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.