What was nailed to the cross in Col 2:14?

What was nailed to the cross in Col 2:14? I've often heard it taught, including this morning in SS, that it was the ordinances and statutes that Moses wrote. I don't agree.


Since these were also given by God (though written by Moses) and they contain the same principles as the 10 Commandments, I do not see why they would be abrogated by Christ's death. WDYT?

Asygo you are likely correct in your disagreement. The PP quotation concurs with Scripture. But you've not stated your understanding, only your disagreement.

How did you respond in the Sabbath School - what is your understanding?

Here's Col. 2:14



A correct understanding of this text would have to take into account the phrase "that was against us, which was contrary to us".

I didn't say anything. I came in just a few minutes before the end of class. Plus, it looked like they had gotten there because of questions posed during class, so I did not want to derail the whole thing. And something like this might be best handled in a more controlled environment.


I have to preface this by saying that I have not studied this in great depth. I'm hoping people will give me something to consider.

I don't see the statutes and ordinances themselves as being abrogated, since they are descriptions of God's character. Rather, it looks more to me like the condemnation brought by transgression of those ordinances is what was nailed. That was the handwriting that was against us. The law itself is not against us.

I think that's what Paul had in mind as well, and for the same reason. One thing to mention is that the transgression could come as the result of trying to keep the law in order to gain God's favor. I think Paul was addressing this as well.

I agree. That is transgression - pride of life, in particular - and condemns us.

Asygo, you've raised (at least) two important items for consideration.

1. The many and diverse 'statutes, commandments, judgments & laws' which God purposed as further and practical illustration of the Decalogue, therefore not passing away.

2. Certain ordinances which were against God's people and were meant to be removed at the/by the cross.

As a fresh student of the Bible some years back, many of the statutes and judgments made sense. They appeared to be for the benefit of God's children, not against them. (Though few seemed aware they existed).

Like the Ten, one would only truly follow these by faith. They are not salvation but a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. While I observe that many 'keep' the letter of the Ten, in spirit many of us are in rebellion. Perhaps for this reason the true import of the statutes & judgments are yet to be revealed.

In my present thinking, as before, these statutes are to protect us, and are not removed at the cross. Ceremonial laws such as animal sacrifices have fulfilled their purpose in pointing the Circumcised (ancient Israel) to the Seed (Christ) in their loins. The rituals could not keep them from sin and the honest (then & now) admit this. Faith is the key and Christ came to establish this faith in the hearts of contrite followers.

Of course those who follow Him by faith will be scorned and ridiculed, but God is seeking such "repairers of the breach" at this critical juncture in history. Soon Christ will come and the scorners will be toast notwithstanding their church office, etc.

I came across a small booklet by Ken LeBrun "The Elijah People and the Lost Law" which seemed to echo my (our) understanding that the statutes & judgments endure. It's a Bible/SOP compilation from Teach Services.

Your question is important esp. if we believe that time is almost up. But many today preach peace & safety when the world is about to be (further and finally) ripped apart by the winds of strife. Good topic. It deserves attention.

Hi asygo,

As I understand it Paul's use of the word "law" is talking about the Old Covenant God entered with Israel. Because Israel, for centuries, broke the terms of the covenant it stood as a witness against them, revealing their sin and rebellion. The OC was an agreement between themselves and God that they were willing to become a special people for the purpose of working with God to bring salvation, the gospel, to the world.

If you read Exodus 19-24 very carefully you will see that God saved Israel from Pharaoh and his army, from Egypt, through the red sea, from starvation with the manna, from thirst through the rock, from the snakes through trust in a symbol of Christ on the cross. God saved Israel because of His goodness, in keeping His promise to Abraham, and then entered covenant with them. Salvation was first and then the covenant. Israel mistook God's offer, to make them a special treasure, as a system of works in order to obtain salvation. They really believed that they earned God grace by keeping the terms of the covenant.

All of the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross including the 10 commandments and the ceremonies, not because there was a problem with the law, but because there was a problem with the hearts of the people. Now God has used Israel's blessed Messiah, whom they rejected and killed, to offer a NC to the whole world based on the fact that all of the principles embracing Israel's covenant will be written on the heart. Love will become the motive for obedience because the love of God has been made manifest in Jesus and now we can know Him and trust Him. What the law could not accomplish Jesus dying accomplished for all who will believe.

scott

>>All of the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross including the 10 commandments and the ceremonies, >>

I would like to know where you learned that. If the commandments were nailed to the cross, why does Jesus say that if you love Him, you will keep His Commandments? Why is that repeated many times in the NT as a means of salvation? Rev.12:17, Rev. 14:12, Rev.22:14 to name a few.

Harold.

He's not saying the commandments were nailed to the cross, but the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was the attempt of the people to make themselves righteous by means of obeying the law. The law was fine, but not the covenant. To replace the OC, God established the New:



In the New Covenant, rather than seeking to establish our own righteousness, we accept the righteousness of Christ. Instead of being written on tables of stone, it is written in the heart.

Btw, this isn't my interpretation, but I thought I understood Scott's idea well enough to comment.

I think Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 should be considered as parallel passages, since both speak of dogmasin (ordinances).

Colossians 2:14 blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us. He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;

Ephesians 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might make in Himself one new man out of the two, so making peace,

The passage speaks of "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." So it refers to commandments, but not all commandments - just the commandments contained in ordinances. We should also bear in mind that Moses wrote many commandments - some of them related to the ceremonial law, and some which constituted an unfolding of the moral law.

Now some EGW comments about it:

"There are many who try to blend these two systems, using the texts that speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished; but this is a perversion of the Scriptures. The distinction between the two systems is broad and clear. The ceremonial system was made up of symbols pointing to Christ, to His sacrifice and His priesthood. This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ 'took . . . out of the way, nailing it to His cross.' Colossians 2:14." (PP 365)

"Through Christ the hidden glory of the holy of holies was to stand revealed. He had suffered death for every man, and by this offering the sons of men were to become the sons of God. With open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, believers in Christ were to be changed into the same image, from glory to glory. The mercy seat, upon which the glory of God rested in the holiest of all, is opened to all who accept Christ as the propitiation for sin, and through its medium, they are brought into fellowship with God. The veil is rent, the partition walls broken down, the handwriting of ordinances canceled. By virtue of His blood the enmity is abolished. Through faith in Christ Jew and Gentile may partake of the living bread" (Letter 230, 1907). {5BC 1109.1}

Eph. 2:15 is speaking principally of the enmity between God and man, which is taken away in Christ. Only if men are right with God can they be right with each other.

Col. 2:14 speaks of something which was against us. An interpretation of Col. 2:14 must deal with, as this is a fundamental point. What was against us? Was the ceremonial law against us?

Hi Rosangela,

Paul is very clear that it is the Old Covenant He is talking about especially if you put all of what he has to say about the subject together. Colossians 2, 2 Corinthians 3, Galatians 3, and Hebrews 8 all say the same thing. God entered Covenant with Israel and there was nothing wrong with the covenant, but it didn’t have the power to save because of the hardness of the hearts of the people. Therefore God promised a new covenant where He would write the same law (the principle of love) on the hearts of any individual who would believe in the Messiah.

The 10 Commandments are called the ministration of death in 2 Corinthians 3. They are an expression of God’s character in words contained on stone. Why do we spend so much time trying to preserve the lesser expression of God’s character when we have such a greater expression of God’s character in Jesus? The 10 Commandments were the standard of righteousness expressed in the OC law of ordinances, but Jesus is the standard of righteousness expressed in the NC law of love.

Both of the quotes of Ellen’s are making the point that some people use Paul to try “to prove that the moral law has been abolished”. No one here is advocating the abolishment of the moral law. We simply believe that Jesus taught it better and expressed God’s character better and in the light of Jesus the expression of God’s character in the 10 Commandments is dull and ready to pass away along with the rest of the OC that was a shadow of Christ.



scott

Tom,

What is "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" that Christ "abolished in His flesh" (Eph. 2:15)?

Scott,

What Paul says in v. 14 that Christ nailed to the cross is the part of the old covenant which was "a shadow of things to come," as he makes clear in v.17. So this refers to the ceremonial law, which prefigured Christ's work of salvation.

Hi Rosangela,

So what is the ministry of death written on stone that Paul is talking about here in 2 Corinthians 3?



Notice how it condemns men and is fading away! And notice how it is replaced by something so much more glorious that its former glory doesn't seem glorious at all.

scott

It is the old covenant, but I see no relationship between 2 Cor. 3 and Col. 2/ Eph. 2.

I wasn't aware the the Old Covenant was written on stone!

My bad!

scott

The passage is speaking of the old covenant as contrasted with the new (see v.6 - "new covenant," and v. 14 - "old covenant"), although undoubtedly the most important part of the old covenant was the moral law. The ministry of death was the old covenant - the law without Christ.

But again, I see no relationship between 2 Cor. 3 and Col. 2/ Eph. 2.

Don't you wonder why Paul would refer to the Old Covenant as "written on stone" when it was written by Moses and put in the side of the ark. As I recall the only thing written on stone was the 10 Commandments.

I don't think I mentioned Eph. 2.

scott

So is Hebrews 1-8 and so is Galatians 3.

The term "law" is talking about the writings of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, but specifically the Old Covenant that God gave to Israel historically recorded by Moses.

In the NT "The law and the Prophets" is a reference to the OT scriptures. "The law" being the Pentateuch (Moses writings) and "the prophets" being the major and Minor Prophets completing the OT scriptures.

scott

I think this is speaking of the enmity of the carnal mind:



In Christ, the enmity is taken away.

The carnal mind is enmity against God, because it is not subject to the law. The law is not the problem, but the carnal mind. The hostility comes because the mind which is not subject to the law is hostile; it is hostile against God (first 4 commandments) and hostile against man (last 6). To take away the hostility between man and man, and it is first necessary to take away the hostility between God and man. This Christ does in being our peace. As man makes peace with God, he makes peace with man, so that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

Similarly in Col. 2, the problem is not with the law, but with the unconverted mind of man. An interpretation of Col. 2:14 has to deal with the "against us" part. The ordinances which God gave to prefigure Christ were not "against us."

How could a prefiguring of Christ's work of salvation possibly be against us? What could be more for us than Christ's work of salvation?

I think this is an interesting way of putting it; the Old Covenant, the law without Christ. How could God possibly have initiated such a thing? That blows my mind.

Hi Tom,

I think it interesting how whenever the 10 Commandments are discussed the two sides always surface. Buttler and Waggoner. One claiming that the 10 Commandments are still in effect and the other saying that they were only temporary to lead us to Christ.

It happened in 1888 and ever since.

Also the covenants always draw out two sides. Again Butler and Waggoner. One teaching that only the ceremonial law was against us and done away with at the cross and the other teaching that it is the 10 Commandments that were against us because we couldn't keep them so Christ revealed God's love to us to accomplish what the commandments couldn't do. Therefore we are no longer under the commandments, but under the graciousness of God revealed in Christ.

It is amazing how 120 years later the battle rages! Those teaching law and those teaching grace. Actually Paul ran into the same thing 2000 years earlier. There must be something awesome that happens to a group of people not depending on the law for their righteousness, but on Christ alone because the Devil sure works overtime to resist it!

scott

I wouldn't put it this way. For example, Waggoner said:



A most eloquent dude.



I think this is closer to Waggoner's idea, and right on for Butler. However, the commandments were not "against us." The problem is not the law, but the mind that seeks to keep it in order to gain favor with God, and be better than others. I have a great quote from Jones on this.



This hit the nail on the head.

Scott,

As I said, the ten commandments were the essence of the old covenant (as they are the essence of the new), and they are spoken of here, by synecdoche, as representing the old covenant. What I’m not understanding is what the 10 Cs as the ministration of death have to do with the text we are considering – Col. 2. Could you please clarify?


Eph. 2 uses the same term as Col. 2 – dogmasin, and what we are discussing is exactly the meaning of this term.


Exactly for this reason I’m saying I don’t see the relationship between 2 Cor. 3 and these other passages (which you brought into the discussion) and Col. 2 (the passage we are discussing), since the subject in Col. 2 is circumcision and the ceremonial precepts.


The meaning of the term “law” in the NT depends on the immediate context, and it does not always apply to the old covenant. Some passages in which it definitely cannot apply to the old covenant include Rom. 3:31, Heb. 10:16, 1 John 3:4, James 2:12, 4:11, etc.
But why are you speaking about law if the word “law” does not appear in Col. 2?

Tom,

You did not answer my question:



How do you explain what Ellen White says in the quotes I posted previously?
Yes, there was a negative aspect in the ceremonial law. The ceremonial law made no provision for either Jews or gentiles to approach God directly. The Jews depended on priests, and the gentiles were almost entirely excluded.

"Anciently believers were saved by the same Saviour as now, but it was a God veiled. They saw God's mercy in figures. . . . When as a sinless offering Christ bowed His head and died, when by the Almighty's unseen hand the veil of the temple was rent in twain, a new and living way was opened. All can now approach God through the merits of Christ. It is because the veil has been rent that men can draw nigh to God. They need not depend on priest or ceremonial sacrifice. Liberty is given to all to go directly to God through a personal Saviour." {AG 155.5}

"In the temple at Jerusalem there was a partition wall, separating the outer court from the apartment of the temple itself. Gentiles were permitted to enter the outer court, but it was lawful only for the Jews to penetrate to the inner enclosure." {GCB, March 5, 1895 par. 9}

"The middle wall of partition between the Jew and Gentile was broken down. They were no longer in separate rooms; the unbelieving Gentile has been united with the believing Jew." {ST, August 25, 1887 par. 12}

"Christ came to demolish every wall of partition, to throw open every compartment of the temple, that every soul may have free access to God. . . . In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free. All are brought nigh by His precious blood." {2SM 486.1}


The old covenant was just a didactical covenant. It should have led the people to salvation, not to perdition. They should have discerned the spirit of the old covenant, not its letter. The fault was with the people, not with God.

My entire post was for the purpose of answering your question. I explained what I thought Paul was saying.

Regarding the EGW comments, it looks like she's just quoting snippets of certain verses to make a general point. She wasn't offering an interpretation of the passage in Collosians that I saw. If you had some specific quote in mind, you could requote that.



The ceremonial law prefigured Christ's ministry. I don't see how a prefiguring of Christ's ministry would be against us. You say there was no provision to approach God directly. How is the prefiguring different than that which it prefigures? It seems it would follow from your explanation that Christ's ministry is also against us, since we approach God indirectly.



The covenant itself was faulty.



The OC "gendereth to bondage". You characterize the OC as "the law without Christ" which would certainly lead to bondage, so that agrees with what Paul says. I just don't understand how you could think that God would initiate a covenant that could do nothing but enslave those who agreed to it.

An article from http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/sabbath/richardson.htm, by William E. Richardson, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Religion, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan emphasis mine).

"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 any 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" (Col. 2:14-17).

In this day of the "sound-bite," we biblical expositors have our work cut out for us. When the passage is tough, requiring serious thought and expression, the attention of our listeners wanders, eyes glaze, and we quickly reach for an easier explanation. I believe that desire for the "easier explanation" is part of the reason Colossians 2:14-17 still suffers occasional exegetical abuse. Understandably, we who hold both the law and the Sabbath in considerable esteem approach the passage with some uneasiness, since Paul's figure of nailing something to the cross (verse 14) is in close proximity to a Sabbath (verse 16) and some sort of law (verse 14). So, to protect two of our most revered pillars, we tend to interpret this passage with certain presuppositions firmly in place. However, in this exposition we will focus sharply on the Colossian context before making contemporary applications.

Colossians 2:14-17 is not a passage with a transparent meaning. Even a good English translation is not enough to resolve all the doctrinal and theological difficulties. In fact, this is one of those passages in which a few of the finer points of the original language gives us a real boost to our interpretive task.

The context

The first phrase that gives rise to some contention is cheirographon tois dogmasin, translated in the KJV as "handwriting of ordinances." Other translations include "Certificate of debt" (NASB), or "bond written in ordinances" (RV), or "the bond which stood against us with its legal demands" (RSV). Since the words occur nowhere else in Scripture, lexical definitions must be carefully guided by the immediate context.

The context begins with 2:12, where Paul speaks of being "buried with Him in baptism." The result of that "burial baptism" is resurrection to a new life and cleansing from sin. Paul refers to that cleansing with two participle phrases that are parallel, the second repeating the thought of the first. The first of those two phrases is "having forgiven us all our trespasses" (verse 13, RSV). The parallel and repetitive phrase is "having canceled the bond [cheirographon tois dogmasin] which stood against us" (verse 14, RSV). Both phrases mean essentially the same thing, the second simply repeating in different terms what it meant for him to forgive our sins. Thus forgiveness of our sins has resulted in the canceling of the bond that was against us.

It is primarily the KJV translation of verse 14 ("handwriting of ordinances") that has led some to interpret the phrase as referring to the various Mosaic rituals and ceremonial "ordinances" that largely ceased to have relevance after Christ died on the cross. So if some law was nailed to the cross, it would have to be the ceremonial law, since the moral law was not made "void" by the cross (Rom. 3:31).

However, Paul rarely makes the neat division between the ceremonial law and the moral law that we are often quick to make. In fact, his references to the ceremonial laws are rare. When he does use the word "law" (nomos), he most frequently has in mind the moral law in general and often the Decalogue in particular. Of course, in our passage he doesn't use the word "law" at all, which is why we have to be so careful to reason from the context to understand his meaning.

In a strikingly similar passage in Ephesians 2:14, 15, Paul tells how Christ has brought peace, not just between Jew and Gentile, but between all humans and God, by nullifying the "law of commandments in decrees" (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin) (see New Jerusalem). Here the word "law" is linked with the word dogmasin, the same word translated "ordinances" in Colossians. The context of both Colossians and Ephesians indicates that something more than ceremonies was involved.

One thing is very clear: when Paul elsewhere refers to the impact of the cross for the Christian, he does not limit his reasoning to abolishing the ceremonial law. For Paul the most important thing that ended at the cross was the condemnation brought about by our sin. That condemnation arose out of a broken moral law. As he says in Romans 7:7, "if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin" (RSV). In other words, it is the broken law that stands before us and condemns us, which is all the moral law can do for those who have broken it. But as Paul says in Romans 8:1 "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (RSV). Or, as in verse 3, "God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son . . . condemned sin in the flesh" (RSV).

To put it another way, the moral law could point out sin, but could not forgive it. So God had to intervene, or we would stand forever condemned by that law. At that point, the "principalities and powers" that Paul mentions in Colossians 2:15 would triumph over us. But now, as a result of the cross, that picture has changed, and the powers have been defeated. And that happened when the condemnation of the moral law was figuratively nailed to the cross. The NRSV smoothly translates it: "erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross." Thus He made "peace by the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20, RSV).

I think W. Richardson is on the right track. These passages have to do with the condemnation that comes from breaking the moral law. This condemnation is what was against us, not the prefigure of Christ's ministry.

Amen, Tom!!!

Richardson expressed it exactly how I see it. We, SDAs, have mauled this text to death trying to fit it into our theology and our misuse of the text has turned so many off. A cult forces the Bible into saying what their theology teaches. A healthy bible student sets out to discover what the text teaches. Too many times our theology blocks our understanding of the text and thus we get labeled a cult. Sometimes rightly so!

scott

Hi Rosangela,

Sorry about the length of this post!

I agree that the 10 Commandments are the essence of the OC. In fact I believe that they are the standard of righteousness within the OC. Paul is using them to represent what He is talking about.

I’m not sure why you don’t see the connection between the OC and Col. 2. In the OC system our sins were symbolically placed on a lamb that was slain. Why was the lamb slain? Because we sinned, we broke the 10 Commandments, we acted outside of love and harmed our relationship with God and/or with men. The 10 Commandments stood as a witness against us. They condemned us because they stood as the standard of righteousness. The whole system of the OC was a ship of shadows and types with the 10 Commandments at the helm directing the ship.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 calls this whole system the ministry of death and compares it to the ministry of the Spirit. The “ministry of the Spirit” is the phrase Paul uses to talk about the NC. So we have a comparison between the OC and the NC where the ministration of death, the 10 Commandments, represent the OC and the ministration of the Spirit represents the NC. (It’s kind of like Goliath representing all of the Philistines and David representing all of Israel.)

What was the transition between the two systems? The cross! One system was brought to an end while the other was just beginning. But what was really brought to an end? Paul puts it this way in 2 Corinthians 3:



Jesus’ death rent the veil of ignorance and brought the believers right into the presence of God. Not just the Jewish believers, but all believers not distinguishing between men and women, Jew or Greek, slave or free? Jesus came into this world as a descendant of Abraham, but rather than finding exclusiveness He invited the whole world into Abraham’s family. The boundaries of race, religion, color, or creed couldn’t contain Jesus. He tore down the walls that separated us from God and us from each other.

How? Through His demonstration of love at the cross!

Colossians 2 is talking about the same thing.



What was nailed to the cross that condemned us? The 10 Commandments that stood as a witness against us and the system of religion that kept the Gentiles out and called them our enemy. The veil that separated us from truly knowing God was our misunderstanding of the OC and a belief that we could establish our own righteousness by keeping the law and keeping out the Gentiles.

Jesus was nailed to the cross and in doing so revealed the full righteousness of God’s gracious character thus making the OC obsolete.

You said “What I’m not understanding is what the 10 Cs as the ministration of death have to do with the text we are considering– Col. 2.”

My answer is “context”! The same author talking about the same subject.

So, we have three positions here about the cheirographon tois dogmasin of Col. 2:14:

1) That it is the old covenant (including the moral law), which is the position of many evangelical commentators, and Scott’s position.
2) That it is the record of our sins, which is the position of Bacchiocchi and of most modern SDA theologians’ position (including Richardson), the position of many evangelical commentators, and is the position adopted by Tom. (The difference between this position and the preceding one is that the emphasis here is entirely on the moral law)
3) That it is the ceremonial law, which is the SDABC position, Ellen White’s position, and my position.

That Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 are parallel passages is evident. Cheirographon means anything written by hand, but can more specifically apply to a legal document, bond, or note of debt. Dogmasin refers to decrees, laws, or ordinances.

I don’t agree with position 2 because I really can’t believe that “the law of commandments contained in ordinances” means “the record of our sins.” In order for this to be true, the regulations of the law must be equated with the document of indebtedness. But saying that the law in the new covenant is both nailed to the cross and written in the heart of God’s people is a complete contradiction.
The expression “law of commandments” is redundant, unless Paul is referring to specific commandments. And he is – to “commandments contained in ordinances.” He is referring to a specific law, composed of specific commandments. So the expression used here is completely different from the generic term “law” he uses when he refers to the old covenant, or when he refers specifically to the moral law. To refer to the moral law he uses either "law" or "commandments," but not "law of commandments contained in ordinances."

I also disagree with Richardson when he says that


In Heb. 10:1, for instance, Paul says, “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.”

He is clearly referring here to the ceremonial law, the law of sacrifices. He cannot be referring also to the moral law because the moral law doesn’t have a “shadow of ... things to come.” Some say that the moral law in the OC was a shadow of Christ, or a shadow of the law written in the heart in the NC. I completely disagree. A shadow is a prophetic representation of Christ’s work after sin, but the moral law, including the Sabbath, was given in Eden before sin, and therefore cannot be classified as a shadow. That's also why I don't agree with position 1.

Tom,

Besides the two EGW passages I had already quoted, I've found this one, which seems to be the clearest of all:

"There is a law which was abolished, which Christ 'took out of the way, nailing it to His cross.' Paul calls it 'the law of commandments contained in ordinances.' This ceremonial law, given by God through Moses, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be binding upon the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings and services were to be abolished. Paul and the other apostles laboured to show this, and resolutely withstood those Judaizing teachers who declared that Christians ought to observe the ceremonial law." {BEcho, April 16, 1894 par. 2}

Rosangela, a couple of things I see.

1)I don't think Scott's position is anything at all like the Evangelical position. I think either
a.You don't know what the Evangelical position is
b.You didn't understand what Scott was saying
c.Or I'm the one who's confused is, and Scott's position really is the Evangelical position

2)I don't think you can claim that it was EGW's position that "cheirographon tois dogmasin" was referring to the ceremonial law. At least, I haven't seen evidence of this. Her simply quoting a couple of words from a text is not proof that she held this as a "position." For example, John said "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (This is the most often quoted verse of the SOP, btw). I'm sure most of the times she quoted it she was just using it as a way to poetically draw our attention to Christ. She wasn't necessarily establishing a position in regards to what John meant just because she quoted the verse.

If she were alive, and someone were to make the argument that she believed "cheirographon tois dogmasin" referred to the ceremonial law, I think her reaction would be similar to what happened when the law in Galatians was being presented, which is to please not make her the decider but to resolve these things from Scripture. I doubt she even had a position on "cheirographon tois dogmasin" or knew what the issues involved with this phrase were.

3)Scott said "Amen, Tom!!! Richardson expressed it exactly how I see it." So I don't see how you would conclude that Richardson's position is different than Scott's. When a person says something like "Richardson expressed it exactly how I see it." that means the person *agrees* with the position expressed, not disagrees with it.



You're just assuming that your position is true here, and concluding that you agree with yourself. The text does not say “the law of commandments contained in ordinances”.

The whole discussion involves what "cheirographon tois dogmasin" means. You are concluding it means "“the law of commandments contained in ordinances” and then argue this can't mean "“the record of our sins.” One could just as well say





First of all, it's no more a contradiction than saying the law in the NC is both written on tables of stone and written on the tables of the heart. Also, it's not the law that is nailed to the cross.



"exaleiphO ho kata cheirographon ho dogma eimi hupenantios hemeis" Where do you get the expression "law of commandments" out of this? (I assume this is the phrase you are thinking of).



Richardson says that Paul "rarely" makes the neat distinction. He didn't say Paul never does. So simply citing one reference, even assuming this reference does what you intend, does not refute what Richardson said.

Tom,

First. What I said was that some modern non-SDA commentators consider the cheirographon ton dogmasin as the whole old covenant and some consider it as the record of our sins (bearing in mind that, for many of the latter, the record of our sins is equated with the moral law).

Second. It’s evident that Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 are speaking of the same thing. At least the great majority of both SDA and non-SDA commentators recognize this (including Richardson), and consider the “handwriting of ordinances” (cheirographon ton dogmasin) of Col. 2:14 and the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin) of Eph. 2:15 as most probably referring to the same thing.

Ellen White uses together the words of both verses, indicating she considered both expressions referred to the same thing. Quoting her again:

"There is a law which was abolished [Eph. 2:15], which Christ 'took out of the way, nailing it to His cross.' [Col. 2:14] Paul calls it 'the law of commandments contained in ordinances.' [Eph. 2:15] This ceremonial law, given by God through Moses, with its sacrifices and ordinances [Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15], was to be binding upon the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings and services were to be abolished. Paul and the other apostles laboured to show this, and resolutely withstood those Judaizing teachers who declared that Christians ought to observe the ceremonial law." {BEcho, April 16, 1894 par. 2}


If you haven’t seen evidence of this in the above quote and the two previous quotes I provided, then really nothing can convince you. To me, however, her position is obvious, and it’s also obvious that there is nothing poetical in the subject she is addressing.


I don't know to what specific passage of hers you are referring, but although for a time she was undecided, she eventually did present a definite position on the law in Galatians.


As far as I know, Richardson is not speaking about the whole old covenant (which is Scott’s position), but about the moral law, and I made it clear that the second position differs from the first in this point.


As far as I know, the tables of stone were not literally nailed to the cross. If something was nailed to the cross, it was what was written on the tables of stone (the same content, as far as I know, is figuratively written on the tables of the heart). Speaking about this, it’s much more coherent to consider the cheirographon as Moses’ handwriting than to consider it as God’s handwriting. And it’s still more difficult to sustain the position that it’s both Moses’ handwriting and God’s handwriting (that is, the whole old covenant).
Now, bearing in mind that it was something written by hand that was figuratively nailed to the cross, and you say it’s not the law, what is it?


I’m evidently referring to Eph. 2:15, the parallel passage. Quoting Richardson (although I disagree with the conclusion he draws just after this):

“In a strikingly similar passage in Ephesians 2:14, 15, Paul tells how Christ has brought peace, not just between Jew and Gentile, but between all humans and God, by nullifying the 'law of commandments in decrees' (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin) (see New Jerusalem). Here the word 'law' is linked with the word dogmasin, the same word translated 'ordinances' in Colossians."

Here's something by A. T. Jones:

Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh to God by the blood of Christ. For he who is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us — that was between us — having abolished in his flesh the enmity. Thank the Lord. He hath " abolished the enmity" and we can be separated from the world.

" Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between "—whom? Between men and God, surely. How did he do it ? How did he break down the middle wall of partition between us and God?—By " abolishing the enmity." Good.

True, that enmity had worked a division and a separation between men on the earth, between circumcision and uncircumcision; between circumcision according to the flesh, and uncircumcision according to the flesh. It had manifested itself in their divisions, in building up another wall between Jews and entiles; that is true, but if the Jews had been joined to God, and had not been separated from him, would they have ever built up a wall between them and anybody else ? — No, certainly not, but in their separation from God; in their fleshly minds; in the enmity that was in their minds, and the blindness through unbelief, which put the veil upon their heart — all this separated them from God. And thm because of the laws and ceremonies which God had given them, they gave themselves credit for being the ' Lord's and for being so much better than other' people, that they built up a great separating wall and partition between themselves and other people. But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even ? — It lay in the enmity And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

All men were separated from God, and in their separation from God, they were separated from one another. True, Christ wants to bring all to one another; he was ushered into the world with " Peace on earth; good will to men." That is his object. But does he spend his time in trying to get these reconciled to one another, and in trying to destroy all these separations between men, and to get them to say, " Oh, well, let all bygones be bygones; now we will bury the hatchet; now we will start out and turn over a new leaf, and we will live better from this time on "

Christ might have done that. If lie had taken that course, there are thousands of people whom he could have persuaded to do that; thousands whom he could persuade to say, " Well, it is too bad that we acted that way toward one another ; it is not right,
and I am sorry for it; and now let us just all leave that behind, and turn over a new leaf, and go on and do better." He could have got people to agree to that. But could they have stuck to it f—No. For the wicked thing is there still that made ike division. What caused the division?—The enmity, their sepa-
ration from God caused the separation from-one an- other. Then what in the world would have been the use of the Lord himself trying to get men to agree to put away their differences, without going to ' the root of the matter and getting rid of the enmity that caused the separation ? Their separation from God had forced a separation among themselves. And the only way to destroy their separation from one another, was of necessity to destroy their separation from God. And this he did by abolishing the enmity. And we ministers can get a lesson from this, when churches call us to try to settle difficulties. We have nothing at all to do with settling difficulties between men as such. We are to get the difficulty between God and man settled; and when that is done, all other separations will be ended.

It is true, the Jews in their separation from God had built up extra separations between themselves and the Gentiles. It is true that Christ wanted to put all those separations out of the way, and he did do that. .But the only way that he did it, and the only way that he could do it, was to destroy the thing that separated, between them and God. All the separations between them and the Gentiles would be gone, when the separation, the enmity, between them and God was gone.

Enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from him, the certain consequence was

" For he is our peace, who hath made both one.'Made both who one? — God and men, certainly. " And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,, . . . for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace." Let us look that over again. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (we are not studying that in this lesson) what did he abolish that enmity for ? What did he break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile ? — No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? —No. Out of one heathen and another heathen?— No.

God makes one new man out of GOD and A MAN.

I realize this is kind of rough, but I got this from the GC archives, and this is how it comes. I cleaned it up a little bit. Anyway, it should be good enough to read through.



Since the original quote was quite long, I repeated a part of it, which deals with the question at hand.

Ok, returning to Richardson:



This is similar to what Waggoner wrote in Gal. 3:



The emphasis was mine in these two quotes. I underlined the similar thoughts.

Finally, returning to what Richardson wrote in what I quoted from the earlier post:



It seems to me that all three of these quotes are bringing out the same general thought, which is the Gospel. What was needed, for all Paul's readers, whether Galatians, or Ephesians, or Colossians, was Christ. It was Christ, or the law, and Paul made his argument to all three that it should be Christ. In Christ we find peace, deliverance, freedom. In the law we find condemnation.

Rosangela,

What is the difference between what you believe and what Buttler taught in his book, "The Law in Galatians"?

scott

Of course I believe the cross made us free from the condemnation of the moral law. What I don't believe is that Paul is speaking about this in either Col. 2:14 or Eph. 2:15. In Col. 2:14 Paul is speaking of a "handwritten document of ordinances" which was "blotted out" and "nailed to the cross". In Eph. 2:15 he refers to this handwritten document as a "law of commandments contained in ordinances" which Christ "abolished". He is saying Christ abolished a law on the cross. The verb used is katargeo, which means to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish. This means this law is no longer in existence or in effect. If this referred to the moral law, the Bible would be contradicting itself. Besides, as I said previously, Paul referred several times to the OC by the term "law," and several times to the moral law by the term "law" or "commandments," but never as "law of commandments contained in ordinances." So he is referring to a specific law of specific commandments called "ordinances." This, to me, can only refer to the ceremonial law.

The ceremonial law was a figure of Christ's ministry. It wasn't against us no more than Christ's ministry is against us.

In Eph. 2:15, Paul says Christ abolished the enmity in His flesh. Romans 8:7 tells us what the enmity is. It is not the ceremonial law.

The ceremonial law was not our enemy, and it was not against us. Abolishing it wouldn't help at all in establishing peace. Abolishing as unconverted mind, OTOH, *is* helpful in establishing peace, both between God and man (which must come first) and between God and man.

An unconverted mind cannot be called a handwritten document, and cannot be called a "law of commandemnts contained in ordinances". This does not make any sense.

Besides, Deut. 31:24-26 says:

"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, "Take this Book of the Law and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

Someone also said that this law of sacrifices was against them because its very existence was a witness that they had broken the Ten Commandments.

"I referred them to ancient Israel. God gave them His law; but they would not obey it. He then gave them ceremonies and ordinances, that in the performance of these God might be kept in remembrance. They were so prone to forget Him and His claims upon them, that it was necessary to keep their minds stirred up to realize their obligations to obey and honor their Creator. Had they been obedient, and loved to keep God's commandments, the multitude of ceremonies and ordinances would not have been required." {LS 200.2}

The problem was that the 10 Commandments were being broken. Destroying a witness that this was the case wouldn't do any good. The mind that chooses to break the commandments is the problem. The mind must be converted.

What was abolished was the enmity:





The carnal mind is abolished at the cross when one believes in Christ. This is how peace is made. Destroying the ceremonial law wouldn't help at all to make peace. Destroying a witness wouldn't help at all, because the carnal mind would just go on in rebellion against God, because it cannot be subject to the law of God.

In order to fix the problem, man must be united to God. This can only happen through Christ. In Christ the enmity is abolished, and there can be peace, peace between God and man, and peace among men.



Getting rid of them certainly wouldn't help.

It seems weird to me to think that God initiates covenants that can only enslave, gives us things which are against us, enemies to us, and that abolishing that which God Himself has initiated or given us would somehow help things.

Tom,

We must consider the meaning of the words. In which way can an unconverted mind be called a handwritten document? You could even argue that an unconverted mind could be called the "law of sin," but how can someone argue that an unconverted mind is a "law of commandments contained in ordinances"?

EGW uses expressions such as "types and ordinances," "ceremonial ordinances," "ceremonies and ordinances," "sacrifices and ordinances," "ceremonial and ritualistic ordinances," "ordinances of the Mosaic law," "Jewish ordinances," etc. So the word "ordinances" is frequently associated to the ceremonial law.

Waggoner says, "The ceremonial law was simply the ordinances of the gospel." http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html
He has two articles, "Abolishing the Enmity" (ST, 15 Apr. 1886, pp. 231-32) and "The Handwriting of Ordinances" (ST, 22 Apr. 1886, pp. 247-48), in which he must make his opinion about this subject clear, but I can't get them where I live. Perhaps you can.

Anyway, you should consider that when the Biblical writers speak about the old covenant or about the ceremonial law, they speak of them as they had been perverted by the Jews. That's one of the reasons, perhaps the main one, why the old covenant is said to bear children to slavery and that the ceremonial law is said to be against us.

If we must consider the meaning of words, how about the words "enmity" and "peace"? In what way can the ceremonial law be called "enmity"? How would abolishing it establish peace?

The "law contained in ordinances is a parenthetical comment. Paul has already explained, in Romans 8:7, what he believes the enmity to be.



The enmity is the carnal mind, not the ceremonial law.

I've asked how the ceremonial law was against us, and you suggested that it was a "witness." Well destroying a witness that tells the truth doesn't help anything. The truth still remains! You can kill the "witness" that says we are a law-breaker, but the fact still remains that we are still a law-breaker! *That's* what needs to be fixed.



The ceremonial law was done away with at the cross. Everyone agrees with this. However, what was Paul's argument? I believe that A. T. Jones expressed it correctly:





This is correct. Was the gospel "against us"?

Unfortunately, I lost my stuff wherein I could find Waggoner articles like you mentioned when I moved. However, generally Waggoner agreed with Jones (I actually don't know of any cases where they disagreed; this isn't to say that none exist, I just don't know of any), who I reproduced here.



The essence of the Old Covenant was a promise to make oneself righteous. This was doomed from the beginning to enslave the one making such a promise to slavery. The pity is that people continue making these vain promises, thinking that by so doing they are honoring God. But, as Waggoner points out, God is honored by believing His promises to us (which point, EGW also makes, let alone Paul).

Its perversion brought division and enmity between Jews and gentiles, but the acceptance of the cross and of the love Christ brought to the world, brings peace.


A parenthetical comment about what?

Therefore it is the perversion of the ceremonial law (aka, the carnal mind) that is "enmity" and needs to be abolished, not the ceremonial law itself, the abolishment of which would do absolutely nothing to bring about peace, as the ceremonial law was never the problem.

The ceremonial law is a figure of Christ's ministry. Neither Christ's ministry, nor the prefiguring of it was either "enmity," nor "against us."

To answer your other question, a parenthetical comment about the enmity.



The enmity is the carnal mind. Why? Because it is not subject to the law. Christ brings about peace by destroying the enmity, thus creating a new "man" (this "man" representing the union bo God and man, or man and man) in Christ.

You said



Amen to this!



This just makes so much sense. Your affirmation about the cross is in harmony with this.

It's too bad I don't have access to the Waggoner stuff anymore. You've whet my appetite. I'll see if I can chase that down.

Well, Ellen White says clearly that the ceremonial law was abolished. Besides, the ceremonial law is a law, and is a law of ordinances, therefore the verse's description of what was abolished matches it perfectly. The carnal mind is not a law and it doesn't contain ordinances. Neither can it be described as a handwritten document.

Yes, please see if you can find the Waggoner stuff.

Even the Bible teaches this.



In the KJV. The Greek is another question. It's not so clear. That's why there's a debate about it.



But it is enmity! And that's what Paul says was abolished -- there's no debate about that.

Here's another explanation:



What I've not seen in your responses is a clear explanation as to how the ceremonial law can be viewed as "enmity." Paul has stated elsewhere clearly what he has in mind by the word "enmity." That the carnal mind is enmity makes perfect sense; it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. That it needs to be abolished makes sense. That is was abolished at the cross makes sense. Everything makes sense about this interpretation, the only perplexing part being what to make of Paul's use of the phrase "the law contained in ordinances."

We need to consider what Paul's main point is. The interpretation it seems to me that you are suggesting is that the ceremonial law was abolished, which was "enmity," and that doing this established peace. That doesn't make sense to me because the ceremonial law is a figure of Christ's ministry, which isn't enmity. Also abolishing it doesn't establish peace. So I can't see how this could be what Paul had in mind. Also this idea doesn't fit with the context of the passage.



Ok. I'm working on it.

It's not so simple. Everything depends on the relationship between "enmity" ("hostility"), "wall" and "law." There are three possible renderings for the verse:

". . .having destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the hostility; in his flesh having rendered inoperative the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

". . .having in his flesh destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely,the hostility; having rendered inoperative the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

". . . having destroyed the middle wall of partition, having in his flesh rendered inoperative the hostility, namely the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-02/23764.html

The hostility is the enmity. The hostility is taken away when the hostile unbeliever accepts Christ by faith.

This explains the situation in a way that makes sense to me:



The Jews were using the law to create a division, because of their unbelief. In Christ, unbelief is taken away, and peace can be established, between God and man, and between man and man.

Regarding Waggoner, see the next post please.

In the Gospel in Galatians, written in 1888, and passed out to the delegates of the 1888 GC, Waggoner wrote:



I agree with this. This is different than his position in 1886, where it looks like he was basically agreeing with Butler. He even quoted the same sources that Butler quoted in "The Law in Galatians"! This was very interesting for me to see, as I have not read Waggoner's writings before 1888. It appears his thinking developed quite a bit from 1886 to 1888.



This is from the "Handwriting of Ordinances" article.

"... for the only object in coming to Christ is to receive justification or pardon..." Tom, do you agree with this insight? Seems to me there are other reasons, more important, for entering into a relationship with Jesus.

"Sin is a bondage, and to teach men to put their trust in a false hope, which will cause them to rest satisfied in their sins, thinking that they are free from them, is simply to fasten them in bondage." Can a false hope really, truly cause people to rest satisfied in sin? Can anything having to do with sin leave us feeling at rest and satisfied?

Also, in what way do you see a difference in Waggoner's thinking?

Read in context, I agree with what was said. Of course, taken out of context, it doesn't make sense.



This should be read on context too! For example, consider the Catholic who confesses his sin to a priest and asks forgiveness. This is a false hope, as only God can forgive sin. This false hope could cause the person to think their sins had really been forgiven, and they were freed from them. In fact, many people believe this. Now, of course, the Holy Spirit will still be working to convict such people of sin, and sin, of course, cannot satisfy, but neither of these are the points being made.



Compare the two things I cited. In one, Waggoner expresses the idea that the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage. In the other, he argues against this idea (which Butler argued for in his pamphlet).

No, he doesn't argue against this idea. He just makes clear that the ceremonial law (and, I would add, the moral law) becomes a yoke of bondage for those who don't see it within the context of the faith in Christ. He says:

"But if he had been so ill-informed as to suppose that the simple mechanical performance of the ceremonial law would cleanse him from sin, then indeed he would have been in a grievous condition."

As I said, the problem was the perversion of the ceremonial law.

Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can read this and not understand that Waggoner was arguing against Butler's idea that the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage.



The yoke of bondage is the yoke of sin, not the ceremonial law. This is clearly Waggoner's point.



More evidence that Waggoner was arguing against the idea that the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage.

There's more, but I think this should be sufficient to make the point.

Tom,

If you read what precedes and what follows Galatians 5:1, you will see that it cannot be said that the "yoke of bondage" Paul speaks about is "sin." If Waggoner made this point, he is clearly wrong. Of course a "yoke of bondage" is just something that enslaves, and of course it could be said that sin enslaves, but it obviously it is not to sin that Paul is referring in Galatians 5:1, but to the perversion of both the moral law and the ceremonial law (he is discussing the old covenant and circumcision). Ellen White, as always, saw this correctly:

"The Jews as a nation had laid claim to righteousness above every other people, while they stood out in proud defiance of God. As a people they were self-confident, exalted, selfish, and boastful. ... Israel had perverted the Scriptures, and had taught for doctrine the commandments of men. They made void the law of God through their traditions. That law which they claimed to observe so strictly, they made a yoke of bondage. Satan had put his leaven into the most precious, everlasting truth, to make of none effect God's sacred institution." {ST, February 15, 1899 par. 9}

"Christ's work was to rid the commandments of the traditions and customs placed upon them by the Jewish teachers. The work of covering the law with useless exactions had been planned by the adversary of God, in order that Christ's pure ministry should not harmonize with the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. The Jewish leaders had yielded to the temptation to depart from the Lord, and while by their forms and ceremonies making the law a yoke of bondage which the people were not able to bear, they failed to follow its great principles. This led Christ to declare, 'Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" {ST, June 5, 1901 par. 9}

Anyway, we have sidetracked in our discussion, because I don't see what Galatians 5:1 has to do with Eph. 2:15 and Col. 2:14.

This is Waggoner commenting on Gal. 5:1





I pointed out that Waggoner's idea, in the pamphlet TGIG, was that the yoke of bondage was sin:



You said:



Clearly this is wrong (Note the underlined portion).

Commenting on Waggoner's comments here, yet, the Jews did make the ceremonial law into a law of bondage, a point with which Jones' 1895 sermon agrees. However, the problem was not with the ceremonial law, but with the carnal mind, a point Jones also makes. Abolishing the ceremonial law would have done no good whatsoever to solve the problem because the problem was not with the ceremonial law! The problem was with the Jews! What needed to happen was for the Jews to be converted. Only by conversion could come peace.

They made the moral law a law of bondage; making the ceremonial law a law of bondage was just a consequence of this. Galatians is primarily speaking of the moral law, while Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 are speaking specifically of the ceremonial law - the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Therefore, I see no relationship between Galatians and the two passages we are discussing.

In TGIG, Waggoner was arguing against Butler's idea that the ceremonial law was a yoke of bondage.



This is speaking of the ceremonial law. It says, "Anyone who reads the Psalms will see that David did not regard the ceremonial law as a burdensome yoke, nor think it grievous bondage to carry out its ordinances."

I said:



To which you replied:



But he does, as the above quote shows.

Ok, if he does, he is more wrong than I had thought, for Ellen White clearly confirms that the Jews had transformed it, as well as the moral law, into a yoke of bondage. But the ceremonial law being or not a yoke of bondage is beside the point, since neither Col. 2:14 nor Eph. 2:15 refer to this.

In post #101569 i quoted from Waggoner's article on Eph. 2:15:



This was basically Butler's argument, and Waggoner even cited the same sources Butler would in his pamphlet TLIG. I said:



MMM asked:



I responded:



To which you responded:



Waggoner did argue against the idea, which you appear to be recognizing:



This is quite clever. If Waggoner doesn't argue against the idea, then you would be correct. But if he does argue the idea, what happens? Then Waggoner is "more wrong."

If Waggoner was saying one thing in one place, and disagrees with his own position, then one or the other must be incorrect. So which is more likely? That Waggoner was correct when he was agreeing with Butler, before 1888, before EGW was endorsing him, or later when he disagreed with Butler, passed out his pamphlet to the 1888 GC delegates, and Ellen White started endorsing him?

If EGW is correct in her endorsements, and there is great light in what Waggoner wrote, and he really could teach righteousness by faith better than she could, then the latter must be much more likely.

I understand your point that just because she endorsed him does not mean that every jot and tittle is correct, but surely he must have been right a vast majority of the time, or how could EGW have endorsed him as she did? Over 1,000 times she endorsed him (or Jones). Yet I can't remember when you've agreed with him on anything I've quoted from him during the time EGW was endorsing him, and I've quoted him many, many times on many different subjects.

Let's say he was right 90% of the time (to get the endorsements he did) and I've quoted him 100 times on say 10 different subjects. What are the odds that he's wrong all of these times?



First of all, this does not disagree with what Waggoner or Jones said (from 1888 on). Indeed, if you look at the GC session in 1895 I quoted from, you can see that Jones said this very thing.

Secondly, you correctly point out that they did this, according to EGW, to *both* the ceremonial law and the moral law. Now if their doing this could make the ceremonial law "enmity," then clearly it would make the moral law enmity as well. And if abolishing the ceremonial law is the way to fix the enmity problem, then that logic would apply to the moral law as well.

It was the ceremonial law (circumcision, festival laws, etc.) that was distinctively characteristic of the Jews. It was not the moral law, since even Gentiles have its precepts written on their hearts (Rom. 2:15) and consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).
The perversion of the ceremonial law by the Jews became the main factor of separation between them and the Gentiles.
In this context, Paul writes Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15. God gave the ceremonial laws for a good purpose and they were good, but the Jews' perversion of it caused separation and enmity between them and the gentiles. So, there are two distinct things to be considered here - the law and the enmity.
Before we sidetracked, I had presented the article with an analysis of the Greek text. In it, the author says:



He also said:


And:

Well, she cannot endorse what is in disagreement with what she writes. Therefore, where he disagrees with what she writes he is wrong, and I have always pointed this out.

P.S. To avoid misunderstandings: I hadn't read in detail what Waggoner says, but, according to the quotes you posted, he does argue against the idea of the (ceremonial) law as a yoke of bondage.

Hi Rosangela,

Do you believe that the 10 Commandments are the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ that we are no longer under in Galatians 3?

If so then what difference is there between taking us out from under the moral law of the 10 commandments (Galatians 3) and abolishing the l0 commandments and replacing them with Christ as the ultimate moral influence and standard of righteousness (Colossians 2)?

Why is it so important for you to keep the 10 Commandments in place as our moral influence when we have Christ? Is there something that Jesus didn't teach that they teach? Did Jesus miss something?

scott

Another possibility is that you are wrong, and Waggoner and Ellen White are in agreement. The following situation comes up often:

a.Waggoner writes something unambigous
b.Ellen White writes something ambiguous
c.You take the ambiguous possibility of Ellen White which disagree with Waggoner.

I don't understand why you wouldn't instead choose to use Waggoner as a tie-breaker to decide the ambiguity as opposed to taking the position that Waggoner must be wrong. I could understand this happening rarely, say once in 10 times, but it happens over and over and over again. How could Ellen White endorse Waggoner so strongly and often if Waggoner was so often wrong?



Ok. I'd suggest being more guarded in your responses in this case.

I based myself on the quote you had provided in your post #101569, and in that quote he really doesn't argue clearly against the ceremonial law as a yoke of bondage. I was even trying to defend him. But then, after the other quotes you posted, this became impossible, for I saw he was clearly in contradiction with what Ellen White says.


What Ellen White writes, most of the times, is unambiguous.

I hope you have seen my post just above the one you replied to.

Yes.


Being taken out from under the law (Galatians 3) means being taken out from under its condemnation. In Christ the law can no longer condemn us.

If Eph. 3:15 referred to the abolition of the moral law, it would contradict several other biblical passages. It says: "By abolishing [katargeo] in his flesh the law of commandments in ordinances". Rom. 3:31, on the other hand, says, "Do we, then, abolish [katargeo] the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold the law." Was the law, after all, abolished or not? One verse says it was, the other says it wasn't. However, Ephesians doesn't just say "law," but "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" - a specific law of specific commandments.

What is abolished no longer exists. How can a law that no longer exists be written in the hearts of people (Heb. 8:10)? How can sin be defined as the transgression of a law which no longer exists (1 John 3:4)? How can a law that no longer exists be the standard by which God will judge us on the Day of Judgment (James 2:10-12)?

Either the law was abolished or it wasn't - but it can't be both. Besides, the law is just a transcript of Christ's character. By abolishing it, He would be abolishing Himself.

I agree with this. I would add that the long doesn't condemn us because it is written on our hearts when we become Christ's, which is simply another was of saying that we have been brought into harmony with God.

Also in Gal. 4:4, "under the law," means the same thing (i.e., under its condemnation).

I provided the whole of "The Gospel in Galatians" as a reference. If you are going to say that Waggoner did not argue against a certain position, the implication is that you know what Waggoner was arguing. If you want to limit your statement to a certain quote, you could write something like, "It doesn't appear to me that this quote is arguing against this position" as opposed to "No, he doesn't argue against this idea."



It would be good to defend him when he's right! (this is when he's arguing against Butler, not agreeing with him).



Again, what is more likely.

a.Waggoner's was right before EGW endorsed him, but wrong afterwards.
b.Waggoner's position was wrong before EGW endorsed him, but right afterwards.

Doesn't b make more sense?

To avoid having to type, I'll requote myself:





People do not argue over what Waggoner was saying. At least, if this is done, it is far, far less than with Ellen White.

When we have disagreements about what EGW is saying, it is because what she is saying can be understood in different ways. Take the nature of Christ as an example. Nobody argues that Waggoner wasn't post-lapsarian. But people disagree as to EGW's position.

It seems to me much more likely in these disagreements that you are misunderstanding Ellen White than that Waggoner is wrong. I'm not saying this is always the case, but as a general rule of thumb, common sense would dictate that someone endorsed along the lines of Waggoner is much more likely to be correct than an ordinary lay person. Yet time and time again, rather than modify your own idea, you disagree with Waggoner, which was exactly what happened in the 1888 era, and something of which Ellen White wrote over and over again.

How can it possibly be the case that Ellen White is correct in endorsing Waggoner as she did, and that he is always wrong? At least, he's always wrong in whatever I've quoted from him, because I can't recall you're agreeing with him. Whatever I quote is always that exceptional thing which doesn't fall under the umbrella of her endorsement. Doesn't that seem a bit convenient? Couldn't it be the case that Waggoner was correct, and you're understanding EGW wrong?



It was that post I was replying to.

It seems very difficult to establish doctrine out of words rather than context. Both Ephesians and Romans are talking about the exact same thing. Ephesians talking to the Gentiles and Romans talking to the Jews.

Ephesians 2: 11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands--
12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

Paul is very clear here that the problem is the separation that existed between the Gentiles and the Jews, those of circumcision (done in the flesh) and the uncircumcised. The Gentiles were excluded from the benefits of Israel and strangers to the Old Covenant that was full of promises of the Messiah. But now Jesus has brought them near through His death. He has made peace between the Gentiles and the Jews by breaking down the walls that separated them, the Old Covenant, “by abolishing in His flesh the enmity”! What is the enmity? It is the law of commandments contained in ordinances? Notice that word “in”! It is the Greek word “eÍn” which is pronounced “en”. It means: in, by, with! It doesn’t mean “of”. The text simply says that the law of commandments were along with, along side of, next to, beside. It doesn’t say that the commandments were the ordinances, but that they were with them.

Simply put this is talking about the 10 commandments that is the source of the enmity. The broken law condemns us and in order to satisfy the law Jesus became sin for us by taking on our flesh and lived a perfect life and died a perfect self-sacrificing death to demonstrate His love. Through His death, His spilt blood, He has abolished the enmity. Jesus has made both the Jews and the gentiles God’s friends through His demonstration of love.

Paul is talking about the same thing in Romans 3. The difference between the Jews and the Gentiles! He makes a clear point in verses 10-18 that both the Jews and Gentiles are gross sinners and then look how he summarizes it in verses 19 & 20:

“Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

What law is Paul talking about that gives men the knowledge of sin? What law is it that we were under that makes us accountable to God?

You got it! It’s the 10 Commandments. Now in verses 21 and 22 Paul makes it clear that our righteousness is not by the works of the law, but through faith in God for both the Jews and the gentiles. He says in verse 22 and 23 that “there is no distinction for all and sinned and fall short of the glory of God”.

Paul says that our justification is by His grace that we experienced in Jesus’ redemption when He demonstrated His righteousness at the cross. Before the cross God passed over sins, but now His righteous is made known and He is the one who will justify us. We have nothing to brag about (verse27) because our bragging is excluded by the law of faith. Those who trust in God’s grace don’t brag! Notice the next few verses:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (moral law)
29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Romans is talking about the same thing as Ephesians. The Gentiles being saved by faith in the same way as the Jews. Jesus abolished the enmity through His death. The enmity is and was believing that God is our enemy. Jesus proved Him to be our friend, He changed our minds about God, He wrote His law in our hearts.

scott

I agree that Paul is dealing with the same thing in Romans and Galatians. Paul is clear as to what the enmity is:



The enmity is the carnal mind. Abolishing the enmity fixes the problem, because the problem was not the law, but the people. Simply put, in order to be brought together, the Jews and Gentiles had to be converted. Only in Christ can their be peace. So Christ is presented to all, whether Jew or Gentile, and for those who respond there is peace, and the enmity, the separation, the hostility, is taken away.

That's right Tom!

There has never been a law, 10 Commandments or ceremonial, that had the power to save a man! Because men are saved through an intimated knowledge of God and no law, no angel, no earthly temple, no candlestick, no feast, nothing could express God's love to us perfectly like Jesus did. There are lots of expressions of God, but Jesus is the only fullness of God.


scott

It must be on the basis of both. Paul uses the word “law” 102 times in his writings referring to both the moral law and the old covenant. Why would he, out of the blue, use “law of commandments contained in ordinances” if he meant the same thing? As I pointed out previously, “law of commandments” is redundant, unless the reference is to specific commandments – and it is, for the word “commandments” is modified by the expression “in ordinances”.


Could you then please explain this contradiction?

Eph. 3:15 "By abolishing [katargeo] in his flesh the law of commandments in ordinances".
Rom. 3:31 "Do we, then, abolish [katargeo] the law by this faith? Of course not! Instead, we uphold the law."


In Ephesians Paul is talking about a new humanity in Christ, while in Romans Paul is talking about the universal need of justification by faith. Of course the subjects are related, but the main emphasis is different.


The abolition of the 10 commandments would solve neither the enmity between man and God nor the enmity between Jews and Gentiles (which was based primarily on a perversion of the ceremonial law). The death of Christ is one thing. The abolition of the 10 commandments is completely another thing.

Why indeed? Therefore, by your argument, he must have something other than the law in mind.

I realize this is addressed to Scott. I expect he'll respond as well, but I feel constrained to comment.



First of all, Scott is correct. Both Romans and Ephesians are explaining the Gospel, justification by faith.

The law is upheld in Romans 3:31 when the justified person has the law written in the heart. In Eph. 3:15 the enmity (which is not the law!) is abolished when the person is justified.



And neither would abolishing the ceremonial law! As you correctly pointed out previously, the Jews perverted *both* the moral law and the ceremonial law. If abolishing the law were the solution to solving their problem of perverting God's will, that logic would apply just as much to the moral law as to the ceremonial law. But abolishing a law, any law, does not fix the problem because the problem is with the unconverted mind which was perverting the things of God.

Therefore God, to solve the problem, proposes to convert those with the problem, whether Jew or Gentile. When they come to Christ, the problem is solved!

As I said a little below in that post, in Ephesians Paul is talking about a new humanity in Christ (“so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them”). This emphasis is lacking in Romans. The emphasis there is that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Of course the subjects are related, but the main emphasis is different.


Christ’s death removed not only the enmity between Jews and Gentiles, but even that which had been the supposed cause for this enmity in the past - that which had been used as a pretext, or excuse, for this enmity. If in the past the ceremonial law had been perverted and made a reason for separation between Jews and Gentiles, even this reason had now been removed, for the ceremonial law no longer existed.


It obviously must have to do with "law," but he clearly qualified this law to avoid misunderstandings - it's a specific law.

Of course something will be different, or else he would have just faxed them a copy of Romans. But both deal with the issue of the enmity being abolished. Even the same language is used to an extent. Certainly the same concept is being addressed. In Romans Paul also speaks of our having peace with God:



Ephesians also deals with our obtaining peace by being justified by faith (Eph. 2:14).

Both are dealing with the fundamental issue of how we obtain peace with God. Once we have peace with God, we have peace with one another.



This is the same idea here. This is Galatians, not Eph. or Romans, but it has the same general argument. So does Col.

Paul's burden is identical in each one, which is that his readers will come to Christ that they may be justified by faith.

In Christ the hostility, the enmity, the division, is abolished, both between man and God and between man and man (w/o the former, the latter would be impossible) and there is peace.



Paul didn't argue that the pretext for enmity had been abolished, but that the enmity had been abolished.



This isn't Paul's argument at all. This is easy to see just by examining what Paul wrote:



Here I put in "something" for the part being debated. What would make sense here if this were just a blank to be filled in, just by looking at the argument?

Again, returning to the point you made previously, the Jews had been perverting *both* the ceremonial law and the moral law, and it was this perversion of both that led to hostility. So how could Paul be suggesting that peace came about by abolishing one of these things? This doesn't make sense.

Even Hebrews is saying the same thing. A new heart, a new man, a new creature in Christ.

All of these letters to the church address the issue of the time. It is ridiculous to think that they all cover different ground. Paul just uses different ways to explain the reconciliation we find in Christ. The issue of the time was whether the Gentiles are saved like the Jews or the Jews are saved like the Gentiles. Paul's conclusion is that the Jews are saved like the Gentiles through the righteousness of Christ. Justified through faith in God's grace. A gift of God's graciousness!

Some Jews insisted that the Gentiles had to come into Christ through the law as did the Jews. Paul traveled wide to fight this false gospel. He insisted that not only the Gentiles were saved outside of the law, but that the Jews are free from the law in Christ. What law? The whole law! We are saved by grace alone!

scott

I agree, Scott, but a point of clarification is that what Paul was preaching was nothing new, although it may have been new to many of his hearers. Indeed, Paul used David and Abraham as poster boys for his Gospel.

I agree whole heartedly Tom, but it is new to many. You can tell by some of the titles of the threads:

Can the law save us?

What kind of question is that for a New Testament Christian?

scott

Didn't Jesus summarize the law as love? Didn't Paul say that love fulfills the law?

I don't think the Gospel frees us from the law. I don't think anyone is saved outside the law. It is the carnal who are not constrained by love. The saved, OTOH, have been saved from..... un-loving-ness.

In short, we are saved in order to keep the law, not in spite of it.


Love conquers all, even being lost.

Actually the law is not summarized by love, but love is summarized by the law! The law can't possibly contain all that love is! God is love! The 10 Commandments are not the eternal law of love, but an expression of it within the context of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant Jesus is the expression of love in its fullness.

The law of love has existed for eternity, but the 10 Commandments have only been around since Sinai. Love will last forever, but the 10 Commandments are just a symbol of the true law. They are obsolete once the heart knows God through Jesus.

scott

Are the 10C an accurate expression of love? Or does being loving sometimes mean breaking one of the 10C?

Well, first the enmity is not synonymous with the carnal mind. The carnal mind is the cause of the enmity between human beings, and not the enmity itself. Besides, neither the carnal mind nor the enmity can be described as a “law of commandments contained in ordinances.”
Second, I can’t agree that the ten commandments were abolished. Romans 3:31 (besides many other passages) says unequivocally that they weren’t, the same verb is used in both texts, and the Bible does not contradict itself.
So, sorry Tom and Scott, but I can’t agree with the position of neither of you.

I can go for that. But since the law is the transcript of God's character, it can't be too incomplete.

Which hearkens back to the OP. Do you agree that the statutes and ordinanaces God gave to Moses were an expounding of the 10C? And do you agree that the basis for all that God commands, even at Sinai, is always love?


Does Jesus ever confict with the 10C? Did Jesus ever do anything that was condemned by the 10C?

Going further, what do you think is the "law" Paul "established" in Rom 3:31? Do you think he was talking of the 10C, or something else?


Does Jesus write anything on the heart that contradicts the law He wrote on stone?

Hi Arnold,

Maybe this will answer your questions. Does my hand belong to my body? Does the hand act for the body? Can you see my whole body when you see just my hand?

The law doesn't express fully the character of God. It is an expression, a transcript of God's character described in words, a single dimensional picture of God that deals with behavior. Jesus, in Matthew 5, explains righteousness much better than did the 10 Commandments and extends the law into our very thoughts and feelings. It is easy to look at the 10 Commandments and mistake their purpose, but to look at Jesus and believe what He said is hard to mistake.

The 10 Commandments clearly say that sin is the transgression of the law, but where in the 10 Commandments does it tell us that sin is anything not done in faith? How about anything good that we could have done, but neglected to do? Do you really think they are complete in themselves as a standard of righteousness? Maybe to govern a bunch of slaves, but never to guide God’s spiritual temple into unity!

Of course the 10 Commandments fit into the love that Christ taught, but don’t think for a minute that they incorporate all of what it means to “LOVE”!

scott

Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.


The law is descriptive of the carnal mind constantly reminding it that it is out of touch with God. It describes what sin is. It points out sin. Paul says that we wouldn’t know sin if not for the law.

The 10 Commandments play no roll at all in our salvation other than to lead us to the Savior. They are abolished once we come to Him. We are no longer under them. They are obsolete. They are a retired schoolmaster. They are nailed to the cross because once Christ was lifted up He is the one that draws men to God.

You seem to think that words have more power than context. Isn’t that the fundamental principle of “word inspiration”?

scott

Paul said:



Some translations













These all say the same thing. It is enmity against God.



Even Ellen White agrees. It must be true!

Here's something I wrote in a previous posts:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh (something). His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.


Here I put in "something" for the part being debated. What would make sense here if this were just a blank to be filled in, just by looking at the argument?

Again, returning to the point you made previously, the Jews had been perverting *both* the ceremonial law and the moral law, and it was this perversion of both that led to hostility. So how could Paul be suggesting that peace came about by abolishing one of these things? This doesn't make sense.

You are trying to make a grammatical argument which doesn't seem to fit the context or make logical sense. If the Jews were perverting *both* laws, and this was causing enmity, how could abolishing *one* of them fix anything? Also, isn't it clear that the real problem the Jews and Gentiles had was not knowing Christ, and that what they needed was Him? Paul says that in Christ we have peace. How would abolishing the ceremonial law given anyone peace, or lead anyone to Christ?

What about the many statements that the law can only condemn, it cannot forgive? If it were a complete transcript of God's character, that would mean that God can only condemn and not forgive.

No, I don't think so! I can easily not murder you, yet not love you. I could just be afraid of punishment. Is that keeping the law?



Maybe by the letter of the law, but never by the principle of the law. Can a person be loving and unloving at the same time? I suppose if we loved some and hated others we could protect the ones we love from the ones we don't love. I wonder who God doesn't love!

scott

I didn't say it was complete. Certainly Jesus manifested new light while He was here.

However, I still believe it is a transcript of God's character. And the Transcriber was pretty competent, IMO.

What do you think is the "law" Paul mentioned in Rom 3:31? If you see that as I do, I think you wouldn't consider the law so inadequate.

I was told once that "text without the context is just a pretext." To which I replied, "Context without the text is just a con."

Not quite. You seem to be talking about something else.

Let's start with the last one. Does Jesus write anything on the heart that contradicts the law He wrote on stone?

Or using your analogy, does the hand work against or for the body?

Arnold, I'm also still waiting for an explanation of Romans 3:31.

Scott and Tom,

What I said:


Ephesians mentions primarily the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. Of course behind the enmity between Jews and Gentiles there is the enmity between man and God – which is the carnal mind – but this is just implied in the text, not directly mentioned. Again, the enmity between human beings is not the carnal mind, but a manifestation of the carnal mind. When there is no genuine love for God, the result is that there is no love between human beings.


What makes sense is what the author said, not what you think he should have said. And no matter how you slice it, the carnal mind is not a “law of commandments contained in ordinances.”


You are trying to make a semantical argument which doesn’t fit the words Paul used.
The Jews were perverting both laws, but the main instrument of enmity between them and the gentiles was the ceremonial law. Just read Acts 10, Galatians 2:11-14, and all the passages related to the Judaizers. Now, the ceremonial law was abolished on the cross obviously for other reasons, and not to fix this problem. However, Paul showed that even that which had been used in the past to foster the enmity between Jews and Gentiles had now been removed.


No, it’s not keeping the law – and that’s the point. The law is an accurate expression of love, and nothing but love can fulfill it.
The second commandment says, “but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” The law itself says that love to God is necessary to fulfill His commandments - and it's impossible to love God without loving others.


How can someone love God and not have faith in Him?

Besides, as Luther says,

“Now this is the work of the First Commandment, which commands: ‘Thou shalt have no other gods,’ which means: ‘Since I alone am God, thou shalt place all thy confidence, trust and faith on Me alone, and on no one else.’ For that is not to have a god, if you call him God only with your lips, or worship him with the knees or bodily gestures; but if you trust Him with the heart, and look to Him for all good, grace and favor, whether in works or sufferings, in life or death, in joy or sorrow.”

Even pagans have faith in their gods. If you do not put your faith in God, you put it in yourself, in other people, in money, in your carreer, in anything, and that thing will be your god. Therefore, if you do not have faith in God, you are already transgressing the first commandment.


“Thou shalt not steal.”

As Luther says,

“For if your enemy needs you and you do not help him when you can, it is just the same as if you had stolen what belonged to him, for you owed it to him to help him. So says St. Ambrose, ‘Feed the hungry; if you do not feed him, you have, as far as you are concerned, slain him.’ And in this Commandment are included the works of mercy, which Christ will require at men's hands at the last day.”

You said, "It can't be too incomplete" which is implying the same thing.




How about if we say that the law is a transcription of God's character, fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as the revelation of Jesus Christ goes?



The law is not inadequate at all. It does what it was designed to do. However, it cannot do what Christ did.



Regarding Romans 3:31, my understanding is that this is speaking of the moral law, and that when a person comes to Christ, the law is written in the heart, making the believer to be in harmony with the law. Iow, faith in Christ makes one to be obedient to the law.

Did you make this up?

Here's Waggoner's comment:



I agree with Waggoner's points here. I think this is an excellent explanation of Rom. 3:31.

This isn't what Paul says:



We've got the original Greek, English, Portuguese, French, Spanish, and I'm sure many other translations could be added, all agreeing that the carnal mind is enmity against God. Paul gives the reason: it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

EGW:



Ellen White agrees.

Rosangela, I don't see any grounds for your assertion. What evidence do you have for it?

You didn't address the question. The expression used in Eph. 2:15 is used nowhere else in Scripture. How it should be interpreted is a matter of debate. There are many differnt opinions, by compitent scholars, as to how this expression should be interpreted. What I asked you to do was to consider what "something" should be according to the context, according to the argument Paul was making.

This is easy to do. Just leave the "something" blank, look at the argument, and make a determination as to what "something" should be. You didn't do this.

If you look at A. T. Jones' explanation, it agrees perfectly with
the context and with Paul's argument:

Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh to God by the blood of Christ. For he who is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us — that was between us — having abolished in his flesh the enmity. Thank the Lord. He hath " abolished the enmity" and we can be separated from the world.

" Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between "—whom? Between men and God, surely. How did he do it ? How did he break down the middle wall of partition between us and God?—By " abolishing the enmity." Good.

True, that enmity had worked a division and a separation between men on the earth, between circumcision and uncircumcision; between circumcision according to the flesh, and uncircumcision according to the flesh. It had manifested itself in their divisions, in building up another wall between Jews and entiles; that is true, but if the Jews had been joined to God, and had not been separated from him, would they have ever built up a wall between them and anybody else ? — No, certainly not, but in their separation from God; in their fleshly minds; in the enmity that was in their minds, and the blindness through unbelief, which put the veil upon their heart — all this separated them from God. And thm because of the laws and ceremonies which God had given them, they gave themselves credit for being the ' Lord's and for being so much better than other' people, that they built up a great separating wall and partition between themselves and other people. But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even ? — It lay in the enmity And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

All men were separated from God, and in their separation from God, they were separated from one another. True, Christ wants to bring all to one another; he was ushered into the world with " Peace on earth; good will to men." That is his object. But does he spend his time in trying to get these reconciled to one another, and in trying to destroy all these separations between men, and to get them to say, " Oh, well, let all bygones be bygones; now we will bury the hatchet; now we will start out and turn over a new leaf, and we will live better from this time on "

Christ might have done that. If lie had taken that course, there are thousands of people whom he could have persuaded to do that; thousands whom he could persuade to say, " Well, it is too bad that we acted that way toward one another ; it is not right,
and I am sorry for it; and now let us just all leave that behind, and turn over a new leaf, and go on and do better." He could have got people to agree to that. But could they have stuck to it f—No. For the wicked thing is there still that made ike division. What caused the division?—The enmity, their separation from God caused the separation from-one an- other. Then what in the world would have been the use of the Lord himself trying to get men to agree to put away their differences, without going to ' the root of the matter and getting rid of the enmity that caused the separation ? Their separation from God had forced a separation among themselves. And the only way to destroy their separation from one another, was of necessity to destroy their separation from God. And this he did by abolishing the enmity. And we ministers can get a lesson from this, when churches call us to try to settle difficulties. We have nothing at all to do with settling difficulties between men as such. We are to get the difficulty between God and man settled; and when that is done, all other separations will be ended.

It is true, the Jews in their separation from God had built up extra separations between themselves and the Gentiles. It is true that Christ wanted to put all those separations out of the way, and he did do that. .But the only way that he did it, and the only way that he could do it, was to destroy the thing that separated, between them and God. All the separations between them and the Gentiles would be gone, when the separation, the enmity, between them and God was gone.

Enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from him, the certain consequence was

" For he is our peace, who hath made both one.'Made both who one? — God and men, certainly. " And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,, . . . for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace." Let us look that over again. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (we are not studying that in this lesson) what did he abolish that enmity for ? What did he break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile ? — No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? —No. Out of one heathen and another heathen?— No.

God makes one new man out of GOD and A MAN.


This argument makes so much sense! It's easy to follow, and fits with Paul's theology.

The yoke of bondage is the yoke of sin, not the ceremonial law:



The problem both Jews and Gentiles faces was not the ceremonial law, which simply prefigures Christ's ministry, but sin! We need to be saved from sin.

How is it that aboloshing a figure of Christ's ministry could be helpful in establishing peace? How could a figure of Christ's ministry be called "enmity"? God Himself gave the ceremonial law. Would He give something which would be "enmity" against Himself?

This reminds me of the idea that God initiated the Old Covenant, which genders to bondage. God giving that which genders to bondage, that which is "enmity"? I don't think so.

I think God gives Christ, who delivers us from bondage and enmity.

No, I didn't; it actually happened. One-liners used to be my specialty. But as you can tell from my lengthy contributions, I have gotten over that.

Are you asking if I thought of the line myself? Yes, I did.

Yes, I meant by "did you make this up?" did you make up the one-liner. It's clever.

Tom, you don’t seem to have understood what I said. The carnal mind is enmity against God. The enmity among human beings is a result of this, a result of the carnal mind, of the lack of harmony with God.


I see things in a way a little different from the way Jones sees them, but this doesn’t matter. What really matters is exactly what Jones omitted in this study – “the next clause,” which is precisely “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” He said, “We are not studying that in this lesson,” which implies it is something distinct from the subject that is being analyzed (the enmity), otherwise the clause would have been included in the study. If you do find what he has to say about this clause, you may be surprised.


This is Waggoner’s opinion. My opinion agrees with that of Ellen White, which is that the Jews made both the moral law and the ceremonial law a yoke of bondage. But the expression is not found either in Ephesians or in Colossians, so it is unrelated to the subject in question.


Who said they are synonyms? Again,



They don’t even need to be appositional to one another. The verse can be translated in three different ways.

I've found it! Jones believed that "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" was not only the ceremonial law, but all forms of ceremonialism:



http://www.temcat.com/Remnant-Resource/1895_sermon.htm

or

http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteou...rence-sermon-25

It's interesting that he said,


Hmmm... Jones' opinions were sometimes different from those of Waggoner. Very interesting.

I understood what you said. You seem not to have said what you meant! You said:



You said the carnal mind is not the enmity itself. But now you say:



I agree with this. In fact, this is what I've been saying all along.



This seems unlikely. Jones said what the enmity is, the carnal mind, and how it was abolished. This is the whole point of Paul's argument. How could you fit something else in which would change the whole argument in a 4 word phrase or so?



It's not Ellen White's opinion that sin is a yoke of bondage?

I don't understand how you think Ellen White could endorse Waggoner as she did yet disagree with him and fundamental points like this.



This is precisely Waggoner's argument.



The ceremonial law is a figure of Christ's ministry, right? You claim the ceremonial law is enmity, didn't you? I was asking how a figure of Christ's ministry could be enmity. However, here you seem to be agreeing with the point I've been making, that it is the carnal mind which is enmity against God, so perhaps I misunderstood you.

Let's consider the general argument. I'm suggesting it is what Jones suggested, and you yourself expressed in part in this last post:



Given the carnal mind is the cause of enmity, and in Christ we have peace, doesn't it make sense that Christ aboloshes the enmity by aboloshing the carnal mind?

You have pointed out that the Jews perverted both the ceremonial and moral law, which point I have agree with. But then you argue that peace was made between the Jews and Gentiles by aboloshing one of these perverted laws. How would that help anything? As you correctly pointed out, it is the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which causes enmity between man, not the ceremonial law. So what scratch were it doesn't itch?

The perversion of the law was the problem, not the law. So God fixed the root of the problem, and offers to all a way out of continuing in such perversions.

I agree with Jones. I think this is exactly the point. It is the perversion of the law you referred to earlier, which you pointed out applies to either the ceremonial law or the moral law. This "ceremonialism" includes both laws. This ceremonialism was abolished by Christ's flesh.

What I’m saying now is what I’ve been saying all along. The carnal mind is the enmity against God, not the enmity between human beings. The latter is a result of the carnal mind. (Therefore, carnal mind cannot be equated with enmity. Enmity can be used for both the relationship with God and with men, while carnal mind can only be used for the relationship with God.)


I was aware that Ellen White sometimes refers to sin as a yoke of bondage, but not in the context we are discussing. That’s why I said in my post #101709:




I said the perversion of the ceremonial law was the excuse for the enmity between Jews and gentiles. I've never said the ceremonial law is enmity.


I’m precisely trying to show that the ceremonial law is not the enmity. I’ve quoted the Greek article many times to show that the three words – wall, enmity and law – are related but not synonyms. The law was the excuse for the enmity between Jews and gentiles and, consequently, for the wall that was erected. I’ve said the words need not be appositional (which is expressed by the word “namely”) – which means the verse doesn’t need to be translated ". . . having destroyed the middle wall of partition, having in his flesh abolished the enmity, namely the law of commandments in decrees. . ."
It can be translated in one of the following ways:

". . .having destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the enmity; in his flesh having abolished the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

or

". . .having in his flesh destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the enmity; having abolished the law of commandments in decrees. . ."


Of course I knew you wouldn't disagree with him.


So what is, to you, “the law of commandments contained in ordinances”?

See next post.

Ok, I figured out what you meant to say. When you said:



What you meant to say was:



This is basically saying what I said in post# 101398:



Shortly after, in #101440, I commented:



It appears to me you are now saying the same thing. You claim to have been saying this all along, but as I've gone back to read the posts, I haven't found you saying this. I've found myself saying this all along, but not you. I can't even find you agreeing with me saying it, let alone saying it yourself.

I don't understand why:

1.You seem to think you understand things much more clearly than Waggoner. I've not even once seen you learn anything from Waggoner. This is too bad. According to Ellen White, he could teach righteousness by faith better than she could, yet you seem not to think he could even teach it as well as you.

2.You say Ellen White, as always, saw this clearly, the implication being that poor Waggoner, again, was confused. Yet she claimed that he could teach righteousness by faith better than her, and said that she would be as a little child, to learn all that she could from him!

3.Ellen White never claimed to be infallible or to have perfect understanding of everything. The way you use her gives the impression that you believe this to be the case.

4.Yet when it comes to Jones and Waggoner, you seem to give little, or no, weight to what she says. Why is her judgment so good only when she is commenting on some text of Scripture, but not when she is commenting on the light and positions which other individuals have?

Going on.

Why are you brining up Gal. 5:1? Here's what Waggoner says about Gal. 5:1

The connection between the fourth and fifth chapters of Galatians is closer than between any other two, so much so that it is difficult to see how anybody could ever have hit upon the idea of making a chapter division. One can not possibly close his reading of the fourth chapter with the thirty-first verse, but must take in the first verse of the fifth chapter, as we have done. But we have not by any means learned all from that verse that we may, and we therefore dwell upon it longer.

The Freedom That Christ Gives.

When Christ was manifest in the flesh, His work was to proclaim "deliverance to the captives," and "to set at liberty them that are bruised." The miracles that He performed were practical illustrations of this work, and one of the most striking may well be considered at this stage of our study.

"And He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in nowise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And He laid His hands on her; and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God." Luke 13:10-13.

Then when the hypocritical ruler of the synagogue complained because Jesus did this miracle on the Sabbath, He referred to how each one would loose his ox or ass from the stall, and lead him to water, and then said:--

"And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?"

Two features in this case are worthy of special note: The woman was bound by Satan, and she had a spirit of infirmity, or absence of strength.

Now note how accurately this describes our condition before we meet Christ.

1. We are bound by Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." "Every one that committeth sin is the bond-servant of sin" (John 8:34), and "he that committeth sin is of the devil" (1Joh.3:8). "His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." Prov.5:22. Sin is the cord with which Satan binds us.

2. We have a spirit of infirmity, and can in nowise lift ourselves up, or free ourselves from the chains that bind us. It was when we were "without strength" that Christ died for us. Rom.5:6. Now these two words, "without strength," are translated from the very same word that is rendered "infirmity" in the account of the woman whom Jesus healed. She was "without strength." To be without strength means to have no strength at all. That is our condition.

What Jesus Does for Us.

What now does Jesus do for us?--He takes the weakness, and gives us in return His strength. "We have not an High Priest which can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities." Heb.4:15. "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." Matt.8:17. He becomes all that we are, in order that we may become all that He is. He was "born under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." He hath delivered us from the curse, being made a curse for us, that the blessing might come to us. Although He knew no sin, He was made to be sin for us, "that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2Cor.5:21.

Why He Does It.

Why did Jesus make that woman free from her infirmity?--In order that she might walk at liberty. Certainly it was not in order that she might continue of her own free will to do that which before she was obliged to do. And why does He make us free from sin?--In order that we may live free from sin. On account of the weakness of our flesh, we are unable to do the righteousness of the law; therefore Christ, who is come in the flesh, and who has power over all flesh, strengthens us with might by His Spirit in the inner man, that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. We can not tell how He does it; He alone knows how it is done, because He alone has the power; but we may know the reality of it.

Present Freedom.

Pay special attention to the words of Jesus to the woman, uttered while she was yet bound down, and unable to lift herself up: "Thou art loosed from thine infirmity." "Thou art loosed," present tense. That is just what He says to us. To every captive He has proclaimed deliverance. The woman "could in nowise lift up herself;" yet at the word of Christ she at once stood erect. She could not do it, yet she did. The things that are impossible for men are possible for God. "The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down." Ps.145:14. Faith does not make facts; it only lays hold of them. There is not a single soul that is bowed down with the weight of sin which Satan hath bound on him, whom Christ does not lift up. Freedom is his; he has only to make use of it. Let the message be sounded far and wide. Let every soul hear it, that Christ has given deliverance to every captive. Thousands will rejoice at the news.

*I* said the carnal law was enmity against God. Over and over I said this. I first made the point on 8/7, over 2 weeks ago, and over a dozen times in posts since then, in virtually every post, seeking to establish this point.

If you had said "I agree with this," then we could talk about the things that were in disagreement, and the conversation would have been much easier. It seemed to me you were disagreeing with this point, which is why I presented so much evidence that this was the case. I cited source after source, multiple translations, presented many arguments, all for the sake of convincing you of something you apparently agreed with all along.

Well, it's not a waste of time, because it's a learning experience, but it's a bit confusing and frustrating! If you would be more forthcoming when you agree with points being made, that would be helpful.

You claim to have been saying all along that the carnal mind is enmity against God, but I reread every post on this thread, and the first time I saw you state this was in post #101803, which was yesterday, something like your 25th post on this thread. It's possible I missed something somewhere, and if that's the point I apologize, but again, if you had simply said somewhere along the line "I agree," that would have made things easier.




I disagreed with the quote you presented from Waggoner.

I agreed with Jones because what he said made sense. Do you agree with what he said?

Actually your sharing what you dug up regarding what Jones said regarding ceremonialism is for me the high point of this thread. Thank you for finding this! I really like the way he used the word "ceremonialism" and this point that he made:



This is a wonderful comment. I think this captures Paul's point, and puts it in language which is easily understood. Also in a way which is applicable to us today.



Ceremonialism. Of course Paul had in mind how the Jews were using the ceremonial law, but I agree with what Jones said, that Paul was concerned with the larger issue of ceremonialism.

Tom,

You are right that it’s generally difficult for me to express my views clearly at the beginning of a discussion; I’m generally able to do it better at the end of the discussion. What I’m disagreeing with all the way along is your idea that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is a parenthetical comment about the enmity (see your post #101518). IOW, what I’m disagreeing with is that the “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is the enmity. To me, the verse is speaking of two distinct things – the enmity and the law of commandments contained in ordinances.

Your position:
The cross abolished the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances (that you interpret as ceremonialism).

My position:
The cross 1) destroyed the enmity and 2) abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances (that I interpret as the ceremonial law).

That’s why I’ve been quoting the Greek article so many times. I’m opting for this translation of the verse: “. . .having destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the enmity; in his flesh having abolished the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

Although they are distinct, the ceremonial law is related to the enmity in that it was used as an excuse for the enmity against the gentiles.

The advantages of this position, in my opinion, are: 1) the ceremonial law is a law – ceremonialism is not a law. 2) the ceremonial law is a handwritten document (Col. 2:14) – ceremonialism cannot be described as such.


Well, my concept of inspiration is simply that when a prophet expresses a view about a point of doctrine, that view is correct.


Because it is the only verse which contains the expression "yoke of bondage."

Interesting. You are defending Waggoner, but while he says that the yoke of bondage is sin, Jones says what I have been saying, that is, that their religion was a yoke of bondage, meaning their laws were a yoke of bondage. Anyway, as I said, this is unrelated to the subject we are discussing, because this expression is found neither in Ephesians nor in Colossians.

Why? Has any prophet every expressed this idea? Specifically, did Ellen White ever say, "When I express a view about a point of doctrine, that view is correct"?

What about views on things which aren't points of doctrine?



I'm sure Jones says the same thing regarding "yoke of bondage" as Waggoner. See if you can find something he wrote on Gal. 5:1, and I'm sure it's the same.

Regarding Jones saying the same thing you are saying, Jones is saying what I said, it looks to me, that ceremonialism is the issue being spoken of in Col. 2:14. Otherwise, how could he make the application to SDA's?

Also, I presented Jones entire argument. He explained what the enmity was, how it caused division, and how peace was acheived. How is his argument any different than what I've been saying? How is it like what you are saying as opposed to what I've been saying?

How would the ceremonial law being aboloshed fit with Jones' argument?



How could it be unrelated? It's the same subject. The same issue is being dealt with in Ephesisans and Colossians and Galatians. It was the issue of the times. What to do with the Gentiles.

The Jews had made a mess of their religion because of their ceremonialism, a result of their carnal mind. The solution was for them, and Gentiles, to come to Christ, who abolished the enmity, the hostility, the carnal mind, in His flesh. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile; in Him they find peace. Paul says this in Galatians, and he says it in Ephesians. The end of Colossians 2 through the beginning of Colossians 3 looks a lot like the end of Gal. 4 to the beginning of Gal. 5.



This is speaking of ceremonialism, to use Jones' word.



The answer to ceremonialism? Christ.

This is how we believe inspiration worked in the Bible:



If this is how inspiration worked in the Bible, we should expect inspiration to work in the same way in post-canonical inspired writings, otherwise I don't think they can be called inspired.

http://www.eternalgospelherald.com/SIG.pdf

I consider pdf a very tiresome format to read, so I haven't read it all. However, Jones evidently refers to the "yoke of bondage" as being the laws (moral and ceremonial) as they were perverted by the Jews. He even quotes the EGW passage which says, "Their religion was a yoke of bondage." He uses these very same words at the beginning of the sermon to which I provided the link previously. In my opinion, this is very different from Waggoner's view which says that the yoke of bondage is "sin."


Please read again what I said. I was speaking very specifically about the "yoke of bondage," which I have been saying repeatedly that it is both the moral and the ceremonial laws as perverted by the Jews. I don't know how this can be equated with "sin," which is Waggoner's position that you have been defending.

Waggoner pointed out that Gal. 5:1 should not be divorced from the end of Gal. 4. In Gal. 4 Waggoner pointed out that the Old Covenant leads to bondage, and spoke of how that worked. In explaining this, he was saying the same thing Jones was saying in what you referenced. The same issues, the same ideas, the same solutions were being discussed by both. If either were present at a sermon of the other, they would said "Amen!." They were preaching the same Gospel.



You don't see how the perversion of the moral law and ceremonial law could be sin? That seems self-evident. How could it not be sin?

We do? On whose authority?



Ok, on the authority of wiki. How about Scripture? Or the Spirit of Prophecy? Here are the questions I asked you:



Has any prophet suggested the approach you are taking?

Here's something I don't understand. If Ellen White says that Waggoner can teach righteousness by faith better than she can, and that she would learn all that she can from him, why wouldn't you think that Waggoner should be, if not preferred, at least not equal to her writings insofar as righteousness by faith is concerned? She said he was given a specific gift for this purpose.

Also I simply can't imagine Ellen White saying, "If I express a point of view on an issue of doctrine, that point of view is correct." This sounds like papal infallibility.

Not on the authority of Wiki. Wiki is merely expressing the view of a large segment of Christianity. And we hold this belief in common with other Christians. This is the Fundamental Belief #1:



If the Bible is not the infallible revelation of God in terms of doctrine, in terms of what is it infallible?



John 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)"

"In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision - the precious rays of light shining from the throne" (5T 67).

Can the precious rays of light shining from the throne be trusted?

What you are saying is that the perversion of the moral law and the ceremonial law (self-righteousness) is all that is comprised by the word sin, for "sin" was used by Waggoner in the absolute (not qualified) meaning of the term.

Fundamental beliefs #1 is simply quoting from Ellen White, which is fine. But fundamental beliefs #1 is not addressing what I asked.

The other quote doesn't either.

Here's something from the J&W days



I agree completely that Ellen White did not express "merely her own ideas." I have no doubt that God communicated truths to her in visions and dreams. However, how does that equate to "If I express an opinion on a point of doctrine, that opinion must be correct."

I don't see her ever saying that.

Also, how does this differ from the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility?

Also, why limit her to opinions regarding points of doctrine? Her testimonies cover a great deal more than simply points of doctrine. (e.g., they refer to those whom God used to bring us light on righteousness by faith)





I'm with her. (I'm sure you are too; You've written some nice posts expressing the same sentiment).

Anyway, back to Col. 2, she used this text to make an argument regarding the ceremonial law being done away with at the cross. Everyone agrees that this happened, and no one here is arguing that the moral law was done away with (in the sense of not needing to keep it; Scott has argued that it's been superseded in terms of a revelation of God's will or character by Christ).

I see that Ellen White used Paul's words to make an argument, not that she was offering an exegesis of the passage in question.

Sorry to make this a long post, but let's try focusing on something we agree on, and see if we can end this post on a positive note. Do we both agree with A. T. Jone's explanation of Eph. 2?

The new covenant, which was way easier to implement and practice, should have been sufficient; but the Jews were ignorant, forgetful, self-serving, and sinned hardened. Thus, God was forced to initiate the old covenant in order to help them understand and appreciate the new covenant. Many of the requirements under the OC were burdensome, but necessary. They were specifically designed to prevent the Jews from forgetting the truth or from twisting it to serve sin. "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Sister White describes it below:

PP 310
The minds of the people, blinded and debased by slavery and heathenism, were not prepared to appreciate fully the far-reaching principles of God's ten precepts. That the obligations of the Decalogue might be more fully understood and enforced, additional precepts were given, illustrating and applying the principles of the Ten Commandments. These laws were called judgments, both because they were framed in infinite wisdom and equity and because the magistrates were to give judgment according to them. Unlike the Ten Commandments, they were delivered privately to Moses, who was to communicate them to the people. {PP 310.1}

PP 371 372
Another compact--called in Scripture the "old" covenant--was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice.... {PP 371.1}

But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic covenant.... {PP 371.2}

.... They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant [the OC] which they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new covenant. {PP 371.4}

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Ezekiel 20:11; Leviticus 18:5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them." Deuteronomy 27:26. The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises" -- the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law. "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more." Jeremiah 31:33, 34. {PP 372.1}

I think Tom's point in his last post is right on! The opposition to J&W at the 1888 GC was that they were taking the popular position that the law was done away with therefore we no longer need to keep it!

That is not what they ever taught, but a ploy of God's enemies to shroud the truth they were attempting to teach in darkness to get people to reject it. Guilt by association! (Nor is it what I or Tom have ever suggested, but that is what keeps coming up over and over. Build a straw man and tear him down!)

What they taught is that any system that teaches that we can do anything to secure our salvation is a false system and that includes law keeping. It is, in fact, the system of the anti-Christ.

It seems to me that there are those, still today, using these same tactics whenever this subject comes up. Associate my words to the evangelicals "cheap grace" and get readers to throw the baby out with the bath water. The bottom line is that the NT teaches that the 10 Commandments and all the laws associated with it were part of a system of worship that was intended to show us sin and then demonstrate salvation through types and shadows. Once Christ came that system became obsolete and, as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, is became unemployed, gone, fired, dismissed, ready to pass away, nailed to the cross, however you want to say it.

We are not saved nor kept righteous by any law. We are saved and kept righteous by faith in the love of God that Jesus revealed. That glorious truth about His Father, so well displayed in Jesus' life and death, makes other attempts to reveal His character, through past laws and ceremonies, pale in comparison.

Everyone here would agree that we are not saved by Sabbath keeping, but name me one person who can keep the Sabbath without being saved by faith in Jesus! So what saved us? The commandments? No! Never! But a revelation of God's love that we find in the Savior is the power of God to salvation. We call it "The Gospel".

So you guys can keep talking about the law until you wear out the saints, but remember that the law is powerless to save anyone. The best it can do is leading us to Christ for salvation. Eventually everyone who is saved comes to know God through Jesus because knowing God is eternal life and that life is in the Son.

I'm going to talk about Jesus!

scott

Actually your view goes much farther than that. I hear you suggesting that once inspiration has expressed a view it is the end of discussion, the fullness of truth with nothing more to learn.

Paul presents truth like looking in a prism where we catch a glimpse of one color, but there are millions yet to see in order to have a full picture. He calls it “the manifold wisdom of God”, the many folds or parts of a whole. He even presents the prophets as seeing only partial truths that were never understood until Christ came.

To apply what Paul is saying would mean that once something was revealed though inspiration it would be the beginning of the discussion rather than the end. This new beam of light would change our perspective of all other revealed truths as it lit them with its glory, but soon to be understood even better as another beam is added.

scott

I was trying to think of a way of expressing this same thought, but couldn't think of anything, so kept silent. But this is expressing how I see things as well. It seems to me that thinking of a prophet as communicating things as merely, or principally, "right" or "wrong" is thinking in a wrong paradigm. It would be like calling the colors of the prism "right" or "wrong."

God truly communicated to the prophets, whether Ellen White or others, and they faithfully communicated what they received from God. However how they perceived what was communicated, and how they communicated it, is influenced by their culture, their language, their understanding and experience. They were dealing with the truth of God, which is infinite. What we can expect, to use Scott's metaphor, is some insight regarding the prism.

Ellen White is careful to bring out that neither the words of God nor the logic of God is given to us in Scripture.



It's interesting that she would use this expression, in her last sentence, because God has put Himself on trial in the Bible. Not in words, logic, or rhetoric, but in Christ.

While I'm veering away from the current discussion, this quote addresses the original topic nicely. I'd like to use this to guage where everyone is.


Does everyone here agree with this quote?

I interpret it to mean that the types which pointed to Christ's sacrifice were done away with at His death, but the precepts of the 10C are unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, they were not abolished. Does everyone agree with my interpretation?

Going further, this does not say what should be done with types that pointed to things other than Christ's sacrifice. So for those, I would say that they were not done away by Christ's death. WDYT?

Are you saying that the judgments and statutes were part of the OC?

Pretty much, but I would add that the principles of the types were also not done away with, just the ceremonies.



I see no distinction. That is, I don't think we need to keep any of the ceremonial law, including the things pointing to other aspects of Christ's ministry besides His death. For example, I don't think there was any need for Christians to keep the Day of Atonement until 10/22/1844.

I'm wondering where this idea comes from. David said:



I think Waggoner makes a good point.

I guess I should add that I assume that by this:



what you really mean is the Ceremonial law. I'm guessing this because you said, "which God initiated." If you're talking about the true OC, which God did not initiate but man, then this truly was a burden, not just "many of the requirements" but from beginning to end.



The OC holds in bondage all who are in it, whether in the past or today.

Actually I agree with the quote in context, but not the way you see it. She is talking about the principles of the 10C, not the 10C themselves. Notice what she is talking about in context:



Notice how the 10C are an expression of the thought of God. They are not the actual thought of God nor are they the revelation of God’s character in its fullness. They are an expression that, “when received in Christ” it lifts us above the power of natural desires and tendencies, above temptations that lead to sin. The 10C never had that power and in fact the only credit they are given is to point out sin and cause us to see our need of a Savior.

Notice what she says next:

When the law was proclaimed from Sinai, God made known to men the holiness of His character, that by contrast they might see the sinfulness of their own. The law was given to convict them of sin, and reveal their need of a Saviour. It would do this as its principles were applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit. This work it is still to do. In the life of Christ the principles of the law are made plain; and as the Holy Spirit of God touches the heart, as the light of Christ reveals to men their need of His cleansing blood and His justifying righteousness, the law is still an agent in bringing us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7. The Desire of Ages (1898), page 308, paragraph 2

The law proclaimed from Sinai causes us to see our own sinfulness, but it is the principles of the law applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit (the new covenant) is work still to be accomplished. In the life of Christ the principles are made plain!!!!

I find it interesting how you pick out a sentence in this truth feast and make a point that she isn’t even making!

She is not in any way promoting the 10 Commandments, but the principles they project when understood in Christ through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. In other words it is Jesus’ life that give the 10C meaning. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us what it means to love God and our fellow men through the life of Christ.

The principles behind the 10C are “unchanged and unchangeable.” God never changes, but the glory of the law expressed on stone is dim compared to the glory of God expressed in Jesus. In fact it is a shadow that passes away when the Son comes out.

scott

How are these different?

Hi Arnold,

They are as different as night and day depending on whay you mean. When you say "the precepts of the Decalogue are unchanged and unchangeable" do you mean that the 10C are unchanged and unchangeable or that the principles that they represent are unchanged and unchangeable?

The bible presents the 10C as being a temporary expression that is designed to lead us to Christ who is the fullest expression of God, but because of the Sabbath many SDAs have presented the 10C as being eternal rather than the principles they express. And they are willing to twist the scriptures to preserve them. This is what is dangerous. We would do much better to figure out what the NT writers are saying than to twist their words into what we want them to say to substantiate our theology.

If you can't see the difference you need to look at the issues leading up to 1888 between Butler and J&W. The issue that caused the GC (most of it anyway) to reject their message was the law in Galatians. Butler was so intent on keeping the 10C intact that he wasn't willing to allow their shadowy expression of the law to be swallowed up by Christ's full and perfect expression. The 10C have become an obstacle to seeing Christ and accepting the fullness of His message. They must decrease and Christ must increase.

scott

Scott,
First, I hope you are not speaking about me, because I’ve not made any comments about you/the view you hold, except that I completely disagree with you/it.
Second, in my opinion it’s you who are throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s impossible to know the spirit of the law without its letter. “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Rom. 7:7). You cannot say that “once Christ came” the law “became unemployed, gone, fired, dismissed, ready to pass away, nailed to the cross,” and at the same time say that the law is a standard still valid to give men the knowledge of sin. How can something be defined by an obsolete, dismissed, abolished parameter?


This has always been true. It was already true at Sinai and during the whole Jewish dispensation. So what has changed with Christ’s death in this respect? Absolutely nothing.


Then you hear me wrong.
The truth we human beings can know is within the range of what was revealed, and what was revealed was revealed through the prophets. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut. 29:29). No single prophet has all the truth, but what any true prophet conveys is truth. A true prophet cannot convey a falsehood.
We can advance in the understanding of truth, but only God can reveal the truth, and He does it through His prophets.

When EGW said "precepts of the Decalogue" and I said "precepts of the 10C" (typing laziness at its finest), did you think "precepts" meant "words"? IOW, did you think we were saying the words of the 10C were unchangeable, and therefore you had to straighten us out by saying that it is the principles that are unchangeable? If so, then you would be very opposed to what EGW was saying, or more precisely, what you thought she was saying, right?

I think if you read the part of my statement that you didn't quote I answered your question. The 10C led us to Christ, but now we hold up Christ and the 10C fall by the way (for believers only). This is necessary to see God's grace and accept His righteousness. In my mind you have been promoting the 10C and unwilling to let them go. Is this not what you believe? You seem to equate "the Law" with "the 10 Commandments". I equate "the Law" with "the character of Christ". (even though I use the word law in talking about the 10Cs at times)

scott

If that's the case, then it seems to me that you believe precepts = words. You are mistaken. Precepts = principles.

When someone says that the "precepts of the Decalogue" are immutable, that's talking about the principles, not the words. To say that precepts and principles are "as different as night and day" shows a serious misunderstanding.

Why? Is there a contradiction between the two? Wasn't it Jesus who wrote the 10C in the first place?

Why is that in your mind? Did I say that?


WDYM? Do I believe that the 10C should not be thrown away? I believe that. I believe it's still good to not have other gods; abstain from idolatry; hallow God's name; rest in His providence; honor our parents; keep from murder, adultery, theft, falsehood, and covetousness. No, I don't want to let this code of conduct go. Beyond conduct, it is a description of what a "new creature" is on the inside; that's an even more important reason to keep the mirror around.


Why does it seem that way to you? Is that how I explained Rom 3:31? BTW, I'm still waiting for your comments on what "the law" was that Paul established in Rom 3:31.


Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was. He said, "Love God, love man; on these hang the law and the prophets." The fundamental principle upon which the law and the prophets is founded is love. Love, which Jesus defined and ever manifested in His life, is the root from which the law and the prophets grew.

That's why I reject the teaching that there is a dichotomy between law and love. A proper understanding of both clearly shows that one is the root and the other is the fruit. Paul could say that love fulfills the law because rather than seeing a contradiction, he saw underlying connection between the two.

It is instructive to note that Jesus did not say, "Love God, love man; forget the law and the prophets."

Hi Arnold,

All three of your last posts make my point very well. Whether or not “precepts” means principles many read it as meaning “words”. You make your argue that you never said precepts mean “words”, but then you make your point that the 10C are the precepts. All your posts tell me is that you aren’t hearing a word I’m saying.

You believe the 10C are still the standard of righteousness! That's what I keep hearing you say. They are only the standard of righteousness for unconverted men, men under the Old Covenant who are trying to earn their way to heaven. The OC tell these men that they can never do it and that they need a Savior.

For the believer, the life of Christ is our standard of righteousness and we are told that the law (Old Covenant including the 10Cs) has done its job, finished its work, and accomplished what God intended it to do by leading us to a knowledge of sin and the need of a Savior. Now it is time to embrace the Savior and let the law retire.

It’s like riding an old covered wagon 3000 miles to get on a space shuttle and then insisting that the wagon will fly you through the cosmos. The 10C is not capable of bringing us into the relationship with God by simply pointing out our sin. All they have the power to do is lead us to repentance. The new life in Christ is what we need to be overcomers. We need the love of God manifest in Jesus and, by the way, there is nothing in the 10C that Jesus didn’t cover! His life if fully adequate to get us to heaven had we never heard the 10C.

scott

As I pointed out in my previous post, it’s impossible to know the spirit of the law without its letter, or to keep the spirit and not keep the letter.

“Christ would here have us understand that our righteousness must include, not only the observance of the letter of the law, but also the spirit and principle of it. The letter of the law specifies how we must walk in order to please God; the spirit of the law points to Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice, through whose merits the sinner can fulfill the requirements of the law. ... There is therefore perfect harmony between the law and the gospel.” {ST, July 18, 1878 par. 22}


“But the law of God must be considered first of all, and obeyed in spirit and in letter. Jesus, our great exemplar, in His life and death, taught the strictest obedience. He died, the just for the unjust, the innocent for the guilty, that the honor of God's law might be preserved and yet man not utterly perish.” {TDG 162.4}


“That which they [the ceremonial precepts] shadowed forth had come to pass, and those who were living under the gospel dispensation had been freed from their observance. God's unchangeable law of Ten Commandments, however, Paul still kept in spirit as well as in letter.” {AA 190.1}

Yes. The OC was given to teach the Jews how to obey the NC. But it included aspects that were burdensome. These aspects were necessary to help keep the sin-hardened Jews on track. These aspects were nailed to the cross.

Then that would be error on the part of those who are reading, not the one writing.


The words are not the precepts. However, God wrote the words, and He knows the precepts very well and is well able to express Himself accurately.


I hear what you're saying. But I don't think your claims are accurate. You keep saying that you agree with EGW, but you don't, as Rosangela clearly pointed out.

If you don't agree with her, just say so. Then we know where we stand. The last antinomian I had long discussions with also taught that the 10C were abolished, and he knew and admitted that he was not in harmony with EGW on that point. We had many fruitful discussions, though we disagreed, because we knew where each other stood, and went from there.


No, you have it backwards. I believe righteousness fulfills the 10C.


And if one is living in Christ, does he ever act or think or feel in ways contrary to the 10C? IOW, does Jesus ever lead one to contradict what He wrote on the stone?

I say Jesus does not. What do you say?

But if the statutes and judgments were founded on the same principle of love as the and 10C and the NC, why would they be nailed to the cross? The only reason I could think of is if they were a types, and the antitype had already come. Is that what you're saying, that they were types?

What is Scott saying? What claims to you think are not accurate?



Pointed out where? In reference to what?



You just said Scott keeps saying he agrees with Ellen White. Why would you ask him to say something he doesn't believe?



If Scott were to do what you suggest, to say something he doesn't believe, it seems to me we would be further from knowing where we stand.



I think I'd have to agree with Scott that you have been hearing what he's been saying if you think he's an antinomian. Actually it's rather ironic, as Scott is one of the few people I know who is consistent in applying the law as a standard which accurately describes God's character, as well as principles by which we should live by at all times.

It seems to me that Ellen dissagrees with Paul. Look what Paul calls the 10C in the next verse:



scott

What does agreeing with Ellen have to do with my position? Must I agree with her to be right? Is Ellen the beginning and end of truth? I must admit that I agree with her much more than I disagree!

But . . . if Ellen claims that the 10Cs are still in charge of the converted man rather than the life of Christ then I certainly don't agree with her! And neither does the NT. Didn’t she tell us that if she ever disagreed with the Bible to “take the Bible”?

By the way . . . the last whited sepulchre I talked with also believed it their duty to keep the 10C and that their standing with God depended on it.

scott

P.S. By the way; an antinomian concludes that because we are no longer under the law it is ok to break it. I believe that the law (10Cs) , as a standard of righteousness, can't empower us to obey by pointing out our sin, but the gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation. You might want to rethink trying to pin cheap grace on me. Cheap grace is the baby of penal atonement. It teaches that Jesus took all of our sins upon Himself and acquitted us and declared us righteous therefore we can do what we want because we are saved. The 1888 message teaches that Jesus doesn’t hold our sins against us, because of His character of unconditional love, and longs to free us from the bondage of sin. The good news that Jesus taught empowers us with the greatest weapon to overcome evil available to man . . . Knowing God!

I don't believe that I've ever said this about this subject. I don't know how you can say that I "keep saying" I agree with EGW. I agree with her on most subjects, but if she veers from the Bible I'll take the Bible every time. She told me too and I respect that!

Is there anything you disagree with Ellen about?

If not you might want to consider cult rehabilitation!

scott

The very next sentence from where you stopped your quote.


In post# 102082, in reference to the dichotomy between the spirit and letter of the law.


I'm asking him to be transparent. He says he agrees with EGW, then goes on to contradict her.

Read post# 102127 and 102132. He doesn't agree with EGW.


In post# 102076, he said to me, "You believe the 10C are still the standard of righteousness! That's what I keep hearing you say." He didn't say it as a point he believed.

God's character = righteousness. That is definitive. Yet, Scott does not believe the law is the standard of righteousness.

Tom, read his last couple of posts. I think you are not hearing him.

By Arnold: Read post# 102127 and 102132. He (scott) doesn't agree with EGW.


Post 102127:


I find it interesting that Rosangela quotes Ellen and I quote Paul (in the Bible) where he totally disagrees with Ellen and you find fault with me rather than Rosangela (Ellen over the Bible).

You must have given up on trying to substantiate your position from the Bible since you are now name calling and diverting the subject to my view of inspiration. Our discussion would be much better if we stuck to the context of scripture.

I can’t remember how it works. Is the prophetic office determined by the prophet’s submission to the scriptures or does the prophet have the authority of latter day revelation without the support of the scriptures?

scott

Scott,

It's easy for you to accuse me of something untrue, but impossible for you to prove what you are saying. I also could accuse you of a lot of things, but I never did that. Now, I had quoten the Bible to substantiate my view in my previous post, so there was no need to quote it again:



And it's clear that Ellen does not disagree with Paul and neither do I. Obviously Paul is speaking of trying to keep the letter without the spirit of the law, that is, the law without the gospel, which, of course, can only mean condemnation and death, for sinners cannot obey a holy law perfectly.


There is no middle term here. If Ellen contradicts the Scriptures, she is not a prophet at all, but a liar, once she claims to receive messages from God. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).

According to this definition several prophets that wrote the Bible would be disqualified. David received messages from God but spoke many things that were pretty dark (not to mention lying and murder).

Do you suppose that if Ellen had an affair and murdered her lover's spouse you would accept her testimony?

How about Jonah? His message was that Nineveh was going to be destroyed. He never preached repentance or even the possibility of forgiveness and a change in their death sentence. What he said didn't come true. He was so disappointed that He wanted to die.

And then there is Peter who sided with the Jews against the Gentiles after He had been inspired to write his part of scripture.

And let's not forget Moses who struck the rock when told to speak to it, Abraham who told lies about his wife to save his own skin, and Noah who got drunk and passed out naked. Must I even mention Solomon?

Had Ellen done any of these would you endorse her or call her a false prophet?
Have you ever considered that you might have a different standard for a prophet than God does?

scott

Scott,

No prophet is infallible in his personal life, but when he/she is conveying a spiritual message from God, that message must be free from errors, otherwise the recipients of the message would be at a loss to distinguish what is true from what is false.


He narrated, for our benefit, his spiritual struggles, and how he overcame them. We many times experience the same feelings he experienced.


It is exactly the fact that the possibility of forgiveness wasn’t announced that demonstrates that the repentance of the people was genuine. Jonah conveyed the message God asked him to convey – and God is all-wise and had a purpose to achieve with that precise message.

Hi Rosagela,

You forgot to answer my questions!







scott

I always thought that the safeguard was the law and the testimony. If they speak not according to these things there is no light in them! The true law being God’s character of love and the testimony being the testimony of Jesus that showed us what God’s character of love looked like.





Do you suppose if Ellen wrote to God asking Him to kill her enemies mothers and smash their babies against rocks you would follow her?

scott

YES. If it passed the test of scripture.



Why would one "Follow Ellen White"?

I follow Jesus. Mrs. White has no power to save. Mrs. White did not want ANYONE to 'follow' her. She stated that her purpose was to point people to the Bible and to follow Christ.

So, it really doesn't matter what kind of life Mrs. White had or overcame. Most Bible characters were bad and sinful characters in their lives. Just because Moses was a murderer ... does not mean that we don't listen to him.

With Ellen White ... it is easy. All we have to do is to compare her words to scripture. And if they don't match up ... they she has instructed us to reject them. But we are not to reject her. For one thing we are not to 'follow her'.

This is where it gets pretty sticky doesn't it? You seem to have a pretty clean view of the prophetic gift all wrapped up in a nice box with a ribbon, but the fact is God used some pretty wild characters to prophecy and carry his words.

Jonah said that he knew God was kind and that he knew God was forgiving, but chose to preach destruction only because that’s really what Jonah wanted to see happen. Had Jonah preached like John the Baptist, cared about the people, and loved his enemies he would have interceded for them rather than displayed his narcissistic self pity. He would have preached forgiveness. He only preached the part he wanted to and left out what he knew about God.

Nice clean little prophet!

The bottom line is that Jonah said that in 40 days there would be destruction and it didn’t happen. According to the test that says if a prophet prophecies and it doesn’t come true then he is a false prophet Jonah is therefore a false prophet . . . . or . . . . there might be exceptions to the little rules.

One exception I can think of is that a prophet needs to know God and preach what He knows not just in the message, but as a friend knowing God. In other words to be a true prophet and represent God one must also represent God’s love along with the message. Ellen makes it very clear that to have a message and present it with malice or pride in one’s heart makes it a false message. So one must speak for God out of love or their message is false. That is the “law and the testimony”!

scott

Exactly, I Am His, that is what I'm trying to say. We know a true prophet if He is leading us to Christ. Christ's way, Christ's purpose, Christ's character, Christ's salvation, Christ's testimony about His Father etc. etc.

And we know what is true in the OT by the same standard. Without Christ's testimony one can justify anything from reading the OT scriptures. Christ is the cornerstone of the scriptures and the revelation that empowers us to "eat the butter and the honey, to choose the good and refuse the evil".

Christ is the standard of righteousness in the New Covenant replacing the 10C that were the standard of righteousness in the Old Covenant. You want to truly keep the 10Cs? Stop looking at them and comparing yourself to them and follow Christ!

scott

What about Jonah's message? He said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, but it wasn't. That's an error.



How do you know Jonah conveyed the message God asked him to? I agree that he did, but I find your criteria, that the message be error-free, to be wanting since the message was that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, and it wasn't. So there must be some better criteria than this to evaluate prophecy.

Well .... I think Mrs. White would have something to say about eating the butter.

She might have a little difficulty with the meat of the word too!

Hi Rosangela,

I didn’t quit know how to respond to your statement, but I realized that you thought the post you were commenting on was talking about you. I was talking to Arnold. My point had nothing to do with you other than you quoted Ellen and I quoted Paul where they disagree and Arnold seemed to choose Ellen over Paul.

I think a lot of tension comes from Ellen’s background. Her knowledge of righteousness by faith was limited before 1888 and the very message of 1888 is the gospel. So in a sense everything she wrote before she understood the gospel clearly had a legalist tint to it. After 1888 she wrote her best work. Steps to Christ, Desire of Ages, Mount of Blessings, and Christ Object Lessons all expose a softening on works and a greater dependence on Christ and Him crucified. It takes time for truth to do its work in all of us and Ellen was no exception.

scott

Yeah, the shadowy types were nice in theory but a burden in practice, especially for Jews who lived a long ways from Jerusalem and/or who were very poor. It is so much easier now than it was back then. Eating crackers and drinking juice once every 3 months is a breeze compared to yesteryear. I'm glad Jesus nailed the types to the cross, that He no longer requires us to observe them like the Jews once had to.

That's painting with quite a broad brush. Of course, the animal sacrifices pointed to the true Lamb, and therefore we do not do those anymore. But I can think of a few things that were not shadows.

1) The prohibition against pork. What did that foreshadow? Was that nailed to the cross?

2) Providing for strangers, widows, orphans. What did that foreshadow? Isn't that still a manifestation of the love that Jesus enjoins upon us today?

EGW said these things explained in finer detail how to love as the 10C requires. If they show us how to love, why would Jesus nail them to the cross? He would have as much reason to nail the 10C on the cross, which is what some argue.

Arnold, the two points you outlined above were clearly not types or shadows that were nailed to the cross. I agree with you that they were given to help us keep and obey the 10Cs. Only the ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross.

I think you are missing the whole point of the scripture. Just because the law completed its work doesn't mean that everything it forbade in the OC is now sanctioned in the NC. The fact that prohibition on unclean animals was incorporated into the OC doesn't mean that it started there or that it ends there. Sabbath, unclean, priesthood, feasts, sacrifice, temple, and many other things pre-existed the OC. Unclean meats started as a health issue after the flood, but became a spiritual issue in the OC. Unclean meats are just as bad for your health now as they were from the beginning.

They were forbidden in the OC, but in the NC we find a different reason for staying away from them . . . We are God's temple and we are to take care of our bodies. We don't need the OC to tell us that nor do we need laws for believers when salvation is a personal issue and each believer has been given the Holy Spirit.

Providing for the widows and orphans doesn't need to be commanded by law when the Spirit of Christ is manifest in the NC. He writes the law on our hearts and we become empathetic to the needs of others.

Dissecting the OC and keeping the parts that fit your fancy is one of the main reasons we have so many denominations and so much division in the church. The whole OC including the clean and unclean, tithing, 10C, ceremonial law, feast laws, tabernacle, priesthood, sacrifice, and everything it included represent an obsolete system of law that didn't have the power to change our hearts, but they were proficient in leading us to Christ where we make peace with God and are filled with the Holy Spirit.

Once we have Christ and are filled with His Spirit we will pay much more than just tithe, be much more self controlled, be much more concerned with our health, love Christ's sacrifice much more than the animals, love Christ's priesthood, love the symbols of Christ's body, and much more likely to become like Christ because of the NC.

scott

Scott, I agree with you, but I noticed you left out certain aspects of the law of Moses. Of the 613 laws articulated in the law of Moses which ones will we keep now that the Holy Spirit is dwelling within us, empowering us to be like Jesus? And, which ones will we not keep?

Finally back after a tiresome moving packing/unpacking process and many days without internet connection.


Not obviously if she had written something while in sin, but after she had repented and been forgiven by God, why not? The past is past. If Mary Magdalene had been inspired by God to write something, why wouldn’t any of us accept it?


???? What do you mean? How did people know which messages were inspired by God before Christ came and “showed us what God’s character of love looked like”?
What the Bible says is, “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son” (Heb. 1:1,2).


The prophet in Psalm 137 is not at all making a prayer or expressing a personal wish, but making a prophetic declaration, in figurative language, about Babylon’s fate (see Isa. 13:16).

The prophet is imperfect, the message is perfect – this is simple. If the Lord allowed the prophet to convey a wrong message, someone might be lost because of that – and, of course, the fault would be God’s – for He allowed a flawed message to be conveyed. Some may indeed be lost for twisting, or for understanding incorrectly, the prophet’s message – but then, the fault is theirs, not God’s. “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things. Therein are some things hard to understand, which those who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).


There are several conditional prophecies in the Bible. Moses also told the people they would enter immediately in the promised land. This, of course, never happened.

I agree a prophet can mature in his/her understanding of truth. I don't agree he/she can convey a wrong message.

How can you know which animals are clean and which are unclean? Only by reading these instructions in the OC (although they existed before it). And how can you know which are the commandments of God's law? Only by reading them in the OC (although they existed before it). Neither the clean/unclean laws nor the 10C have passed away, for the New Testament speaks clearly about them as still being valid for Christians.

My understanding of what Scott has been saying is not that the things the law says to do have been done away, but the system of law has been superceded by Christ. Iow, Scott is not saying it's OK to lie, steal, kill, etc. In fact, Scott has been consistent in saying he doesn't believe God ever does these things.

Thank you Tom!

I don't know how else to say it, but obviously I'm talking to deaf ears. If Rosangela wants to find her religion in an obsolete covenant that God entered with Israel to lead them to Christ then I guess it is her prerogative. She seems to feel that Christ missed a few points. I'm just wondering if the points He might have missed are really that important. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest through the trees.

I’m going to stand on the idea that Christ is all sufficient.

scott

You answered your own question! The clean and unclean laws pre-existed the Old Covenant and were adopted into it. I don’t need the OC at all to teach that it is unhealthy to eat pork. Now we have medical science that agrees with the bible. Why would you try to keep the Old Covenant alive when Paul has deemed it obsolete and ready to pass away just to promote the obvious. You, yourself, has said that the law that is called “the ministry of death written on stone” in 2 Corinthians 3 is the Old Covenant. Why do you, then, insist that we keep part of a system that has been replaced by another?




Again you have answered your own question. Once I’m in Christ what can the OC tell me that Jesus neglects? Name me one thing that exists in the 10Cs that I would break if I accepted Christ and was filled with His Spirit! Remember that the Sabbath had great meaning before it was adopted into the 10 Commandments.




What? Only if you ignore Galatians 3, Colossians 2, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8!

Every part of the OC is obsolete!

Now I know that all you can hear is that I’m somehow doing away with the law and giving everyone a license to sin and eat pork, but I’m not and no matter how many times you say that I am it doesn’t make it true.

scott

Scott,

Salvation can only be found under the new covenant. Nobody was ever saved by the old covenant. The old covenant was just a didactical covenant – a teaching tool. Many of its laws have lost their function. The civil laws lost their function when Israel ceased to be a theocracy. Sacrifices/temple/priesthood/circumcision/ceremonial uncleanness laws lost their function when the earthly temple was replaced by the heavenly one. However, some of the laws which were incorporated to the old covenant have always been valid. The prohibition to eat blood will last as long as mankind eats meat. The same is true about the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Tithing will last as long as man needs to recognize the Lord as the Sovereign of earth. The law of God in the form of the ten commandments came to exist with the entrance of sin in this world and will last as long as sin exists. There is no such thing as a law which is valid only for unconverted people. The Bible says nothing about this.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.


What about those who lived during the period which went from the cross to the 20th century, who didn’t possess this evidence? How did they know that it was unhealthy to eat pork?


You are misinterpreting the texts. The Bible does speak against the observance of the law as a mere letter, without the spirit, and against the observance of the law as a means of salvation. It does speak about a law "of commandments contained in ordinances” which was nailed to the cross. But it doesn’t say the ten commandments were abolished, annulled or made void.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Scott, I agree with you, but I noticed you left out certain aspects of the law of Moses. Of the 613 laws articulated in the law of Moses which ones will we keep now that the Holy Spirit is dwelling within us, empowering us to be like Jesus? And, which ones will we not keep?

We won't "keep" or "break" any law that we are not under!

We will, in Christ, fulfill the principles of the law because God has written the principles in our hearts. You can't break a law that you are not subject too!

You can, however, love the principles that the law was created to support. Burying my dung is not something that I need to be told any longer because I understand my responsibility for the health and welfare of others. So I'm not under the law because it is child’s play! Would I be free then to leave my dung unburied? I never would because it would embarrass me . . . acting like an irresponsible ignorant child!

scott

Hi MM,

Maybe I can give you a good example:

Just a few years back the State of Montana didn’t have speed limit laws on their highways. But they did have a law that stated that a driver must operate their vehicle safely according to the conditions of the highway and their vehicle. If you were going 130 mph in a new Mercedes you could pass a cop unnoticed, but if you were in an old beat up jalopy going 130 you would get stopped and ticketed. There was no law to break except for the law of common sense.

Before Montana’s revocation of the speed limit laws there were posted speed limits. Once the old speed limit laws were revoked how would one break the speed limit law? They couldn’t! Because there was no speed limit law! The principles that created the law in the first place never changed. People were still expected to be safe and carelessness was still ticketed. Drivers were no longer under the speed limit law, but always under the principle of common sense.

Now imagine if Montana actually revoked the speed limit law and stopped patrolling the highways. Would there be no punishment for those who didn’t have enough common sense to be careful? Of course there would be. They would wreak their vehicles and possibly experience death. They might kill someone else. They might kill their wife or kids! The only difference is that the law would be natural rather than punitive. There is a natural punishment for carelessness, but laws protect us from careless people because eventually they either get caught by the sheriff or they get killed, but either way they are taken off the road. Hopefully before they kill someone!

We saw in the cross the natural result of sin left unchecked. Sin starts in the mind that believes lies about God and joins the rebellion against God, but the final result of sin is a desire to kill God because of guilt and shame. Sin results in insanity!

scott

I’ve said that many times and you’ve never once agreed with me!



Both the health laws and tithing predate the law. They were principles before the law existed and principles never change. The principle behind the clean and unclean is health and is a natural law. If you eat pork you might well die of disease. God warned us about the health risks long before Sinai. After Sinai if one ate unclean meat or even came in contact with it they were ceremonially unclean. They were actually punished, punitively, for breaking the law.

This is no longer so!!!!!! It is as it was before the law. Christ dying on the cross didn’t make unclean meat healthy to eat no more than wearing white makes a prostitute a virgin! The principle behind the law, natural health, is still there, but we are no longer under the penal system of the law!

The principle of tithing was established with Abraham over 400 years before Sinai. Abraham gave a tenth out of gratitude and respect for the work of the priesthood. It was not a law before Sinai and is no longer a law since Christ. The principle of tithing still remains and if an organization chooses to use the tithe model to run the so be it. I personally believe that they would do better to use the NT model: teach the real gospel and people will fall in love with God and give with all their hearts. The only reason we need tithe is because we’ve made it possible to hold membership in the church and not be converted. I have no idea where you got that idea. Not from the Bible. Where was it written before Sinai in the form of the 10 Commandments? Actually the 10 Commandment is a law for the unconverted. It was given to Israel as the standard of righteousness within the theocratic government. It is the basis of all fair laws place over unconverted men so that governments can enforce at least a portion of fairness and justice. Once a man is converted the law is written in his heart. Like you said, “Nobody was ever saved by the old covenant” and that includes, as much as you seem to hate to admit it, keeping the 10 Commandments.

scott

They had the example of the Old Testament before the law. If you remember the clean and unclean was given to Noah.



Rosangela, I don’t know what else to say. You can’t hear me! I AM NOT SAYING THAT A CONVERTED PERSON (WHO IS NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW) WILL DILIBERTLY BECOME A LAW BREAKER! I am saying that there is no longer any law that condemns them. There is no letter of the law that stands over them. They are under God’s grace, not in order to break the law, but in order to keep the principles of the law.

The law led them to Christ and now He becomes what the law was to them. He becomes their teacher, their instructor, their schoolmaster, their example and there IS NO LONGER ANY PUNITIVE PUNISHMENTS such as stoning them, embarrassing them, ostracizing them, casting them out, etc. etc., but there will always be the natural damages that occur when we are stupid enough to think we know better than God and do what He has warned us against.

It seems to me that you are so stuck on keeping the law intact that you can’t read the text without twisting it to conform to your theology.

The law that we are no longer under demands that if we break the Sabbath we must be stoned! Are we under that law any more? No! But if we choose not to honor the Sabbath are there natural consequences? Of course! Exactly like it was for 2500 years before the Old Covenant was given at Sinai.

So if someone breaks the Sabbath is it our job to punish them, kill them, slander them, ostracize them, and kick them out of our little country club? No! We love them and teach them the truth as it is in Jesus and hope they will soon discover the true blessing in the Sabbath. Does not having a punitive law change the importance or principles of the Sabbath? No . . . never! We don’t determine what is holy and what isn’t by our behavior! The Sabbath is a memorial of creation and recreation whether or not we give God the credit for the former or ever experience the latter.

Our characters are not determined by how we act while under the scrutiny of the law, but how we act when there is no law to control us. A mature person needs no threat of punishment to get them to act in accordance with common sense. Like Paul says, “let’s grow up” and move away from of the milk of the word. God has meat for us if we will stop sucking on the bottle long enough to take a bite.

scott

Maybe you said that in the Covenant threads. I don’t remember you saying this in this thread.


I disagree. The law was given before the health laws and tithing.


No. Differently from what the rabbies taught, according to the written law the person didn’t become unclean for coming in contact with unclean animals. Interestingly, those who should venture to eat unclean meat would make themselves abominable and there was no cleansing ritual by which they could become clean again.


According to this view, Abraham established the practice and God liked the idea and adopted it into the OC. Is this what you are saying?


Nothing was written before Sinai – neither the clean/unclean laws, nor the tithing law, nor the 10-commandment law, nor any other law. This doesn’t mean these laws didn’t exist. The Bible says:

Genesis 26:5 "because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

Rom. 5: 12-14 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” [There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed]


I hate to admit it? How did you come to this conclusion?
Nobody was ever saved by the old covenant, and nobody was ever saved by keeping the 10 commandments, either under the old covenant or under the new. We are saved by Christ’s keeping of the law, and by His experiencing of its curse in our place.


If you remember, the chapter about Noah doesn’t specify which animals are clean and which are unclean. (This law, by the way, was given not to Noah, but to Adam, since only sacrifices of clean animals should be offered.)


Scott, our disagreement has to do with Eph. 2:15, which speaks about a law which was abolished on the cross. This law can’t be the 10-commandment law because Rom. 3:31 says that that law wasn’t abolished on the cross. Either it was abolished or it wasn’t – it can’t be both! So either these verses are speaking about two different laws or Paul contradicted himself. Which is it?

Who is under the law? Who is subject to the law? What do these terms mean? Where in the Bible or the SOP is it explained? In what sense was Jesus under the law?

Galatians
4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Here's a little something about "under the law" from "The Glad Tidings" (by E. J. Waggoner)

Christ being born "under the law" is in reference to His incarnation into the human race. Becoming a man was a death sentence. Only one group of humans will get out of this mess alive and Jesus wasn't one of them. The rest are subject to death because of Adam's choice to sin.

Also Jesus was born under the literal OC because He was born a Jew. Christ had to keep the law perfectly and defeat Satan in order to conquer him and earn the right to be the representative of the human race. Had Christ sinned Satan would be the rightful ruler of humanity and Christ would have lost His claim on us.

scott

I agree with Brother Waggoner. However, the phrase "under the law" seems to mean different things depending on the context. What does it mean in the following different passages?

Romans
3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

1 Corinthians
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Galatians
3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

There is full assurance of hope in believing every word of Christ, believing in Him, being united to Him by living faith. When this is his experience, the human being is no longer under the law, for the law no longer condemns his course of action. {HP 144.4}

Our heavenly Father designed to prove and test the professed faith and obedience of his people. The sacrifices which they performed under the law were typical of the Lamb of God, and illustrated his great atonement. Yet the Jewish nation were so blinded and deceived by Satan that when Christ came, whom their sacrifices and offerings had been prefiguring, they would not receive him. They led him as a lamb to the slaughter. {4aSG 118.1}

Scott, I appreciated what you wrote. I agree. By living and dying the perfect life and death Jesus earned the right to own our sin and second death. He also earned the right to serve as our ruler and representative.

Waggoner wrote that "under the law" mean "under the condemnation of the law" except for one time (I don't recall the passage right now; it's in Romans somewhere, I remember that) where he said it was mistranslated from the Greek. ("hupo," as I recall, means "under," and some other preposition was used, which he said she be translated "in" was used, so the passage was incorrectly translated "under the law" instead of "in the law").

Here's something you might find interesting. Waggoner used Gal. 4:4 to prove that Christ took fallen flesh. He argued that "under the law" could not mean "subject to the law" here because Paul wrote that Christ came "under the law" to save those who were "under the law." Only the Jews were subject to the law. But all were under the condemnation of the law. So Christ was born "under the law" meaning that He was born to be sin for us, which meant taking our sinful nature and bearing our sin.

What does "under the law to Christ" mean?

Does "under the law" ever mean under obligation to live in harmony with the principles of the law?

I don't see that this phrase exists anywhere except here in your question.



Not in Scripture. Of course, that doesn't mean the principle isn't true; it is. It just not expressed by Paul in the words translated "under the law."

Hi MM,

Thanks! In the Christus Victor model there is a war between God and Satan and Christ comes and defeats our enemies for us. We become victors “in Christ” which is similar to David killing the giant and all of Israel claiming the victory. David represented Israel!

This view was the primary view as far back as 120 AD along with the idea that the war was over God’s character.

I used to think that the Great Controversy view was relatively new, but the more I study the more I find that we bring little to the table. The Apostles had the truth in its fullness.

Many claim that the penal view of the atonement comes from Paul, but the church was not aware of it until the 12th century. There is no record of it anyway!

scott

If you are talking “the law” in terms of God’s character then I agree, but if you are talking about “the law” in terms of the 10 Commandments then you have no biblical proof of what you say. Of course there is a right way and a wrong way and love has always been the right way. The 10C, however, were not given until Sinai.



I find it interesting how you start your comments with “No” and then proceed to validate my point. My point was that the health laws and tithing predate the OC law. Here is what I said:



Do you disagree that the health laws and tithing predated the law? Or are you arguing a minute point that I’m not making.



Most of the individual pieces of the OC existed in other forms before God gathered them all together into the OC. Very little was new other than God changing the pagan meaning to a prophecy of Jesus and salvation. God doesn’t have a problem speaking to us in our language. In fact God doesn’t have a problem veiling His divinity in our flesh to disarm our fear and prejudice.



That was my point exactly when I said:





The bible doesn’t say anything about vegetarianism, but it’s interesting how the principles of kindness and the knowledge that there will be no killing in heaven stimulates groups to put away flesh eating. There is a law greater than the OC in moving us to obey the principles of Christ.



Actually we will never agree on this because I interpret the words in the text according to the context and you change the context by looking at the words as if they were written in a medical journal or a spec book. Greek and Hebrew can’t be read that way. Word inspiration compared to thought inspiration. The word "abolished" is no stronger than "obsolete", "nailed to the cross", "no longer under", "ministration of death", or "passing away".

Paul is simply saying, in every way he could think of, that God doesn't condemn us like the OC declares us guilty, but that He is forgiving and willing to save anyone who will believe that He is as His Son revealed Him to be as He put into effect the NC by revealing God's grace through His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection.

The good news is that God is like Jesus and not like Israel thought He was.

scott

I'm talking about the law in terms of the 10 commandments. I presented the biblical proof and you didn’t comment on it. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Once sin was imputed before Sinai, this means the law existed before Sinai. You claim that God gave laws about clean/unclean animals and tithing, which are peripheral issues, but didn’t give human beings the knowledge of His moral law, which defines sin. How could sin be imputed if people didn’t even know what sin was?
That the law existed before Sinai is obvious. When the people transgressed the Sabbath on their way to Sinai, God said, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exo. 16:28), which shows that they already had a knowledge of the Sabbath as part of God’s law.


I by no means validated your point. I said several laws were already known before Sinai, including, obviously, the moral law (meaning the 10C, which are the 2C of love expressed in a way adequate to sinful beings).


Yes, as I had already said, I disagree that the health laws and tithing predate the moral law. But in this item specifically I was disagreeing with your statement that the Israelites “were actually punished, punitively, for breaking the law” of clean/unclean animals. There was no punishment specified in the OC for breaking this law.


The laws that God had given previously were gathered into the OC, not practices that human beings had created.


??? What are you referring to?


Our knowledge is not enough, even today, to determine what is clean and what is not, and why. Why, for instance, are piranhas clean animals, since they are not only carnivores but scavengers?


I agree.

Posted above, reposted here:

1 Corinthians
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.


The following two passages seem to refer to people who are under obligation to obey the law, which includes everyone.

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." Romans 3:19.

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." 1 Cor 9:20, 21.

[1 Cor 9:20, 21 quoted] The Gentiles, Paul approached by exalting Christ, and then presenting the binding claims of the law. He showed how the light reflected by the cross of Calvary gave significance and glory to the whole Jewish economy. {GW 118.2}

[1 Cor 9:20, 21 quoted] To the Gentiles, he preached Christ as their only hope of salvation but did not at first have anything definite to say upon the law. But after their hearts were warmed with the presentation of Christ as the gift of God to our world, and what was comprehended in the work of the Redeemer in the costly sacrifice to manifest the love of God to man, in the most eloquent simplicity he showed that love for all mankind--Jew and Gentile--that they might be saved by surrendering their hearts to Him. Thus when, melted and subdued, they gave themselves to the Lord, he presented the law of God as the test of their obedience. This was the manner of working-- adapting his methods to win souls. Had he been abrupt and unskillful in handling the Word, he would not have reached either Jew or Gentile. {SW 77.2}

The "under the law" here is not "under the law" in the Greek. I was thinking this was in Romans somewhere, but it looks like you found the exception I was talking about.



You mentioned two passages. The one from 1 Cor 9:21 is not "under the law" in the Greek. Regarding the one from Rom. 3:19



Ok, so there's 2 exceptions, not just 1. I was remembering correctly that 1 was in Romans, but thought there was just 1, not 2. So you found both exceptions.

Do you think it would have been practical for God to have listed all of the tens of thousands of species that are not healthy to eat? He gave practical guidelines that could be followed. That doesn't mean it's OK to eat anything not on the list.

Tom, what is the difference between "under [obligation to obey] the law" and "in the law"? Following are three versions:

Romans
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law. (RV)

2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. (NIV)

2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. (NASB)

Romans
3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. (RV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (NIV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God. (NASB)

1 Corinthians
3:19 To them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. (RV)

3:19 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (NIV)

3:19 To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. (NASB)

I'm not sure you understood what I said. Scott's argument is that we don't need the guidelines of Leviticus to know which animals should be eaten and which shouldn't. I said not even science can discern which animals are safe to eat and which are not, and why.

You asked this:



How does the fact that piranhas are clean animals establish the point that our knowledge is not enough, even today, to determine what is clean and what is not?

Rosangela,

You are making the point that Romans 5:13 is saying that sin was imputed before Sinai and before the 10 Commandments were given. Therefore the 10 Commandments were given in Eden?

You might want to read the whole context of Romans 5:13 "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

This text, by itself, says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. This text says that sin was in the world, but not imputed until the law. This statement shows that the law was much later than sin!

Your other text, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?” (Exo. 16:28) was given after God gave instructions to Israel not to glean manna on the Sabbath and then they went and did it anyway. This doesn’t reference Eden, but the instructions given to Moses when the manna was given!

Basically your text doesn’t prove your point at all, but just the opposite.

Sabbath, the clean and unclean, and tithing were not a matter of law until the Sinai. They were a matter of conscience just like they are now since we are no longer under the law!



Sin is rebellion against God and I guarantee you that everyone who is in rebellion against God knows it! Your statement reduces sin to behavior. Paul is talking about how God views us and considers us even though we are in rebellion!

scott

Please read the following article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027113643.htm

All the carnivores/scavengers are classified in the Bible as unclean. The only exception I'm aware of is the piranha. The article itself gives the scientific reason for this: "Most of the species avoided for the ill include species high on the food chain. These fish are more likely to accumulate toxins." The same holds true for other carnivores/scavengers (non-fish). So, according to scientific knowledge, and according to the logical rule followed by the classification of clean/unclean animals, piranhas should be classified as unclean, but they are clean. Why? We have to depend on the Bible here, for we do not know the reason for this.

Scott,
What you are saying is obviously impossible, for if sin was not imputed before Sinai, everybody before Sinai would have been sinless. This is exactly the opposite of what Paul is trying to prove.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

All the commentators I know of agree that there was a law, and that sin was imputed, before the Mosaic era. Some interpret this law as being the law written on the heart. However, this would not explain why children before the age of accountability die. Therefore, I agree with Matthew Henry here:

"Sin was in the world before the law; witness Cain’s murder, the apostasy of the old world, the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God: therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses." [italics in the original, bolds supplied]


Again, as Matthew Henry says, "Here is mention of a seventh-day sabbath. It was known, not only before the giving of the law upon mount Sinai, but before the bringing of Israel out of Egypt, even from the beginning, Gen_2:3." The text suggests they had been transgressing it for a long time. Here the Sabbath is mentioned as part of God's laws.

If God had left the inhabitants of the world without a moral instruction from Eden to Sinai (2500 years), He would have been a very negligent God.


If everyone who is in rebellion against God knows it, then there is no need for the law - it's virtually useless. The interesting thing is that before my conversion I was in rebellion against God and didn't know it.

I asked this:



This is because you are apparently saying that it's OK to eat piranhas because they aren't on the list. I'm saying that just because something is not on the list does not mean it's good to eat.

Why should the Israelites be concerned about piranhas anyway?

Romans 5:13 (New International Version)
For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Romans 5:13 (New American Standard Bible)
For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 5:13 (Amplified Bible)
[To be sure] sin was in the world before ever the Law was given, but sin is not charged to men's account where there is no law [to transgress].

Romans 5:13 (English Standard Version)
For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Romans 5:13 (Young's Literal Translation)
For till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;

Romans 5:13 (New Century Version)
Sin was in the world before the law of Moses, but sin is not counted against us as breaking a command when there is no law.

I wonder what version of the Bible Matthew Henry was reading! It even says the same thing in the GreeK.

Adam chose sin, but all of those after him were simply sinners by nature. Once the law came their sin was defined and they were guilty. That didn’t mean that they didn’t suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, nor does it mean that their guilt was any less. What it does mean, and the point of the context of the whole discussion, is that what Adam did to his family by choosing sin Jesus undid for those who believe on Him!

That is Paul’s point so why would you try to make the point that this text teaches that the 10 Commandments were in Eden?

scott

If we need the guidelines of the Old Covenant then where does vegetarianism come from? Is this not an application of the principles of love through a knowledge of God's kingdom where there will be no killing?

scott

No, not because they aren't on the list of unclean animals, but because they are on the list of clean animals.

Leviticus 11:9 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat.


Not the Israelites - WE, today. As you know, a great part of the SDA members in Brazil (and other South American countries) are not vegetarians, and of course there are many who eat piranhas because it's a clean animal. Scientifically, piranhas are high in the food chain, so they would normally be more likely to accumulate toxins. Maybe they are an exception to the rule, but science has not yet demonstrated this (or been concerned in ascertaining this).

Not only Matthew Henry, but all the commentators are in agreement about this, as I said.

Geneva Bible “That this is so, that both guiltiness and death began not after the giving and transgressing of law of Moses, is evident in that men died before that law was given: for in that they died, sin, which is the cause of death, existed then: and in such a way, that it was also imputed: because of this it follows that there was then some law, the breach of which was the cause of death.”

Gill: “but sin is not imputed when there is no law. This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses’s time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: “but sin is not imputed where there is no law—‘There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed’; as is now to be shown.”

Robertson’s Word Pictures: “{Until the law} (acri nomou). Until the Mosaic law. Sin was there before the Mosaic law, for the Jews were like Gentiles who had the law of reason and conscience (#2:12-16), but the coming of the law increased their responsibility and their guilt (#2:9). {Sin is not imputed} (amartia de ouk ellogeitai). Present passive indicative of late verb ellogaw (-ew) from en and logov, to put down in the ledger to one’s account, examples in inscription and papyri. {When there is no law} (mh ontov nomou). Genitive absolute, no law of any kind, he means. There was law _before_ the Mosaic law.”

And as I've also already said, some of them interpret this law as the law written on the heart. But, besides the law written on the conscience, of course the 10 commandments were already known in oral form before Sinai. Besides, as I said, the law written on the heart wouldn't explain why babies and children before the age of accountability die.

Scott,

Jesus ate meat after the cross, the apostles ate meat after the cross, and the whole church of God ate meat after the cross until the SDA Church arose, and many in the SDA Church still eat meat. And all those needed and still need guidelines about which animals are safe to eat and which aren't.

But the guidelines were given to Noah and he was given a list of every animal! How can you say this happened best when the law was given? If anything, as you point out, the law is incomplete compared to Noah's list, but does give us an example of the principle.

Oh, I forgot to add that no one will eat meat in heaven!!!!!

scott

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

Of course the law existed in the form of God's character of love. God created us in His image. The natural law would be to act like God.

It is the written law we are talking about. You insist that the 10 Commandments were given in Eden and that is an assumption with no Biblical backing based on Romans 5 that says that the law (Moses law) was definitely after Eden!

Even your commentators agree with me.






The commentators are saying that even though "the law" wasn't in existence before Eden there was still "a law" in existence.

That has always been my point. You are the one insisting that "the law" in Eden was in the same form as "the 10 Commandments" at Sinai.

The 10Cs are an expression of the law of love written in the context of slaves coming out of Egypt after 400 years of bondage. They are actually a "lower expression" of the law for the purpose of governing people as the standard of righteousness. They represent the law expressed through the lowest common denominator. Not to kill someone is the bottom line and definitely not the ideal.

The law written on the heart happens when an individual falls in love with God for who He is! It becomes descriptive of a relationship with God that extends to our fellow men.

If I were the leader of a country of unconverted men I would use the 10 Commandments as a first step into leading men to Christ.

OTOH, if I were counseling an individual in their spiritual life I would suggest that their thoughts and feelings toward God and others is a thermometer of where they are with God. If the thermometer says we are a little cold we might need to turn up the heat through prayer and meditation on the life of Christ.


One can't get too close to God!

The 10Cs are a guide to govern a nation of unconverted, but once a man is converted Jesus is a much better example of love. The “law” becomes obsolete and ready to pass away.

scott

How could piranhas have been excluded? They didn't even know what a piranha was. How could God have excluded piranhas?



I'm not clear what you're saying in the last sentence. Are you saying that piranhas may be an exception to the rule that scavengers are unhealthy to eat, but science hasn't proven this?

Here's my original comment:

The Bible doesn’t bring the guidelines given to Adam, or to Noah! It only brings the guidelines given to the Israelites, which, of course, are the same as those given previously, because God doesn’t change! So we depend on the OC for that list – this is my point! The same is true about the 10 commandments. The OC has passed away, but it does bring to our knowledge some guidelines which expressed the will of God for all times. They existed before the OC and will remain valid as long as we are in this world.


Scott,

After sin man’s character and God’s character were out of harmony. Man lost the capacity to discern clearly God’s will. The law written in the heart was almost obliterated. Man needed a clear and objective external standard showing him sin – that’s why the law, expressed in the form of ten clear commandments was given. Even after man is converted he still needs that standard, for the sinful heart is deceitful above all things. Just take a look at what happened with David and with Solomon. So, the 10 commandments didn’t become obsolete – they will last as long as we are sinners – they will last till heaven and earth pass away.

Simple. He could have said that fishes that ate other fishes/animals and/or that scavenger fishes were excluded. We can't classify them as unclean if the Bible classifies them as clean.


Yes. Maybe their bodies have a special way to eliminate toxins, or to not retain toxins.

I agree with everything you said. That might be a first! We actually might be communicating!

I’ve always said that the man who is unconverted needs the law. It is only obsolete for those who have found Christ. The OT law is also symbolic of a condition of man. The man who doesn’t understand God or know Him and believes that God needs to be appeased by works is symbolically under the OC. The man who knows God and depends fully on God’s grace is symbolically under the NC. One has not been converted by God’s love therefore needs the law to try and contain his out of control passions and the other is living in the light of God’s love as the Spirit tames their rebellion with gifts and fruit. The written law to the converted man is child's play and the Spirit to the unconverted man is insanity.

Waggoner says that the covenants are not just a matter of dispensation, but a matter of condition.

scott
]

But this rule would suffer the same problems as any other one. There would be exceptions for this too.



I'm having difficulty understanding what your point is. You originally said:



If you're talking about classifying an animal as "clean" or "unclean" on the basis of what's in Scripture, sure we have enough knowledge. We just look it up in Scripture.

So you must be making some other point. Is your point that piranhas must be healthy for you, since they're on the clean list given to the Israelites?

Any list that would cover every possible animal that would be healthy or unhealthy to eat in the world would be incredibly long. And what would be the point to explaining to Israelites that piranhas are not healthy to eat?



Maybe they're not healthy to eat and they weren't included in a list because they weren't an animal known to the Israelites.

Hey, this is good stuff! How'd you think of it? );

Someone from Kansas told me!!!!

Of course he moved to NY!

scott

Hi Rosangela,

This is actually the paragraph that I completely agree with! Those things you call “guidelines” I call “principles”.

Would you agree that if we glean the principles out of the OC we would find the same principles in the NC?

And would you agree that those “guidelines” in the OC are expressed in the lowest common denominator or should I say the minimum standard?

An example would be like a building code that demands we build to minimum standard, but a conscientious excellent builder might choose to upgrade the electrical wiring, build a stronger footing, and take precautions that are over and above the minimum standard. He might choose to build to a higher standard! So rather than building to the letter of the law (code book) he wants much more than a house that barely passes code, he want a house that sets a new standard of excellence.

This is how I see the OC (including the 10C). It was a mile marker for emancipated slaves after 400 years of abuse, but for the converted Christian who knows and loves God it is obsolete in that it only sets a minimum standard. Not to have idols is a far cry from loving God. Not killing is light years behind loving our enemies and doing good to those who despitefully use us. God’s principle behind telling us not to kill is the same as the principle behind telling us to love, but the principle of love is has no limits of expression.

And please note the fact that an excellent builder would never dip below the minimum standard in quality.

scott

Yes, when you cited the other paragraph I thought there must be some mistake on your part, so I allowed you some more time to reflect about it.


Yes, because God does not change.


The ten commandments are indeed expressed in the minimum standard.


My view is somewhat different from yours in this point. The ten commandments are expressed in the minimum standard but they do not set a minimum standard. The opposite is true. As David said, almost 3,000 years ago,

Psalms 119:96 I have seen a limit to all perfection, but thy commandment is exceedingly broad.

Spurgeon's comment on this verse:

“But thy commandment is exceeding broad.” When the exceeding breadth of the law is known the notion of perfection in the flesh vanishes: that law touches every act, word, and thought, and is of such a spiritual nature that it judges the motives, desires, and emotions of the soul. It reveals a perfection which convicts us for shortcomings as well as for transgressions, and does not allow us to make up for deficiencies in one direction by special carefulness in others. The divine ideal of holiness is far too broad for us to hope to cover all its wide area, and yet it is no broader than it ought to be. Who would wish to have an imperfect law? Nay, its perfection is its glory; but it is the death of all glorying in our own perfection. There is a breadth about the commandment which has never been met to the full by a corresponding breadth of holiness in any mere man while here below; only in Jesus do we see it fully embodied. The law is in all respects a perfect code; each separate commandment of it is far-reaching in its hallowed meaning, and the whole ten cover all, and leave no space wherein to please our passions. We may well adore the infinity of divine holiness, and then measure ourselves by its standard, and bow before the Lord in all lowliness, acknowledging how far we fall short of it.

I share the same opinion as Spurgeon, so I do not share the view that the law is imperfect and obsolete. In order for it to be limitless, it had to be expressed in the mininum standard.

I agree with Spurgeon too! The problem is that the 10Cs do not express the fullness of the true law of love. Spurgeon isn't talking about the 10Cs, but the law of love. Spurgen is talking about the full expression of God's character like we see in Jesus.

Paul says about the 10Cs in

Ministry of death written on stone?

Doesn't sound like Spurgeon to me!

scott

Tom, what is the difference between "under [obligation to obey] the law" and "in the law"? Following are three versions:

Romans
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law. (RV)

2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. (NIV)

2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. (NASB)

Romans
3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. (RV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (NIV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God. (NASB)

1 Corinthians
3:19 To them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. (RV)

3:19 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (NIV)

3:19 To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. (NASB)

Scott,

Why is the law called the ministry of death in the OC?

Hi Rosangela,

The same reason it became obsolete and ready to pass away once Christ came and gave us the unfiltered view of righteousness.

scott

Scott,

Did it lead to death? What is the specific reason for this?

By the way, you said



But in the quote I provided, he says



Which shows that he is talking about the 10Cs.

Hi Rosangela,

They were given to lead us to Christ and there is where we are to find salvation. Once we see Christ His glory is so much greater of an expression of God's loving character than the written law that it has no glory at all. As their glory fades in Christ they must decrease and He must increase. For those who hold onto them as a standard of righteousness they become a stumbling block because Christ has become our standard now.

Just think how much time is spent talking nonsense like can the law can save us, what is clean and unclean, are the feast still valid today, is it sinning to eat meat, what about circumcision, etc. etc. These things were settled 2000 years ago and it was the anti-Christ creeping into the church that started asking the questions all over again. We are not saved by law keeping! That is perfectly plain!

scott

Then he disagrees with Paul!!!!

scott

Scott, I didn't understand your comment in regards to clean and unclean being settled 2,000 years ago.

I've been mostly just listening, as I've enjoyed the discussion between you and Rosangela. I agree with some points that both of you are making.

In regards to the law, I think Rosangela would agree with you that a function of the law is to lead us to Christ, and the Christ is a fuller revelation of God's character than the law. However, this isn't the only purpose of the law. I think this is a point she has been making.

When we come to Christ, we see the law in a new way. Not as something to do in order to gain God's or as something which condemns us, but as an expression of God's will, revealed fully in Christ. We see, for example, that "Thou shalt not kill" includes not thinking ill of one's fellow, or that adultery incorporates an impure thought. Anyway, these are negative ways of looking at the law, as prohibitions. In Christ we see the law revealed in a positive way, as not simply what not to do but what to do; i.e. what being like God looks like.

Anyway, it seems to me that to some extent you are talking past one another. However, there are some true differences as well, so it's been an interesting conversation!

Hi Tom,

Fair question!

I’m talking about clean and unclean (and the other things mentioned) being a matter of law. Before the OC the mentioned items were a matter of health and conscience. 2000 years they reverted back to a matter of health and conscience for men who know Christ.

Make sense?



I agree with Rosangela in principle, but I believe that the way she represents the 10Cs as not part of the Law that was done away with poses many problems for us as Adventists. We don’t keep Sabbath because it is a matter of law. We keep it because we love Jesus. If we keep it to appease God (or God’s law) then it, keeping the law, becomes an abomination and we are rejecting God’s grace. This is the point of Paul’s writings! There has never been anything wrong with the law, but God took it away and replaced it with Christ. He fulfilled the law . . . all of it! Focus on the 10Cs has a tendency to led one into thinking they can actually keep them and this weakens Christ’s ability to reach them with grace. Remember that the law condemns us and testifies against us. Christ freed us from the condemnation of the law!

I’m talking about converted men. The unconverted world still needs the law to keep the peace. Any attempt of a believer to keep the law to merit something from God belittles the gospel and rejects grace. But for a worldly man to attempt to keep the law will eventually lead him to Christ where he will find grace and be freed from the condemnation of the law by being taken out from under it.



Amen!

scott

I don't think it's accurate to say the law, including the 10 commandments, was done away with. I like the idea of ceremonialism. Rosangela brought up this idea from a quote, I think perhaps of A. T. Jones. One could say that ceremonialism was done away with by the cross. This is actually true for all people at all times, meaning simply that when we come to Christ, we become Christians, children of God, with the law written in the heart, as opposed to religionists, if that's a word, or Pharisees, stony-hearted people who go throw the motions of keeping the law, or acting religious, out of fear of punishment or hope of reward.

In a formal sense, ceremonialism was done away with at the cross, in the sense that the formal ceremonial system was done away with. But I believe Richardson, and Jones, are correct in bringing out the issue Paul is dealing with is deeper than simply the ceremonial law being done away with. I think "ceremonialism" captures the concept well.

Now the 10 C's can certainly be included in this. So we can say that ceremonialism, which includes the 10 C's, is done away with by the cross. Instead of "ceremonialism" one could use the "Old Covenant," as you have been using, and this works as well.

However, we can't say the law was done away with, because that means something different. When the Evangelicals say the law was done away with, they mean that there is no need for man to keep it, which is untrue. It is just as necessary for the law to be kept as it ever was. Only law-keepers will be in heaven. Rev. 20 makes that clear, as well as many other passages.

Of course, only those who have the law written in the heart are law-keepers, and the only way to have the law written in the heart is to be converted, by faith in Jesus Christ, so this is exactly equivalent to saying that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved.

So rather than saying the law was done away with, including the 10 C's, I think it would be better to say something else, which doesn't have the baggage that the phrase "the law was done away with" has. For example, one could say that ceremonialism was done away with, or the Old Covenant was done away with, and one can explain how the 10 C's play a part in this.

I can't remember who quoted Ps. 119 in saying the law is exceeding broad, maybe Rosangela. This is a wonderful thought, that in Christ the beauty of the law shines through, and it becomes not something to do in order to be saved, or to avoid the judgment, but the working out of the principles of love as revealed in Christ.

Hi Tom,

Here is where we run into problems with Evangelicals. They quote the Bible that says the law was done away with, nailed to the cross, a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ that we are no longer under, obsolete, and “ready to pass away” and we argue with them, telling them that it isn’t the whole law, just the ceremonial part! Then we break the law into separate parts and keep a little tithing here, and a little “clean and unclean” over there, and the 10Cs over here, and the OC becomes a smorgasbord or buffet where some decide the feast are still in, others circumcision, others, like the Catholics, keep the human priesthood, etc. etc.

There are some who teach that since the law was done away with that our past, present, and future sins are dealt because they were laid on Christ and He took our punishment. These believe that since we are acquitted of sin that we can sin with impunity because of our position “in Christ”. Antinomianism is the baby of penal substitution atonement model.

I, however, don’t believe that justification is simply a matter of heavenly book keeping as do Evangelicals. I believe that the heavenly sanctuary holds a record of what is happening in our minds. That being true, justification is when we are set right with God because we saw His love at the cross and surrendered to His love. We made peace with God. That newly established relationship we share with our Creator is where we find the strength to overcome sin and become law abiding citizens of heaven. His law is written in our hearts.

When I say “the law was done away with” I’m only quoting the Bible. I’m saying what the Bible says and I keep being accused of saying what the Evangelicals are saying. I’m not going to argue with the Evangelicals that the law hasn’t been done away with because that would be pretty futile since the Bible says it has. I argue with them that justification is setting the sanctuary of the mind right with God and not a Supreme Court acquittal. Adventists “kick against the prick” by teaching righteousness is taught through the law rather than through God’s graciousness revealed in Christ.

One definition of insanity is to keep doing what we are doing and expect different results. We do ourselves, and God, no favors by misquoting the Bible to fit our theology. Teaching clean and unclean and Sabbath keeping as if they were a punitive law that is left over from the OC is bad theology and a misuse of the Word.

scott

Scott, it sounds like you are saying the "law was done away with" means the law is written in our hearts and minds when we behold Jesus. If this is what you are saying, and please correct me if I've misunderstood you, then does that mean the moral law and the law of Moses are written in hearts and minds when people are reborn? If so, how does it translate into day to day living? What does it look like in living form? By their fruits ye shall know them. How would I know one if I saw one?

Tom, what is the difference between "under [obligation to obey] the law" and "in the law"? Following are three different versions of key verses.

Romans
2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law. (RV)

2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. (NIV)

2:12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law. (NASB)

Romans
3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. (RV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. (NIV)

3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God. (NASB)

1 Corinthians
3:19 To them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. (RV)

3:19 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. (NIV)

3:19 To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. (NASB)

The following translations are from Young's Literal Translation



In the Greek, "under the law" does not mean obligation to obey. "In the law" has this meaning.







I assume the last verse is 1 Cor. 9:21(?). These are from Young's Literal Translation, and present the Greek phrases.

When speaking of "under the law," are you concerned with the actual words in the Greek, or their meaning in English? These are two different things. In English, "under the law" means "subject to the law," so a phrase could be correctly translated that way in English to convey the English meaning, even though "in" is used in the Greek instead of "under."

Going back to the original question.....

I ran across this tidbit from Bacchiocchi:

Thanks, Arnold. That would have been good to post back on Page 1!

Well, I didn't know it back on Page 1.

I just found this. This newsletter was from 2002, but I stopped getting it in 2000. Better late than never, I guess.

Anyway, what he said about cheirographon makes sense to me.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, I disagree with Bacchiocchi's position, which, as he says, is the position of most of our theologians today (obviously influenced by him). What is interesting is that all of them focus just on Col. 2:14 and none of them offers a reasonable explanation for Eph. 2:15.

Actually, he said all of them.

It's possible that they are making two different points.

Well, I think he is referring to American theologians or, at least, those who live in the US.

Considering just Col. 2:14. If cheirographon is the record of our sins, what are the dogmasin?

ASV having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us

AV, KJV Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us

NKJV having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us

RSV having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands

Weymouth The bond, with its requirements, which was in force against us

Well, what are the legal demands of the record of our sins?

If a suspect is convicted and his crime is officially recorded, what's the next step? What is demanded by that conviction? Assuming there's no appeals process, the next step is the meting out of the penalty for the crime.

In the case of the record of our sins, I would propose that the legal demand is death. The wages of sin is death.

So, when the record of our sins is wiped away, so also goes the penalty of death. WDYT?

I think some things conspire against this idea:
1) the word is in the plural, while a penalty would be singular
2) Dogma is considered as synonymous with nomos and entole, and these words could hardly be used in the sense of a penalty

The record of sin is not the problem. Doing away with a record does no good at all. Sin is the problem, not the record of it.

This struck me as Bacchiocchi's strongest point. Since "cheirographon" is not in Scripture, other than that one time, being able to ascertain its meaning from outside sources should be enlightening. I couldn't find a direct reference to the apocalyptic literature on line.

Isn't this the problem with the legal view?

1) God's law demands the death of the sinner.
2) God doesn't want to kill the sinner.
3) God figures a loophole in the law by placing all of the responsibility of sinners on Jesus.
4) God demands Jesus die in place of the sinner!
5) God wipes the sinner's record clean.

Sounds like a slight of hand legal maneuver that the most unethical of lawyers thought up.

scott

Does cheirographon mean "sin"? If not, then what you just said is not a proper exegesis.

It's true that sin is the problem, but you'll have to put up some evidence to show that Paul was talking about that here.

I was commenting on your statement, not Paul's. You asked:



So I said what I think, which is that the problem has not to do with the record of our sin, but with sin. What good would doing away with a record do if the sin remained?

Waggoner deals with this idea nicely:





Again, I wasn't dealing with what Paul said, but with your question. Your point that if the record of our sin goes away then so with goes the penalty of death is lacking, because it's the wages of sin that is death, not the wages of the record of sin.

However, if the relationship between sin and the record is kept in mind, then there is truth to the assertion. That is, the record of sin is a faithful representation of the character of the individual. If the record's being removed represents that sin has left the character of the individual involved, then yes, the penalty of death goes away, because the sting of death is sin, and if you deal with the problem of sin, you deal with the problem of death.

Nothing.


You took my statement with a meaning I had not intended. R and I were specifically discussing Col 2:14, not the entire plan of salvation. The scope of my sentence is not as wide as you thought.


I'm surprised that you would think R or I could ever forget that relationship. Haven't you read enough of our stuff to be absolutely clear on that point?

Anyway, you know R and I accept the penal paradigm. So we sometimes speak in language that may not fit well with your paradigm. But rest assured that we are not just interested in blotting heavenly ink. The stain of sin is in the heart, and that is where it must be erased.

Ok, if you say I took your statement too narrowly, I accept that. What did you mean then? How is it that when the record of our sins is wiped away, so also goes the penalty of death?

You say I know you accept the penal metaphor, but I'm a bit confused by that, since you seemed to have been defending A. Graham Maxwell's ideas, and he certainly does not agree with this metaphor. For awhile you were refusing to say that you disagreed with what Scott was saying; you looked very much to be agreeing in fact, taking issue, IIRC, with being told you were in disagreement with Scott. Yet here you are saying you accept the penal paradigm. This has be a bit confused. Can you explain what you were trying to say earlier, and how that relates to what you're saying now please?

Actually, you took it more broadly, taking it with a wider scope than I had intended.

I was specifically talking about the forensic aspect of the whole process. The legal record of the sin results in the legal penalty. It's a variation of Scott's "take away the written law and the condemnation goes along with it" idea. Same logic, but applied to different aspects.

It has nothing to do with the practical truth that if you are a jerk, you're still a pain to yourself and to others, regardless of what has been erased.


I treat Maxwell much like you and Scott treat EGW and the other prophets - I defend his ideas that seem correct to me, and reject those that don't. Just because I agree with some of his ideas doesn't mean I agree with all of them.

I did agree with what Scott was saying then, because they were correct. Some people will disagree with everything another person says because they don't like some aspect of their belief. But I am not like that. I only disagree with what is wrong; if it's right, I will agree with it, no matter who says it.

But I don't think you saw me agree with completely rejecting the penal paradigm. I'm not quite to the level of independent thought where I can throw out what the prophets taught. (But then, you assert that the prophets never taught that. I still need to study that.)

I don't remember exactly what I was agreeing to earlier, so let's just start with what I can remember. Maxwell teaches that Christ's death effected salvation by the manifestation of God's love to sinful man. And for that to work, man must see that manifestation and be changed by beholding it. I agree with that, and I will take exception if someone says that I don't, because that is a crucial part of the plan of salvation. We are saved primarily from our own selfishness, not from death.

But that doesn't mean that I reject every other paradigm that explains God's plan of salvation. I don't subscribe to either/or theology. That's why I can agree with Maxwell that salvation requires a change in the sinner, while I can also entertain the idea that salvation includes a change in the heavenly "books." If that's where cheirographon points to, I don't have to disagree with Paul.

Why would you think that? He said:



Why would you limit this to American theologians? Surely Bacchiocchi knows theologians who aren't Americans, or don't live in the U.S.

Please amplify this, both Scott's idea and your own, as I'm still not getting your point.

Regarding the forensic aspect of the process, I don't deny that there is a forensic aspect, nor does Scott, I'm quite sure. However, from our perspective, it is not the forensic aspect that drives the process. The forensic aspect recognizes the legality of the process.

So in regards to sin and death, the inevitable result of sin is death. This is true regardless of whether or not anything is written down. The things written down simply register the reality of the circumstances; they do not create new truth.

From Bacchiocchi:



What do you think of this? This is, of course, accepting his idea of cheirographon, but I don't see the idea that where the record of sin is taken away then so is the penalty.



Throwing out what the prophets taught isn't the right way of looking at it, if you have what I'm suggesting in mind. The prophets receive visions and dreams from God, and record them to the best of their ability. Those who came after them were able to see things in what they wrote that they themselves were unable to see. Peter, I think, discusses this, and talks about angels longing to understand.

Jesus Christ immeasurably increased the light we had in regards to God's character. Now knowing things the prophets did not know, we can see more than what they saw. That we can see things they didn't see doesn't mean their writings are being rejected.

The same is true in regards to Ellen White. The metaphor of a midget standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind.

Regarding Maxwell, everyone agrees that there must be a change in the sinner. That's not really accepting Maxwell's paradigm as that's not what his paradigm is about.

His paradigm involves what the essence of the problem and the solution is. He sees the problem as being greater than simply the problem of saving man. The problem is that God's character has been assaulted, and the truth must be made known. This is the only way in which freedom can be preserved. The accusations of Satan against God must be disproved. Even if the race of men were lost, this would still need to be done. So the GC involves much more than simply the salvation of man.

In regards to man, he sees the problem of being one of trust. God's trustworthiness has been questioned by a clever and lying adversary. How can God be trusted? Only by demonstrated His trustworthiness. The Bible is a record of how God acts in different circumstances, so we can learn what He is like. Above all, Jesus Christ demonstrated the truth about God. In Him, we see that God is kind, patient, forgiving, and so forth, not at all like the arbitrary, severe and harsh Being Satan has portrayed him of being.

Even the wicked have nothing to fear of God. (this is still Maxwell).

Given the problem is one of believing lies about God, which makes trust/faith in Him impossible, the solution is the revelation of truth.



This is a "sound-bite" I often quote, but the whole article is fantastic. I came to know of this article from AGM. It encapsulates his paradigm (or, at least, this last aspect of it I've been discussing).

Now if one accepts this paradigm, then the penal paradigm because unnecessary. One can discard it and lose nothing, as all the essential truths necessary for salvation and explaining the GC can be expressed without it. The question becomes, is it simply the case that the penal paradigm is unnecessary, or is it actually "bad"? Bad, in the sense that it teaches negative things about God, things which are not true. I believe it does, given how many people understand it.

I don't see even a trace of it in Scripture, and have yet to see any evidence that it existed before Calvin (in the sense that people nowadays conceive of it; Anselm certainly had elements of it, but people's idea of it nowadays is much different than Anselm's, but not different than Calvin's). In the Spirit of Prophecy, one certainly sees penal language in many places. How should this penal language be understood?

I often quote Fifield for two reasons. One is he was a contemporary of EGW, well known by her. The second is he also uses the same penal language, and explains its meaning in a way which I think is perfectly in harmony with Scripture.

Penal language was the language of the time. To communicate in the world in which Ellen White was working, one had to use it. But what did she mean by it? Did she mean, as is often asserted, that God was dependent upon Jesus Christ in order to forgive us? The reason I bring up Lucifer's case is because it disproves this idea. Lucifer sinned, God offered him pardon "again and again," yet there was no dependence upon Jesus Christ in order for Him to do so. Therefore there must have been some non-penal reason that the death of Christ was necessary in the case of man.

It seems to me that Tom has mentioned something very basic. If I marry my wife I make a commitment to her that is reflected by a marriage license. The marriage license is a legal document that represents a relationship. The only two reasons that I know of to pull it out is if the commitment is broken or one has to verify the marriage. The marriage certificate is not the marriage, but represents what has taken place in the marriage.

The record in heaven is just that . . . a record of the reality of what is going on in our lives. What happens in our minds is recorded in heaven. The record condemns us because we sin. The proof that we have sinned is in the record. If the law is penal and the record is destroyed or the incriminating evidence that the record shows is not admissible in court then one might get away with breaking the law, but if the penalty for breaking the law is the natural consequence of breaking the law then it doesn’t matter if the record is altered, thrown in the trash, or lost. The consequences still remain.

Christ covering our sins
Christ making atonement
Christ’s propitiation
Christ’s forgiveness
Christ’s cleansing
Christ’s blood
Christ’s reconciliation

All of these are language explaining the same thing. Christ doesn’t hold our sins (past, present, and future) against us as long as we are “in Him”. The proof is in the fact that we still sin. So for Christ to forgive us while we are daily being selfish, proud, narcissistic, and egocentric is simply His way of telling us that everything is going to be ok. It’s His problem! He will fix it! He doesn’t hold it against us! He says to us, “Don’t worry, spend time with me, let’s fall deeper in love, learn to trust me, and never stop coming to Me no matter what you do! I can comfort and help you because I know what you are going through and I know what you need.”

If one is convinced that his sin is so great that God can never forgive him then believing in a legal acquittal might be just the thing they need to feel God’s grace. But if one sees God’s character of forgiveness and comes face to face with His love then a legal acquittal is the furthest thing from his mind. Our assurance, either way, is in His character of love.

I’m sure that the last thing on my mind if my wife was unfaithful to me would be, “Honey, you broke your agreement with me!” It would be, “Honey, you broke my heart!”

scott

A problem with paper requires a solution for paper. A paper solution addresses only paper problems.

In a human court of law, if there is no record of a conviction, there cannot be any record of a punishment. So also, a written record of sin precipitates a written record of its wages. Therefore, taking away the written record of the sin takes away also the written record of the penalty of sin. That seems pretty obvious to me.

You'll have to ask Scott to get the definitive explanation of his position, but what I can tell from his previous posts is that there is no condemnation for Christians because the Christian is no longer under the jurisdiction of the written law. No law -> no condemnation.

I agree that there is no condemnation for Christians. But God's solution, as I see it, is by taking away the transgression, not the law.

What Scott is saying in reference to the law is not that the law does not need to be kept, but that for the Christian Christ overshadows the law in terms of being a revelation of God's character or of God's will for us. The Christian is thus not under the jurisdiction of law, because he is under Christ. (Note that "jurisdiction of law" is not the same thing as "jurisdiction of the law," the former dealing with the principle of what motivates the Christ, the latter dealing with whether or not the law needs to be kept).

I'm not sure how Scott has worded what he has said, but I'm quite sure this is what he means.

God's solution involves taking away temptation, but also involves writing the law in the heart, which happens in Christ. The way Waggoner put it is that the law was in Christ's heart ("Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, I my God; yea, thy law is within my heart"), so when we receive Christ, we receive the law in Him.

Back to your point, what is the written record of the penalty of sin? What is the written record of sin?

I don't have any way to know what Scott means except by his words in his posts, since we don't hang out. Here are some words in this thread:
What I get from that is: God wrote the 10Cs down and that caused enmity and condemnation. Christ's death abolished that enmity and condemnation by abolishing the 10Cs.

I said earlier in this thread:
Rather than saying, "Yes, those are good things that we should keep doing," Scott's reply was, "All your posts tell me is that you aren’t hearing a word I’m saying." That means what I was saying - the principles of the 10C are to be lived out by Christians - is not what he is saying.


While the solution of taking away temptation doesn't happen until the controversy has been resolved, writing the law in the heart is God's immediate solution.

I agree with your reference to Waggoner. I do not see Christ as taking away the law. To the contrary, He makes the law a vital part of the believer. Rather than doing away with what He wrote, He rewrites it in our hearts. Therefore, the law that was in Christ's heart is also in our hearts. The law is not cast away; it is internalized.



There's the written record of sin. Romans 6:23 tells us what the penalty is.

Of course, for those who accept Jesus, that cheirographon is gone and there's nothing to look at, but Christ's righteousness in place of our unrighteousness.

This isn't Scott's point. The Ten C's were a part of a system, the Old Covenant. Scott's argument is that it is that system, of which the Ten C's were a part, which was abolished by the cross. A. T. Jones speaks of "ceremonialism" being abolished by the cross. This is the same idea. It's the mindset that would have one find favor by keeping the law (any law) that was done away with.



It's easy to see that you are taking Scott's comments woefully out of context. It seems he is correct that you are not hearing what he is saying, because here's what he said:

This is from Scott's very first post!



He says plainly "not because there was a problem with the law."

From his second post:



Another post:



I'll treat your response to my question separately.

Arnold, you wrote this:



So I asked what the written record of sin is, and what the written record of the penalty of sin is. You have identified the written record of sin as the books of judgment. You have yet to identify what the written record of the penalty of sin is (you merely commented that death is the penalty of sin).

You really get that from what I wrote?

I’m shocked! First; God didn’t cause the enmity by writing down the 10Cs. The enmity was there in the form of division between God and man, one nation against another, men against women, slave against the free, and the law exposed it as sin thus revealing their condemnation.

Second; Christ’s death abolished the enmity and condemnation by not by abolishing the law, but by giving such a grand demonstration of God’s love and forgiveness that the law was no longer needed for those who accepted Christ and came into His family. It became an unemployed school teacher, obsolete, and ready to pass away! When we fall in love with God He puts love in our hearts for others and the enmity dies. The condemnation goes because we finally see that God doesn’t condemn us and neither does Christ. So if God is for us who can be against us?

scott

Then why didn't he say, "Amen! That's the good stuff that God wants us to do," when I summarized the concepts of the moral law? You see, I was checking to see if I understood what he was saying. I was careful not to use the WORDS of the law in expressing the PRINCIPLES of the law. I also wanted to see if he was an honest evaluator of what he read. So far, he seems to agree or disagree with posts based on who wrote them, not what they contain.

Tom, is it possible that Scott may have taken me out of context? Is it possible that Scott is not infallible? Is it possible that Scott has a personal reason for disagreeing with what I say? Are you being a good friend to him by being his apologist at almost every turn?

Jesus loved the rich young ruler. Because of that love, Jesus pointed out to him his shortcomings.

Tom, you think R and I were talking about an actual "written record of the penalty of sin"? You don't think that the record of sin, combined with the stated penalty for sin, is sufficient? For someone who's so adept at understanding what Scott means in spite of what he writes, you seem to be very dense about what the rest of us mean.

But let me try to explain anyway. You might still not get it, but I'll do my best.

Let's say there is a record that specifies the sins an individual commits, as in Rev 20:12. And let's say that there's a general principle that the penalty for sin is death, as in Rom 6:23. There is no need to individually specify the penalty of death for each instance of sin in the record because the record of individual sins and the general principle of death for sin constitute a reliable record of who has earn the death penalty. Even non-thinking machines like computers can make that deduction.

Given that there is no book that records the painfully obvious, the eradication of the record of the sins is sufficient to also eradicate the record of the penalty.

If that's still unclear, I might be able to write pseudocode to make it clearer.

Your paradigm is different from mine. The way I see it, Jesus expressed to the Israelites on Sinai the principles of His love in language they could understand and wrote them on the stone. When He came, He demonstrated for them the principles of His love, which never contradict what He wrote on the stone. The gospel promise, which was just as available to Moses, Abraham, and Adam, is that He will write these principles of love, which are eternal and immutable, in our hearts, thus making the law of love the underlying principle of life, rather than a list of rules to keep in order to avoid death.

So, no, Jesus didn't make the law of love lose its job. It put the law of love on the throne of the heart, where it should have always been.

I'm having time constrictions because of a deadline to meet, so I'm not having time to visit the forum regularly, but I would like to make some brief comments.
First, I would say that although cheirographon is tipically used for a record of debt, its literal meaning is handwritten document, and it could be used for any handwritten document.

Going back to Bacchiocchi and Col. 3:14. The explanation he gives is:


http://www.giveshare.org/HolyDay/sabbathcrossfire/c5p3c.html

His purpose in trying to prove that cheirographon does not refer to any law (although the verse undeniably speaks about legal requirements), is, it seems, to prove that the law (and consequently, the Sabbath) was not nailed to the cross. Does this solve the problem? No, because Eph. 2:15 specifically mentions a "law of commandments contained in ordinances" that was "abolished." Which law was that? Why doesn't he try to deal with this text?

Backing up a step, I said:



I don't understand why you are getting upset. Did I ask anything unreasonable? I continued:



This is reasonable too, isn't it? I didn't understand what you mean by "the record of the penalty of sin." It's still not very clear to me. You write:



There's no need to be sarcastic. Just please tell me what the record of the penalty of sin is.

Here's how I understand things. The inevitable result of sin is death. So in order to be saved from death, a person must be saved from sin.

In terms of the metaphor, pardon is written against the name of the believer. In the investigative judgment, the sins are blotted out. As Waggoner explains it:



Are you saying anything different than this?

When you say that the record of our sins being taken also takes away the record of the penalty of our sin, do you mean something other than this? (i.e. what Waggoner said here)

It's rather difficult to disassociate these things. That is, if you're reading through a thread, you've read all the things "Arnold" or "Tom" or whoever has stated in the posts, so you have an idea as to what is being said, based on the things that you've read previously. So I don't think what you're writing is a fair characterization, although I will agree that he could me more careful in the reading of people's posts (which I wouldn't single out only him on).



First of all, I've taken him to task many times. He can attest to that. We've had many heated conversations. It's taken years to whip him into shape.

Secondly, even here on this thread, if you'll look back, you'll find quite a number of posts where I've either clarified what he's said or suggested corrections or improvements.

Regarding him taking you out of context, of course that's possible. If I'm not mistaken, I've pointed out to him where I thought he was taking you, or others, the wrong way. Perhaps I haven't been zealous enough in defending you when you've been unfairly misquoted or misrepresented. If so, I apologize for that.

When I've seen him treated unfairly, I've spoken up. This is a reasonable thing to do, isn't it?

Scott has posted 50 something posts on this thread. I've been his "apologist" about 5 times. Is that out of line?



Jesus was fair in his criticisms.

Do you mean ever? Or when speaking of cheirographon?

I'm sure he's dealt with Eph. 2:15 in great detail. Here's something online: http://godkind.org/law-done-away.html

Here he discusses Col. 2:14 in a debate setting: http://www.bible.ca/7-Bacchiocchi-lewis-debate.htm

The word "abolished" in Ephesians 2:15 has the primary meaning:



The context of what Paul is talking about is what separated the Jews from the Gentiles. What made the Jews believe that the Gentiles were dirty dogs and their enemies? It was the covenant from Sinai. The Gentiles were excluded from the benefits and promises of the covenant. The covenant promises were for the family of Abraham. This had duel effects. First it caused the Jews to believe that they were better than the Gentiles and second it caused hatred between the two groups. This is the cause of the enmity that existed between the two groups.

The NASV puts it this way:


This could be paraphrased: Jesus got right to the solution of the problem, that existed between the Jews and the Gentiles, by taking away the source of the problem, the Old Covenant law of commandments that made the Jews feel special and ostracized the Gentiles from the family of God. By doing this made peace between them.

In the next verse Paul uses another metaphor to describe what happened to the enmity.



In this verse Jesus doesn’t abolish the enmity, but “puts it to death”. The Greek word is “a)pokteiðnw” which means “slain” or “killed”. This is saying the same thing as “abolished”. Simply translated we could say that Jesus did what it took to make peace between the Jews and the Gentiles. He accomplished this peace by abolishing one covenant, which was just to the physical children of Abraham, and made a new covenant that included the Gentiles as well as the Jews. He invited the whole world into the family of Abraham through His Spirit.



It seems like we make such a big deal over the words, but both the word “abolished” and “slain” are metaphors that bring pictures to our minds of someone being killed or something being taken away so that we can understand the reality. You can’t un-employ hatred. It was never hired. It isn’t alive so you can’t kill it either. It is the Old Covenant that excluded the Gentiles that needed to be removed in order for God to include them in the New Covenant.

Where we run into disagreement is when I include the 10Cs as a part of that Old Covenant. Which, if you look back to where the OC was given, Exodus 19-24, you will see that it is the very foundation of the OC.

This same process that God used to bring the Jews and Gentiles together is described as bringing God and man together in Col. 2.

scott

I'm reposting what A. T. Jones said. I agree with this...

Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh to God by the blood of Christ. For he who is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us — that was between us — having abolished in his flesh the enmity. Thank the Lord. He hath " abolished the enmity" and we can be separated from the world.

" Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between "—whom? Between men and God, surely. How did he do it ? How did he break down the middle wall of partition between us and God?—By " abolishing the enmity." Good.

True, that enmity had worked a division and a separation between men on the earth, between circumcision and uncircumcision; between circumcision according to the flesh, and uncircumcision according to the flesh. It had manifested itself in their divisions, in building up another wall between Jews and entiles; that is true, but if the Jews had been joined to God, and had not been separated from him, would they have ever built up a wall between them and anybody else ? — No, certainly not, but in their separation from God; in their fleshly minds; in the enmity that was in their minds, and the blindness through unbelief, which put the veil upon their heart — all this separated them from God. And thm because of the laws and ceremonies which God had given them, they gave themselves credit for being the ' Lord's and for being so much better than other' people, that they built up a great separating wall and partition between themselves and other people. But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even ? — It lay in the enmity And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

All men were separated from God, and in their separation from God, they were separated from one another. True, Christ wants to bring all to one another; he was ushered into the world with " Peace on earth; good will to men." That is his object. But does he spend his time in trying to get these reconciled to one another, and in trying to destroy all these separations between men, and to get them to say, " Oh, well, let all bygones be bygones; now we will bury the hatchet; now we will start out and turn over a new leaf, and we will live better from this time on "

Christ might have done that. If lie had taken that course, there are thousands of people whom he could have persuaded to do that; thousands whom he could persuade to say, " Well, it is too bad that we acted that way toward one another ; it is not right,
and I am sorry for it; and now let us just all leave that behind, and turn over a new leaf, and go on and do better." He could have got people to agree to that. But could they have stuck to it f—No. For the wicked thing is there still that made ike division. What caused the division?—The enmity, their separation from God caused the separation from-one an- other. Then what in the world would have been the use of the Lord himself trying to get men to agree to put away their differences, without going to ' the root of the matter and getting rid of the enmity that caused the separation ? Their separation from God had forced a separation among themselves. And the only way to destroy their separation from one another, was of necessity to destroy their separation from God. And this he did by abolishing the enmity. And we ministers can get a lesson from this, when churches call us to try to settle difficulties. We have nothing at all to do with settling difficulties between men as such. We are to get the difficulty between God and man settled; and when that is done, all other separations will be ended.

It is true, the Jews in their separation from God had built up extra separations between themselves and the Gentiles. It is true that Christ wanted to put all those separations out of the way, and he did do that. .But the only way that he did it, and the only way that he could do it, was to destroy the thing that separated, between them and God. All the separations between them and the Gentiles would be gone, when the separation, the enmity, between them and God was gone.

Enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from him, the certain consequence was

" For he is our peace, who hath made both one.'Made both who one? — God and men, certainly. " And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,, . . . for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace." Let us look that over again. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (we are not studying that in this lesson) what did he abolish that enmity for ? What did he break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile ? — No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? —No. Out of one heathen and another heathen?— No.

God makes one new man out of GOD and A MAN.

I still see no explanation for Eph. 2:15, except for a short reference to "context" without any further explanation.
The problems, as I've already pointed out, are, 1)why would Paul use "law of commandments contained in ordinances" either for the 10 Cs or for the old covenant, if he refers dozens of times to these using just the word "law"? and 2) In Eph. 2:15 he says the law is abolished and in Rom. 3:31 he says the law is not abolished, using the very same verb, which would be completely contradictory if he was referring to the same law.

So, again, I do not agree with Bacchiocchi, nor with the explanation that this "law" is the old covenant (I consider that the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" and the "cheirographon of ordinances" are one and the same thing).

By the way, which is your position - that cheirographon is the record of sin or that it is the old covenant?


The fact that he doesn't know doesn't mean they don't exist. I myself do not know the position of all the Brazilian theologians about this, and he obviously doesn't either.

This makes sense to me:





Considering the fact that Bac's position is well known, even among non-SDA's, what he says is a powerful statement. I'm sure he's discussed this with many Adventist theologians from around the world. If someone held a contrary position (that he didn't keep to himself), surely it would have gotten back to him.

So, to you, the cheirographon is the record of our sins and the law of commandments contained in ordinances is the OC?


Certainly many theologians have never discussed this with him and may have published their views just in papers or books of local circulation, which weren't translated into English. That's why I see his statement as applying only to theologians living in the US or, at least, to those whose views were published in English.