You are on page 1of 31

Michael Bremner, 1060 Susan Wendel, Ph.D.


Colossians 2:16-19 is a passage that has left everyone who approaches the text in awe and wonder, pondering what Paul is trying to say. Paul only makes brief references to the problem the Colossians are experiencing, assuming that the audience reading the letter has firsthand knowledge of the issue at hand.1 The vast amount of theories that scholars have developed to answer the question of whose Pauls opponents are leaves one with another question unanswered. Namely, how one can understand what this passage means for the Church. If these passages are inspired by God for the Church, we must somehow figure out a way in order to read them for our own edification.2 Although the speculations pertaining to Pauls opponents are at times helpful, they are ultimately irrelevant as the major speculations all share a common contention which is refuted by Saint Pauls argument that as long as the Church community holds to Christ, it will prosper as the people of God. The overview of the context preceding this passage is that Paul is attacking teachings that would cut off the Colossians from Christ. Although the Colossians do not seem to be in danger of heresy, as Paul is impressed by them (cf. 1:4; 2:5),3 Paul fears the

Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with introduction and commentary (Broadway, NY: Doubleday, 1996), 378. 2 N.T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 19. 3 Barth, Colossians, 384.

Colossians will be deceived () by persuasive speech () (Col 2:4). However, he still wishes to warn them of the practical consequences of these teachings, rather than trying to exposit what these teachings intellectual speculations are.4 The beginning of Colossians 2:16 already reveals a connection to the Colossians status as the people of God. The inferential conjunction connects this passage to the previous passage in v. 2:15, in which Paul had written of the victory () of Christ over the rulers and authorities ( ). Paul then warns the Colossians that they must beware of being taken captive by them ( ), since these powers had tried to disqualify gentile Christians membership as Gods people. And so, Paul now warns the Colossians against letting any ordinary mortal accomplish what these 'powers' have failed to do,5 which was attempting to stop Christian gentiles from growing fully as a mature Body (cf. Col 2:8-19). Paul utilizes the imperative word , prohibiting the Colossians to let anyone exclude them from Gods people. The word is rendered as judge, however this should not be seen as a criticism, that they are just looking down on the Colossians for not fasting or practicing asceticism. Rather, it should be read as in excluding the Colossians6 or perhaps informing them they have been excluded from the people of God. This is warranted by the context of disqualification that will be clarified later on. The judgment pertains to whether or not one is truly a member of the Church. Finally, we can see the same problem of disqualification happening in Galatia, in which the law looks to alienate the Galatians from the Church (cf. Gal 4:17).7

4 5

G.B. Caird, Paul's Letters From Prison (Oxford University press, Great Britian, 1976), 196. Wright, Colossians, 118. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., 119.

Not only that, although it only appears we are focusing on Jewish law, it cannot be the only problem, because the following prohibition does not plainly pertain to that law. Both the prepositions are referential, connecting drinking and eating to the manner in which the Colossians would be excluded unless they followed these opponents teachings. Paul has previously dealt with food and drink from the Law elsewhere; remarking eating and drinking ( ) are not a matter for Gods people (Rom 14:17; cf. Rom 14:5-6).8 He says this because eating and drinking are important when they pertain to shared Christian fellowship as the Body of Christ (Rom 14:3).9 The situation here is different in that these are not just related to Jewish food laws, since beverages are not something the Jewish food laws cover, except the Nazarite vow (cf. Num 6:3). However, one did not need to be a Nazarite in order to be Gods people. The disjunctive supported with the repeating shows this all the more, since the eating and drinking would be viewed separately from one another.10 If viewed separately, these could be viewed on their own terms, leading one to question what exactly drinking on its own has to do with being the people of God. Furthermore, it cannot be established that this is the situation in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-13; 10:19-30), as there is no mention of meat being sacrificed to deities.11 One might then conclude that this is an altogether different situation, one that is not related only to kosher laws.12 However, there is still a connection to Jewish Law that Paul is fighting against elsewhere. The LXX also talks about
J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1981), 194. Also see Hebrews 9:10 for non-Pauline use 9 Lawrence R. Farley, The Epistle To the Romans: A Gospel For Al, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion, (Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2002), 179. 10 Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, EGGNT (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 118. 11 F. F. Bruce, Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesiansm, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 113. 12 Wright, Colossians, 119. Wright tried arguing that this is related to kosher laws.

(Ezk 45:17)13 when it discusses atonement for Israel. Failure to observe these implied one did not belong to God's people.14 For Paul, atonement is through Christ (c.f. Rom 5:6-11), and so it appears there really is a very Jewish problem here. Furthermore, , , and are all partitive genitives modifying . This gives some warrant to view these as all related to eating and drinking, as is the object of the referential preposition , referring to eating and drinking. Thus, there is more confusion of whether Paul is talking about the normative Jewish law held by the Pharisees, or whether he is talking about something else.15 There is more reason to see a close connection to the Jewish Law with the phrase . The antecedent to is most likely all of the things previously stated. What follows is that the shadow () refers to these Torah -related items. The word is used by Paul only once, and in this passage. In Hebrews, we see that refers to law, (Hebrews 8:4-5; emphasis mine), and even stronger (Hebrews 8:4-5; emphasis mine).16 In the phrase , the here contrasts the body that belongs to Christ as being the substance. Perhaps the shadowy sense is from Platonic thought, contrasting the world of shadows to the real world of 'forms'17 explaining why some translate as substance. Philo, utilized this language in order to draw a contrast between a true reality and its archetype. More importantly, Philo used and in order to contrast
H. B. Swete, Vol. 3: The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 488. 14 Wright, Colossians, 119. 15 Harris, Colossians, 118. An alternative reading if translated as or in connexion with the observance of festivals or new moons or Sabbaths, or Paul is trying to refer to the matter of annual or monthly or weekly festivals. 16 Bruce, Colossians, 118. 17 Wright, Colossians, 119.

something to what it represents. 18 Furthermore, the previous words , would appear to be contrastive, in that it is a contrary statement that does not rebuke these things of the laws, but it reveals that the real Christian form is that of Christs body, namely being his people. Perhaps Paul here is portraying Judaism as just another religion,19 trying to illustrate that the new Christians do not need to cling to Judaism as it is the shadow and no longer is what denotes the people of God. In support of this idea is that the body and Christ are mentioned together later (Col 2:19), so it does appear that perhaps the body in this instance is the Church. is the possessive genitive, and so the Church would be viewed as the substance,20 the real people of God that belongs to Christ.21 However, there are two meanings here, as Christ is also the real substance in this passage as well. First, the Platonic language (between heaven and earth) is converted into a Jewish expression with eschatological implications (cf. Heb 10:1). Secondly, the definite article would render the term as belongs to the Christ22 giving a clear eschatological picture of the Messiah fulfilling the Jewish hope. Christ is the real substance of the eschatological hope of the people of God that is not properly or fully realized with Torah. Furthermore, with the context of v. 1:1823, the Church which is Christs body is also charged to symbolize or to

James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)176-77. 19 Wright, Colossians, 120. 20 See also Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians, 177. Dunn only comments on Christ as being the substance. 21 Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 223. However, Moo does not see this as being clearly established because double meanings should not be used unless the context makes it pretty clear. (223). Although, he does admit that the context is suggestive of this meaning. 22 Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians, 177. 23 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Col 1:18)


embody this eschatological reality.24 Paul continues explaining the importance of being the people by revealing how one can severe themselves from the Body. is a word that appears in the NT only one time. In Hellenistic use outside of the Scripture it is found to be used as an umpire. Namely, the opponents would act as an umpire who has the ability to disqualify25 one from a race. This disqualification would in essence, rob a person of a prize and ultimately lead to condemnation. In this sense, perhaps these opponents of Paul would be looking to disqualify Christians as the people of God through something other than Christ. Similarly, N.T. Wright notes that what Paul would get across is that You are already members of the body of Christ, no one should be allowed to rule you out of court.26 Thus, anyone who is not a part of this Body it is because they hold to the shadow when they should be holding to the real substance, namely Christ. may be translated in many different ways because of the many hypothesized syntactical forces this word can have,27 but it is possible to see that there are wrong kinds of humility. Given the context which implies condemnation through disqualification, has been rendered as desirous of effecting rather than the translation BDAG gives, which is rendered as taking pleasure in.28 Since the syntactical force of is a participle of attendant circumstance it is dependant semantically on the verb . Thus, the addition in the English translation the

Question idea: How can we embody this reality? Dunn, Colossians, 177. 26 Wright, Colossians, 121. 27 Harris, Colossians, 121.According to Harris, it may be translated as willfully, of his own mere will, intentionally, by a voluntary humility, delighting in, order, require. 28 Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 448. See also Moo, Colossians, 225. Moo also says that it can be translated as delights in and working with the teachings that Pauls opponents have. Saying that this is what they delight in.


condemnation29 is added to the passage and is read as, Do not [let] anyone condemn you desirous of effecting [the condemnation] in order to more clearly show how it is functioning. The Participle, denotes the idea of desiring something,30 and what they desire is the previously mentioned condemnation (). Furthermore, the proceeding has a syntactical force that is instrumental, revealing the way in which these opponents would disqualify the Colossians as being the people of God. This may be seen as problematic, because if taken at face value it appears that humility () is an instrument of condemnation. However, with that conclusion it would be a type of false assumption about the technical meaning of humility,31 for Paul also states that humility is an attribute of a Christian (Col 3:12), and thus his use of the word can have negative and positive connotations. When Paul uses humility in a positive manner, it is in a way which humility is a means for the community to grow in Christ (cf. Eph 4:2, Phil 2:3, Col 3:12). When Paul uses the word humility in a negative sense, it lacks this building up of the Christian community, and rather has an individualistic semantic tone (Col 2:18, 2:23). Paul then begins to mention the worshipping of angels in his epistle, criticizing the emphasis the opponents have given the angels as an object of worship. For strict Judaism some see the worship of angels as a celebration pertaining to the law being handed to them through angels.32 This means the cult would find itself in a form of legalism through the Law being delivered by the Angels. However, the text does not say

The condemnation here is by disqualification Dunn, Colossians, 178. 31 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 45. 32 Wright, Colossians, 122. N.T. Wright notes Perhaps the people he is opposing spend so much time in speculations about angels or in celebrating the fact that the law was given to them, that they are in effect worshipping them instead.


the Law was given by angels.33 Additionally, there are liturgies found in the Qumran (Cave 4) which addressed angels utilizing psalms such as Praise God, all ye angels, (Psalm 103:20) and exhorts the angels to offer various forms of worship to God. However, this is not the worship of Angels, as they are not the object of the worship.34 In the case of translating this passage as worshiping with the Angels, the word would be taken as a subjective genitive. However, there are no examples that , when paired with objects of worship or divines beings, should be taken as a subjective genitive.35 Another problem is whether or not worshipping with angels would cut someone off from Christ. For example, the elders who worship with the Angels in front of the throne of God (Revelation 5:8-14) are not condemned, nor are they cut from Christ. Furthermore, there is a proto-Gnostic notion that we go through angels to get to heaven, and not Christ. Saint John Chrysostom seems to just assume this, referring to some kind of Gnosticism of his time when he writes There are some who maintain that we must be brought near by Angels, not by Christ, that were too great a thing for us.36 Furthermore, proto-Gnostics perhaps believed that their souls entered into the realm of light and then to the realm of the archons (Angels or demons), and so measures were required to be taken to get past them. We must add that based on the use of the concepts 'rulers and powers' in the Hymn of Colossians 1:15-20, and also in 2:15, it must be assumed that the author of Colossians did recognize the existence of some proto-Gnostic

Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 7 on Colossians, trans. John A. Broadus (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889), Homily 7. (accessed on March 8, 2013). 34 Bruce, Colossians, 119. See also Dunn, Colossians, 181-82. 35 Clinton E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 90. 36 Chrysostom, Homily 7 on Colossian, Homily 7.


archons.37 The resulting conclusion when seeing it in this way is that there were protoGnostic tendencies that this opponent would have, resulting in their worshipping of the Angels in order to get past them. Thus, is naturally read as an objective genitive, resulting in the angels being the object of worship. The rendering I used for this passage , is Taking his stand on visions, however this is an educated hypothesis of what this phrase should be translated as, since these words have confused so many commentators.38 The weakness of the rendering taking stands on that which he has seen is that it does not take on the meaning of the verb .39 The phrase can be rendered as invading [or entering],40 or also going into detail.41 And so, this translation does not render accurately. N.T. Wright mentions that perhaps there is a Detection of Irony,42 instead of entry into the heavenly worship (bringing in the concept of the angelic liturgy mentioned previously);instead of the idea that they will pass through archons (angels), they have entered into their own delusions.43 Since the nominative participle agrees with the subject of , it is one of the circumstances of the attempted disqualification,44 pointing this phrase back to whatever the disqualification includes. Thus if seen in this way, it doesnt matter what position one takes when it pertains to what is being critiqued; it is the fact that they stand on their own
Barth, Colossians, 381. See Moo, Colossians, 225; Bruce, Colossians, 120-22. Harris, Colossians,121-22. Note that there are many different ways to render this text; contra Dunn, Colossians, 125. Dunn only gives his rendering when it pertains to worshipping with Angels. 39 Caird, Paul's Letters From Prison, 195. See also Dunn, Colossians, 182-84. Dunn sees this phrase to support the idea that Paul is referring to worshipping with Angels. Basically he claims that Paul would be speaking against the idea that heaven was something you could enter, and then worship with the Angels. 40 Lightfoot, Epistles to the Colossians, 196. 41 Moo, Colossians, 225. Moo translates it as going into great detail 42 Wright, Colossians, 123. 43 Ibid. 44 Harris, Colossians, 121.
38 37

teachings and visions apart from Christ. The problems of these opponents do not end with humility, worship of Angels, or their delusions, since they are utilized to puff up ones own self (). These opponents humility was not for the community of Christ, but it was a cover-up for their own pride.45 The preposition of means denotes that these things were done by their own fleshly mind ( ). Allowing their minds to take precedent and thus losing contact from the head.46 Again, the overarching problem of these passages is that the opponents appear to remove the centrality of Christ to the fixation on other things such as angels, humility, and legalism. The phrase is connected to the last statement with the connective conjunction , connecting this phrase to the condemnation (). There has been a progression of seldomdefined practices which leads ultimately to what Saint Paul is trying to communicate. Whoever these opponents are, they no longer hold fast to Christ, and as a result are no longer united to Christ. The word adds negation to 47 (holding fast to), another participle that agrees with the subject of , showing that while this condemnation is in process they are not holding fast to the head (). Thus, there is separation between anyone who might try to condemn the Colossians (because of a lack of adherence some legal practice), and the which is in reference to the body of Christ (c.f. Eph 4:16),48 who are Gods people. Indeed, it is the Body that has unity with the head (Christ); instead of these supposed opponents who appear to put their emphasis into other things. Aristotle speaks

45 46

Lightfoot, Epistles to the Colossians, 198. Bruce, Colossians, 113. 47 All the participles that are working with are attendant circumstance. 48 Ibid., 122.


of two kinds of union contact and cohesion when explaining the connection of different parts together [to] effect structural union.49 Paul also utilizes similar language in order to give a description of the relation between the head () and the body (). The preposition of source denotes that it is the head (), that is the source of the proceeding participles (supported) (unites).50 The preposition of agency () also connects the means by which the body and its source of life are related.51 Furthermore, the participles (supported) (unites) are particles of means, showing that this is the means by which the growth occurs. However, we shouldnt put too much emphasis on this phrase into how the members grow, but rather we should realize that Paul is emphasizing Christ as its source.52 Finally, the progression of these passages ends with the idea that God is the producer of the growth of the body. The phrase here refers both to the ultimate growth () and the growing () produced by God when one is united to the head.53 As Saint John Chrysostom wrote, All the Church, so long as she holds The Head, increases,54 which Paul argues these opponents, whoever they may be, have not done. Thus, these opponents have no part in the body of Christ, since it is the head through which all the body acquires its growth and capacity to function.55

Lightfoot, Colossians, 199. See also Dunn, Colossians, 186. Dunn notes that this is an ancient medical term; cf. Moo, Colossians, 230. Moo also finds this to be a body metaphor to make an illustration, when it pertains to the relationship between the head and the body. 50 Harris 51 Harris, Colossians, 124 52 Moo, Colossians, 232; contra Dunn, Colossians, 53 Ibid. 54 Chrysostom, Homily 7 on Colossian, Homily 7. See also Dunn, Colossians, 187. Dun states that the concern here is more ecclesiological than christological: failure to hold to Christ is destructive of the bodys unity and growth. 55 Bruce, Colossians, 123.



In conclusion, we have found that whoever Pauls opponents may be, their teachings and practices were not centered upon Christ, but for puffing oneself up. Furthermore, we established that the opponents teachings were not centered upon Christs role of establishing us as a people of God, by perhaps turning to other teachings such as Torah or worship of angels. As a result they would disqualify us as the people of God through judging us by things other than Christ. Thus, the Colossians are edified by being reminded that it is not asceticism or law that denotes the Body of Christ, but that is Christ who they should hold fast to in order to prosper and be the body () which is united to the head (Christ).


APPENDIX A: SYNTACTICAL NOTES Verse 16 Negation Inferential Conjunction indefinite pronoun, nominative, singular, masculine, subject is personal pronoun, 2nd person, accusative plural | direct object Present active imperative 3rd per sing | Prohibition : Object of preposition | Dative Singular Feminine : Preposition, + dative | referential/locat. Could be instrumental/causal (Harris, 118) Disjunctive conjunction 56 : Object of a preposition | Dative, Singular, Feminine : Preposition, + dative | referential/locat. Could be instrumental/causal| BDAG sees this as an act of drinking (855) , Disjunctive conjunction : Object of a Preposition | Dative, Singular, Neuter : Preposition, + dative | reference or respect : could be a stylistic variant of the previous s according to Harris (Harris, 118) Could also be manner Partitive | Genitive, Singular, Feminine | Modifying These are the parts of the eating and drinking. Perhaps descriptive Disjunctive conjunction

It seems to me it is or, not the connective and. In computer programming for instance, AND gives the idea of both conditions needing to be present. Namely, you can let them judge you when it is food only, or drink only, but not when they are together! I think that would be the wrong idea. Additionally, Harris notes that the repeated shows that dietary regulations concerning food and drink are being viewed separately (Harris, 118). Both are viewed separately, something that the English word or gives to this passage. Thus, I would say that it is disjunctive even though the word given is in order to give the idea that even if it is only drinking, you are not to be judged.


Epexegetical | Genitive, Singular, Feminine | Modifying Perhaps partitive Disjunctive conjunction , Epexegetical | Genitive, Singular, Neuter | Modifying Perhaps partitive Verse 17 , Relative pronoun | nominative, plural, neuter | Subject of The antecedent is most likely all of the things previously stated. However, Harris notes that the antecedent can be just (Harris, 118) Finite verb | Present Active Indicative, 3rd person, singular Progressive Predicate Nominative | Nominative, Singular, Feminine BDAG notes it is opposed , Adjectival, Substantival | Present active participle plural genitive neuter Genetive is functioning as attributive maybe? Contrastive Conjunction Perhaps Emphatic Conjunction -> Christ is certainly lord of the Sabbath? (Harris) : Subject | Nominative, singular, neuter | Subject of an implied finite verb BDAG notes it is in contrast to (984) Possessive | Genitive, Singular, Masculine modifying NETS Bible notes sees it as is appositional and translated as such: the reality is Christ. Verse 18 Substantival (Wallace, 292) | Nominative, Singular, Masculine Subject of Direct Object of | Personal pronoun, 2nd person, accusative, plural. 14

Prohibition | Present, Active, Imperative, 3rd person, singular Harris notes that this can be trans. Which allows it to take an accusative object.(Harris, 120) This is what I did. Attendant Circumstance | Present, Active, Participle, singular, nominative, masculine Given that I render it as Attendant Circumstance, it would dependent semantically to the verb Harris also states that it could also be read 1. Adverbly with 2. Adverbly or Adjectivally with 3. Modal sense, being septuaginitism 4. Modal sense, meaning Order, require : by insisting on Perhaps Participle of means Moule notes that this may be better taken as a Semitism (= delighting in) than as though were uses absolutely, separate from the (183) Could also be attributive : Object of a Preposition, | dative, singular, feminine BDAG notes that humility can also be wrongly directed (989) : Preposition, + dative | instrumental perhaps manner , or means , Connective Conjunction Object of a preposition -> governed by | Dative Singular Feminine The dative could be functioning as instrumental Objective | Genitive, Plural, Masculine Harris notes it could be Subjective The worship of God of angels or Angelic worship or Worship with Angels BDAG notes that it is Objective Genitive (459) , 57 Object of , Relative pronoun | Accusative, plural, neuter Moulton notes that we might take the translation of as upon what he vainly imagined in the vision of his initiation (making the conjectural emendations unnecessary) (246)

Textual Variant, pg 690 of greek bible, pg 122 of harris


Finite Verb | perfect active indicative, 3rd person singular maybe Perfect Tense: Intensive. , Temporal | Present active participle, singular nominative, masculine Harris notes that since this agrees with the subject of , it depicts the attendant circumstance of on the attempted disqualification. (121) BDAG notes it can be, subjective translated as entering at length upon the tale of what one has seen in a vision (321). It appears to me if it were to work this way, then perhaps we have an idea of visions being shared with each other. Perhaps delusions. BDAG is not clear what they mean by this though. Could be attributive , Manner | Adverb, Qualifying Attributive | present passive participle, singular, nominative, masculine : Object of a preposition | Genitive, Singular Masculine : means Attributive | Genitive, Singular, Feminine modifying Harris notes that this can be subjective to [the attitude] produced by the flesh (Harris, 123) , Possessive | Genitive, Singular, Masculine modifies both and , Connective Conjunction Negation | adverb Porter notes that some instances occurs with the indicative and with the participle Grammarians have attempted various explanations for these occurrences. They may simply be grammatical slips (284) Attendant Circumstance | present active participle, singular, nominative, masculine BDAG notes it is working with the accusative (565) NETS translates it as a finite verb Could be attributive , Direct Object of | accusative, singular, feminine 16

Source | Preposition Harris notes that it can be source of either growth (relating to near the end of the verse) or it can be the source of nourishment and unity (relating to and Relative Pronoun | genitive, Singular, Masculine Antecedent is Attributive | Nominative, Singular, Neuter Subject of | Nominative, Singular, Neuter : Object of a preposition | genitive, plural, feminine : Proposition, + genitive | Agency/Instrumental Harris notes that this belongs to with both nouns and participles Connective Conjunction Object of a preposition | Genitive, Plural, Masculine Object of BDAG notes w. (966) Means | Present Passive Participle singular nominative, neuter Perhaps Circumstantial Connective Conjunction Means | Present, Passive, participle, singular nominative, neuter Perhaps Circumstantial Finite Verb | present, active, indicative, 3rd person, singular Harris notes it can be Trans. Or Intrans. Direct Object of Transitive Verb | accusative, singular, feminine Cognate accusative Also according to Harris (124) is the accusative of inner content Genitive of Producer | genitive, singular, Masculine Harris notes that it can also be 17

1. 2. 3. 4.

Subjective Gen of source Qualitative Gen of reference



, 17 58 , . 18


There is one insignificant textual variant that introduces the word .


, , , 19 , .


Therefore, do not let anyone judge you, with reference to eating or with reference to

drinking, in the matter of a feast, or a new moon, or a Sabbath, 17[all] which are shadows of things that were to come, but the body [that casts the shadow] belongs to Christ. 18 Do not [let] anyone condemn you desirous of effecting [the condemnation] by humility and the worship of Angels, taking stands on that which he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom all the body, by the ligaments and sinews being supported and unites, grows a growth produced by God.


APPENDIX C: WORD STUDIES 1. Number of times used in the Scriptures a. 1 time i. Colossians 1 times 2. Number of times the word is used by Paul a. 1 times 3. Range of meaning: a. Classical usage: being cast in his suit by means of Meidias.(LSJ) b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: N/A (Lust) c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use: arbitrator, umpire (Moulton) d. Hellenistic Biblical usage:; rob of a prize, condemn; decide against (BDAG, 321) Conclusion: In other writings, this word can be seen as deciding against as an umpire, giving the idea of someone sort of condemnation if this empire deems you to be condemned. Col 2:18 would see then Pauls opponents as doing something that only Christ should be able to do. 1. Number of times used in the Scriptures a. 3 times i. Colossians 1 times 2. Number of times the word is used by Paul a. 1 times 3. Range of meaning: a. Classical usage: step in or on, frequent, haunt; enter on, come into possession of; mount, cover, of the male; to be initiated into the mysteries. (LSJ) b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: to step in or on; to enter on, to come into possession of; to enter into a subject, to go into detail (Lust) c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use: d. Hellenistic Biblical usage: humility, set foot upon, enter, visit; come into possession of, acquire; investigate closely, enter into (BDAG, 321) Conclusion: The literal meaning seems to be enter in. However, it is not actually clear that this is how Paul meant to use the word in either to mean entering an oracle for interpretation of what he has seen or entering at length upon the tale of what one has seen." 4. Number of times used in the Scriptures a. 7 times i. Acts 1 time ii. Ephesians 1 time iii. Philippians 1 time iv. Colossians 3 times 20

v. 1 Peter 1 time 5. Number of times the word is used by Paul a. 5 times 6. Range of meaning: a. Classical usage b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: Never used (Lust) c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use d. Hellenistic Biblical usage: humility, modesty (BDAG, 889) 7. Context of word Passage Notes Eph 4:2 Humility here is a positive thing , There is a communal aspect to this humility, , namely it is for one another With With all The syntactical with all humility and gentleness, force that gives it the idea of manner. with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, (NASB) Philippians 2:3 Humility here is seen as a positive thing , There is a communal aspect to this humility, namely it is for one another , The syntactical force that gives it the idea of Do nothing from selfishness or manner but with humility empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; Colossians 2:18 Humility here is seen as negative , , , Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 21 No communal aspect to this humility. Rather, it is self-abasement Only time this one uses preposition . Could be manner/means/instrumental.

Colossians 2:23 , . These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Humility here is seen as negative No communal aspect to this humility. Rather, it is self-abasement The here again probably denotes manner.

Colossians 3:12 , , , , , , So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; Colossians 3:13 bearing with one another

Humility here is seen as a positive thing There is a communal aspect to this humility, namely it is for one another This time it doesnt appear to be manner.

Conclusion: In the Pauline writings, can either be something positive, which is of Christian character (Col 3:12) as well as something for the edifying of the Christian Church (cf. Col 3:12, Phil 2:3, Eph 4:2). However, it is not always used for Christian character. It can have negative connotations when it is not used for the Church, but to puff up oneself, and individualistic in nature (cf. Col 2:18, 23). 1. Number of times used in the Scriptures a. 7 times in NT, 53 times in LXX i. In the NT 1. Matthew 1 time 22

2. Mark 1 time 3. Luke 1 time 4. Acts 1 time 5. Colossians 1 time 6. Hebrews, 2 times 2. Number of times the word is used by Paul a. 3 times 3. Range of meaning: a. Classical usage: overshadow, shade, darken.(LSJ) b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: shade, shadow (Lust) c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use: d. Hellenistic Biblical usage: shade or shelter from light and any heat associated with it, shade (BDAG, 929). The shape cast by an object as it blocks rays of light, shadow; a mere representation of something real, shadow (BDAG, 930) 4. Context of word a. In the LXX, I skimmed over all 53 times it occurred. It usually refers to a shade, or gives the imagery of a shadow in which one takes refuge under. Its never paired with the law, and it is never paired with drinking or eating. Passage Notes Mark 4:32 modified by , , yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE. (NASB) Matthew 4:16 , THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING : modified by and : object of proposition is locative. Interestingly, the next verse has Jesus preach to them the kingdom of heaven. The Shadow of death has a light coming into it this shadow 23 object of preposition Here the word is used for a physical shadow cast by the tree. refers to the kingdom of God (Mark 4:32) (when it is sown...)


of death. Perhaps there is a contrast; the Kingdom of heaven is contrasted to something else, in this case, the shadow of death.



(NASB) Luke 1:79 : modified by and : object of proposition TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH, To guide our feet into the way of peace. (NASB) is locative. Again, like Matthew 4:16, there is shadow or darkness that people are in, and a light guides them into the way of peace Furthermore, Zachariass Prophecy is about Christ and Salvation. Remembering His holy covenant with Abraham. (Luke 1:72) and that this referring to the child is given to His people (Luke 1:77). Perhaps there is a contrast; Christ is contrasted to something else, in this case, to whatever was before Christ: the shadow of death. Acts 5:15 , . to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. (NASB) : subject is the one falling upon people Pretty disconnected from the other verses. Not used for reference to kingdom of God or law.


Isaiah 9:2 , , . The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them. (NASB) Colossians 2:17 , . things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

: modified by and : object of proposition is locative.

+ make it refer to back to verse 16, Namely, modifies those things. Either it refers to or all of them. subject : nominative predicate these things are qualified as shadows, but shadows perhaps are not all those things. : Attributed. The things to come are qualified by the shadow. give the idea of Torah. modified by (heavenly)

Hebrews 8:5 ( , , , , ) who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, SEE, He says, THAT YOU MAKE all things

here denotes the idea that. Verse 8:4 ends with setting up the context that the shadow refers to the law.



Hebrews 10:1 , , For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

again is what the shadow is referring to : direct object : perhaps referring to Christ? The image and form? Christ is the image () of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). There could be the idea of contrasting the shadow to the image (Christ)?

Philo The Decalogue (82) , (Exod. 20,7). Now the principle on which this order or arrangement proceeds is very plain to those who are gifted with acute mental vision; for the name is always subsequent in order to the subject of which it is the name; being like the shadow () which follows the body ().59 Having, therefore, previously spoken of the existence of God,

The name here is compared to what it represents

Philo of Alexandria, & Yonge, C. D. (1995). The works of Philo: Complete and unabridged (525). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.


and also of the honour to be paid to the everlasting God; he then, following the natural order of connection proceeds to command what is becoming in respect of his name; for the errors of men with respect to this point are manifold and various, and assume many different characters.60 Conclusion: In the Pauline writings, the term shadow is used only once (Col 2:17). It is used to something that is very similar to the law, referring to back to verse 16, or at least . In the gospel writings, it is used as a contrast between a place people were (Shadow of Death) to the kingdom (Mark 4:32, Matthew 4:16) or to Christ himself (Luke 1:67-80). In Hebrews it is used to refer to the Law. (Heb 8:5, 10:1). Furthermore, in Hebrews 10:1 there appears to be a contrast between image/form and shadow (law). Philo also uses it in a way to contrast something to what it represents. We should note that this does not mean that Paul is actually dealing with Torah in the same way it is in Hebrews, but given the textual evidence it is very easy to want to move towards this position. 1. Number of times used in the Scriptures a. 239 times in the LXX b. 15 times in the NT 2. Number of times the word is used by Paul a. 43 times i. 17 times in 1 Cor ii. 18 times in Rom iii. 2 times in 2 Cor iv. 1 time in Col v. 1 time in 2 Thess vi. 1 time in 2 Tim vii. 1 time in Titus viii. 2 times in Hebrews 3. Range of meaning: a. Classical usage: to Judge; decide against; pick out, choose; .in Trag., question; bring to trial, accuse (LSJ) b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: to judge, to consider, to think; to decide to, to determine to do [+inf.]; to condemn, to punish []; M/P: to dispute, to contend (LSJ) c. Hellenistic Biblical usage: to make a selection, select, prefer; to pass judgment upon (and thereby seek to influence) the lives and actions of

Philo of Alexandria, & Yonge, C. D. (1995). The works of Philo: Complete and unabridged (525). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.


other people; pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with, condemn; to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, judge, think, consider, look upon; to come to a conclusion after a cognitive process, reach a decision, decide, propose, intend; to engage in a judicial process, judge, decide, hale before a court, condemn, also hand over for judicial punishment; to ensure justice for someone, see to it that justice is done. (BDAG, 567) Conclusion: In the context of Col 2, there could be some warrant for viewing this as also hand over for judicial punishment or perhaps to seek influence on or pass judgment upon one. Criticize doesnt seem to be what we should be looking at. Furthermore, this is different than the Corinthians problems in that there was no meat sacrificed to idols (cf. Col 2:14).


Introduction: A. Bible Arc Review B. Pauls Mystery Opponents 28

Overview of Context: A. Pauls warning of being taken captive by the ruling powers B. : Judgement and Gods people Jewish Law A. Eating and drinking and the referential B. Problem: beverages not needed to be the people of God C. Eating and drinking and its connect to the LXX D. The Antecedent to E. and the Law as a shadow F. and its double meaning. The Body and disqualification A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. and disqualification as a people and desirous of effecting How will they disqualify the Colossians? Humility Worshipping the Angels Proto-gnostic Speculation on Archons Taking his stand on visions and its hard to grasp meaning Puffing up ones own self.

Union with the head and prospering as the people of God A. Classical use of and . B. Growing the Body Conclusion Discussion


BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and Folk Belief at Colossae. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996. Barth, Markus., and Blanke, Helmut. Colossians: A New Translation with introduction and commentary. Broadway, NY: Doubleday, 1996. Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000. Bird, Michael F. Colossians Philman. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009. Bruce, F. F. Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Caird, G.B. Paul's Letters From Prison. Oxford University press, Great Britian, 1976. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996. Chrysostom, Saint John. Homily 7 on Colossians, translated by John A. Broadus. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889. (accessed on March 8, 2013). Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Farley, Lawrence R. The Epistle To the Romans: A Gospel For All. The Orthodox Bible Study Companion. Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2002. Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. EGGNT. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Zondervan Publishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1981. Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 3. T. & T. Clark: Edinburgh, 1976. 30

Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992. Swete, H. B. Vol. 3: The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.