of Joshua thru Malachi." I also see Jesus Christ himself as living in us through the Holy Spirit, not as "The Torah, Genesis thru Deuteronomy." Your commentary here reveals how you focus upon what is written rather than what is living. You focus upon the letter rather than the Spirit. There is much to be desired here. It is simply Judaism all over again, and while Judaism is precious in bringing forth to the world the testimony of God, righteousness only comes to us through Yeshua HaMashiach living in us by the Spirit. Slade wrote: > Am I being too ambiguous still? No, finally you are explaining a little bit more of where you are coming from. I enjoy your intelligence conveyed through studious posts, but I still have concerns about your experience with the Ruach HaKodesh. :-) Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
