|
|
|
|
COLOSSIANS 2:14
"...BLOTTING OUT THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES..."
(REVIEW OF JIM PUTTERBAUGH'S ARGUMENTS ON COL. 2:14)
(The following is a quotation of the first part of Putterbaugh's material)
"I.Context: The following verses demonstrate that the context is that of Jesus providing
salvation from sins through His death on the cross.
** The theme of the paragraph (2:11-17) is stated in verse 11 -- 'the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision
of Christ.'
**A series of 5 statements:
The following four verses provide a series of statements that are parallel in theology (that
is, in their meaning) and grammatically (each being a parallel participle). The NASV makes clear that these statements
are 'participles' by consistently using the helper verb, 'having' (having been buried, having forgiven, etc). This
suggest (sic) that Paul was writing them as a series of statements that are all related to one another and provide
a progression of thought.
Verse 12 -- 'having been buried with Him through baptism...'
Verse 13 -- 'having forgiven us all our transgressions...'
Verse 14 -- 'having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting
of decrees against us which were hostile to us...' (NASV)
Verse 14 -- 'having nailed it to the cross...'
Verse 15 -- 'having triumphed over them through Him...'
The progression and parallelism is easily seen by reading each of these phrases. Did Jesus
'triumph' over sin because He nailed the law to the cross? Or did Jesus pay for our sins on the cross?
*** It is clear from the context that Paul is talking about sin being 'nailed to the cross.'"
(end of quote on first part)
He has missed the point of the central theme of the context. The central theme is found in the verse that he skipped
(v. 10) to get to his proposed theme in v. 11. The paragraph does not begin in v. 11, but in v. 8, which is a warning
against being taken as booty by false teachers. That warning is followed by a statement of the fulness of the Godhead
in Christ and is connected to v. 10 -- "And ye are complete (having been filled) in him, which is the head
of all principality and power..." The theme of these verses is the fulness of Christ which makes us full in
Him.
His affirmation that vv. 12-15, provide a series of statements that are "parallel in theology (that is, in
their meaning)" seems to be controverted by his additional statement that they provide A
PROGRESSION OF THOUGHT. "Parallel" and "progression" are not the
same. He picks out only those participles which seem to suggest what he wants as parallel thoughts. If you want
a parallel to Col. 2:, Paul gives one -- you can find it in Eph 2.
Some of the participles in the context do not fit his premise of parallel and progressive development. FOR INSTANCE, "Having spoiled" (v. 15) is also a participle, but this
participle does not relate to "sins being nailed to the cross." The next participle, "triumphing
over" refers to His triumphing over the principalities and powers not over sin. Jim's "either-or"
proposition, by a subtle turning of terminology, interjects his conclusions so that one must answer as he has been
led to a supposed dilemma. It is not a true "either-or" dilemma. He asks, "Did Jesus 'triumph' over
sin because He nailed the law to the cross? Or did Jesus pay for our sins on the cross?" IN
CONTEXT, HOW ABOUT NEITHER? Other passages tell us clearly that Jesus made atonement
for our sins but Jim's argument here is that "nailing the handwriting of ordinances" to the cross means
"nailing sin to the cross." Look at the context again and see if you can find the wording of either of
his questions. What you read in context is that Jesus made us alive together with Him by forgiving us our sins.
Further, you can read that in His death, He triumphed over principalities and powers -- He triumphed over THEM in IT, that is, by His
death. But you cannot read in this context about "JESUS NAILING SINS TO THE CROSS." Contextually, what was nailed to the cross was the "handwriting of ordinances that was against
us, which was contrary to us." That is what must be determined, not by sophistry, but by proper definition
and exegesis.
There was also something else that happened when Jesus died on the cross. "For he is our peace who hath made
both one, and hath broken down the middle way of partition between us; 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;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby..." (Eph.
2:14-16). Here the law is pictured as the enmity between Jew and Gentile and that enmity was abolished in Jesus'
flesh -- abolished in "Jesus' flesh" is the same as saying "by the cross;" that is, His death
on the cross.
In the flow of the context, from v. 10, Paul says that they were complete in Christ. That fulness is seen first
in a figure drawn from circumcision, but their circumcision was in cutting off the old man, not the cutting off
of the foreskin of the flesh. Baptism was the means by which the old man was cut off and they were raised to a
new life, because Jesus, who is the fulness of the Godhead, was raised. That "co-making alive" with Jesus
was made possible, because their sins were forgiven. Something else also happened to make these disciples full
in Christ -- the handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross. The "handwriting" is an obvious allusion
to something written by hand. The first thing that comes to mind that was "handwritten" was the law given
to Moses (Ex. 31:18). But notice that it is a handwriting "of ordinances" which was against them and
contrary to them. It was nailed to the cross in order that no one could judge them in respect to its ordinances
(v. 16). In v. 16, a conclusion is drawn from his previous observations -- literally, it reads, "THEREFORE, let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy
day or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days..." A conclusion deducts from what has been established and
must relate directly to the premises argued. In looking at the conclusion, we should be able to correlate correctly
the premises argued with the conclusion. He does not say, "Therefore, these are a shadow..." He says,
"Therefore, let no man judge you in meat, or in drink..." Why should one not judge them in these things?
-- because the "handwriting of ordinances" was nailed to the cross.
Jim's arguments that the context, particularly the series of participles, show that Paul is talking about sins
being nailed to the cross just do not prove what he is trying to prove. Read Col. 2:1-23 for yourself and see if
the context says that sin was nailed to the cross.
(The following is a quotation of the second part of Putterbaugh's material)
"II. Definition of the word, "handwriting" in Col. 2:14, that is nailed to
the cross is from the Greek word cheirographon. This word was used in the Greek language in the first century to
refer to a 'hand-written' certificate that was a 'record of one's debts.' (Dictionary with the Greek New testament
United bible Societies.), p. 198.
Definition: "cheirographon" -- handwriting: 'A document which is written in one's own
hand as a proof of obligation, e.g., a note of indebtedness.
2. The meaning of Col. 2:14, then is a 'promissory note.' God cancels the bond that lies
to our charge. This bond is not a compact with the devil, as in some patristic exegesis. It is the debt that we
have incurred with God. The forgiveness of sins (v. 13) through indentification (sic) with Christ in his vicarious
death and resurrection means that this note is cancelled; God has set it aside and nailed it to the cross.' Page
1312 -- Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Abridged)"
(end of quote)
The above definition is given as though "a note of indebtedness" is the absolute and only definition
of "cheirographon." That is not true. Lenski refers to Ewald who, he says, found that "of thirteen
such cheirographa, five were debtor's bonds, two concerned deposits made, two were labor contracts, one gave authority
to act, three were business agreements," (Lenski on Colossians, p. 114). All of which shows the flexibility
of the word. It is unscholarly to pick out one definition of "cheirographon" and say, "The meaning
of Col. 2:14, then is a 'promissory note.'" Though "cheirographon" by itself can mean a note of
indebtedness, one cannot draw a conclusion from one definition and say it must mean that in Col. 2:14. Such a conclusion
is especially suspect when it overlooks completely the modification of "handwriting" by the prepositional
phrase "of ordinances."
If "cheirographon" stood by itself, it might lend a little more weight to his conclusions, but it does
not stand alone. It is modified by "of ordinances" (tois dogmasin). Attention must also be given to the
prepositional phrase "of ordinances," since it qualifies the word "handwriting." In Eph. 2:15,
Paul affirms that the law of commandments contained in ordinances was abolished -- "Having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances..." Ordinances (dogmasin) is the same
word as found in Col. 2:14. There can be no doubt but that "the law of commandments contained in ordinances"
refers to the Mosaic law in some form or fashion, though some argue that it was just the "ceremonial law"
that was removed. By "ceremonial law" they mean those regulations relating to the ceremonial aspects
of Moses' Law, but not the ten commandments. Though that position is also false, it, at least, recognizes that
it was law that was abrogated and not "a note of indebtedness" that was cancelled. The content of the
books of Ephesians and Colossians is very similar -- in many instances the same thought is expressed but in different
words. A study of both books reveals the similarity between Eph. 2: and Col. 2:. That similarity is especially
seen in statements made by Paul about the abrogation of the law of Moses. A proper exegesis of Col. 2:14, should
be congruent with Eph. 2:15-16.
(Quote from the third section of Putterbaugh's material follows here)
"III. Col. 2:16-17 -- Because Jesus has 'finished' (Jn. 19:30) God's plan for saving
man from sin, all of the 'shadows' of the Old Testament are no longer required to be observed. Jesus has fulfilled
them. When Jesus died the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom, not the ten commandments. And thus,
Paul affirms that the items that were a 'shadow' of Jesus have ended with their fulfillment in Jesus who is the
very 'substance' of those types or pictures.
1. Foods:
2. Sabbath day: Point to Jesus is the very
3. New Moon: substance of these
4. Yearly feast Old Testament pictures"
(end of quote)
His interpretation here is a very strained one designed to be consistent with his position on the text and also
to support his conclusions about "covenant." However, the interpretation does not give attention to the
text as an exegesis of the verses. He says, "Because Jesus has 'finished' (Jno. 19:30) God's plan for saving
man from sin, all of the 'shadows' of the Old Testament are no longer required to be observed. Jesus has fulfilled
them." How did Jesus fulfil eating, drinking? or how did He fulfill the new moon and yearly feast? Is that
the REASON that such things are no longer required? Such things
were observed, because they were a part of the system of the Old Covenant for the nation of Israel. They were required
for that nation under the Mosaic law. But they were a mere shadow of the things to come. Notice that Paul said
that they were a shadow of "things to come," not that they were a shadow "of Jesus," as he
affirms. There has to be a consistency of the figure of "a shadow" in conjunction with "the body."
The body is not the physical body of Jesus nor is it the church which is the body of Christ (cf. Col. 1:18) --
it merely stands as a completed part of the figure of a shadow cast from a body. The body is equivalent to "things
to come" and refers to the real substance of things provided in Christ as opposed to the things of the O.T.
which were a mere shadow of those things. No reference is made to Jesus being "the very substance of these
Old Testament pictures" -- that is a created interpretation to harmonize with his conclusions on v. 14.
He says, "When Jesus died the curtain of the temple was torn from top to bottom, not the ten commandments."
SO WHAT? What does that statement prove? Because the veil of
the temple was torn from top to bottom and not the ten commandments, does that mean that God did not abrogate the
law? In other words, God had to give a sign in the way some man wants it done or a man will not accept it? But
his conclusion from that statement is that "Paul affirms that the items that were a 'shadow' of Jesus have
ended with their fulfillment in Jesus who is the very 'substance' of those types or pictures." But that is
not what the text says -- it does not say that these things were a shadow "of Jesus," but a shadow of
things to come. Neither is anything said in the text here about these things being types or pictures -- they are
called "a shadow" and that figure is chosen by Paul for an obvious reason. The words "types"
and "picture" are injected to give some resemblance of credibility to his position.
When you read his material carefully the first question that comes to mind is, "Why this interpretation?"
This is an interpretation which has a purpose behind it. He does not reveal what the purpose is but his interpretation
is a forced, strained one that seems to have some other reason than understanding and explaining the text in its
context.
|
