Col.2{16}

[Dr. Walter]

ACTS 10 [11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: [12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. [13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. [14] BUT PETER SAID, NOT SO, LORD; FOR I HAVE NEVER EATEN ANY THING THAT IS COMMON OR UNCLEAN.

So your makin the claim that Peter was weak in faith and you are stronger than he in faith. I would have to disagree

Amazing, just amazing!!!! Don't you realize that you are referring to what Peter did BEFORE this vision rather than what he does AFTER this vision? Can you see the word "have" is past tense!

Don't you realize that the command of the Lord is designed to CHANGE his position from the past to a new position when the Lord explicitly commanded him to no longer call and regard such animals "unclean" as DIETARY FOOD as God says "arise kill and EAT"?

Don't you realize that this command CHANGED his view of dietary laws and their spiritual design behind them? In Acts 10:28 this change is dutifully noted by Peter himself in doing exactly what formerly he would never have done:


Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

His change after this vision and this explicit command by God to "eat" what he formerly would never have eaten before God commands him to no longer regard as DIETARILY UNCLEAN is noted by Paul in Galatians 2:12 where he is EATING with Gentiles:

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

His change after this vision affected the whole congregation at Jerusalem as neither he, Paul, James or the church ordered the Gentile churches to obey the ceremonial laws of clean and unclean but explicitly said as Paul records in Acts 21:25

As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing,

I realize you cannot see, understand or receive the Word of God concerning this issue because the Bible says that people like you that teach the dietary law is still valid have a "seared conscience" (1 Tim. 4:1-3) and are incapable of believing and knowing the truth:

1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 

[Chowmah]

Amazing, just amazing!!!! Don't you realize that you are referring to what Peter did BEFORE this vision rather than what he does AFTER this vision? Can you see the word "have" is past tense!

Don't you realize that the command of the Lord is designed to CHANGE his position from the past to a new position when the Lord explicitly commanded him to no longer call and regard such animals "unclean" as DIETARY FOOD as God says "arise kill and EAT"?

Don't you realize that this command CHANGED his view of dietary laws and their spiritual design behind them? In Acts 10:28 this change is dutifully noted by Peter himself in doing exactly what formerly he would never have done:

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Now thats amazing! You look at the words of Acts 10{28} and make the claim it says your now allowed to eat the portly porker. I look at the words of Acts 10{28} and make the claim it says that i should not call any man common or unclean.

You sure do like to add unto the Word of God. Thats not a good thing

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now thats amazing! You look at the words of Acts 10{28} and make the claim it says your now allowed to eat the portly porker. I look at the words of Acts 10{28} and make the claim it says that i should not call any man common or unclean.

You sure do like to add unto the Word of God. Thats not a good thing

Any person capable of two grains of common sense can easily read Acts 10:28 and see that Peter is breaking the very law he is quoting. He is in their house! This is the results of NEW INSTRUCTIONS given to him by God.

 

[BobRyan]

I look at the words of Acts 10{28} and make the claim it says that i should not call any man common or unclean.

Well then you are in good company -- because that is exactly what the inspired word of God says about Acts 10.

Here is what Peter himself says about the teaching in Acts 10 --

Here is the Word of God - so instructive for the unbiased objective Bible students.

Acts 10
28 And he said to them, ""You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.

Wow! no "rat roast" lesson as the inspired take away for that vision!

Three times Christ said "eat my flesh" in John 6
Three times Peter is told to eat rats and cats in Acts 10

Instead of the cannibalism and rat-roast outcome many had hoped for - what we see in both cases is "The Gospel"!

Acts 11:18
""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life”

Acts 15:
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ""Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Acts 11
7 ""I also heard a voice saying to me, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat.'
8 ""But I said, "By no means, Lord, for nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
9 ""But a voice from heaven answered a second time, " What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.'
10 ""This happened three times, and everything was drawn back up into the sky.
11 ""And behold, at that moment three men appeared at the house in which we were staying, having been sent to me from Caesarea.
…
18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ""Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.''

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Any person capable of two grains of common sense can easily read Acts 10:28 and see that Peter is breaking the very law he is quoting. He is in their house .

Hint - there is NT Law against entering the house of a gentile and Walter knows it. He simply seeks an excuse for bending the text.

The Law that Peter mentioned to Cornelius - that Cornelius himself was well aware of -- is the law of Jewish man-made tradition that Christ himself complained about pre-cross.

No Wonder Christ said in Mark 7 --

7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''


The rat-roast agenda that many seek to strain from Acts 10 in wild efforts to avoid the lesson Peter himself states as the real GOSPEL lesson, is hung on the idea of making man-made tradition "into scripture" regarding the law of entering a gentile home.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hint - there is NT Law against entering the house of a gentile and Walter knows it. He simply seeks an excuse for bending the text.

It does not matter if it is man made or God made - He is still breaking what he had considered law and what he had formerly obeyed as law and he attributes that change of mind to the vision!

In another thread I have demonstrated this law was Old Testament law in regard to the laws of clean and unclean and that God had designated the uncircumcised as unlean and that the Jew was to be separated from them and that the dietary law necessarily separated the Jew from the Gentile in the most intimate social act - eating together in one another's home.

 

[Darrell C]

Yeah we are to keep Gods sabbath day and all His commandments.

Apparently the passage in view is an acceptable one to ignore...seeing as how judgment is being rendered upon those who worship one day, being Sunday.

How can this be reconciled?

As for the food and drink laws spoken of in Col.2 we should let scripture interpret scripture

What is there to interpret?

Colossians 2:16 (King James Version)

16Let 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:


That this refers to basic principles of Judaism is evident (though I love the correlation that is sought following this).

It can be viewed two ways: one, for the Jew, that he be not despised for his tradition, and secondly, for the Gentile, that he be not despised for being separate from the tradition of the Jew.

Either way, neither side can by the keeping of the deeds of the "First Covenant" nor the failure to keep these basic principles claim justification for the works.

For all who are in Christ are saved, not by the deeds of the law, nor the keeping of the commandments, but by grace through faith.

Paul's intent can be seen clearly here:

Colossians 2:8-10 (King James Version)


8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.


10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:


Nowhere does Paul add to the work of the Cross in his teaching.


But this next bit, please explain:

COL. 2 [16] 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:

Lets look at scripture that talks about the same thing as Col.2

EZEKIEL 45 [17] And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and MEAT offerings, and DRINK offerings, in the FEASTS, and in the NEW MOONS, and in the SABBATHS, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Heres one. Same exact order as Col.2{16}, meat, drink, holy days (feast days), new moons, sabbaths. What are the odds these 2 scriptures are not speaking about the same thing? A trillion to one?


Do you believe that Ezek.45 is telling the old testament folks they no longer need keep Gods sabbath day or that its alright to go out and eat their piggys?

Do you believe that Ezek.45 is telling the old testament folks they no longer need keep Gods sabbath day or that its alright to go out and eat their piggys?

How is there a correlation?

Aint no way.

I agree.


I will have to do this in two posts...sorry.

 

[Darrell C]

Its simply speaking of the meat and drink offerings which were written in the law contained within the ordinances which were to take place on Gods holy days, new moons and His sabbath days.

"Simply speaking...?"

Nowhere does scripture "simply speak" of the religious practice which pre-figures the death of Christ.

It was the God-given means of reconciliation and remission...until the establishment of the New Covenant.

The many claim that the meat and drink spoken of in Col.2 are the unclean foods such as the oinker.

It is good to know that we have not been left to wonder about this:

Acts 15:19-20 (King James Version)


19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:


20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.


Nor at we left at the misguided efforts of those who would seek to do that which is spoken against in many places in scripture:

Acts 15:10 (King James Version)

10Now 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?

See that in it's context here.


This is another gospel that seeks to lead men away from faith in Christ and to enslave them to the law, which was meant to lead men to Christ by showing them their sin.

Their ability to keep the law was as effective as it is today...they cannot.

Without the indwelling Spirit of God they are incapable of not only keeping the commandments of God, but are deceived into thinking that they do, and that they do so in the manner in which is necessary in order to be declared righteous before God...perfectly.

But, the good news for those who would trust in Christ, and believe that He died for their sin, is that He will give you the ability to keep His word:


Ezekiel 36:27 (King James Version)

27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Praise be to God for His Gift to sinful man.

If that were so please show me where any drink was said to be unclean. If there is an unclean drink ive yet to find it in the scriptures.

That Judaism had a concern for drink apart from that which is found in the "ceremonial law" can be seen here:

Matthew 23:24 (King James Version)

24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Go and learn what that meaneth.

HEBREWS 13 [9] Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be ESTABLISHED WITH GRACE; NOT WITH MEATS, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. [10] We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. [11] For THE BODIES OF THOSE BEASTS, WHOSE BLOOD is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. [12] WHEREFORE JESUS ALSO, THAT HE MIGHT SANCTIFY THE PEOPLE WITH HIS OWN BLOOD, suffered without the gate.

What is found here in this passage is the contrast between the basic principles of Christ and the completion that Christ brought to those practices.

The heart is established with grace...not MEATS, as the OP has pointed out in clarity what the meaning is.

What is missed apparently is that those who were occupied therein, or, who's lifestyle was regulated by those things...did not profit from them.

Why would one look past the Cross to return to those things?

Perhaps it is as this passage says, they are disqualified from the sacrifice of Christ, for, had they truly embraced Christ in faith, they would not seek to return to the basic principles of Christ, and go on unto perfection...the accomplished, once for all sacrifice for sin.

So why should we judge no man in meat or drink in respect to holy days, new moons and sabbath days? Because Jesus fulfilled these offerings that were written in the law of commandments contained in the ordinances. Its the meat and drink offerings that are no more to be observed.

But the question is, "Do believers today follow God's Law?"

The answer is yes...we establish the law of God, for His Spirit causes us to do that which we before were unable to accomplish.

What the Judaizer tries to establish is not the keeping of the law of God, but...the keeping of the law for salvation, which, scripture is clear is impossible.

Romans 3:20 (King James Version)

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.



Galatians 2:16 (King James Version)

16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Failure to balance Old and New Testament revelation will inevitably lead to a misunderstanding of salvation.

JOHN 6 [53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED.

To try to tie this to that referred to in Colossians 2:16 shows an utter disregard for the New Covenant, which has replaced the "first."


1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (King James Version)

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:


24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.


25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.


26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


Are we to replace this cup with the cup of Passover?

Will keeping the Passover, and the meat and drink contained therein change the fact that Christ is the reality, and Passover the shadow?

When we let scripture interpret scripture its very clear what Col.2 is speaking about.

Absolutely...

Colossians 2:16 (King James Version)

16Let 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:

...easy enough for a "child" to understand.

The meat and drink offerings of those days are no longer to be kept.

And the reason for that is that Christ has fulfilled that which they pre-figured.

To return to the ritual of Judaism is in fact a rejection of Christ, if it is done with the intent of "earning" salvation.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I would like to know what has all this about eating or not eating unclean animals' meat got to do with Colossians 3 verse 16?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowmah

When we let scripture interpret scripture its very clear what Col.2 is speaking about.
Absolutely...

Colossians 2:16 (King James Version)

16Let 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:

...easy enough for a "child" to understand.


GE:

First, Let the child read the real words of the Scripture:

"Do not you let yourselves be condemned by anyone (in the wide world) with regard to eating and drinking of Feast, whether of month's or of Sabbaths'."

Then the child should be able to see there is nothing spoken of concerning condemnation of "The Body of Christ's Own" or their Feasting of Sabbaths' occasion now and then or perpetually. (verse 17)

 

[Dr. Walter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowmah

When we let scripture interpret scripture its very clear what Col.2 is speaking about.
Absolutely...

Colossians 2:16 (King James Version)

16Let 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:

...easy enough for a "child" to understand.


GE:

First, Let the child read the real words of the Scripture:

"Do not you let yourselves be condemned by anyone (in the wide world) with regard to eating and drinking of Feast, whether of month's or of Sabbaths'."

Then the child should be able to see there is nothing spoken of concerning condemnation of "The Body of Christ's Own" or their Feasting of Sabbaths' occasion now and then or perpetually. (verse 17)

Paul is completely condemning the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws. The seventh day Sabbath introduces the Levitical Feasts and new months in Leviticus 23:1-3 as these feasts were Old Covenant types which were based upon the seventh day Sabbath as the sign of the Old Covenant! In direct contrast the sign of the New Covenant or first day Sabbaths anticipated the complete removal of the whole seventh day Sabbath and its cycles altogether.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paul is completely condemning the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws. The seventh day Sabbath introduces the Levitical Feasts and new months in Leviticus 23:1-3 as these feasts were Old Covenant types which were based upon the seventh day Sabbath as the sign of the Old Covenant! In direct contrast the sign of the New Covenant or first day Sabbaths anticipated the complete removal of the whole seventh day Sabbath and its cycles altogether.

GE:

And this you say, "Paul is completely condemning" --- in Colossians 2:16 that is.

Let him who reads, read, what is written --- not what Dr Walter writes.

Paul wrote "Do NOT let anyone condemn you";

Dr Walter wrote: "Paul is completely condemning".

Paul wrote, "with regard to (your) eating and drinking";

Dr Walter wrote: "the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws." [Not that anyone here tries to teach the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws still are obligatory; that is beside the point altogether.]

Paul wrote of "A month's" or 'monthly' feast-eating-and-drinking, of course meaning spiritually of Christ's Feast, once every month perhaps, of the Lord's Supper.

Dr Walter wrote: "the Levitical Feasts and new months in Leviticus 23:1-3 as these feasts were Old Covenant types" --- and that, AFTER The Antitype, Jesus the Lamb of God, had had come already! Strange ceremonialism, Dr Walter's!

Paul wrote, "these things (eating and drinking) of month's or of Sabbaths' Feast ... being but a shadow of things NIGH-A-COMING, THE BODY OF CHRIST'S OWN ... holding to the Head ... nourishment being ministered, GROWING WITH THE GROWTH OF GOD"! What glorious prospect!

But Dr Walter wrote: "the Levitical Feasts and new months in Leviticus 23:1-3" of YONDER BYGONE days and times as were they the order of the day. But Paul endorsed and wished to "comfort" (2:2) and encourage the Colossian Church, CONDONING to detail, "these things" which they were enjoying and practicing, "FEASTING OF MONTH'S AND / OR OF SABBATHS' OCCASION".

TO SUMMARISE:

Dr Walter wrote: "Paul is completely condemning the whole .... Feasts .... the sign..." and ordered "the complete removal of the whole ... altogether."

Paul wrote: "Let NO MAN beguile you of your reward..."


Make your choice whom you will believe. As for myself, I choose to share IN Paul's well-wishes contained in his Letter --- WITHOUT ONE WORD OF REBUKE TO THE CONGREGATION --- rather than be judged and condemned over things neither I nor the others who feel like I do, after all, do or believe, like Dr Walter accuses us of doing and believing.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

And this you say, "Paul is completely condemning" --- in Colossians 2:16 that is.

Let him who reads, read, what is written --- not what Dr Walter writes.

Paul wrote "Do NOT let anyone condemn you";

Dr Walter wrote: "Paul is completely condemning".

Does not Colossians 2:14 precede Colossians 2:16???? Is not Colossians 2:14 the basis for the statement made in Colossians 2:16?????

In Colossians 2:14 Paul condemns the whole Old Testament Covenant - abolishes it. Therefore in Colossians 2:16 Paul frees New Testament Beleivers from any condemnation for not observing all Old Covenant ceremonial laws, feasts, sacrifices, dietary laws and the sign of the Old Covenant the seventh day Sabbath and the whole sabbatical cycle BASED UPON THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH (see Leviticus 23:1-3 where the seventh day Sabbath is the basis for the whole sabbatical cycle).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Does not Colossians 2:14 precede Colossians 2:16???? Is not Colossians 2:14 the basis for the statement made in Colossians 2:16?????

In Colossians 2:14 Paul condemns the whole Old Testament Covenant - abolishes it. Therefore in Colossians 2:16 Paul frees New Testament Beleivers from any condemnation for not observing all Old Covenant ceremonial laws, feasts, sacrifices, dietary laws and the sign of the Old Covenant the seventh day Sabbath and the whole sabbatical cycle BASED UPON THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH (see Leviticus 23:1-3 where the seventh day Sabbath is the basis for the whole sabbatical cycle).

Lev. 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
3 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.

Note the direct connection between these ceremonial feasts (v. 2) and the Seventh day Sabbath the sign of the Old covenant (v. 3). It is this introduction and on the basis of the seventh day Sabbath the feasts are based or the whole sabbatical cycles. The sabbatical cycles are abolished along with their basis - the seventh day Sabbath.

 

[Darrell C]

Dr Walter wrote: "the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws." [Not that anyone here tries to teach the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws still are obligatory; that is beside the point altogether.]

I would disagree with this for the very reason that you will not ride the fence concerning the means of salvation, nor can you separate "a little law" with "all of the law," Which, if you seek to be justified by, you must perform perfectly.

[Not that anyone here tries to teach the whole Old Covenant administration and in particular the whole ceremonial laws still are obligatory; that is beside the point altogether.]

That is the point.

Who is it that decides which "laws" are to be performed and which are no longer necessary?

This entire thread is a debate concerning how men are saved.

Either you are obligated to perform the "laws" or you are not.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Does not Colossians 2:14 precede Colossians 2:16???? Is not Colossians 2:14 the basis for the statement made in Colossians 2:16?????................

GE:

I should ask you, the question. I would only have said, does not the whole of the foregoing Letter precede 2:16? And in particular, from 2:12 in stead of from verse 14.

Because Christ's death and resurrection is the PREMISE for Paul's statement about a free and feasting Congregation from verse 16 on. He in fact uses the word 'oun' "THEREFORE" in strongest sense possible: "BECAUSE CHRIST TRIUMPHED THEREIN" - i.e., in his death and resurrection, verses 12 to15 - "THEREFORE DO NOT YOU LET YOURSELVES BE JUDGED / CONDEMNED / INTIMIDATED / VICTIMISED with regard to your feasting of Christ Jesus spiritually "eating and drinking of", _HIM_!

Therefore, most certainly, YES! Colossians 2:12-15 precedes Colossians 2:16 and is the basis for every statement made in Colossians 2:16 to 19.

WITHOUT RESERVE, FOR SURE!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

No one I can see is arguing about keeping the Law or not; no one is arguing about moral or ceremonial law; BUT YOU TWO, Dr Walter and Darrel C.

LEAST, does PAUL, argue 'law'. Paul wrote that the Law was nailed to the cross : CHRIST! Who can further speak about 'law' or 'keeping' the law or 'moral' or 'ceremonial' law? The Law nailed to the cross was CHRIST; CHRIST was abolished; sent to hell for ever; vanquished, nullified --- AND THUS AND THUS ONLY, says Paul, "IN IT TRIUMPHED"! "The Mystery of Godliness". Christ descending to under the foundations of the mountains of the oceans of Jonah's woes, is Christ ascending and gaining victory in order in the end in Resurrection From The Dead (Himself), to be seated on the Right Hand of God in heavenly Regency and Power : GOD'S LAW! God's LIVING WORD.

 

[Dr. Walter]

GE:

I should ask you, the question. I would only have said, does not the whole of the foregoing Letter precede 2:16? And in particular, from 2:12 in stead of from verse 14.

Because Christ's death and resurrection is the PREMISE for Paul's statement about a free and feasting Congregation from verse 16 on. He in fact uses the word 'oun' "THEREFORE" in strongest sense possible: "BECAUSE CHRIST TRIUMPHED THEREIN" - i.e., in his death and resurrection, verses 12 to15 - "THEREFORE DO NOT YOU LET YOURSELVES BE JUDGED / CONDEMNED / INTIMIDATED / VICTIMISED with regard to your feasting of Christ Jesus spiritually "eating and drinking of", _HIM_!

Therefore, most certainly, YES! Colossians 2:12-15 precedes Colossians 2:16 and is the basis for every statement made in Colossians 2:16 to 19.

WITHOUT RESERVE, FOR SURE!

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;15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 ¶ Let no man therefore


"therefore" is based upon Christ "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us"

Peter refers to the same in Acts 15:

Acts 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?

Note that both contexts are introduced with circumcision as the debated subject (Col. 2:11-13; Acts 15:2). The ceremonial laws are in view.

Ac 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

It is the whole body of the Law of Moses that is being abolished as a COVENANT condition which includes the sign of this covenant - the seventh day sabbath as the seventh day sabbath is introduced inseparably from the ceremonial feasts and sabbatical cycles:

Lev. 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are my feasts.
3 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.


Col. 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;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. {in it: or, in himself}
16 ¶ 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

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

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;15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 ¶ Let no man therefore


"therefore" is based upon Christ "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us"...................

GE:

Again, YES! And Christ's "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" happened HOW? Through his having been crucified and died and having resurrected.

Now "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" not ONLY was the Law that says, Sin and you shall surely die, but it also was the written indictment against the "Sabbaths'-feasting", "Body of Christ's Own" in the HOSTILE WORLD in which they lived and witnessed of the Christ. So they were THREATENED, VICTIMIZED, INTIMIDATED, JUDGED, CONDEMNED : 'Feast Sabbaths or eat and drink Lord's Supper and you shall surely die!' by the CIVIL, 'Law' of the "world's", "authorities and powers and dominions"!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

[..........................
"therefore" is based upon Christ "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us"

Peter refers to the same in Acts 15:

Acts 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?
...........................

GE:


NOTHING GIVES YOU THE RIGHT to so generalise; causing whatever you say, to be the caricature of reality which is the Text.

It is impossible to answer to such mental gymnastics and you take occasion by it’s impossible. I can still in my old age with no effort at all do the summersaults and stuff I did in my young days, in my imagination. And you can't tell me I don't DO them.

You do God's Word disservice to SO 'compare' Colossians 2 and Act 15.

Then also, Dr Walter, you every time answer as were it the first time these Scriptures are given attention; you simply keep still about the answers ALREADY GIVEN. All that matters is that Dr Walter will be heard.