Monday, December 17, 2018

Shabbat in Collossians 2:16-17

What is the meaning of Colossians 2:16-17?

Sabbath Keeper January 15 2011

Sabbath-Sabbat

 

Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the King James Version.

 

[NOTE: It is important that Colossians 2:16-17 be examined within its context, which includes not only the surrounding verses of the second chapter, but the entire book as well.]

Colossians 2:16-17 generates far more controversy and misunderstanding than it deserves. In essence, Paul is saying in verse 16, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (KJV). In fact, the word “judge” is the Greek verb krino, which means to decree, judge, decide, condemn, and criticize. The Revised Standard offers the translation, “Let no one pass judgment on you.” And verse 18begins, “Let no one disqualify you.”

Before we fully identity the issue and the problem of verses 16 and 17, let’s note verses 20 and 21, for these latter verses help to make it a little clearer. In verses 20 and 21, the Colossians are warned against submitting to religious regulations related to touch, taste and handling. These regulations are based on human precepts which have “an appearance of wisdom” concerning ascetic practices (“self-abasement and severity to the body”), but in actuality “are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh” (verse 23, RSV). These regulations, which Paul advises the Colossians to let no one judge them in, are not referring to God-given commandments as found in Scripture. Rather they represent a human distortion and mixture of Judaism with pre-Gnostic elements.

 

As Edward Loshe in his commentary on Colossians and Philemon says:

 

In the context of Colossians, however, the command to keep festival, new moon and sabbath is not based on the Torah according to which Israel received the sabbath as a sign of her election from among the nations. Rather the sacred days must be kept for the sake of “the elements of the universe (2:8),” who direct the course of the stars and thus also prescribe minutely the order of the calendar.

 

Verse 16 now: Three basic explanations for the phrase in verse 16, “in meat, or in drink,” are usually given. They are: (1) meat and drink offerings; (2) clean and unclean meat laws; (3) ascetic, Gnostic-like practices. It is the latter of these three with which Paul is concerned.

 

Let’s rephrase the issue of verse 16. The brethren should not permit others to dictate to them petty rules regarding dieting and worship. Ascetic practices, such as those of the Essenes, were the focus. These ascetics practiced self-abasement, abstaining from eating and drinking on special days, such as festival sabbaths, new moon sabbaths, and even weekly sabbaths.

 

It isn’t meat and drink offerings that are being targeted. The word offering never appears in the text. In fact, the word for meat in the Greek is a form of brosis. Brosis denotes “eating” and is the same word used in Matthew 6:19-20 as “rust,” referring to “consuming” or “eating up.” So the issue concerns the consuming of food, in contrast to fasting as a form of self-abasement.

 

Some would disagree with this position, contending that the meat and drink are meat and drink offerings as part of the festival days mentioned. The text does not allow that, since literally the words are “in eating and in drinking OR in respect of a feast.” Again, keep in mind that the word “offering” does not appear, which Paul easily could have, and likely would have, included were that his intention. Meat and drink offerings were not a form of eating and drinking, but were forms of sacrificing. “Meat offerings” in actual fact were grain offerings, not animal sacrifices (see Leviticus 2).

 

Neither is “meat or drink” a likely reference to the issue of clean and unclean meats, because of the presence of the word, “drink.” What dietary restriction was there in the clean and unclean laws concerning drink? The obvious answer is none.

 

On the basis that the fullness of Christ has abolished the record of the believers’ sins (“handwriting of ordinances,” verse 14), Paul says the brethren should not allow themselves to come under the condemnation of those who would enjoin ascetic practices on the believers in terms of abstaining from eating and drinking and in relation to the ritualistic observance of festival, new moon and weekly sabbaths.

 

How do we know that this is what Paul is referring to in the latter part of verse 16? How can we be sure of the real issue? First, the problem Paul is concerned with is not what days are being identified here, but rather how or for what purpose they are being observed. Again, the concerns are ascetic practices and ritualistic observances which represent a distortion of true Christian worship. Paul is telling the Colossians that, if they were to practice ritualism and asceticism as essential — which was the doctrine being enjoined on them — the Colossians were missing out on the reality of Jesus Christ, who had already freed them from the necessity of human works as a means of endearing themselves to the Eternal (cf. Colossians 2:8-10).

 

If we take the position that it is not which days are being observed that is the issue, but how or to what end they are being observed, then it does not matter that the weekly sabbath is included here, which it in fact is. [The term “sabbath” does not refer to yearly festival sabbaths, as some propose, because the order of “holyday, new moon, and sabbath days” indicates annual, monthly and weekly observances (cf. Hoses 2:11; Ezekiel 45:17). Furthermore, Paul’s use of the term “holyday” already includes yearly ceremonial sabbaths. To have the word “sabbath” refer to annual festivals would be needless repetition.]

 

But what about verse 17? Is it not a disclaimer to the practice of these days altogether, since it mentions that they “are a shadow of things to[or, “which have”] come?” This is a good point. And, we need to understand what verse 17 is talking about. The “shadow of things to come” is in complete contrast to the “reality” or “substance” which is in Christ himself. The Greek word for “shadow” here is skia, which is the opposite of “substance” (soma in the Greek). The shadow is “a sketch, outline, adumbration, an image cast by an object and representing the form of that object.”

 

Now that we have defined the word shadow, let’s look at what Paul is declaring to be the shadow or outline. Once again, we must focus on the issue, that is, the false practices being enjoined upon the Colossians in regard to festivals, new moons and sabbath days. Those days of themselves are meaningless; without their special appointments, they simply would be another day of the week, month or year. The events and observances on those days are what gave them special significance over other days of the calendar.

 

Thus, the ascetic, self-abasing practices and ritualistic observances that were being enjoined on the Colossians as ways of proving themselves before God never would measure up to the reality which was in Christ himself. Those practices at best could only amount to a shadow or a sketch of the meaning of the life in Christ.

 

So the PRACTICE of these superstitious things (self-abasement, etc.) would not get the Colossians closer to God. Paul maintains that such observances are not salvific or meritorious. The reality is that salvation is through Christ; therefore, the observance of days (or any other rituals) cannot bring us any closer to God. Their meaning can only be found in seeing Christ as the only means to righteousness. Paul countered any practice which focused on works-righteousness, rather than on the principle of faith in Christ alone as taught in the Gospel.

 

How then does this interpretation affect Sabbathkeeping today? When one understands that Paul is addressing Gnostic-like perversions of the Gospel in connection with times observed in honor of angels (verse 18), then one can see that the issue of whether or not Christians should observe the seventh-day Sabbath is not even being discussed. At issue is not whether these days should be observed, but the manner and motive in which they were being observed. The validity of Sabbath observance must be determined on the basis of other texts. Colossians 2:16 alone cannot serve as a determining factor.

 

Paul’s condemnation of the heretical views about the Sabbath, no more condemns all Sabbathkeeping, any more than his condemnation of the heretical views about eating and drinking condemns all eating and drinking. Only when Sabbath observance is linked with man-made rules about asceticism, angel worship, works-righteousness, or perverted Judaism does it become unacceptable.

You might also like:

Shabbat - A Day for the Soul as well as for the Body

Profaning the Sabbath Day

Remember the Sabbath

Quel est la signification de Colossiens 2:16-17?

Comment on this post

Craig Christensen

01/15/2018 23:37

Substantiating Scriptures to what I wrote...Acts 17:30, And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 3 John 1:4, I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

Craig Christensen

01/15/2018 23:29

I agree with this article one hundred percent. Arriving at these same conclusions coming from a religious background in my youth tied to "Sunday-keeping" so-called only validates the truth of Scriptures. When we worship the Father in Spirit and in truth as our blessed Saviour taught in John 4:21 & 23 we don't make up the rules dictating how or in what way we worship the Father. He sets forth the terms in Scripture and if we are true followers of Messiah, we yield to His will. It used to be important in Protestant groups, sola scriptura meaning only the Scriptures. It still is whether or not others cave in to man-made and dearly held traditions. Paul said, in And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: God assuredly is calling His people 1 Pet 2:9, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: As a believer, it is still important for me to put the text in context and not merely by a passing glance or surface reading. 2 Timothy 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: As believers we are to edify one another in the truth. Romans 5:2, Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 1 Corinthians 14:3, But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 2 Corinthians 10:8, For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: 2 Corinthians 13:10 Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction. I remember a time when what mattered was are we washed in the blood of the Lamb? and were we walking in the truth? Rev 7:14, nd I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 1 John 1:7, But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. The religious institutions in our land are corrupted by compromise. I'm glad for what the brother wrote. It is an encouragement to me. I pray for the day we once more assemble together in the word, taught by biblical doctrine only contrasted with assembling for assembly's sake. 2 Tim 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. A scripture much used by "Sunday observant" so-called Christians and one taken out of context. Notice where we are to assemble? Hebrews 13:13, Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

Craig Christensen

01/15/2018 23:42

Keep me posted. This is all good so far. Shabbat Shalom I testify is my delight. Isaiah 58: 12, 13

paotinlal gangte

05/02/2017 04:36

Whenever the subject of putting the weekly Sabbath to its original and designated sloth of importance comes,, mainland Christians take the pleasure of shooting it down with Colossians 2:13-18, particulartly vv 16 & 17 “ So 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 substance is of Christ.”without realizing disastrous spiritual consequences! Failure to revere it at its lawful sloth in the weekly cycle that comes once in a week on Sabbath or Saturday, equating it with the ceremonial sabbaths that come once in a year creates a huge misconception on the importance of keeping the weekly Sabbath which forms an integral part of the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:8-11). Facts to be realized may be summed up below : [1] This is the only single piece of literature that the Creator-God has written in His own finger (Deut 3:10) in the Holy Bible! As the Author of this, He alone has the authority to change it, and not by any other. Unless the Changeless One change it, to proclaim its abrogation, or substitution by another day by man is fraud with dangerous spiritual proportion! After all, our Lord Himself reaffirmed it while He was on earth saying,“ Donot think I came to destroy the law and the prophets......I say to you till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Matt 5:17,18). The Anti-christ is expected to “think to change times and law.” (Dan 7:25).
[2] The phrases “handwriting of requirements,” and “which was contrary to us” stand for “guilt of punishment,” and “the part we donot want for ourselves” respectively, which have been wiped out by the hanging of Christ on the cross who became our gospel. [EGW] Thus, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law for having become a curse for us.” (Gal 3:13) but not the law. Col 2:16 be read with Rom14:5 that says, “One person esteem one day above another; another esteemed every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” Whereas it is obvious that the author is not refering to the Weekly Sabbath but that of the 7 Jewish Ceremonial sabbaths (Levi 23) and other criminal and social laws and their related cleansing ritual processes appear evident. After all if the laws themselves are hung on the cross, how can ‘sin’be defined or ideentified without the law? 1 Jn 3:4 clearly defines it as transgression of the law. If there is no law, there will be no transgression anymore; no law no sin! And no justification nor sactification! After all, “the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Rom 8:4). Therefore what has been done away with is the curse or punishment for sins as personified on the cross in the Person of the Son of God who died in our stead! 
[3] God esteemed the Sabbath so much so that He commanded us to observe the same as it would continue to be observed throuugh eternity! (Isa 66:23). He also does not leave man without instructions how it is to be observed as found in the Ten Commandments. Beside asking His creation to keep the sabbath holy, He also called the Sabbath a Sign between Him and them. (Exo 31:13 and Eze 20:20). Indeed, it is to be remembereed as the “Sabbath of the LORD” and to “keep it holy”by restraining work but rest; and it is a “Sign”betweeen Him and His creation! You dare not shun your responsibility. Jesus rectified it, and restored it back to its original state of its observance while on His earthly mission.And even predicted to be careful to not let their flight on the sabbath, and during winter when destruction Jerusalem approaches and bids them to pray for it! (Matt 24:20). Let us not fiddle with His commandments lest some irreversible and lasting condemnation becomes our fate! All these ceremonial sabbaths used to pave way for a sinner to come to the Sabbath as one of the children of God to worship Him. When Jesus paved way for sinners to come to Him as He has already paid the price for it, why try to abolish the lie or sin detectors! .

Contact us

Standard view

Collosians 2:16

Page NavigationAuthors     Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy     Ariel Berkowitz     Christine Colbert     Daniel Botkin     Ian Hodge     J.K. McKee     Nate Long     Rob Vanhoff     Rob Roy     Tim HeggBy Scripture     Deuteronomy     Psalms     Matthew     Mark     Acts     Romans     1 Corinthians     Galatians     Ephesians     Colossians     RevelationTopics     Apologetics     Answering Objections to Torah     Answering Objections to Yeshua     Bible Study     Biblical Feasts & Holidays     Hanukkah     Passover (Pesach)     Book Reviews     Ecclesiology     Divinity of Jesus     End Times (Eschatology)     Food     Hebrew Mind vs Greek Mind     Identity Issues     Language Issues     Paul the Apostle     Sabbath     The GospelComics     Jason SalasAbout Us

 

Is Sunday “the Lord’s Day”?

Category NavigationAuthors     Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy     Ariel Berkowitz     Christine Colbert     Daniel Botkin     Ian Hodge     J.K. McKee     Nate Long     Rob Vanhoff     Rob Roy     Tim HeggBy Scripture     Deuteronomy     Psalms     Matthew     Mark     Acts     Romans     1 Corinthians     Galatians     Ephesians     Colossians     RevelationTopics     Apologetics     Answering Objections to Torah     Answering Objections to Yeshua     Bible Study     Biblical Feasts & Holidays     Hanukkah     Passover (Pesach)     Book Reviews     Ecclesiology     Divinity of Jesus     End Times (Eschatology)     Food     Hebrew Mind vs Greek Mind     Identity Issues     Language Issues     Paul the Apostle     Sabbath     The GospelComics     Jason SalasAbout Us

Category NavigationAuthors     Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviy     Ariel Berkowitz     Christine Colbert     Daniel Botkin     Ian Hodge     J.K. McKee     Nate Long     Rob Vanhoff     Rob Roy     Tim HeggBy Scripture     Deuteronomy     Psalms     Matthew     Mark     Acts     Romans     1 Corinthians     Galatians     Ephesians     Colossians     RevelationTopics     Apologetics     Answering Objections to Torah     Answering Objections to Yeshua     Bible Study     Biblical Feasts & Holidays     Hanukkah     Passover (Pesach)     Book Reviews     Ecclesiology     Divinity of Jesus     End Times (Eschatology)     Food     Hebrew Mind vs Greek Mind     Identity Issues     Language Issues     Paul the Apostle     Sabbath     The GospelComics     Jason SalasAbout Us

TOP 10

MOST VIEWS  ALL TIME

 

1

84478

On Walls and Oneness: Reflections on the Book of Ephesians

2

78240

70 Biblical Reasons to Keep The 7th Day Sabbath

3

58776

Christianity vs. Judaism: A False Dichotomy

4

30675

Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean? A Hebraic Perspective on Mark 7:19

5

30271

In The Way: Church Funds

6

30270

The Blowing of the Shofar: Discerning the Sound of the Trumpet for Our Generation

7

30270

In The Way: Something’s Fishy

8

30270

A Community or a Congregation: For What are We Striving?

9

30270

In The Way: Separate and Apart

10

30270

It is Often Said: “Two Thousand Years of Christianity Cannot be Wrong!”

1

84478

On Walls and Oneness: Reflections on the Book of Ephesians

2

78240

70 Biblical Reasons to Keep The 7th Day Sabbath

5075 views3 likes4 comments

Colossians 2:16: Who was Paul Defending?

by Ian Hodge

“So don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking or in regard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Hodesh[new moon] or Shabbat[sabbath].” —Col. 2:16


Along with Luke’s account of Peter’s vision in Acts 10, this section of Paul’s letter to the Colossians is the other alleged proof that the Old Testament “ceremonial” laws are no longer a moral requirement for those who follow the Messiah.[1]

But also along with the Acts 10 passage, interpreters tend to read their predetermined view into this portion of Scripture. In the case of Colossians 2:16, the predetermined view says Paul declared that the dietary and ceremonial laws were merely a matter of individual choice. You may, or may not, choose to keep them. No one is to be your judge in these matters.

In order to understand this issue, it helps to ask a critical question: Who was Paul defending in this passage? Is he defending the Torah-keeping Christians from accusations by non Torah-keepers? Or is he defending the non Torah-keepers from the accusations of the Torah-keeping crowd? And importantly, what criteria or what standard would Paul have used in order to figure out which group he shouldbe defending?

Here’s the issue: until you figure out your interpretive guideline for the New Testament, all you do is make the New Testament subject to what biblical scholar Cornelius Van Til called “the growing ethical consciousness of man.” When you read the Old Testament, the Torah’s permanence is made known. Read passages like Deuteronomy 29 (see verse 29) or Psalm 119 if you’re unsure. When you come to the New Testament, the opening Gospel makes no attempt to change this view of the Torah. Read Matt. 5:17ff if you’re not convinced.

“But!” it is sometimes alleged, “it was the Apostle Paul (and the writer to Hebrews if it wasn’t St. Paul) who has told us that we are no longer obligatedto keep certain aspects of the law—the Torah—as a matter of sanctification.”[2]We now have freedom of choice. God has untied us from at least some parts of his Torah, and New Testament Christians are no longer bound to the dietary laws, new moons and sabbaths, for example.

Is that, however, what this passage in Colossians is teaching us? Because if it is, there’s an interpretive problem a mile wide, and there is no way to bridge the gap. Let me repeat: Jesus, speaking in the Old Testament insisted on the perpetuity of the Torah. “But you are near, O LORD, and all your commandments are true.  Long have I known from your testimonies that you have founded them forever” (Psa. 119:151,152). Jesus as God incarnate repeated the same principle in his Sermon on the Mount.[3]

By what principle of interpretation, then, can it be said that St. Paul disagrees with what God has previously stated quite clearly. Paul calls himself an ambassador, representing Christ the King. And ambassadors do not make up the rules; they report what they are told to report. And nowhere—I repeat, nowhere—in Scripture, is there any indication that the unchangeable God indicated to Paul that it is now time to change the rules. Any suggestion of changed rules is a fabrication imposed upon the text. Or, more to the point, if you really believe in the inspired Word of God, then on what principle of interpretation can it be said that God changed his mind on the Law?

Let no one judge you? …. Even God?

What would happen if you decided to derive your principle of interpretation from the word of God itself: namely, the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings of the Old Testament? What would happen if you also held to the literal words of Jesus the Messiah when he said that not the least jot nor tittle has been done away with and then re-read this passage in Colossians?

The first thing you would note is Paul’s terminology. He says “don’t let anyonepass judgment on you concerning eating, drinking, new moon and sabbaths.” Does the word ‘anyone’ here include God? Because if it does, not even God can now pass judgment on these issues. If no one, including God, is permitted to pass judgment on these issues, does that mean that you are now a law unto yourself on these matters? That’s the outcome if you follow the popular teaching on this verse.

Such an interpretation throws you back to Eden and the tempter’s suggestion to Eve: “Don’t let anyone pass judgment on you concerning eating. You are free from any obligation to God in these matters. You just have to make up your own mind on issues such as which food you might eat.”

Here you begin to see the problem. New moon and sabbath issues are no longer interpreted by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. Instead, they are interpreted, to paraphrase Van Til, by the autonomous and growing mind of man; which apparently, already freed from the law, is somehow capable of answering this question without the aid of divine revelation: “Should I obey the new moon and sabbath laws of the Torah?”

Would the rabbinic scholar Paul, who was enlightened on the Damascus road about the unity of the Old Testament and the person of Jesus the Christ, the “living Torah,” go against what he knew God had already said in the Scriptures? Would he now turn the clock back to Eden and repeat the tempter’s lie: “Don’t let anyone pass judgment on you concerning food matters. Eat the fruit and you will be like God determining for yourself what is right and wrong”? (see Gen. 3:5)

Unlikely.

And you can see how preposterous such an interpretation would be if you hold to the principlethat the New Testament documents must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament. Any other principle simply loosens man to interpret Scripture by his subjective ethical consciousness. Man may know that the new moon and sabbath regulations were the right thing for the Old Testament Saints, but now Modern Man, more enlightened and with new insights, can determine for himself rules about new moons and sabbaths.

What people are suggesting is that Colossians really reads like this: “Don’t let anyone—including God—pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking or in regard to a Biblical festival or Rosh-Hodesh or Shabbat.”

Now see if you can answer the opening question, “Who was Paul defending?”: the Torah-keeping Christians who were being accused of keeping God’s instructions, or was Paul defending the pagan idea that new moon and sabbaths were simply a matter of opinion?

“Let no man tell you.” But what if that man is repeating what is already in Scripture? Can that man tell you what to do? The correct answer to this question is that it is not the man who is telling you what to do; he is merely the spokesperson—the ambassador—for God. And to the extent that man is faithful to the Scripture, then it is God telling you what to do, not the spokesperson.

In other words, the teacher, Paul, is being a consistent Old Testament instructor at this point. Let no person tell you what is right, but if that is extended to “don’t let God tell you,” then there is a real problem here. After all, what does God say about diet, new moons, and sabbaths? Read the Torah and find out.

There is, then, nothing in Paul’s words that indicate he was reversing or changing the law of God. But what else should you have expected? When he was accused of going against God’s Law by the chief priest before Felix, St. Paul could declare in his defense (Acts 24):

11As you can verify for yourself, it has not been more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Yerushalayim; 12and neither in the Temple nor in the synagogues nor anywhere else in the city did they find me either arguing with anyone or collecting a crowd. 13 Nor can they give any proof of the things of which they are accusing me. 14“But this I do admit to you: I worship the God of our fathers in accordance with the Way (which they call a sect). I continue to believe everything that accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets.


Did you notice the words: “I continue to believe everything that accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets”? Everythingwritten in the Torah. Everything.

In other words, Paul’s defense against the accusations of the Jewish priest was that he was a consistent practitioner of the Torah. And he claims his accusers could produce no proof to the contrary.

Let’s now go back to Colossians and see what else Paul says there. If you step back to verses four and eight in the same chapter, you will get a better perspective and understanding of Paul’s comment in verse 16. Twice he has already used the idea of ‘no one.’ “I say this so that no one will fool you with plausible but specious arguments” (v.4). Again, “Watch out, so that no one will take you captive by means of philosophy and empty deceit, following human tradition which accords with the elemental spirits of the world but does not accord with the Messiah” (v.8). In either instance of his use of ‘no one,’ is there any hint that he is including the Messiah in his broad identification? No one means no human person. Paul never in the slightest indicates that the Messiah is no longer to tell you what to do. That would destroy the Sovereignty of God, taking away his Lordship.

A Fantastic Claim

It’s a fantastic claim about the apostle Paul that is made by the popular interpretation of the passage here. Paul, who declares himself to be an ambassador, or emissary, of the Messiah, Yeshua, is granted a privilege that is not granted or even evidenced for any other human writer of Scripture. Paul alone is attributed with the authority to change the Messiah’s statements found in Matt. 5:17-18. This makes Paul a greater authority than the writer of the Torah, Moses, and greater than the writer of Psalm 119, King David. No other biblical writer even dared to change any aspect of Torah, not even Jesus the Messiah when he was on earth. Yet we are told that St. Paul, and he alone, had more authority as an ambassador than did the King of kings when he spoke on the Mount.

It’s important to note that Colossians 2:16 is just an expansion of Paul’s comments in verses four and eight. Don’t let anyonefool you or take you captive with dumb arguments that sound great but carry no authority, he exhorts. Beware of philosophy and empty deceit. These are plausible but specious arguments. In the same manner, don’t let anyonetell you about food and drink, new moons and sabbaths. Now if St. Paul is opening the doorway to an abandonment of the Torah in verse 16, then he is doing the same thing in verses four and eight. But if he’s doing that, he can no longer legitimately contrast these things over against the Messiah. In other words, to suggest that St. Paul is saying that the Messiah is no longer to sit in judgment over you makes a nonsense of everything else Paul says here and elsewhere. As the philosophers like to say, this is incoherent.

You find the same idea from St. Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians (chapter 10). There he says, “We demolish arguments and every arrogance that raised itself up against the knowledge of God; we take every thought captive and make it obey the Messiah.” There’s the Messiah again. It is Him you are to obey. And if that’s Paul’s theology in his letter to the Corinthians, he is hardly likely to advocate rejection of the Messiah’s words, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) to the Messianic followers in Colossae.

The issue is ultimately tied to your view of God. If he is the self-exhaustive one who speaks an infallible and unchanging Word, you need to maintain this as the key interpretive principle. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,” said Jesus. This means the way to the Father is through Him and Him alone, and not the words of St. Paul. And no amount of theological juggling can escape the meaning of the Messiah’s words, “I did not come to abolish . . .” (Matt. 5:17ff). It was Paul’s calling to be an ambassador of the Messiah, and there are no reasons to entertain the idea that he dismissed any aspect of the Torah. Paul confessed that Jesus is both Savior and Lord.

The popular interpretation of Colossians causes the Messiah in the Scriptures to contradict himself. The Messiah cannot have said that he gave up judgment of ethical matters such as diet, festivals and sabbaths and at the same time also said, “I did not come to abolish. . . .”

It should come as no surprise, then, that St. Paul was simply defending the Messiah in all of his letters, especially his letter to the Colossians. That is, defending the Messiah who identified himself as Lord of creation, through whom alone was the entryway to God. This is the Messiah who was given the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18f), so that Paul could declare in the context of his great statements on justification, “Does it follow that we abolish Torah by this trusting? Heaven forbid! On the contrary, we uphold the Torah” (Rom 3:31).

The popular interpretation of Colossians 2:16 is thus an abstraction. The verse is taken out of its historical context and given a meaning quite independent of not only what Paul is saying in this letter, but is given a meaning quite the opposite to everything that is enormously clear in Scripture. “I did not come to abolish. . . .” How much clearer could the Messiah be on this very important issue?

But this poses yet another question: “If we are to obey the Messiah, how will he communicate to us?”

Does Jesus speak through the Scriptures or without them?

In this question you find one of the great theological debates of today. Does the Messiah speak through the Scriptures, or does he speak directly to us through the Spirit without Scripture? Your doctrine of revelation is at stake here. It has been held by Christians throughout the ages that the Scriptures (both the “Old” and “New” Testament) are the ultimate revelation of God.[4] The popular interpretation of Colossians 2:16, however, causes this doctrine to break down, since it causes Paul to not only contradict himself (e.g. Rom. 3:31), but also contradict the instructions of both the Son and the Father.

So, was Paul defending non-Torah-keeping people who told the Christians that it was now OK to “do their own thing” in relation to diet, new moons and sabbaths? In which case, he would have been saying that the Messianic followers should adopt the advice, “don’t listen to man or God; listen to yourself.” Or was Paul defending and encouraging the Torah-keeping followers of the Messiah to ignore the criticisms they were receiving from gnostics who sought to take these believers captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy? (cf. Col. 2:481822-23) “Don’t listen to these men—let no man tell you. Rather, listen to God.”

Now answer the question: Who was Paul defending?

This is really a simple issue. Either Paul was not telling the truth about himself in his defense in front of Felix,[5] or else other people are misinterpreting his words in Colossians.

See also

Cornelius Van Til, “Confessing Jesus Christ” in John H. Skilton, ed., Scripture and Confession (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 217-246.Acts 10: Peter’s Conversation With GodSermon on Romans Chapter 3.

References

[1] See my article “Peter’s Conversation with God: A Lesson in the Perspicuity of Scripture” here: http://messianicpublications.com/ian-hodge/peters-conversation-with-god/

[2] For a brief overview of the difference between justification and sanctification, see: https://carm.org/justification-and-sanctification

[3] See especially Matthew 5:17ff

[4] I know there is debate about apocryphal books, but these are in addition to the 66 books accepted by most Christians.

[5] See Acts 24:11-14, quoted earlier.

*This article originally appeared on BiblicalLandmarks.com and is reproduced here with permission.



3 people like this

Answering Objections to TorahColossiansIan Hodge

Ian Hodge

Ian Hodge (Ph.D. Whitefield Theological Seminary) was an ordained elder in the Presbyterian Church of Australia. He wrote over 500 articles on topics such as theology, law, economics, philosophy, finance, politics, and education as he explored the application of the biblical worldview to all areas of life. He was the author of the books: A Christian view of Economics; A Christian view of Politics, and A Christian View of Money and Wealth. Ian went home to be with the Lord on April 7, 2016. He was 68. If you have questions about Ian's articles, please send them to: info@MessianicPublications.com

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO TORAHCOLOSSIANSIAN HODGE

Is Sunday “the Lord’s Day”?

Question: Did the Apostle Paul Preach the End of the Law?

It is Often Said: “Two Thousand Years of Christianity Cannot be Wrong!”

What are the “Elements of the World” Paul Refers to in Galatians 4:3, 9 and Colossians 2:8, 20?

Colossians 2:14: Was God’s Law Nailed to the Cross?

Peter’s Conversation with God: A Lesson in the Perspicuity of Scripture


SIGNUP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER!

Email address:

AUTHORS

Ariel ben-Lyman HaNaviyAriel BerkowitzChristine ColbertDaniel BotkinIan HodgeJ.K. McKeeNate LongRob VanhoffRobert RoyTim Hegg

TOPICS

Anti-Semitism and Anti-JudaismAnswering Objections to TorahAnswering Objections to YeshuaBible StudyBiblical Feasts & HolidaysBook ReviewsComicsDivinity of JesusEcclesiologyEnd Times (Eschatology)FoodHebrew Mind vs Greek MindIdentity IssuesLanguage IssuesPaul the ApostlePractical Torah ObservanceSabbathSacred NamesThe Gospel

"First, the last part, "Jesus declared all food clean" is not in my KJV which is an older version not one of..." - Samual Yoder"Paul did indeed preach the end of the law. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one..." - Samual Yoder"The deceitful lie that "has to go" is the one claiming that 'God has a future for Israel'-- as if Israel's ..." - paroikos"Thank you Tim! Check out this video. It has some information that is very relevant to your argument. htt..." - Yosef Feigenbaum"This was all very interesting but there is one more thing that you should point out in order to show, once ..." - Yosef Feigenbaum"Something nobody seems to have mentioned is actually LEARNING Biblical Hebrew and Greek. It is not super di..." - Coburn Ingram

Is Sunday “the Lord’s Day”?

Question: Did the Apostle Paul Preach the End of the Law?

Paul’s Message About Torah Remains a Mystery To Many

On Walls and Oneness: Reflections on the Book of Ephesians

It is Often Said: “Two Thousand Years of Christianity Cannot be Wrong!”

SEARCH FOR:

Copyright © 2018 Messianic Publications, All Rights Reserved.

Rebuilt by: Web Design by Mark