It's the same ole song...(Four Tops)

I have no problem with you believing that this scripture refers to a future reinstatement of the OT sacrifices.

It is an interpretation, however, even if true.

I believe in the scripture as written, but I have a different interpretation of it.

I do not wish to fight. I enjoy seeing differing opinions relating to Biblical passages.

In the end, we all know that all glory and honor goes to God, and that our salvation comes in Christ alone. In this we have unity.

On non-essentials, having differing views is completely permissible. I know that the BB is host to many, many fights, but disagreeing is not always fighting.

Grace and peace.

 

I will take a stab at it.

Paul is speaking of what he calls "hand-writing of ordinances" in verse 14, which were taken away. What was clean and what unclean under to the law, and observing feast days such as the new moons and special Sabbaths. These had been taken away and nailed to the cross, and were no longer obligatory.

Then in verse 17 Paul tells us those things are a shadow. All the "handwritings of ordinances" were types that remained until the coming of Christ, who they were representative of. The Greek word skia, translated shadow, meaning any thing imperfect or unsubstantial, is contrasted with the Greek word swma, meaning body, which was used in the opposite sense, and expressed any thing substantial, solid, and firm. The law was the shadow or representation of good things to come but it was not the substance of the solid, substantial thing to come, Christ, but was in comparison, a mere shadow, without substance or solidity.

To try to force this into a hyper-dispensational mold and claim it is yet future is simply wishful thinking.

 

Amen, Skanwmatos!

 

Although I can see both sides on this discussion, Skan's view seems to fit the context best.

 

Skan's view is a very popular one, but I have trouble with it, as do many others, because of the tenses used in verse 17. However, Skan is certainly correct in saying that the law was fulfilled in Christ. The shadow is historical; the real is either present or future. Therefore, animal sacrifices are also historical and mere shadows of what is or will be in Christ.

 

Hey, Paul talked about shadow-boxing.

The comments following are my view of this passage in question.

Paul here uses the present tense “Which are a shadow of things to come;” because in all probability the Temple had not yet been destroyed and God in His patience was awaiting the national repentance of Israel (to fulfill all righteousness).

Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles.

It was a transitional time.

Hebrews 8:10
For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

NKJV In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

NASB When He said, "A new {covenant,}" He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

RSV In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

In both of these epistles the Church (the Body of Christ) had not yet taken the full preeminence as the Kingdom of God on earth (Mystery form – Matthew 13) while the Temple stood.


Luke 5
And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was [taken] out of the new agreeth not with the old.
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

Grace and the Law cannot be mixed or reconciled except that the one (Law) eventually drives the sinner to the other (Grace).

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

HankD

[ July 19, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Amen Pastor_Bob! Well said. </font>[/QUOTE]there ya go again w/ the scowling face!

 

When I went back and reviewed my post I realized I had left out that very important point, but it was too late to edit it.

Paul was writing in about 62-64 AD, 6-8 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and thus, even though they had become superannuated, the animal sacrifices were still being offered and thus the present tense.

 

If any of you (robycop included) will look at the passage in light of Ezeliels vision (the last several chapters of EZ., the book of Dan.,Rev., and Psalm it is very plainly prophecy.
I had thrown the challenge to robycop to discuss this to which he ignored. We are in the wrong section of the board for this but if someone would care to start a thread in the proper place I will gladly get in.

 

The bible interprets the bible. No one has to apply a lens of OT prophecy to understand what it says.

I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.

For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him

and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--

"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"

(referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings?

These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Col. 2:4-23

Now, try to figure out what the verses mean in their native context.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Weak...vey weak guys. However it did prove my point. Those who bicker endlessly about versions no little if any content. Think about it.

 

Please refrain from being rude. This thread is for discussion of versions and is not a me against you thread. Any and all are welcome to post as they see fit.

Diane