[soc.religion.christian] Was it NAILED to the CROSS ?

davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (02/08/91)

I am finding that it is popular to site  Col 2:14-17  to  show  that  God  now
prefers another day:

     "having wiped out the handwriting of ordinances  that  were  against  us,
     which  were  contrary  to  us. And He has taken it out of the way, having
     nailed it to the cross.  Having disarmed principalities  and  powers,  He
     made  a  public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.  Therefore
     let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a  festival  or  a
     new moon or sabbaths,  which are a shadow of things to come, but the sub-
     stance is of Christ. "  (Col 2:14-17)

I think that anyone familiar with the OT  will  agree  that  this  passage  of
scripture nails the ceremonial sabbaths and ceremonial new moons to the cross.
Annual sabbaths example - "Speak to the children of Israel,  saying:  'In  the
seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a
memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.  "--   Lev  23:24   (NKJ)
New  Moons example - " 'besides the burnt offering with its grain offering for
the New Moon, the regular burnt offering with its grain  offering,  and  their
drink  offerings,  according to their ordinance, as a sweet aroma, an offering
made by fire to the LORD. "--  Num 29:6  (NKJ)

The question is this - does this passage of scripture also do  away  with  the
weekly  7th  day Sabbath.  That is the question that we must ponder.  Here are
the reasons why I believe that the 7th day Sabbath was not nailed to the cross
and that God clearly still much prefers the same 7th day of the week:

1) The Bible was written by holy men inspired of God.  There are enough  exam-
ples  to  prove that while the Bible is indeed inspired, that God did not hold
man's pen in His hand.  God did not dictate the Bible word for word.  The only
exception to this, where the Bible tells us that God actually wrote the words,
is the Ten Commandments.  This gives those Ten Commandments some profound sig-
nificance  that  must  not  be  too quickly disposed of.  Also consider Jesus'
statements that He did not come to change even the punctuation of the law.

2) Ordinances?  Now that is quite another matter.   Moses,  inspired  of  God,
wrote  a lot of ceremonial ordinances.  These are quite apart from the decalo-
gue, not having the claim to be written by  the  finger  of  God.   In  modern
times,  for  example,  the Jews place the Torah scroll (books of Moses) in the
cabinet that they call the 'ark'.  The Ten Commandments they place as Ten Com-
mandments  on the wall near by.  While the Decalogue can indeed be found among
the books of the Torah, it still holds a distinction that makes it  profoundly
distinct  from all other passages contained in the Torah - it is the only por-
tion of the Torah and of the entire Bible that is written by God Himself.

God makes it clear that it is He who wrote the decalogue by stating in the 4th
commandment  that  the  author  of the decalogue is the creator of this earth.
That is no small claim and not even Moses would dare to  claim  it.   This  is
what  stamps the Decalogue as being clearly God's law and not Hammurabi's, for
example.  Without the 4th commandment it could be said that Moses simply  bor-
rowed  from,  perhaps Hammurabi.  Or we could say that it is the law of Moses.
But only someone with creative power could have authored the  Decalogue,  else
we  make  Moses  a  liar.   And  so it is the seal, God's mark, God's stamp of
ownership and authorship.  While found chaptered among the laws of  Moses,  it
stands out high above and separate from the laws of Moses.

3) "ordinances that were  against  us"  --  "And  he  declared  unto  you  his
covenant,  which  he  commanded  you to perform, even ten commandments; and he
wrote them upon two tables of stone.  And the Lord commanded me at  that  time
to  teach  you  statutes  and  judgements,  that  ye might do them in the land
whither ye go over to posses it"  (Deut.  4:13,  14)   "After  Moses  finished
writing  in  a  book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this
command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord:   Take
this  Book  of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord
your God.  There it will remain as a WITNESS AGAINST  YOU.   For  I  know  how
rebellious and stiff-necked you are.  If  you have been rebellious against the
Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much  more will you rebell after
I  die!"  (Deut 31:24-27)  "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added
because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the  promise  was
made;  and  it  was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator."  (Gal
3:19)  From these texts we see that the statutes and judgements are  in  addi-
tion  to  the  Decalogue  and  are the "ordinances that were against us".  The
Decalogue is like the Declaration of Independence - it does not mete out  pun-
ishments.   There are other laws and ordinances that prescribe the punishments
and God commissioned Moses to write such ordinances.

Just in case you wish to propose that the Decalogue is just as much a part  of
these  things  that are against us - consider that the Sabbath was established
in Eden before the fall of Adam.  So, if per chance you propose 9 of the  com-
mandments  are  against  us, how can the Sabbath be when it was established by
God at creation?  See also section 7), which shows that  the  Sabbath  existed
before Sinaii.

4) "shadow of things to come" - These are the annual  ceremonial  sabbaths  of
which  I  have already mentioned.  Again, the Sabbath was established at crea-
tion, before Adam fell, before Adam sacrificed the  first  lamb.   The  annual
Sabbaths and the New Moon sacrifices were a system of things that pointed for-
ward to the coming sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of  calvary.   There
is  nothing  about the 7th day Sabbath that has anything to do with sacrifices
and a coming Savior to die on the cross.  There certainly are "shadows"  of  a
cross to come in the annual sabbaths.

5) Lord of the Sabbath - In the New Testament there are  the  texts  that  say
that  Jesus  is  really the one who created the world.  With this in mind, now
let me read from Gen 2:2,3 - "And on the seventh  day  Jesus  ended  His  work
which He had done, and Jesus rested on the seventh day from all His work which
He had done.  Then Jesus blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in
it  He  rested from all His work which Jesus had created and made." --  Now it
makes sense what Jesus meant, saying -- "For the Son of Man  is  Lord  of  the
Sabbath."   (Matt.  12:8;  Also  Mark  2:27,28 & Luke 6:5)  Jesus was Lord and
creator of the Sabbath.  Note that He also rested in the tomb on the  Sabbath.
Jesus had little patience with how the Mishna said the Sabbath should be kept,
showing us how the creator of the Sabbath would  have  it  kept,  and  clearly
doing good on the Sabbath met His approval and example.

The Bible says the Sabbath should be a delight.  It  was  Rome  who  gradually
converted  from  the  7th day to Lord Caesar's day - the "venerable day of the
sun", as it was called in the very early hundreds.  The scheme was  to  gradu-
ally  convert  a  secular fun day into a sacred fun day while heaping more and
more formality and pain in the neck structure upon the Sabbath.  And so  today
the  Sabbath  comes  across to many as a burdensome day that can be nothing at
all but sheer miserable legalism.  But so many of the Jews can tell  you  that
is  wrong.   Many Jews, for example, refuse to fast on the Sabbath considering
that it should be a delight as the scriptures teach us.  Many  Jews  refer  to
the  Sabbath  as the "Sabbath Bride" - a day of the week to be anticipated and
enjoyed.  But of course that is not the picture of the  Sabbath  presented  by
the  "doctors  of the law", the Rabbis of the Mishna and the Targum, nor those
in the early hundreds who set out to make the Sabbath increasingly un-popular.

6) How can anyone say that Jesus disposed of the Sabbath when  He  said  "Pray
that  your  flight  will  not take place in winter or on the Sabbath."  (Matt.
24:20)  Jesus was speaking of the coming destruction of the  Temple.   He  was
perhaps  also speaking of when the Crusaders of Rome pursued God's true church
into the wilderness.  It turns out that these were Sabbatarians, such  as  the
Waldenses.   "Then  the  woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place
prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred  and
sixty days. "  --  Rev 12:6  (NKJ)   God's true church was the pursued and not
the pursuer.  Those in pursuit kept Sunday and those they sought to kill  were
7th day Sabbath keepers.  These were peoples so thoroughly desimated that most
of what we know about them is from their tormenters.

7) In the story of the manna in the wilderness we can see that the Sabbath was
established  before  Sinaii.  "Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh
day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.  And it  came  to  pass,
that  there  went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and
they found none.  And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep  my
commandments  and  my  laws?"   (Ex. 16:26-28)  The Sabbath was clearly one of
God's commandments before Sinaii and before Egypt.  So when it says that Abra-
ham  kept  God's  commandments  (Gen 26:4,5) it is very likely indeed that the
Sabbath was one of them.

Also, I have quite a large chart of how a couple hundred  languages  call  out
their days of the week.  There are many languages of very ancient vintage that
call out the 7th day as a Shabat, a day of rest.  These languages coined their
days  of  the  week  well before Abraham.  I'd be glad to USmail a copy of the
charts.

8) Some Jews see the Sabbath as being for all mankind.  But  perhaps  most  of
them say that it is only for Jews.  That is what one Jew I was writing to sub-
scribed to.  So I sent him several OT texts.  He wrote back and agreed that  I
was  indeed right, that the Sabbath was also for those who were not Jews - the
alien, etc.  I'd be glad to re-compile that list of texts for you.

9) The only texts that I can find that offer  a  template  for  observing  His
death  and  resurrection  are - Lord's Supper, "I die daily" and baptism.  The
Bible does not propose another day.

10) I think you would agree that the Bible is clear that God's  preference  is
for  the  7th  day Sabbath.  Nowhere is there even a hint that God has changed
His mind or the sort to be changing His mind.  In fact  there  are  a  lot  of
texts  that  say  clearly that God does not change - fairly long list.  To say
that the ceremonial Sabbaths, so full of sacrifices, were shadows of the cross
and ended at the cross does no violence at all to God's plan of salvation.  It
does not suggest a God of change to say that the cross was part of  the  whole
plan  such  that the annual sabbaths and their sacrifices ended and now we can
talk about the real Christ who died.  God is not a God of shifting  rules  and
requirements.   Certainly,  the  Judaisers insisted these systems of sacrifice
must go on and on.  But the NT makes it clear that these systems that  pointed
forward to the cross came to an end at the cross - not because God changed His
mind, but because that was the plan outlined to Adam and Eve.  To end the Sab-
bath  at  the cross would say that God's highly esteemed 7th Day Sabbath is no
longer His day of choice - it would say that God has changed and is a  God  of
change.   But  God does not change and has not changed.  There is not a single
text in the Bible that proposes a sin offering type sacrifice to be offered on
the  7th day Sabbath.  I know there is nothing that offers even a shadowy hint
of 7th day Sabbath sacrifices pointing forward to the cross.

11) The NT is clear - lots of texts - keep my commands because you love Me and
not  for  salvations  sake.  I know without a shadow of a doubt that God would
eagerly like me to keep His Sabbath Day - the  day  of  the  week  that  Jesus
created  at the end of a week of busy creation.  So why should I do otherwise?
Nowhere does the Bible propose that God now prefers another day - nowhere.

Friend,

Dave

kbowman@eng.auburn.edu (Kevin Bowman) (02/12/91)

Hey Dave!

You made a valuable point concerning the distinction between sacrificies that
were fulfilled at the cross as opposed to the pre-Law Sabbath.  But how would 
you respond to the passage in Romans 14:5-8

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers 
every day alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  He
who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to
God.  For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself 
alone.  If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.
So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."

It would seem to me that he is implying the Sabbath with the "one sacred day".
I would therefore conclude that upholding the Sabbath is a point of personal
freedom not as an eternal commandment. Forgive me if you have already addressed
this passage.  I would be interested in your input.

Kevin Bowman(kbowman@eng.auburn.edu)
Two Foundational Facts of Human Enlightenment
1.  There is a God
2.  You are not Him

tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) (02/16/91)

In soc.religion.christian David writes:

>I am finding that it is popular to site  Col 2:14-17  to  show  that  God  now
>prefers another day:

>     "having wiped out the handwriting of ordinances  that  were  against  us,
>     which  were  contrary  to  us. And He has taken it out of the way, having
>     nailed it to the cross.  Having disarmed principalities  and  powers,  He
>     made  a  public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.  Therefore
>     let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a  festival  or  a
>     new moon or sabbaths,  which are a shadow of things to come, but the sub-
>     stance is of Christ. "  (Col 2:14-17)

>I think that anyone familiar with the OT  will  agree  that  this  passage  of
>scripture nails the ceremonial sabbaths and ceremonial new moons to the cross.
>Annual sabbaths example - "Speak to the children of Israel,  saying:  'In  the
>seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a
>memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation.  "--   Lev  23:24   (NKJ)
>New  Moons example - " 'besides the burnt offering with its grain offering for
>the New Moon, the regular burnt offering with its grain  offering,  and  their
>drink  offerings,  according to their ordinance, as a sweet aroma, an offering
>made by fire to the LORD. "--  Num 29:6  (NKJ)

>The question is this - does this passage of scripture also do  away  with  the
>weekly  7th  day Sabbath.  That is the question that we must ponder.  

Is that the question Paul has in mind?

>Here are
>the reasons why I believe that the 7th day Sabbath was not nailed to the cross
>and that God clearly still much prefers the same 7th day of the week:

[ statements supporting continued observance of the Sabbath deleted ]

>2) Ordinances?  Now that is quite another matter.   Moses,  inspired  of  God,
>wrote  a lot of ceremonial ordinances.  These are quite apart from the decalo-
>gue, not having the claim to be written by  the  finger  of  God.   In  modern
>times,  for  example,  the Jews place the Torah scroll (books of Moses) in the
>cabinet that they call the 'ark'.  The Ten Commandments they place as Ten Com-
>mandments  on the wall near by.  While the Decalogue can indeed be found among
>the books of the Torah, it still holds a distinction that makes it  profoundly
>distinct  from all other passages contained in the Torah - it is the only por-
>tion of the Torah and of the entire Bible that is written by God Himself.

This sounds like a legalistic distinction between Law and ordinances. Is this
rather technical interpretation of the Greek justified? Are we really getting
to the crux of what Paul is trying to say here or are we just trying to
lay down a set of boundaries which are less restrictive than those in Torah
but apply them in the same way as the Jews did before Christ?

Jesus came not to distinguish between ordinances, which need not be followed,
and 'real Law' which must be followed. He came to reconcile us to God through
his death on the cross (Col 1:19-20). This is achieved as a result of the
hope we have in the gracious act of God (Col 1:5-6). Paul prays for an
increase in the knowledge and understanding of God's will after he heard
of their faith - that they might bear the fruit of knowing God (Col 1:9-10).

So what does this mean with regard to the Law. In chapter 2, Paul goes on to
develop this idea. Our fulness is given to us by Christ, (vv9-10) not earned 
by observing the law. We are 'circumcised' by Christ (vv11-12) while we were 
sinners (v13). The role of the law is described by Paul elsewhere:
	"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. Therefore no one will be declared 
	righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the 
	law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:19-20 NIV)
[NIV often takes an interpretive license in translating Romans but it is 
quite faithful in this passage and it is all I have with me at the moment]
As Paul goes on to describe a righteousness apart from law in Romans,
he does so here in a similar (but not quite as verbose) way. The effect
of the law condemns us, BUT the opposition which it represents dies with
Christ, nailed to the cross. The freedom this passage pronounces is
amazing! To then quibble over the exact things from which we are released
is to miss the entire meaning of the passage. Reality is found in Christ!
Reality is ONLY found in Christ!

Paul takes it a step further in his first letter to the church at Corinth
addressing problems of diet but with similar principles.
	"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to
	everyone, to win as many as possible ... To those under the law
	I become like one under the law (though I myself am not under the
	law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor 9:19-20 NIV)
	"`Everything is permissible' - but not everything is beneficial.
	`Everything is permissible' - but not everything is constructive.
	Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. ... So
	whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the 
	glory of God [not just on Saturday or Sunday]. Do not cause
	anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks, or the church of God -
	even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not
	seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be
	saved." (1 Cor 10:23-24, 31-33)
Are people saved through observing the Sabbath or by grasping the saving
death of Jesus? If strict Sabbath observance leads others to focus on what
I do for God not what he does for me, out the window it goes. 

Godliness and holiness serves to focus me and those around me on God not me.

We are free to worship God anywhere and everywhere, and anytime. We do not
worship in the temple, we worship in spirit and truth. Jesus' death means
not to abolish the role of the Sabbath but to make every day a celebration
of what God has done for us sinners.

>Friend,

>Dave

Friend (still I hope)
Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Arnold			Law/Science (Computer Science Hons) Undergrad
tja@cs.mu.oz.AU			The University of Melbourne
=============================================================================

davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (02/18/91)

{Kevin offers his text and then writes}
{Romans 14:5-8}
>"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers 
>every day alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  He
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to
>God.  For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself 
>alone.  If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord.
>So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."

#It would seem to me that he is implying the Sabbath with the "one sacred day".
#I would therefore conclude that upholding the Sabbath is a point of personal
#freedom not as an eternal commandment. Forgive me if you have already addressed
#this passage.  I would be interested in your input.

Hi Kevin,

I do not have my Bible in front of me so as to go further at this time.
But I think that the key to this text is in what I underlined for you.

I believe that it is better for people to have their own personal
understanding of the scriptures than to subscribe to the dogma of any
particular church.  It is better for people to be their own students of
the Bible and see things a little different here and there than to hold
to some dogma for the sake of unity.  And I think that is one of Paul's
themes.  Just because Paul urges the Bereans and others to search the
scriptures for themselves to see if these things are true does not mean
that Paul is pre-ordaining what you will discover when you do your
study.

All too often I have a Bible study with someone and we agree that the
Bible teaches 'A'.  Then I gently point out that their church teaches
position 'B' and to my amazement they instantly come back subscribing to
position 'B'.

We can dissagree about whether Paul is just talking about arguments
about which feast days must be observed vs including the 7th day
Sabbath, and that is fine, let us each study personally for ourselves.
But I think the greater point that Paul is trying to make here, that dwarfs
the Sabbath question in the context of the text, is this - that churches
should not be places where members must conform to dogma.  Let the
scriptues be the final authority.  That was the stand that Luther made
when ordered to recant.

Friend,

Dave

rvp@softserver.canberra.edu.au (Rey Paulo) (02/19/91)

In article <Feb.15.18.52.17.1991.442@athos.rutgers.edu> tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) writes:
>
>So what does this mean with regard to the Law. In chapter 2, Paul goes on to
>develop this idea. Our fulness is given to us by Christ, (vv9-10) not earned 
>by observing the law. We are 'circumcised' by Christ (vv11-12) while we were 
>sinners (v13)....
>	"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to
>	everyone, to win as many as possible ... To those under the law
>	I become like one under the law (though I myself am not under the
>	law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor 9:19-20 NIV)
>	"`Everything is permissible' - but not everything is beneficial.
>Are people saved through observing the Sabbath or by grasping the saving
>death of Jesus? If strict Sabbath observance leads others to focus on what
>I do for God not what he does for me, out the window it goes. 

The question of the sevetnh-day sabbath observance (4th commandment) is 
undobtedly a topic of potential controversy.  This is because Paul seems
to uphold the law in some of his writings while in some others, it appears
he is preaching against the law.  Note that by LAW, I am referring to the
ten commandments.  This teaching has produced two lines of thinking among
christians.  Those who believe in justification by observing the law per
se, and those who believe in justification by faith per se.  The former
believes that one can be saved if and only if he observes perfectly the
law (which is impossible) and the later believes that law is unnecessary
as long as you accept Jesus as your redeemer (which is correct up to the 
act of acceptance, but understood wrongly after the act of acceptance).
I believe both of these disciplines have misunderstood the writings of
Apostle Paul.

The source of misunderstanding is Paul's word "under the law" as in
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to
everyone, to win as many as possible ... To those under the law
I become like one under the law (though I myself am not under the
law), so as to win those under the law." (1 Cor 9:19-20 NIV)  There are
other passages that mention "under the law" but I don't have my bible
here to quote them. Anyway, the point I would like to stress here is
that, many christians believe that "under the law" means the law has 
nothing to do with us anymore after we accept Christ as our personal
lord and saviour. In short, they would say forget abouth the law,
once you have Christ.  This is very, very wrong, I believe.  To avoid
misunderstanding "under the law", we would better be safe if we ask
"When are we under the law?" which gives us the clear answer "We are
under the law whenever we transgress the law." When we transgress the
law, we become sinners (under the law) and then the law obviously will
call us up to answer for the transgressions.  The analogy with our day
to day living is very clear.  If you haven't done any crime, then you
are not under the law.  But if you commit something like parking 
violations, stealing, etc., etc., then you are under the law and expect
the police to come and file charges against you.  In light of this 
view, try re-reading 1 Cor 9:19-20 or any other verse in which you
find "under the law" with the understanding that the word means 
"transgressing the law".  I believe you will arrive at more sensible
as well as more consistent understanding of Paul's writings. 

Now, when we are under the law (sinners), we need some sort of ways
to get us out of the punishment that the law requires.  If you have
parking offences, that way may be to pay the fines, or in other
offenses may be some months or years in jail.  But if we are under
the law of G-d (sinners of the law of G-d), the punishment is the 
forfeiture of our salvation.  There is only one way that G-d 
provides for us to get out of this punishment, and that is, by
accepting Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour.  Jesus
Christ paid the fines for our sins with His blood on the cross of
calvary.  Now the question is, after Christ has paid for your
fines, does the law become invalid or does the situation change 
such that if you continue commiting parking violations the law is
no longer applicable. This was asked by Paul in one verse (I cann't
remember).  The answer is certainly NO.  The law still applies so that
if you continue transgressing the law, you sin again.  This is as
simple as this.  And since the seventh-day sabbath (4th commandment)
is one of those commandments, then I believe that Christians who
don't observe it continue to trangress the law and hence continue to
commiting sins.  Note that there is no difference between the
sabbath commandment and the other commandments like, "Thou shalt not 
kill", "Thou shalt not steal", etc., etc.  If you regard the order of
their listing in the ten commandments important, then the sabbath
is more important than "killing" or "stealing". 

To sum up my points as regards to the sabbath:

(1)  The bible is all consistent.  Paul does not say something
     about a topic in one verse and another quite contradictory 
     in another verse.

(2)  The law (ten commandments) is always binding for if it is not,
     we wouldn't have any way of knowing whether what we do is a
     sin or not.  
-- 
Rey V. Paulo                          | Internet : rvp@csc.canberra.edu.au
University of Canberra                | "One and one and one is three" 
PO Box 1, Belconnen ACT, AUSTRALIA    |                   -The Beatles 
--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------