Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Morant61 | 19070 | ||
Greetings Christianki! If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Col. 2:16 is defending the right of Christians to celebrate feasts, festivals, and Sabbaths! Is this correct? If it is, there are a couple of reasons why this interpretation can't work. 1) History: As far as I am aware of, there never was any group which opposed obedience to the Law. But, there were many groups who tried to force a Jewish legalism upon early Christians. This would fit the context of this passage better. 2) The passage itself will not allow this interpretation. Look at Col. 2:20-23: " Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 ‘‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." These verses are not telling Christians that they should obey the feasts, festivals, and Sabbaths of the Law. These verses are saying that they should not submit to such rules. What does the "written code" refer to? The word is literally a "certificate of indebtedness." Paul's point throughout his writtings is that the Law condemns us and cannot save us. It is this debt to the Law which is nailed to the Cross. So, the Law is against us in the sense that it condemns us and reveals our sinfulness. Christ ended that on the Cross. The Law now has no purpose for Christians, because He has written His law on our hearts. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | christiankl | 19092 | ||
Hi Tim "defending" was too strong of a word. your position on the ceremonial laws, I am in agreeance. and thank you for the clarification. |
||||||