A Reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum In our aim to exalt everything important, first and foremost, we seek to promote a clear understanding of Daniel, Revelation, the three angels' messages and the alpha and omega of apostasy.
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:44 am Post subject: Old understanding of Col. 2
Dear Eugene,
There are several interesting problems with Col. 2 but one of the significant ones is the fact that the term "handwriting" is a metaphor which stumps most people because they do not know how to handle it.
The second one is that, instead of reading those texts as one would normally do, they stop thinking. For example it merely reads:-
(1) having forgiven you all the trespasses (by)
(2) blotting out the handwriting against is (because)
(3) the dogma was contrary to us (and)
(4) He took it away (out of the midst)
(5) nailing it His cross.
All of the above are the result of:-
(1)believing
(2)being baptised with Christ
(3)being raised up into newness of life with Christ
(4)and being judged righteous.
There are other serious problems but the one most in the way of S.D.A.s is that they meet a metaphor, and not understanding how such things are to be dealt with, they do strange and terrible things with it.
(1) A metaphor is only a figure of speech.
(2) It is never explained.
(3) It never belongs to the sentence in which it is found.
(4) It is never taken from the same work.
(5) It is never the subject.
(6) It is always brought in from outside the work.
(7) It is always drawn up alongside the actual subject of the work.
(8) Its sole purpose is for COMPARISON.
(9) A metaphor can only be used once.
(10)This metaphor is the record of mankinds sins.
These are the Grammatical rules governing metaphors.
(1) It follows therefore that, the meaning of the handwriting cannot be found in holy writ.
(2) It only occurs once - in Col. 2:14.
(3) It cannot occur twice.
Because the metaphor must always be set close to its subject, we see here that since it ultimately winds up on the cross, it is actually a figure for Christ.
However, it is a compound metaphor embracing several features.
It does not, because it cannot, Grammatically refer to any of the laws of God.
This is my first and main point.
Have a look at it and reply if you wish. There are many other points yet to be made. All of which are quite satisfactory.
Please bear in mind that my exegesis ran to about 32 pages and threatened to run over forty, but after around 15 years at it, I gave it the flick because I had found what I needed to know concerning those texts
It was not done for any other reason than to satisfy my mind and show me what God wanted me to understand by those texts.
I later discovered that none of was particularly new. I just wished that I had found that out before I set out on my voyage of discovery. It would have saved me much stress and half a life-time in prayer. I can only say that it was amazingly worthwhile.
Ross _________________ R.R. Pollock
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:00 am Post subject: Please try again
Ross,
I was expecting a new translation for something in Colossians 2 and a post that would clarify the text. You begin with Seventh-day Adventist misunderstanding, which confuses me, and rules for metaphors. Why not simply explain the words, metaphors and context as if speaking to a Christian audience? Are you able to interpret the Bible text you speak of and translate its meaning into plain English?
Ross wrote:
Please bear in mind that my exegesis ran to about 32 pages and threatened to run over forty
"Numberless words need not be put upon paper to justify what speaks for itself and shines in its clearness. Truth is straight, plain, clear, and stands out boldly in its own defense; but it is not so with error. It is so winding and twisting that it needs a multitude of words to explain it in its crooked form." Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 96.
Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:11 am Post subject: Old view of Col. 2
Dear Colleagues,
When we meet with an hiatus such as demonstrated in my last post concerning the Old view of Col. 2, it is obvious that to understand Col. 2:14 we must go, not to the O.T. but back to the Biblical Writer to clarify what he was really saying. That is a standard way of dealing with things.
If we value truth, we must be fair to each other and to the Bible writer. It wont cut it to just sail on ignoring the reality of the situation, for we here, are presuming to sit in judgement on the writings of one of the most illustrious of God's servants who was, at that very time, waiting for the summons to have his head cut off.
Therefore kindly note that, Whereas we have been taught from our mother's knee that, the handwriting referred to the Ceremonial law, it strikes me as very odd indeed, that the man who actually wrote it at Col. 2:14 had been taught from his mother's knee that, in heaven God had a book containing the names of all men, and when one sinned God annotated his name with the sentence of death. If he repented, it was blotted out. This book was known among them as "The Handwriting." I find it interesting that, following his vision of the Colossians, he wrote out his epistle under the control of God the Holy Spirit who somehow managed to bring this matter to his mind. It is obvious to me anyway, that somewhere along the track, men have been wrong-footed and this valuable truth was largely lost. You may be aware that for a very long time the hatred between the gentiles and Jews was at fever pitch so one could easily understand the absolute lack of co-operation between them. If you wanted to check that for accuraccy, you could ask any Jewish Rabbi, they are only too willing today, to explain their religion to us.
Paul was of the strictest sect of the Jewish religion, a Pharisee. That was their teaching, as indeed it is ours. He knew it all his life and was never permitted to forget it. At the time of writing his epistle to the Colossians, he had seen them in vision, drawn up like an army phalanx, a form which prevented the enemy from getting in among them. That did not stop satan from having a go. Of this formation Sis. White wrote, "This is the stance which God wants Seventh-day Adventists to adopt."
Concerning Ellen White, she became well aware that the S.D.A. Church did not have a very strong understanding of some of Paul's writings so she asked the brethren around the turn of the century, "To study it out, and get it right, so that the people could understand it."
The very serious problem with the human race is that, in the face of the most serious warnings about difficult texts, one finds every man and his dog over-confidently bowling along knowing for a fact that nothing is too difficult for him. Afterall why should he examine Paul's background? What could he learn from that? Except that he will be kept from error, and after all, who cares about that! But I suspect that the dog has an edge on him.
What I have shown in my last post is that one cannot necessarily blithely find some other words in some other part of Scripture to find the meaning of a metaphor for it is the height of impossibility.
I can say this: A man who had been brought up in the Adventist Church all his life, and was a very fine Christian chap, got torpedoed by some people from the tongues movement on that very text. I discovered that this had occured at 1:30 one night when I walked into his Office with some papers to be left for the morning. He was sitting there with his Bible open at that text trying to fathom its meaning. He looked at me, and laughed saying, "What have you to say about this?"
I went back to my ward and picked up a copy of my work, went back to him and suggested that he read it. When morning broke, he came back and returned it. He was severely shocked. He said, "I never knew." A short while ago, I sent a copy of three pages to Pastor Russell Standish. His reply, "Thankyou very, very much." "Nearly all the points you raise I have never seen in my life." "Thankyou again, I now have something to study very seriously."
Although Russell lives in Australia, and I of course, in New Zealand, we are known to each other, and we do have some respect for each other. Of course we are also much of an age, and our experiences are much more of a match.
Your response warns me to back off - something about "pearls" springs to mind. The problem is that, if that seemed bad, don't worry, it gets far, far worse.
I was only seeking to be helpful but, not everyone needs help, do they?
It was not my intention to cause offence, though I do know the astonishing effect it has on some people. The problem with me is that, if you sent me something like that, I would be so glad of it. If you told me that you love truth, I would be glad and actually believe you. Of course that probably shows a naivete on my part, but then Paul counselled me to "Believe all things; hold fast that which is good." But then, for many years now, the Bible has been the man of my counsel, and it is too late for me to change.
Sincerely,
Ross _________________ R.R. Pollock
If I understand where you are going, I quite agree with you. I have felt for years that the church sells Jesus short in this passage. The "handwriting" is a reference to a statement of debt, or in this case, as you mentioned, a reference to a record of wrong. (For those interested, see my textual reasons for this at the end of the post)
Since Jesus was said by Paul to have "Become" sin for us, it is clear that in fact the handwriting is a reference to Jesus himself bearing our sin on the cross, paying the price for us.
This is quite a bit more in line with the context of the passage.
Quote:
COL 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
in Verse 11 it states that we were circumcised, putting off tyhe sinful nature, and then in verse 12, we were buried with him through faith.
It is referring to the very essential points of the gospel Jesus died to cancel our sin, and we participated in this experience, dying and then living in new life. It echoes Romans 6. Then he goes on to elaborate on that resurrection. He says we were DEAD in our transgressions and sins. Ie...as you said Ross, we were under a death sentance because of our record of sins against us. Now it says he cancelled the written code. This is that certificate of debt...the debt he paid with his life. in fact the phrase itself occurs within the context of the last part of verse 13...HE FORGAVE US ALL OUR SINS. Verse 14 continues the parallel though..ie...how did he forgive us our sins? By paying them in the form of Jesus when He was nailed to the cross!
All one need do is look at what actually WAS nailed to the cross--Our SAVIOR!
Now for those who contend it is the ceremonial law...
how did that stand against us? It helped them to see Jesus.
For those who think it was the moral law...how did the moral law stand opposed to us? It was not the law that was the problem. It was our sin. Get rid of the sin and the law has no problem with us! And that is exactly what Jesus did. he paid the DEBT of our sin, freeing us from condemnation of the law.
In light of this, if we were to tranlsate the passage anew we might say...
Quote:
COL 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the certificate of debt, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
Strangely enough the only Bible I have seen translate this correctly is the Jerusalem Bible...a Catholic Bible that , in the English version at least, is derived from a French tranlation of the text.
The only thing contextually that backs up the idea that it is the ceremonial law is the verses following directly on that passage.....
Quote:
COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
In other words, Paul goes on to apply the teaching of forgiveness. Since Christ fulfilled the laws demands, the ceremonial law was no longer the way to understand God, but focusing on Christ was.
So this is not opposed to the view that it was speaking of our debt of sin.
In fact, we must remember that Paul is here fighting against false teachers who are making much of the ceremonial law, but diminishing Christ (sounds familiar huh Ross?..as we do it today, as E. White pointed out). He begins the whole passage with a warning to cling to Christ but avoid empty philosophies which urge strict observance, but have no power.
Quote:
COL 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
COL 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Even the verses referencing the ceremonial law and the sabbath feast days etc. refer to this false system the teachers were trying to put in place...
Quote:
COL 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19 He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
In other words, the whole passage was an appeal to put Christ first..as in fact is the whole letter of Colossians. They were depeding on knowledge, and strict observance rather than on Christ.
-------------------------------
Textual note on the translation of χειρογραφον τοις δογμασιν
Strongs references of the term handwriting of ordinances...
Quote:
χειρόγραφον
cheirographon
khi-rog'-raf-on
Neuter of a compound of G5495 and G1125; something hand written (“chirograph”), that is, a manuscript (specifically a legal document or bond (figuratively)): - handwriting.
Literally it is simply a combination of the word hand, cheir, and the verb write...grapho. It meant a handwritten form, legal document of bond. it is not apparently a reference to a concept of law, be it moral, ceremonial or otherwise, , but a literal legal document.
and the second word...
Quote:
G1378
δόγμα
dogma
dog'-mah
From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): - decree, ordinance.
Derived from dokeo, to think, imagine, etc.
Thayers defines dogma as decree, statute, ordinance.
So it is a legal form, perhaps of bond.
Even the commentators in the NIV Study Bible correctly translated the word in their notes--but then mystifyingly went on to say the exact opposite....
Quote:
14. Written code. A business term, meaning a certificate of indebtedness in the debtor's handwritting. Paul uses it as a designation for the mosaic law, with all its regulations, under which everyone is a debtor to God.
Their textual work was fine, but then they bent it to fit their idea. It was referring to the debt, our sin, which was placed on Christ and nailed to the cross. Even in the case of debts the law is not changed that caused the debt to be owed, but rather the debt is PAID! .
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
