Sabbath or Sunday which one is for the true followers of Chirst?

[SeaBass]

Does the bible say it was worship?
Does anytime a preacher preach implies worship?
Does breaking bread always mean worship?
First day of the week - perhaps blueletterbible would help one understand when it was referring to. By the way, it's Acts 20:7, not Acts 10:7.
What I do know is some say Jesus raised on Sunday morning and the reason why Sunday morning worship.
What we do know is Paul preached until after midnight. Shouldn't we follow the same - whether from Saturday to Sunday morning or from Sunday morning to Sunday evening after midnight?

Taking the Lord's Supper, preaching/teaching, singing, praying, giving are all forms of worship. Jn 4:23,24 true worshippers worship "in truth". Jn 17:17 "thy word is truth" so true worshippers worship according to God's word - including Acts 20:7.

'first day of the week' the Jews had no names for the days of the week so they based days from the Sabbath. So first day of the week is first day from Sabbath or Sunday. Third day of Sabbath would be Tuesday and so on.

Paul preach at various times of the day/night. The great commission requires Christians to go and preach the gospel meaning the gospel can be preached anytime, anywhere.

 

[john832]

Christ's NT contains Christ's law and Christ's NT would come into effect after Christ died.

I keep asking this question but no one answers. Oh well, we'll try again...

Since the One known as the LORD, who spoke the Law from Mt. Sinai, who spoke face to face with Moses is the One who became Jesus Christ, what happened there? Was the Law a rial run and there were some mistakes in it? Was it a bad Law? Did Christ faceplam and say "I really screwed up on Mt. Sinai, now I gotta go die and give new Laws"? Is this version 1.2 or 13.8? How many revisions does He have to make to get it right?

How about an anwer?

 

[KohenMatt]

I guess the difference is trying something and "see" if God really tells us to do.
Trying to observe Sabbath and see if there's any revelation is no difference from trying not to commit murder and see if there's any blessing.
Yes I know LT tried but I don't know (or I could have missed) what he thinks.
Yet my point is, it's seldom what we think that matters to Him.
We seldom consider curses which might be, or have already been, on us.
We always consider ourselves free in North America, not realizing we are but slaves to idols in our heart or in the society.
We, who consider ourselves in Christ, are in reality not too different from those who considered themselves the children of Abraham, if we do not listen to what He says or worse, twist what He says.

It's not so much of a see if God tells us to do it thing. What I am saying though, is that much of the anti-Sabbath crowd are quick to judge against the Sabbath which is a Biblical command, without ever having experienced it or learning about it. There is the occasional "Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath", and "The Sabbath was made for man" argument. But the strong majority of arguments only consist of the commentary in the NT about why not to do the Law.

I have seen very few anti-Sabbath people address the instructions of the Sabbath in the OT or experiences of the Sabbath itself, and THEN look at what the NT might say about it. You can't make a convincing argument that way.

For example (and a very frivolous one at that), I can say all day long that fish is nasty and tastes horrible. I can even share with you how my friend thinks it's nasty too. But unless I have personally tried the fish, my opinion is merely subjective.

I believe you can't teach what you don't know. Or in this case, you can't teach against what you don't know.

And by the way....
I have tried fish.
And it IS nasty.

 

[SeaBass]

Matthew 5:17-18
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Heaven and earth are still here.

At least here in Colorado.

EPh 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

So the OT law has been abolished. Abolished in Eph 2:15 is katargeō meaning to make inactive, deprive of force or power.

In Mt 5:17,18 the word 'destroy' is katalyō meaning destruction, demolish. In this context "destroy" is contrasted to "fulfill" so Christ did not come to demolish the law but to fulfill it...He ended the law not by destruction/demolishing it but ended it by fulfilling. "Fulfill" carrying the meaning of bringing to an end, to cease. So when Christ fulfilled those OT prophecy that brought that law to an end..."it is finished" are the words Christ used in describing the OT law when dying on the cross.

Mt 5:18 cf Lk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Again, Christ's point is that it would be much easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the law not to accomplish if purpose/fail. He is not remotely saying the law would last as long as heaven and earth last.

 

[chubbena]

So much wresting of scripture. How can this guy be a "Dr" yet get something so simple so wrong?

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;


Col 2:14 "handwriting of ordinances" refers to the law of Moses, those ordinances written by the Lord Ex 24:12.
That law of Moses was against the Gentiles, Eph 2:11ff.

In the context of the Colossian epistle, Paul is dealing with what is termed by many as the "Colossian Heresy"***. There were those trying to lead the Colossians astray "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." v8.

Col 2:11-13, those Gentile Colossians had not been circumcised in the flesh but had been circumcised spiritually. Part of this false teaching of v8 had to do with false Judaizing teachers saying the Gentiles could not be saved unless they were circumcised according to the law of Moses, see Acts 15:1,2. "Implying that they did not need, as the Judaizers taught, the outward rite of circumcision, since they had already the inward spiritual reality of it." JFB Commentary on Col 2:11.


In Col 2:16 Paul points out Christians are not under any Jewish dietary laws or the Jewish observance of certain, particular days.

Paul's point to these Colossians was that OT law of Moses had been blotted out, took out of the way and no longer in effect. Therefore do not be led astray by the false Judiazing teachers trying to bind the law of Moses upon you.

Paul may have been suggesting this: over the course of one’s mature life, he has progressively sinned. These sins existed (in the Colossian context) in relation to a “bond written in ordinances” (cf. Ephesians 2:15), namely the Jewish law. By implication, of course, there was an extension in principle to that law to which Gentiles were subject as well (Romans 2:12-15; see Moule 1977, 106). That law, if it was to effect human justification, required perfect obedience. As Paul said elsewhere: “Cursed is every one who continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Galatians 3:10). Since no one could keep the law perfectly, all were condemned thereby. In discussing this matter, E.F. Harrison described the law of Moses as the “full documentation” of sin (1971, 62).

Moreover, that legal system had no ultimate remedy for sin. It had only the sacrifices of animals, which could not atone for evil permanently (Hebrews 10:1-4). Thus, as long as the former regime stood, there was no hope of total redemption. Christ, therefore, completely canceled that “bond” by his death upon the cross; we are therefore not judged by that standard today (Colossians 2:16).
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/23-law-of-moses-some-metaphors-considered-the
Wayne Jackson




***Colossian Heresy


PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE: Paul had received a report of the situation
at Colosse by way of Epaphras (1:7-8). This report was for the most
part favorable (2:5). But the subject matter in the epistle strongly
suggests that the church was facing a two-fold danger:

* The danger of relapse into paganism with its gross immorality (cf.
1:21-23; 2:6; 3:5-11)

* The danger of accepting what has been come to known as "The Colossian heresy". This heresy was a syncretism involving four elements of both pagan and Jewish origin:

* Philosophies of men - which denied the all sufficiency and
pre-eminence of Christ (2:8)
* Judaistic ceremonialism - which attached special significance
to the rite of circumcision, food regulations, and observance
of special days (2:11,16-17)

* Angel worship - which detracted from the uniqueness of Christ
(2:18)

* Asceticism - which called for harsh treatment of the body as
the means to control its lusts (2:20-23)

Colossians Introduction - A Study Guide by Mark A. Copeland

There's absolutely nothing in the "OT" against His people who obeyed His commandments.
The letter was written to the Colossians i.e. idol worshipping pagans which the ordinances were against. They were to be eliminated like the people in Jericho and Ai but such ordinances and hostility were nailed to the cross cf Ephesians 2.

There was a change in the believing Colossians' life style which Paul said "do not let anyone judge".

The "anyone" in Colossians 2:16 were those who taught deceptive philosophy based on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world, who delighted in false humility and worshipped angels, who set those do's and don'ts rules based on human commands and teachings.

 

[john832]

Taking the Lord's Supper, preaching/teaching, singing, praying, giving are all forms of worship. Jn 4:23,24 true worshippers worship "in truth". Jn 17:17 "thy word is truth" so true worshippers worship according to God's word - including Acts 20:7.

'first day of the week' the Jews had no names for the days of the week so they based days from the Sabbath. So first day of the week is first day from Sabbath or Sunday. Third day of Sabbath would be Tuesday and so on.

Paul preach at various times of the day/night. The great commission requires Christians to go and preach the gospel meaning the gospel can be preached anytime, anywhere.

It is interesting that it caused great division and took a headquarters conference and the head of the New Testament church had to render a decision on requiring physical circumcision, yet there is nary a word about the Sabbath being abbrogated. Nary a word about the day of worship changing in the New Testament.

If the seventh Commandment had been altered or done away, it would have caused such consternation that Luke would have likely written an entire book about it. Yet, folks claim the fourth Commandment is done away and there is nary a word?

Wanna buy a bridge?

And and about Acts 20:7, I've posted this numerous times,, please read it...

Here we go again…

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

First of all, what is ‘breaking bread’? Is this the Eucahrist? Barclay’s has this…

"A YOUNG MAN FALLS ASLEEP (Ac 20:7-12)
20:7-12 On the first day of the week, when we had gathered together to break bread, Paul, who was about to leave on the next day, spoke to them, and he prolonged his talk until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where we were assembled. A young man called Eutychus was sitting by the window. He began to be overcome by a deep sleep. While Paul was talking he was still more overcome by sleep and he fell right down from the third floor and was taken up dead. Paul went down and threw himself on him. He put his arms round him and said, "Stop making a fuss, for his life is still in him." So he went back upstairs and broke bread and ate; and he talked with them a long time until dawn came and so he departed. And they brought in the boy alive and were greatly comforted.


This vivid story is clearly an eye-witness account; and it is one of the first accounts we have of what a Christian service was like.

It talks twice about breaking of bread. In the early Church there were two closely related things. One was what was called the Love Feast. To it all contributed and it was a real meal, often the only proper meal that poor slaves got all week. Here Christians ate in loving fellowship with each other. The other was the Lord's Supper which was observed during or immediately after the Love Feast. It may well be that we have lost something of great value in the happy togetherness of the common meal. It marked as nothing else could the family spirit of the Church. "

Even Barclay recognizes that this may have been a meal instead of communion. Love Feast? What scripture does that come from?

It was a meal. We call them potlucks today.

From Bullinger’s …

break bread. See note on Act_2:42.

So, from the notes on Acts 2:42…

breaking of bread. This was the common meal.

Secondly, what day was this…

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The word first here is…

G3391
μία
mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

And it means first. Now for day, hmmm, day is in italics, that means it was not in the original but was added so there is no Greek for day. So the next words are…

‘of the’ and the translators got those from the Greek…

G3588
ὁ, ἡ, τό
ho hē to
ho, hay, to
The masculine, feminine (second) and neuter (third) forms, in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

So, ‘of the’ is the definite article. The next word is ‘week’ and it comes from…

G4521
σάββατον
sabbaton
sab'-bat-on
Of Hebrew origin [H7676]; the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.

Sabbaton, the Sabbath. So how are we to understand this? Let’s look at the Diaglott…

Act 20:7 In and the first of the sabbaths, having been assembled of us to break bread, the Paul discoursed to them, being about to depart on the morrow; continued and the discourse till midnight.

The first of the Sabbaths? What does that mean?

Dr. Bullinger tells us this…

Acts 20:7

first, &c. = first day of the sabbaths, i.e. the first day for reckoning the seven sabbaths to Pentecost. It depended upon the harvest (Deu_16:9), and was always from the morrow after the weekly sabbath when the wave sheaf was presented (Lev_23:15). In Joh_20:1 this was the fourth day after the Crucifixion, "the Lord's Passover. "Compare App-156. This was by Divine ordering. But in A.D. 57 it was twelve days after the week of unleavened bread, and therefore more than a fortnight later than in A.D. 29.

This was actually on the Sabbath and continued into late Saturday night. Now the interesting thing about this is that on the next day, Sunday, Paul walked 19 miles across the peninsula to Assos to meet the others…

Act 20:13 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
Act 20:14 And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene.

From Troas to Assos was approximately 19 miles. When I was in the Boy Scouts many years ago, we went on a few 20 mile hikes and that is a long walk in one day. It took several hours to walk 20 miles and required a great deal of effort. What a strange way to keep the “Lord’s Day”.

In reality, Paul preached to them on the Sabbath and continued on into the night. He was long winded and reminds me of Gerald Waterhouse. His typical sermon was about 3 to 4 hours, Paul beat him by a mile.

 

[SeaBass]

I wonder how many anti-Sabbath people have actually tried keeping the Sabbath?

Duet 5 the OT law, including keeping the Sabbath, was only given to Jews to keep. So why would anyone try to keep a law that was never given to him to keep, that has been abolished, that cannot save/remit sins completely, that would make Christ's life/death in vain if were still in effect?

 

[SeaBass]

And which law He speaks about does not originate from the scripture and not raise to a higher level including the remembrance of the Sabbath?

Nowhere did Christ, or his apostles, command the NT church to remember the Sabbath.

 

[SeaBass]

Bass,

If this is true, then why did Jesus tell His disciples to follow the Law until heaven and earth passed away?

Christ did not ever say that.

 

[john832]

EPh 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

So the OT law has been abolished. Abolished in Eph 2:15 is katargeō meaning to make inactive, deprive of force or power.

In Mt 5:17,18 the word 'destroy' is katalyō meaning destruction, demolish. In this context "destroy" is contrasted to "fulfill" so Christ did not come to demolish the law but to fulfill it...He ended the law not by destruction/demolishing it but ended it by fulfilling. "Fulfill" carrying the meaning of bringing to an end, to cease. So when Christ fulfilled those OT prophecy that brought that law to an end..."it is finished" are the words Christ used in describing the OT law when dying on the cross.

Mt 5:18 cf Lk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Again, Christ's point is that it would be much easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the law not to accomplish if purpose/fail. He is not remotely saying the law would last as long as heaven and earth last.

The subject there is the enmity. That is what is abolished by conversion...

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Now what does Paul say about the Law?

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

So is the Law itself the enmity? Does Paul speak out of both sides of his mouth? If he does then there are two problems here...

1) Paul can't be trusted.

2) Worse, scripture can be broken.

Either way we have no source of truth. So if you believe that Paul contradicted himself in Eph 2:15, ho9w about reconciling these verses? Or at least explain to me which ones I should keep and which ones I should throw away.

 

[john832]

Christ did not ever say that.

That, my friend, is a false statement...

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

 

[john832]

Nowhere did Christ, or his apostles, command the NT church to remember the Sabbath.

Uh, where did He command them to forget it? AS to whether it is commanded to be remembered...

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

You know what the word for rest here is, it is Sabbatismos. The Diaglott renders it thusly...

Heb 4:9 Therefore remains a keeping of a sabbath for the people of the God.

Even the margin in my Oxford KJV has "keeping Sabbath", so don't make claims that are false.

 

[john832]

Duet 5 the OT law, including keeping the Sabbath, was only given to Jews to keep. So why would anyone try to keep a law that was never given to him to keep, that has been abolished, that cannot save/remit sins completely, that would make Christ's life/death in vain if were still in effect?

And yet we read...

Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

You know what a stranger is?

H5236
נכר
nêkâr
nay-kawr'
From H5234; foreign, or (concretely) a foreigner, or (abstractly) heathendom: - alien, strange (+ -er).

A gentile.

Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Notice it does not say "Jewish flesh"? It says ALL FLESH will keep the Sabbath in the Millenium when Christ is here on earth.

 

[SeaBass]

I keep asking this question but no one answers. Oh well, we'll try again...

Since the One known as the LORD, who spoke the Law from Mt. Sinai, who spoke face to face with Moses is the One who became Jesus Christ, what happened there? Was the Law a rial run and there were some mistakes in it? Was it a bad Law? Did Christ faceplam and say "I really screwed up on Mt. Sinai, now I gotta go die and give new Laws"? Is this version 1.2 or 13.8? How many revisions does He have to make to get it right?

How about an anwer?

The OT law had a purpose and would not fail (no jot or tittle would pass) until its purpose was fulfilled through Christ Gal 3:24,25..."Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

Col 2:14; Eph 2:15; Hebs 9 and 10 show the temporary purpose of the OT law.

 

[john832]

Duet 5 the OT law, including keeping the Sabbath, was only given to Jews to keep. So why would anyone try to keep a law that was never given to him to keep, that has been abolished, that cannot save/remit sins completely, that would make Christ's life/death in vain if were still in effect?

Been abolished? Ever read the end of the book to see what the outcome is?

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[SeaBass]

That, my friend, is a false statement...

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Please show us from Lk 16:17 where Christ said "follow the Law until heaven and earth passed away".

That is wresting of scripture. Again, His point is it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the purpose (jot and tittles) of the OT law to fail.

 

[john832]

The OT law had a purpose and would not fail (no jot or tittle would pass) until its purpose was fulfilled through Christ Gal 3:24,25..."Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

Col 2:14; Eph 2:15; Hebs 9 and 10 show the temporary purpose of the OT law.

Hmmm, schoolmaster. Hebrews 10 is devoted to explaining the schoolmaster...

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

Animal sacrifices were the shadow, the schoolmaster, the tutor (as the NKJV has it)...

Gal 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

So the purpose of not stealing is to lead us to Christ and once Christ came we do away with the Law about not stealing?

Peter explains about Paul...

2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

And how one must read ALL of Paul's writings and reconcile them together. Then one looks at them in the light of Christ's clear teachings.

It never ceases to amaze me that people claim to be followers of Christ but believe that Paul overrides and does away with Christ's plain teachings.

So once again I am asking which version of the Law this is? 1.2, 5.4 or 13.8? And has it changed today? Seeing as how, according to you, it is extremely mercurial.

Where are we today? Which version?

 

[SeaBass]

Been abolished? Ever read the end of the book to see what the outcome is?

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Eph 2:15 "Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

This "law of commandments contained in ordinances" is the same "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" of Col 2:14 that has been abolished.

Rev 22:4 refer to NT commandments. Nowhere ever did Christ or His apostles command the NT church to remember the Sabbath, to make animal sacrifices, do purifications, etc, of the OT law.

 

[john832]

Please show us from Lk 16:17 where Christ said "follow the Law until heaven and earth passed away".

That is wresting of scripture. Again, His point is it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the purpose (jot and tittles) of the OT law to fail.

OK, Christ said to keep the Commandments and He said they would be here after heaven and earth passed away. Is there a question about this?

 

[john832]

Eph 2:15 "Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

This "law of commandments contained in ordinances" is the same "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" of Col 2:14 that has been abolished.



Rev 22:4 refer to NT commandments. Nowhere ever did Christ or His apostles command the NT church to remember the Sabbath, to make animal sacrifices, do purifications, etc, of the OT law.

Ah, the handwriting of ordinances? Are the Ten Commandments the handwriting of ordinances?

Exo 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Let's let Dr. Robert Thiel weigh in on handwriting of ordinances...

What Does Colossians 2:14 Really Say?

It is of interest to note that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" is a Greek legal term that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--through Jesus the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"), not the law! "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them" (Heb 10:16).

Even Protestant commentators realize this. Notice what Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible states about Colossians 2:14:

Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood,

1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

Some will argue that you still cannot keep the ten commandments (for "all have sinned"), even if they are all mentioned as being in effect after the crucifixion. Does this mean one should not try?

Furthermore, let's look at another translation:

14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14, NASB)

The handwriting of requirements (often also called the hand-writing of ordinances) or certificate of debt was wiped away and nailed to the cross.

Which requirements were wiped out?

Please understand that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" (cheirógrafon toís dógmasin) is a Greek legal expression that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty. It is only through the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"). But only the penalty, not the law!