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.