logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline gammafighter  
#1 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2007 1:45:55 PM(UTC)
gammafighter
Joined: 11/6/2007(UTC)
Posts: 114
Man
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

I don't know if this is in YY since I still have a lot to read, but I was wondering about counterarguments against those justifying Sunday Sabbath.

Since it is so ingrained in my family's/community's culture to go to church on Sunday, they will support Sunday Sabbath until confronted with evidence against it. For me, it is enough that Sabbath on the last day of the week was the original plan, that the six + 1 pattern is important, and Constantine's malicious reasons for Sunday worship.

Here are some verses that are used to support Sunday Sabbath. Are these errant translations? Is the meaning of the verse misconstrued under the bias of assuming Sunday Sabbath?

Acts 20:7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

1 Cor. 16:1-2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come."

Insights would be appreciated.
Offline Icy  
#2 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2007 5:45:46 PM(UTC)
Icy
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 641
Man
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Swalchy hit every point I was going to make about those verses.

No where in scripture does it say or even hint that the Sabbath was moved from the last day to the first. Within the last month or two I had read something that explained how we can be sure that Saturday is the seventh day, and thus the Sabbath. I think it was on the forum, but can't find it.

The Catholic church moved made their own decision to call the first day the Sabbath. They actually have it written down somewhere, and I don't see how you can read it and think they are right. I just don't know where.

I'll have to get back to you, unless someone else finds the stuff before I do.
Offline shalom82  
#3 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2007 7:59:50 PM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Right on both Swalchy and Icy. Swalchy said what I would have said and then Icy said what I would have said about Swalchy....go figure.

Everything said was correct beyond any doubt. I would simply add that it is still a tradition today of the Yahudim to have a Post sabbath get together with a meal to "prolong the magic" if you will. They watch to see the first three stars in the sky, which if it is tradition makes sense in determining the end of the sabbath. It's a practice that I don't think is too far fetched when it comes to imagining The Yahudim of the Way practicing this observance back then. Once again I see no hurdle whatsoever when it comes to people using these verses and infact it's a great help when they use them because they are SUCH small hurdles.

What I would say is a bigger hurdle, it this verse. Which you could bring up to show that you have considered matters beyond their concerns:

Colossians 2:16-17

I am not going to take the credit for what Yahuweh has revealed through better witnesses than I

This article is a wonderful piece on the Colossians issue that I strongly and emphatically give a thumbs up to. It uses Jesus Christ, but it's still a very good article
http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p205.html
Here's a Snippet

God's Sabbath and Holy Days remind us of the past, present and future reality of Jesus Christ. Those who would advocate abandonment of these intensely meaningful, relevant days and consider them obsolete ceremonial laws fulfilled by Christ, and who teach that the obligation (make that privilege!) to observe them is no longer required of a Christian under the new covenant are indeed to be pitied and will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 5:19).





And of course let us go to Michael Rood

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SXhuVrK4mhY

With hope of shalom for a larger and larger remnant and love for you all here at YY,
Jake
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline gammafighter  
#4 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2007 9:53:04 PM(UTC)
gammafighter
Joined: 11/6/2007(UTC)
Posts: 114
Man
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

Thanks for all your replies everyone.


Swalchy - I figured it was something like that, but working with a non-amplified translation, I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. The vagueness of these verses is what struck me. When looking at them as justification for Sunday, they seem to be assuming that they are meeting on Sunday, rather than telling you "Here is when we started meeting on Sunday." If you look at it from a historical perspective, there is no reason to assume that they are meeting on Sunday for Sabbath because that would be going against their cultural norms.

Icy - I would love to share that article with my family. I'm afraid that YY's Sabbath chapter might seem too condemning- especially for my dad who is really comfortable with religion.

Shalom82 - I agree, these verses are, at best, subtle hints that the early Ekklesia met had Sabbath on Sunday with or without Yahweh's approval. Maybe it's just me, but your first link is broken on my computer :(. Your second link is nice- I'm watching it now :D
Offline gammafighter  
#5 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2007 10:31:32 PM(UTC)
gammafighter
Joined: 11/6/2007(UTC)
Posts: 114
Man
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

The youtube link "Rood Awakening" claims that the translation of Colossians 2:16-17 should read "Therefore do not let any pagan [instead of "no man"] judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body of Messiah [instead of "the body is of Christ"]."

The various English translations vary, with some being near what Rood quoted and others that seem to try to rearrange the wording to make it "make sense" (actually, to make a different point). It would be nice if someone could provide a more literal translation YY style or a site where I could search for such verses.

The common translation seems to indicate that you shouldn't judge other believers (aka tell them they are wrong) for practicing festivals (like Christmas and Easter) or a different Sabbath (like Sunday instead of Saturday), but Rood's translation would indicate that the body of Yahshua would have the right (or responsibility, although that isn't discussed in the verse) to do so. Rood's translation seems to make more sense to me with my inadequate understanding of Yahweh, but I wouldn't want to assume that I'm right just because it is what I want to believe.

It is ironic that people don't translate the Scripture literally because they want to "make sense" of what it is "supposed" to say, but Scripture doesn't really make sense until you accept that Yahweh says what He means and means what He says.
Offline shalom82  
#6 Posted : Friday, November 9, 2007 10:37:32 PM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
oh no, now it doesn't work for me either. Hopefully it's just a glitch because it really was a great article.
YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Offline shalom82  
#7 Posted : Saturday, November 10, 2007 9:18:38 AM(UTC)
shalom82
Joined: 9/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 735
Location: Penna

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
ok, now that article is working. Just incase there is a glitch again or something I will put it on here so people have a chance to read it. I hope that I am not being overly enthusiastic but I think it's a very good article.

I put some "editorial notes" in red just to kinda set the tone for reading the article. Pardon me for me presumptiveness...

Colossians 2:16-17 (No. 205)

Edit: Upon a more thorough reading of the end notes I realize that there is a big problem with the CCG. It was a real shame because I really enjoyed their scholarship. I read in their doctine of faith about their views on Messiah. They are almost on the same par with Jehovah's Witnesses or so it seems to me. I will put the damning text in blue, but I will keep the article up because it still offers worthwhile scholarship.
Edition 1.0 19970618-19970618)

The text at Colossians 2:16-17 is an important text in determining the attitudes to the Sabbath, New Moons and Feasts. It has often been misused in trying to prove that the Church(was justified in changing and eliminating) has changed or eliminated(Yahuweh's) God’s (set apart)Holy Days. This paper examines the background to the text and looks at some interesting aspects of the (called out assembly) Church and its problems at the time. The writer is a minister of the United Church of God in the USA. It is reproduced here, with his permission, because of its value to the subject. The USA spelling is retained. The work has a series of end notes which identify aspects of the work which require some expansion or tie it into other papers which give a more complete explanation of the problem or subject mentioned.



Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

Email: secretary@ccg.org

(Copyright ã 1995 Larry J. Walker, minister, United Church of God. All rights reserved. Endnotes by Wade Cox)

This study paper may be freely duplicated and distributed in the interest of truth and understanding. Any commercial use of this paper without the written permission of the author is strictly prohibited.

Comments and constructive criticism are always welcome. Address to author at P.O. Box 36, La Pine, OR 97739. (Internet address: Larry_Walker@ucg.org)

This paper is available from the World Wide Web page:
http://www.logon.org and http://www.ccg.org



Colossians 2:16-17 by Larry J. Walker

Colossians 2:16-17 is one of the passages most commonly used to document the claim that the Sabbath and Holy Days are not required to be kept in the new covenant. The conclusion is that the "judging" refers to Judaizers trying to put pressure on the Colossians to keep these days, which Paul allegedly says should not be kept because they are only a shadow of the spiritual reality--(Yahushua, the annointed Messiah)Jesus Christ.

Mr [Herbert] Armstrong had to deal with this argument in defense of his belief that the Sabbath and Holy Days must still be kept. Based on that presupposition, he sought to refute the standard explanation of this passage and vindicate his understanding. He claimed that the Colossians were being judged for keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days. He felt the translators' addition of the word "is" after "body" perverted the meaning of the verse. Instead, he added the word "let" as a continuation of the thought of judging. So he understood Paul to be saying, "Don't let any man judge you ..., but [rather] let the body of Christ [i.e. the Church] be your judge." In other words, don't let those outside the Church talk you out of doing what the Church teaches you should do. Let the Church be your guide, not anyone outside the Church.

Let's take a fresh look at these verses to see what they actually mean. Proper exegesis is necessary to clarify the meaning of this controversial passage. If we carefully examine the verses in question on the basis of grammatical points and historical facts, we can eliminate errors of interpretation and clearly understand what Paul meant.

By way of historical background, it is widely known that the Colossian heresy was not Judaizers but Gnosticism. Many have assumed that both elements were present due to the references to circumcision, Sabbath and Holy Days. However, Gnosticism was not a separate religion but a religious concept that could be combined with an established religion with the promise of "improving" it. It was a sort of spiritual "hamburger helper" in the sense that it was a belief system that combined with, and allegedly improved, the host religion. So Gnostic Judaism was a blend of Jewish religious practices with a Gnostic flavor (to extend the hamburger helper analogy). It is most important to bear in mind that Gnostic Judaism, seeking to absorb the newly emerging Christian religion into its syncretic admixture, was the main culprit Paul was combating in this epistle, as it was in Galatians and other New Testament books. This fact provides a perspective which is vitally important to understand the points Paul makes in Colossians 2:16-17.

A brief summary of the basic tenets of Gnosticism will enable us to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the problems in Colosse that Paul was addressing.

Gnosticism gets its name from its claim of higher knowledge (Greek gnosis) which it promised to its disciples.

One of the basic tenets of Gnosticism was that matter is evil. This belief led many down the road of asceticism as a way to avoid physical pleasure, which was considered evil. (This makes the hamburger helper analogy a humorous oxymoron.) The idea was that one must purge himself of evil matter by asceticism (avoiding physical pleasures) and by punishing the flesh. The libertine element of Gnosticism took an opposite approach that since one cannot avoid matter, and being spiritual is totally unrelated to matter, one could do as he pleases and indulge the flesh to the limit and still be spiritual. The ascetic aspect is the obvious target of Paul's warnings in chapter 2.

Angel worship was also a fundamental aspect of Gnosticism. This took many forms, including celebration of special days and other religious customs based on astrological concepts of time1.

Gnosticism achieved a large measure of success in Judaism and Christianity, as evidenced by the many Gnostic-based terms and concepts found in several New Testament books. This is a fascinating topic, but we need not consider any further information on the subject at this time.

See the March 28, 1989 Pastor General’s Report (WCG) or July-August, 1989 Good News article on the Colossian Heresy by Dr [K. J.] Stavrinides for a more thorough analysis of the problem. The Daily Study Bible by Barclay (vol. 11, pp 97-99) also has a good basic description of Gnosticism. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia contains a lot of good information on the topic as well. With this in mind we will now delve into the text.

After Paul's customary salutation, he stresses his wish for the Colossians to be filled with, and increase in, knowledge (1:9-10). This is an oblique reference to, and subtle putdown of, Gnosticism.

The word knowledge in the Greek is epignosis (gnosis preceded by the preposition epi), which means complete knowledge (implying Gnosticism was not complete despite its lofty claims.

The primacy of the incarnate Jesus Christ is a major point of emphasis throughout the epistle because of the heretical Christological claims of Gnosticism, another interesting topic that we need not digress into here2. One significant point that needs to be stressed, however, is the emphasis on the body of Christ, both literally and figuratively. Divinity and humanity as well as spirit and flesh were totally incompatible according to the dualistic Gnostic concept of evil matter. It was utterly inconceivable to the Gnostic mind that God could appear in literal flesh and blood3. So Paul also uses sõma (the Greek word for body) to stress the corporeality of Christ (1:22, 2:9), a point which is fundamental to the message of the cross. He also emphasizes by the figurative use of sõma that the Church is the body of Christ (1:18,24; 2:17,19; 3:15).

Paul clearly identifies the Colossian heresy in 2:4-8 as a philosophical system based on worship of the Elemental spirits of the world (Moffatt for Greek stoicheia tou kosmou, cf. RSV, NRSV). The Expositor's Bible Commentary explains:

Understood in this manner, the passage means either (1) that the "philosophy" of the errorists was a system instigated by the elemental spirits (perhaps thought of as the powers of evil) or (2) that it was a system having the elemental spirits as its subject matter. The second meaning is more likely the one intended by Paul, for we know from 2:18 that the Colossian heresy made much of the "worship of angels" (vol. 11, p 198).

Paul tells the Colossians, "See to it that no one take you captive" (NIV) ("plunder you or take you captive" NKJV margin)4. The Expositor's Bible Commentary points out:

The word translated "takes captive" (sylagõgõn), which was regularly used of taking captives in war and leading them away as booty, depicts the false teachers as 'men stealers' wishing to entrap the Colossians and drag them into spiritual enslavement (vol. 11, pp 197-198).

This is the same source of bondage that many of the members in Galatia had already gone back into (Gal. 4:3,8-10). Gnosticism was the culprit there also as Walter Schmithals explains in his blockbuster book entitled Paul & the Gnostics. Identification of the Gnostic influence in the apostolic Church is a major key to understanding many scriptures that have long been erroneously explained in an anti-Judaizer context and thus used to denigrate anything Jewish. Syncretism does not lend itself to either/or reasoning when identifying the source of heresy in the early Church. Gnosticism was combined with Judaism, which was the catalyst for introducing Gnosticism to Christianity. One must recognize the Gnostic twist behind the alleged Judaizing to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water. In other words Paul is not condemning Jewish customs but the manner in which they were being observed.

It doesn't require much scholarship to recognize from the context of the second chapter that the pressure upon the Colossians was decidedly not from Judaizers. Paul issues a series of three warnings linked together to identify the same source of danger. The terminology in Colossians 2:8 and 2:18 (before and after the passages in question) clearly identifies Gnosticism and just as clearly rules out Judaism. It therefore would make no sense to read Judaism into verse 16. The main point of verses 16-17 is the Colossians should not allow these heretics to judge them. Zodhiates says,

the word judge (Greek krinõ) means to separate, distinguish, discriminate between good and evil .... In the NT, it means to judge, to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case (The Complete Word Study, by Spiros Zodhiates).

The verb form is imperative (a command). The emphatic statement is linked to the previous context by the conjunction therefore. The point is that since Christ wiped out our debt of sin and disarmed principalities and powers (wicked spirits in high places - Eph. 6:12) by His death (cf. Heb. 2:14, Rom. 8:38-39), angel worship (climbing the ladder of emanations to work one's way up to God, the idea behind Gnostic angel worship) was unnecessary and inappropriate. The false humility (v. 18) involved ascetic practices of Gnostic Judaism, as Rienecker explains, "... the consequence of this ascetic practice is entrance into the heavenly realm." (A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, by Fritz Rienecker, vol. 2, p 230)5.

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider explains the link between ascetic food regulations and the elemental spirits of Colossians 2:8,20:

This philosophy ... regarded these spirits as powers capable of preventing a person from attaining the fullness of salvation (cf. v. 9), if that person did not submit to them by following certain religious practices such as worship of angels, partial renunciation of food [emphasis mine], etc. (vol. 3, p 278).

There are many grammatical points that bear upon the true meaning of this passage. Greek is a very precise language. Verb inflections, case endings of nouns, and syntax offer important exegetical clues, as we will soon see. Translation from one language to another also presents problems that can blur the meaning intended in the original language.

The expression in meat or in drink in verse 16 (KJV) is an inaccurate and misleading rendering of the Greek words en brõsei kai en posei. A better translation is "eating and in drinking" not food and drink, for which Paul would have used brõma and poma (Expositor's Greek Testament, by W. Robertson Smith, vol. 3, p 530). The two practices under attack were eating and drinking (proper translation) and part of the matter observance of Festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths. It was not the fact of what should or should not be eaten or drunk but the act of eating and drinking in the process of worship, because feasting would be considered indulging the flesh and thus sinful6.

The question is not altogether between lawful and unlawful food, but between eating and drinking or abstinence. Asceticism rather than ritual cleanness is in his mind. The Law is not ascetic in its character, its prohibitions of meats rest on the view that they are unclean, and drinks are not forbidden, save in exceptional cases, and then not for ascetic reasons (Expositor's Greek Testament, by W. Robertson Smith, vol. 3, p 530).

A. T. Robertson explains,

Paul has here in mind the ascetic practices ... of the Gnostics (possibly Essenic or even Pharisaic influence ... The Essenes went far beyond the Mosaic regulations (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. IV, p 496).

So the topic in question was decidedly not clean and unclean meats but asceticism versus Christian rejoicing and feasting.

Let us now consider the other matter for which the Colossians were being judged. We now encounter yet another misleading translation. Most versions give the impression that the nouns festival, new moon and sabbaths are objects of a preposition regarding (NKJV). There are several problems with this misconception. If Paul had meant to use a preposition, he could have used peri (concerning) as in 1Corinthians 8:1. Instead the Greek word is meros which is not a preposition but a noun, derived from the verb merizo, which means to cut in portions. Meros is nearly always translated part or portion elsewhere in the New Testament. It denotes a sharp division or separating off from something. When used conceptually it sets up a dichotomy by drawing a distinction between what it represents and that to which it is contrasted, emphasizing the need for separate consideration of the two matters. In this passage meros is the object of the preposition en (in), whereas festival, new moon and sabbaths have the genitive case ending, which connects them to meros in the sense of portion of a Festival or a New Moon or Sabbaths. The anarthrous construction of the nouns (i.e. not preceded by the definite article, the in English) implies quality or nature rather than identity, although the identity as Jewish days is not in question. Putting all this together, the significance is that only a portion or aspect of the inherent quality or nature of the Festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths were being criticized, namely how they were to be observed. Gnosticism had no problem with observation of special days. In fact astrological observance of special segments of time was a major part of Gnostic practice (Gal. 4:10). The conflict in Colosse was the manner in which the members were celebrating them. We know that Leviticus 23 designates the weekly and annual Sabbaths as feast days. Apparently the New Moons were also major festive occasions at the time, as pointed out by Vincent:

The day was celebrated by blowing of trumpets, special sacrifices, feasting [emphasis mine throughout], and religious instruction. Labor was suspended, and no institutional or private fasts were permitted to take place. The authorities were at great pains to fix accurately the commencement of the month denoted by the appearance of the new moon. Messengers were placed on commanding heights to watch the sky, and as soon as the new moon appeared, they hastened to communicate it to the synod, being allowed even to travel on the sabbath for this purpose (Word Studies in the New Testament, by Marvin R. Vincent, vol. 1, ch. II, p 495).

Again one can easily recognize the potential for gnosticizing this God ordained occasion by emphasis on the chronological aspect and by eliminating the festiveness on the basis of the dualistic concept of self-denial.

Now we come to verse 17, which is where [Herbert] Armstrong's explanation7 appears to contradict the virtually unanimous conclusion of the entire [mainstream] Christian world. Here again the language plays an important role in determining the specific meaning.

It is most important to note the tense of the verbs, which are correctly translated as are (present active indicative) and to come (present participle). The point is that the tenses rule out the interpretation that the Sabbath and Holy Days became obsolete with the coming of Christ because of the time perspective of the statement. To have that meaning, it would have to say were since Christ had already come in the flesh, died for our sins and was resurrected by the time Paul wrote Colossians. Yet he says the Festivals, New Moon and Sabbaths are (still) a shadow at the time Paul wrote, years after Christ's death. Shadow of what? Of things to come. This is an accurate rendering of the present participle form of the Greek word mellõ, which means:

‘to be about (to do something)', often implying the necessity and therefore the certainty of what is to take place (Vine's Dictionary of Biblical Words).

The identical construction (except for gender and case ending) is also found in 1Corinthians 3:22, where its contextual meaning is instructive. The present participle form in Greek projects a timeless, ongoing activity extending into the future as viewed from the temporal vantage point of the main verb, which in this case is the present tense (are or technically is in Greek to denote the aggregate of the three nouns) of the intransitive verb to be. So the grammar makes a very decisive case for, not against, Christian observance of these occasions, not to earn salvation (which is impossible) but to foreshadow events yet to unfold in God's master plan, of which Jesus Christ is the focal point and central figure.

Also in verse 17, most translators insert the word is between sõma (body) and tou Christou (of Christ) in an attempt to clarify the meaning in English, since English grammar demands a verb in this clause. No verb is required in Greek, and none is present in the original text of this verse. A similar example of this construction is 1Corinthians 7:19,

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments is what matters (NKJV).

The words is what matters are added to make sense of what is implied but left out in the text. Both are examples of antithesis,

which is the rhetorical contrast of ideas by means of parallel arrangements of words, clauses, or sentences (as in 'actions, not words') (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).

Adding the word is between body and of Christ sets up an antithesis between shadow and body, thus implying the inferiority and foreshadowing aspect of the Festivals, New Moon and Sabbaths to Christ. This serves as a theological basis for rejecting their observance under the new covenant by pitting them against the reality of Christ. [Herbert] Armstrong added the verb let prior to the expression the body of Christ, which sets up an antithesis between the sources of judging -- humans outside the Church (v. 16) versus the body of Christ or the Church. Either is permissible in Greek. Let us consider both possibilities on the basis of the following points to determine which verb best fits the context.

1. There are examples of the antithetical apposition of sõma and skia (shadow) in contemporaneous extra-biblical sources, including Philo, who was in fact an influential figure in the development of Gnosticism.

2. However, sõma (here translated substance in NKJV) is never used in the entire New Testament for anything other than a literal physical body (usually human) or to the corporeal body of Christ, i.e. the Church. This makes a case against the use of sõma for establishing an antithetical nuance of substance or reality in apposition to shadow.

3. In all other occurrences of sõma in Colossians, the meanings are the human body (2:11,23, cf. Rom. 7:24), the physical, human body of Jesus (1:22; 2:9, the latter actually an adverbial form of sõma) and the corporeal body of Christ, i.e. the Church (1:18,24; 2:19; 3:15).

4. Placing is within the expression body of Christ also has no precedent in the New Testament. The phrase body of Christ is found in four other passages (Rom. 7:4; 1Cor. 10:16; 12:27; Eph. 4:12) and implied in many other passages where sõma is used in that context, even though the full expression body of Christ does not appear.

5. Judging is the main subject of the context of 2:16-17 as well as the entire section beginning in verse 8 and continuing through verse 23.

This presents a stronger case for the meaning derived from inserting the word let than for a shadow/body antithesis implied by breaking up the expression body of Christ with the word is, for which there is no New Testament precedent. Furthermore, 1Corinthians 6:1-7 presents the matter of judging (same Greek word) within the Church in a positive context as defined earlier, to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case. Likewise in this verse, Let the body of Christ finishes the thought at the beginning of the sentence, Let no one judge you, ... which, as we have seen, is the main theme of the larger context of the chapter.

Let's briefly summarize the conclusions we have drawn in this paper.

1. The Colossians were observing the Festivals, New Moons and Sabbath, just as they were eating and drinking.

2. The ascetic, Gnostic-based heretics were criticizing them for eating and drinking and rejoicing in celebration of these festive occasions.

3. These occasions (including the New Moon, which is not one of the commanded Holy Days but would not be wrong to observe) still have symbolic value and should continue to be observed as a continual reminder and source of instruction about the basic historic truths of the plan of God, past, present and future8.

4. Therefore, the members should not allow anyone to stand in judgment of them or criticize them for keeping these days.

5. Rather, they must continue to look to Christ (the focal point of God's plan and of these occasions which foreshadow His future role in that plan) to determine the way they observe these days. They must also look to Christ to keep God's people united together. The Sabbath and Holy Days also help promote this unity by bringing members together in commanded assembly and reminding them they are sanctified (holy or uniquely special) members of the family of God.

Here is a paraphrased version of what Paul is saying in Colossians 2:16-17, based on the points made in this paper,

Don't let any man judge you for eating or drinking or for any portion of your observance of a Festival, New Moon or Sabbath (which are a shadow of future events in God's master plan, of which Jesus Christ is the central figure), but let the body of Christ (which "casts the shadow" as He, walking in the light, moves forward toward their antitypical fulfillment) be your judge in these matters.

Paul said in 1Corinthians 15:19,

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

God's Sabbath and Holy Days remind us of the past, present and future reality of Jesus Christ. Those who would advocate abandonment of these intensely meaningful, relevant days and consider them obsolete ceremonial laws fulfilled by Christ, and who teach that the obligation (make that privilege!) to observe them is no longer required of a Christian under the new covenant are indeed to be pitied and will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 5:19).

In his final appeal Paul admonishes the Colossians, "Let no one defraud you of your reward ..." by means of the deception of the pagan Gnostic heresies that were being foisted upon them. Vincent explains:

"... from "kata" "against", "brabeuo" "to act as a judge or umpire." Hence "to decide against one, or "to declare him unworthy of the prize ..., which ... I think must be retained, in continuation of the idea of judgment in ver. 16, "let no man judge," etc. The attitude of the false teachers would involve their sitting in judgment as to the future reward of those who refused their doctrine of angelic mediation (Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1, ch. II, p 494).

Those who allowed their thinking and conduct to be swayed by these heretics from outside the Church were not holding fast (Greek krateõ) to the Head [Jesus Christ], from whom all the body [the Church], nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments [individual members -- cf. Eph. 4:15-16], grows with the increase which is from God" (Col. 2:18-19).

This brings to mind a very sobering and timely warning issued by Jesus Christ to the church at Philadelphia to "Hold fast [same Greek word krateõ] to what you have, that no one may take your crown."

Is there a message here even though the source and exact nature of the theological argument is not the same today? Would we be jeopardizing our crown by throwing away the Holy Days and Sabbaths on the basis of persuasive words (Col. 2:4) and empty [void of truth] deceit contrary to what the Head of the Church led His Church to understand, and which still remains in print to instruct (or judge) us? Perhaps the best way to answer the question is in the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Revelation 3:13, "He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

q


Endnotes

by Wade Cox

The veneration of Aeons or emanations of the demiurge as heavenly powers is referred to as Angel worship today derived from the Greek in Colossians 2:18. Essentially the modern view of the entities is derived from the determinations of Catholicism at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. This made its way into Protestant theology and hence the views are slightly skewed today. The early positions can be seen in the paper The Nicolaitans (No. 202), CCG, 1997 and the views from the Councils are in the paper Socinianism, Arianism and Unitarianism (No. 185), CCG, 1996.

2 See the paper The Nicolaitans (No. 202), CCG, 1997.

3 It should not be construed from this comment that the early Church believed that God actually came down in the flesh in this Gnostic dispute; see the paper The Nicolaitans, CCG, 1997. The view that God came down in the flesh is a late Protestant view based on the mistranslation of 1Timothy 3:16 in the KJV based on the forgery in Codex A; see Companion Bible note to 1Timothy 3:16.
4 "makes a prey of you" (RSV) (robbing cf. Marshall’s Interlinear main text

5 The emanations were from the demiurge which were in fact called Aeons. It would be wrong to understand the emanations as sons of God called angels in modern parlance in their entirety but rather the principalities and powers that constituted the Host. In this way, the fallen Host could intrude into the worship of the Church. The idea is derived from Shamanism. The levels can vary but are commonly five, seven or nine. It is found in Judaism in Kabbalah as Merkabah Mysticism. The ascent is of the Hekaloth where a being is in charge of each of the seven levels of the ascent. This system is found in Buddhism and every religion that has a mystical base. It is to be covered in the series of papers on Mysticism.

6 The process of the doctrines of Gnostic asceticism are examined in the papers Vegetarianism and the Bible (No. 183), CCG, 1996 and The Nicolaitans (No. 202), CCG, 1997.

7 And the explanation of the various other leaders of the Churches of God through the ages.

8 The Christian Churches of God believe, as did the early Church throughout Asia Minor and the Churches of God in Europe, that it is a commanded observance even before the Holy Days, being mentioned after the Sabbath in precedence to them (Num. 10:10, 28:11-15; 1Chron. 23:31; 2Chron. 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Ezra 3:5; Neh. 10:33; Ps. 81:3; Isa. 1:13-14, 66:23; Ezek. 45:17, 46:1,3,6; Hos. 2:11; Amos 8:5; Col. 2:16; cf. the papers on the New Moons).

Edit:

I would just like to say something a little less related. The anti missionaries are always accusing THE WAY of attaching supposed and presumptuous meanings to the events that took place and to more specifically the miqra. To the unbelieving Jews, more specifically the rabidly anti-missionary jews, Passover is just a memorial, nothing more nothing less. The very subtle dangerous ones, the ones who still try to retain Yahushua as "the good teacher" Say that the Renewed Covenent was taken out of context and embelished and therefore a man was made into a god. Well, a messianic is a messianic for a reason. It's not some presupposed wild goose chase of the scriptures to attach meaning like you can to Nostradamus after the fact. If Shaul said in Colossians 2-16-17 that "Don't let any man judge you for eating or drinking or for any portion of your observance of a Festival, New Moon or Sabbath (which are a shadow of future events in God's master plan, of which Jesus Christ is the central figure), but let the body of Christ (which "casts the shadow" as He, walking in the light, moves forward toward their antitypical fulfillment) be your judge in these matters." Then that's what we do. If we all will take 10 seconds to remember Shaul's past and remember what he had been doing to the body of Messiah before his little chat with the Messiah and the change that took place in him, those words have a powerful resonance. The problem comes when the church butchers and misuses a verse like this that is one of the most profound statements in the renewed covenent and negates the Covenent scriptures and then we have to try and come back and regain what we have lost.

Edited by user Tuesday, January 1, 2008 4:04:39 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

YHWH's ordinances are true, and righteous altogether.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.