In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as speaking against obeying God. For example, in Romans 14:2-3, some people were of the disputable opinion that only vegetable should be eaten and they were judging and resenting each other over the matter even though God gave no command to eat only vegetables. In Romans 14:4-6, Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, kidnapping, rape, favoritism, or break the Sabbath just as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to rebel against God, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command. When God has given as command, human opinion must yield. So Romans 14:4 is speaking about judging each other over opinions, not in regard to the commands of God. In Galatians 6:2, if someone is caught in a sin, then we should seek to gently restore them, though that necessarily involves making the judgement that they are caught in a sin.
Commandments of God
- Thread starter Jamie Russell CME
- Start date
He would obey it for He was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4).
Christians are not under the Old Covenant Law that He was.
That's a misunderstanding of the text.
Christ spoke to all the crowd and told them to do what the scribes and the Pharisees said to do (Matthew 23:1, 3).
That's doesn't apply to the Christian.
Colossians 2:16 teaches otherwise.
Jamie Russell CME
Member
not dead to the commandments, dead to the Mosaic covenant
this is obvious. Or do you hate and murder, lust and commit adultery?
Jamie Russell CME
Member
tell me, what does righteousness look like? Not obeying the obviously eternal moral laws that flow from who God is?
Diserner
Well-known member
Diserner
Well-known member
It looks like a naked God being tortured to death on a Cross.
Bearing all my sin and shame and inability and failure.
Diserner
Well-known member
Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he would have still would have been the living embodiment of God's word even if he hadn't been obligated to obey it. Jesus did not establish the New Covenant until the end up his ministry, so everything that he taught prior to that point was in regard to how to live under the Mosaic Covenant and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of nullifying anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33). In John 12:46-50, we are not given any room to disregard anything that Jesus taught during his ministry. It is contradictory to think that we should follow Christ's example while rejecting everything that he taught by example.
In what way is saying that we should follow Christ's example of refraining from sin a misunderstanding of the text?
Christians are by definition followers of Christ, so what he taught by word and by example applies to Christians.
it does not. You should not interpret Colossians 2:16 in a way that contradicts Jeremiah 31:33.
Diserner
Well-known member
he is a debtor to keep the whole law. (Gal. 5:3 NKJ)
I agree that Paul is clear that we are dead to the law, though I consider him to be a servant of God, so I don't interpret him as referring to being dead to the Law of God. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Law of God, so if you think that Paul did that, then according to God, you should consider him to be a false prophet. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law, so if Paul considered someone to an enemy of God simply because they refused to submit to His law, then how much more so is someone who actively speaks against submitting it? If someone interprets servants of God teaching us to rebel against Him, then they should think that there interpretation is absurd and conclude that they must have misunderstood what they said rather than think that it makes perfect sense to interpret servants of God as teaching us to rebel against Him.
See the first sentence I wrote in post 35.
So do you try obeying all the commands that the Pharisees would have taught from the Old Covenant?
Which demonstrates you do not understand Jeremiah 31:33.
Concerning Colossians 2:16
1. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDNTT): Here Paul argues that the Jewish law (the legal demands) were cancelled in the death of Christ (v. 14), and therefore the Jewish food regulations and religious calendar are not binding on the Christian. Included in this ritual was the Jewish sabbath observance. These observances, Paul claims, pointed to a spiritual reality fulfilled in Christ (3:410, Sabbath, W. Stott).
2. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): Questions concerning the Sabbath also play a role in the religious disputes in the church at Colossae (Col 2:16). Like festivals and new moons sabbath observance is only a shadow of what is to come (2:17; cf. the similar argument in Gal 4:9f) (3:222, sabbaton, W. Beilner).
3. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): the Christian community is definitely freed from the Sabbath commandment (7:30, Sabbaton, Lohse).
Are Christians commanded to keep the "festivals" and "new moon" celebrations?
Last edited:
In Exodus 18, it give instructions to set up a system of judges to make ruling about how to obey the Torah. In Deuteronomy 17:8-13, it gives authority to priests and judges to make rulings about how to obey the Torah that the people were obligated to obey. In Matthew 23:2-4, Jesus recognized that the Pharisees had this authority by saying that they sit in the Seat of Moses and by instructing his followers to do everything that they said, but he warned against their hypocrisy, though other Pharisees also criticized other Pharisees for their hypocrisy. In regard to the debate between Hillel and Shammai, Jesus was virtually in complete agreement with Hillel.
In Acts 23:6, Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee, which is a Torah observant sect of Judaism. Likewise, in Acts 15:5, there were Pharisees who were counted as being believers, as well as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. So most of the NT was written by a Pharisee, and in 1 Corinthians 11:1, we are instructed to be imitators of Paul as he was an imitator of Christ, so we are instructed to be an imitator of a Pharisee.
Jeremiah 31:33 uses the Hebrew word "Torah", so there is no confusion about what it is referring to.
Indeed. In regard to Colossians 2:16 in itself, I see room for possible interpretations:
1.) The Colossians were not keeping God's holy days, they were being judged by Jews because they were not keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them and get them to obey what God has commanded.
2.) The Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to what God has commanded, they were being judged by Pagans because they were keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them and prevent them from obeying what God has commanded.
In Colossians 2:20-23, Paul described the people who were judging the Colossians as teaching human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, which means that they were being judged by pagans and that 2.) is the case, so it is ironic when people try to use Colossians 2:16 to justify their refusal to obey what God has commanded. We should be careful not to mistake what was only said against following the teachings of man a being against obeying the commandments of God as if Paul were not a servant of God.
atpollard
Well-known member
I intended my humorous quip as an "olive branch" that I was not someone that should in any way be standing in judgement of you and you should follow Christ as your conscience dictates. That is, in fact, a Baptist Distinctive (and I am a Baptist) called "Individual Soul Liberty".
Individual soul liberty is a particularly Baptist principle. Most denominations attempt to exercise control over their members to some extent, but Baptists limit such control by demanding that every believer is ultimately responsible to God. Individuals have the right to disagree with others, follow their own conscience, and not feel compelled to adopt any views they disagree with. This does not suggest that every believer is a “lone wolf” or that believers need not submit to the leadership of their church. Soul liberty simply asserts that every believer has the right to act in accordance with his own conscience, and that no one can force anyone to believe or act against his theological viewpoint.
That you should respond with a double-edged sword of JUDGEMENT and CONDEMNATION of me for my beliefs and gesture of peace is ... disappointing. I will respond with an encouragement for me and admonition to you from the Apostle Paul (which you may exegete to mean the opposite of what it says at your own peril):
Colossians 2:16-23 [NASB]
Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day-- things which are [only] a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. [Take care that] no one keeps defrauding you of your prize by delighting in humility and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on [visions] he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding firmly to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, [such as,] "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all [refer] [to] things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, [but are] of no value against fleshly indulgence.
Thank you for this exchange, but there is nothing edifying to be gained by protracting it any further.Shalom [peace]
A simple yes or no will do and not a longwinded sermon.
The problem for you is that Christ said "but do not do according to their deeds" but Paul commanded the opposite in reference to himself (1 Cor. 4:16; Philippians 4:9).
Your association falls apart and so it doesn't apply.
Jeremiah 31:31 a New Covenant will go into effect (which is what Christians are to obey). This is because...
Jeremiah 31:32 the Old Covenant was "broken"
I'm glad you mentioned both interpretations for Colossians 2:16.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT): the Christian community is definitely freed from the Sabbath commandment - no matter whether this is based on the supposed necessity of the Law to salvation or on the controlling power of cosmic forces (7:30, Sabbaton, Lohse).
Last edited:
Jesus was speaking against their hypocrisy, not against following their example of obedience to God. Jesus spent his ministry teach how to obey the Torah by word and by example, so someone can look at what he taught and decide whether or not follow him, but someone can't follow him by refusing to follow what He taught.
Again I agree that we are under the New Covenant and I have been speaking about the way that we should live under the New Covenant, which still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33).
Again, Paul describe the people who were judging the Colossians as promoting teachings in accordance with paganism, not teachings in accordance with Judaism. So when God commands His people to keep the Sabbath holy and the TDNT says that we are freed from obeying what God has commanded, then it should not be difficult to figure out who has the higher authority and which one should we follow. The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man and no one has the authority to countermand God.
I never affirmed otherwise.
You are the one who associated this section of Scripture with Paul and others, but it doesn't hold.
Contradiction above.
Either one, the Sabbath is not binding.
Still no New Covenant command that says otherwise.
I can supply quite a few examples of the other 9 commandments. Very ckear.
But not one for the 7th day Sabbath.
Nor can you.
It is important to distinguish between what is said about following the commands of God and what is said about following the opinion of man because where God has given a command, human opinion must yield, but where God has given no command, then I agree that we have the freedom of conscience. In John 7:24, it instructs us to judge righteously, and in Matthew 7:15-20, it instructs us to recognize someone by their fruits, so while there are are ways that we should not judge, there are also ways that we should judge, though I have not said anything to condemn you.
Our conscience is informed by the highest level of moral law that we believe. However, our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that even though he was not aware of anything against himself he was not justified. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Torah, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not God's Torah, and needs to be informed by God's Torah in order to function correctly.
In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace God's Torah. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Torah of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone sees nothing wrong with continuing to do what God has revealed in His Torah to be sin.
Again, it is important to distinguish between what is said about the commandments of God and what is said about the teaching of men. In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul was speaking against being judged by those who were promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands in accordance with the example that Jesus set for us to follow, they were being judged by pagans because they were feasting, and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man judge them and prevent them from obeying God. I'm sorry if you don't see it as edifying to continue to discuss. It should not make sense to people to interpret the Bible as speaking against obeying what God has commanded.
