Paul’s letter to the Colossians

Col. 2:13-17

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 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; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

The above passages of scripture have been understood by some that the law had been done away with; all the inhibitions of the Old Testament have been rendered redundant. By some they have been understood to mean that the Sabbath is no longer a requirement for the people of Christ and yet by some they have been understood to mean that the observance of the new moon and yearly Sabbaths have been rendered redundant, by the vicarious death of Messiah. Verse 16 says: 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.

Observe that days is in Italics, meaning it is an added word it is not there in the original, the original would read “…or the Sabbath.” It mentions holyday which is translated from the Greek word heorte meaning festival, feast or holyday; which will render the text as: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath. If we accept that Paul says these things together with food and drink were against us and Christ by his death took them away, then we must disregard all of them that is feast days which include Passover, unleavened bread, Pentecost, trumpets, atonement and booths, and new moon day and Sabbath. To these we must add food and drink. If we accept that Paul is saying they were nailed to the cross then we must not eat or drink or keep the feasts, new moon and Sabbath. I have not met anybody who says he does not eat because it was nailed to the cross, yet I have met those who say they don’t keep the feasts and new moon because they were nailed to the cross, but keep the Sabbath and eat and drink; some say they don’t keep the feasts, new moon and Sabbath, but keep the first day and eat and drink. Please not that Paul mentions food and drink then the yearly feasts, followed by the monthly feast and then the weekly Sabbath. Does Paul really mean what we have been led to believe he means?

These and other passages from Paul are difficult to understand and prone to be misunderstood. Peter was probably alluding to these and others when he said: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2Pt 3:15,16.

The bible must be read in context of the whole that is from Genesis to Revelation and any passage must be understood in the context of the whole bible, taking a passage only and trying to understand it in isolation will in most cases lead to a wrong understanding.

In the above passages as already mentioned it is understood by others that the requirement to of the law, of keeping  the new moon, the Sabbath and the yearly Sabbaths were against us, therefore were taken away by the death of Messiah on the cross. How these were against us is difficult to see; how can a day of rest be against anybody? How can eating and drinking be against us?

In Genesis Elohiym after creating everything creates man: Adam and Eve they are put in the garden of Eden and allowed to eat every other tree but one tree: “ But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. 2:17. Adam and Eve were given a law the breaking of which meant death. Was that law against them?  To answer that let us imagine a mine field fenced off and a sign saying do not enter minefield; is that against us or for us? If we ignore the notice and breach the fence and enter and are blown up would that be for us? Adam and Eve ignored the notice and breached the fence and ate the tree but were not immediately blown up. Adam lived for 930 years and then he died. It would seem the statement: “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;” Was false or something happened to defer the punishment to 930 years later in the case of Adam. The statement is clear Adam and Eve should have died that same day, but they did not because the lambs died in their stead; the death of the lambs represented the vicarious death of Christ on the cross. Did that make the law Adam and Eve had broken redundant? What was taken away by the death of the lambs? Was it the law or the guilty verdict and sentence of death? It was the verdict and death sentence on the offenders Adam and Eve that was taken away by the death of the lambs. The deaths of the lambs fulfilled the requirement of the law of a death sentence on the offenders, in other words it affirmed the law as perpetual.

 

In the new testament is recorded this incident: “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? Joh. 8:3-5 this they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. Joh 8:6.The accusers were correct concerning the law as given to Moses “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.” Deut. 22:22 

“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.  (Joh 8:7) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.  (Joh 8:8) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  (Joh 8:9) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  (Joh 8:10) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”  (Joh 8:11). The word translated condemn is  the Greek Katakrino translated also as damn, meaning among others to condemn someone to hell.  The woman deserved to die as the law says, but did not die that day. Was the law against adultery made redundant by Christ or did He as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” Rev. 13:8; satisfy the requirements of the law on behalf of the woman? What Christ did was to give this woman a second chance, as He did to Adam and Eve by taking away the verdict of guilty and sentence of death. These two, verdict and sentence were in these two cases and in subsequent cases involving all of us “as all have sinned”, taken away and nailed to the cross leaving the law intact.

So the passages under consideration Paul cannot be saying the law was taken away, but the verdict and sentence were taken away, by Christ’s death. The requirements of the law for each sinner have been met; the sinner has as Adam, Eve and the woman caught in adultery a second chance.

In each case the devil convinced the sinner that the law was against him or her, it was prohibiting him from experiencing ultimate pleasure.  It was against them and preventing them from being like Elohiym. The devil appearing to them as a serpent able to speak convinced them that he acquired the ability by eating the forbidden fruit, should they eat it they already a higher order of beings would go higher still and be equal with Elohiym; the law has been against them all along.  If as some say, Paul means that the law was against us and had to be taken away, then he would be speaking as the devil, for it is the devil that says the law is against us.

Peter writes “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” 1 Pt.2:24.  We were healed by His stripes and made alive by His death. Paul who is understood by many to mean that the law was taken away says: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Ro.6:1, 2. Paul says we can’t continue sinning so that grace abound, so what is sin? John answers “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 Joh 3:4. By not sinning which Paul is encouraging we would be upholding the law not transgressing it, why is that necessary if the law was taken away?

In conclusion what was taken away by the death of Christ? Daniel tells us: “ And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Dan. 9:27 Daniel is here referring to the work and death of Christ, and says it will bring two things to an end sacrifices and oblation. The word sacrifices is plain enough as a translation of the Hebrew word zebach meaning slaughter of animals for offering. The word oblation is a translation of the Hebrew word minchah meaning a bloodless offering referred in the bible as a meat offering: “And when any will offer a meat offering unto YAHUWAH (the LORD), his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon: “ Lev. 2:1. To these two must be added the guilty verdict and sentence of death, just as they were stayed in Adam’s and the woman’s cases, so are they stayed in each of our cases, because they were nailed to the cross.

The Old Testament which was the only scriptures in the time of Paul and other apostles emphasizes the keeping of the law, testimonies, precepts, statutes and commandments. If Paul was teaching that these should not be kept from which Scriptures was he teaching? Paul like all the apostles was commissioned: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Amen. Mat 28:19, 20. They were to teach them to observe all things He commanded them; did He command them to disregard the feasts, new moon and Sabbath? Did he command them to disregard the law, commandments, statutes and testimonies? The answer is a definite no! So Paul can’t teach that which he was not commanded to!

What does Paul mean in the passages quoted? This has been a long article; I shall deal with that question in another article.

 

Our Heavenly Father and His Son Yahushua bless you all.