Colossians 2:16-17

[robinriley]

Robin

...in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths...

So, if we are talking about religious ceremonies here, and the eating and drinking are to be taken as the Jewish communion, how do you see that as part of something to come?

(Robin)
Good question ... but perhaps ask in a bit of a leading manner?

How do I see these things as part of something to come ... Again, this is where the conversation always seems to tangent off; that is, I do have my own ideas about this, but the main idea behind attempting this topic thread, was just to come to an accurate reading of what Paul says in these two verses ...

Maybe we should include verses 2:18-19 as well, because they do sort of repeat things a little; that is, Paul seems to restate the matter of judging, using another word "katabrabeuetO" ( be him against-ruling; 2603 V-PAM-3S), and he seems to be summarizing the aforementioned shadow or "things" as a "ritual" ( unto a ritual; 2356 N-DSF), and then, of course, there's "the Head" (to Head; 2776 N-ASF), which I'm under ther impression refers to Christ (although this noun is feminine, but I've seen this oddity elsewhere, and it is followed masculine "out of which (of which [One]; 3739 R-GSM); and then there's "the body" mentioned again ...which I assume is a truncated way of saying "the body of Christ" ...

(Valiant)
So, if we are talking about religious ceremonies here,
and the eating and drinking are to be taken as the Jewish communion,
how do you see that as part of something to come?

(Robin)
Again, this is a good question, and I have my opinions, but first let me turn the question back at you ...
That is, even though we've adjusted the placement of the conjunction "de" ... Paul does use the verb "mellontOn"
(of about-being; 3195 V-PAP-GPN), which many if not most translations read as "to come;" "coming;" "impending" ...
So, it's Paul ... not Robin ... who says something is STILL "coming" or "about-being" ... right?

(Valiant)
So, if we are talking about religious ceremonies here,
and the eating and drinking are to be taken as the Jewish communion,
how do you see that as part of something to come?

(Robin)
Alright, alright ... these "things" might well be summarized as rituals;
"things" which fore-shadow something or or "things" that are coming ...
Perhaps they are typical of a coming kingdom of God, the week of man
having past, and the rest of God coming to be ... that's my best guess,
but again, this topic thread was not about what our subsequent conclusions
might be, but rather, the topic was ... what do these couple verses actually say?

 

[valiant]

(Valiant)
Most common translations: BUT when a contrast is clearly implied,
AND when a simple connective is required, without contrast [Bauer Arndt and Gingrich]

(Robin)
Think I'll stick with:

"but" for "alla / all" ...
"yet" for "de" ...

When I posted with Maurice Robinson, he didn't correct me concerning this ... perhaps he felt sorry for my ignorance, but then maybe he, too, didn't think that we have to follow everything that Bauer Arndt and Gingrich have to say?

I find that "and" "also" and "even" work well for "kai" ... dont' think I'll be using "and" for "de" either ...

As for the verb "to be" regularly omitted and assumed in such constructions ...common in koine Greek ...
I'm under the impression that we, today, dont really know everything we should about koine Greek ... that is,
there's more than one "common understanding" about what the rules were back then ... Ummmm?

LOL you mean you can invent your own greek ?

 

[valiant]

(Robin)
Alright Valiant, I'll move the conjunction back in it's normal place ...
But how are you perceiving it to be used ... that is, are you understanding this to be a clear contrast ... or perhaps we shouldn't translate it at all? This is an interesting discussion ... thank you for engaging.

BUT when a contrast is clearly implied,
AND when a simple connective is required, without contrast;
frequently it cannot be translated at all

de is a widely used particle and can have a variety of meaning like kai although without the variety of kai. (However, unlike kai it is placed second in the clause and NEVER first) in this particular context it is expressing a contrast and opening a clause. that being so the clause must have a verb which in this case has to be read in. the experts do know what they are talking about.
Anyone who ignores Bauer Arndt and Gingrich he is not worth bothering about

 

[robinriley]

(Robin)
You didn't answer the question(s) ... I answered your's

a) Do you really think we know all we need to know about the linguistic rules concerning koine Greek?
b) Do you really think that Bauer Arndt and Gingrich walk on water?
d) How do you see the conjunction "de" being used in this verse ..1) contrast clearly implied 2) simple connective 3) no effect
e) Was that one little quote (?) all you have concerning the rule of placement of the conjuction "de" ...
f) If the "common" rule or koine "standard" is to add the verb "is" or "to be" in "such constructions ... then would you do this with every occurance where Paul talks to "the body of Christ" ... that is change it to "the body [is] Christ" ...

(Valiant)
LOL you mean you can invent your own greek ?

(Robin)
Sure, why not ... I make up new English words all the time! 8>

 

[robinriley]

(Robin)
Which source texts woud you go with here ... "yet the body, of THE Christ" ... "yet the body of Christ"

 

[robinriley]

(Robin)
Do you know of anywhere else that Paul calls Christ the body ... I can't find any.
It's always Christ the Head of the Body ... and believers being the Body.
So if we, here, only now call Christ the Body ... doesn't that make for confusion?

 

[Hepzibah]

So, it's Paul ... not Robin ... who says something is STILL "coming" or "about-being" ... right?

Agreed. I have my own theory about what Paul said was still to be fulfilled in those who had received Christ but still had to learn to walk in Him. But I need more time to consider what you are saying.

Adam Clarke thinks that the ordinances of eating and drinking were the restrictions placed on the Israelites - no pork etc.

 

[robinriley]

de is a widely used particle and can have a variety of meaning like kai although without the variety of kai. (However, unlike kai it is placed second in the clause and NEVER first) in this particular context it is expressing a contrast and opening a clause. that being so the clause must have a verb which in this case has to be read in. the experts do know what they are talking about.
Anyone who ignores Bauer Arndt and Gingrich he is not worth bothering about

τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ
to de sOma christou
(Robin)
placed second, never first, but opens the clause ... I'll go back over all the readings I've compiled from Paul's letters, and see if I need to adjust things elsewhere.

(Valiant)
In this particular context it is expressing a contrast and opening a clause.

(Robin)
expressing a contrast with what, exactly?


2:16* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·
Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging, in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths
2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.

(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] yet about-being), yet the body of Anointed.

 

[robinriley]

2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
ha estin skia tOn mellontOn to de sOma christou

"(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] about-being), yet the body of Anointed."


(Robin)Question ... Paul includes the verb "estin" in the first part of this verse, so why not repeat the verb in the second part, if indeed, such a verb must be added?

 

[robinriley]

Agreed. I have my own theory about what Paul said was still to be fulfilled in those who had received Christ but still had to learn to walk in Him. But I need more time to consider what you are saying.

Adam Clarke thinks that the ordinances of eating and drinking were the restrictions placed on the Israelites - no pork etc.

2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.

(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] yet about-being), yet the body of Anointed.

(Robin)
But if that were the case ... the not eating of pork would be a shadow of what things to come?
or to use Phil112 point of view ... the not eating of pork is the body which is Christ.
I dont get it!

 

[MarcR]

Col 2:1-17
For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh;

2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.


[Paul appears to have a similar concern for the church at Colossae that he had for the Church in Galatia; namely the legalism of the Judazers.

Verses 2-3 address the fact that all the knowledge they require is found in Christ and in the Father; and they need not look to the Law or anything else for 'a more perfect understanding'.

Verse four is a warning that others will indeed try to ensnare them in legalism.]


5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:


[They had received Jesus as sufficient to bring them into right relationship with the father; and they are exhorted not to depart from that simplicity.]

7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

[Jesus is, Himself, both the foundation and the structure of the body (the Church).

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[Beware! (WATCH OUT) This ' βλέπετε ' is a shouted warning of imminent danger.]

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

[In verses 9-15 Paul reiterates the sufficiency of Jesus alone; and depicts Jesus as the head of the Church (the body through whom Jesus continues to work until His return]

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:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
KJV

[ In verses 16-17, holidays, new moons, and Sabbaths are depicted as collectively a shadow or figure of Jesus life and ministry; which from the perspective of the Law were things to come. in apposition to this; the body (the Church) is shown to be a representation of Jesus. This also illustrates why the way we conduct ourselves on the forum (or elsewhere) is important. We are told that what we do is expected to represent Jesus. In the English translation: 'but the body (is) of Christ.' , '(is)' is inserted to clarify the appositive, which is clear in the Greek.

 

[phil112]

2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.

(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] yet about-being), yet the body of Anointed.

(Robin)
But if that were the case ... the not eating of pork would be a shadow of what things to come?
or to use Phil112 point of view ... the not eating of pork is the body which is Christ.
I dont get it!

The not eating of pork was against the law...the law that was nailed to the cross. Shame you don't get that. You really come across as knowing the bible better. That is quite simple.

 

[valiant]

(Robin)
Do you know of anywhere else that Paul calls Christ the body ... I can't find any.
It's always Christ the Head of the Body ... and believers being the Body.
So if we, here, only now call Christ the Body ... doesn't that make for confusion?

Let me help you. You follow a common mistake but you are incorrect. Christ is the head of the body because He is supreme and over it as its head and ruler. He is NOT the flesh covered skull with us as its body. He is in fact also the body. Read 1 Cor 12.12ff. There the body of Christ includes head, hands and feet. Some Christians are parts of the head (verses 16-17, 21) some are parts of the rest of the body. We are His body because we are united with HIM in His body (1 Cor 10.16). We are not the body of Christ separate from His body. So Christ is both body and head.
-
NOTE especially 1 Cor 12.12. 'for just as the body is one and has many members, -- so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we all inundated into one body (and as we have just seen that body IS CHRIST). Some members are part of the head, others are part of the body.

It is unscriptural and a grave mistake to separate the head from the body. We are only the body of Christ because we have been inundated into HIM. It is NOT true that Christ is in Heaven as the head and we are on earth as the rest of His body. We are HIS body because we have been united WITH HIM in His body, and because HE is on earth in His invisible body.

It is because we are in His body and united with Him in it that Rom 6.3-11; 7.4; Eph 2.15-16 is true. When He died we died When He rose we rose. Because we are united with Him in His body.

 

[valiant]

τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ
to de sOma christou
(Robin)
placed second, never first, but opens the clause ... I'll go back over all the readings I've compiled from Paul's letters, and see if I need to adjust things elsewhere.

(Valiant)
In this particular context it is expressing a contrast and opening a clause.

(Robin)
expressing a contrast with what, exactly?


2:16* Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·
Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging, in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths
2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.

(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] yet about-being), yet the body of Anointed.

A contrast with the shadow.

 

[Danel]

A powerful voice form Heaven whispered to me:

"The passover foreshadowed christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Likewise, my other holy days also foreshadow future events

Do not let anyone judge you, because you are obeying me by observing them."

 

[flob]

So if we, here, only now call Christ the Body ... doesn't that make for confusion?

no

But in the 27 words found in these two verses, not a one of them is "Judaizers" ...
That is, why dont we FIRST read the actual words; discuss them in detail, and only then, perhaps, add our own enhancements.

Desiring to be teachers of the law, though they understand neither the things that they say, nor concerning what they confidently affirm. But we know this, that the law is good, if any uses it lawfully,
1 Tim 1:7

You'd have to point out the specific word ...actually present in these two verses ... that your are reading as ..."reality" ... It's really a simple request, Flob, just point this word out to me, because I'm unable to find it?

It's the New Testament, robin. Not types and figures, shadows. But reality. Truth. In the form of the substance of all the shadows. The body if of Christ. Or: the body is Christ.
Surely you know Colossians shares the same message as the rest of Paul, the rest of the New Testament?

Christ Jesus Himself is the reality ... That's a nice thought ... where, specifically does it say that in the scriptures, any of the scriptures? Or, is this somthing that someone has told you, and you're regurgitating their slop ... sloppy readings.
That is, have you put any real effort into confirming what you've been told ...

I wouldn't call John, or Jesus, 'slop.' This is perhaps why pearl shouldn't be fed to you, at this stage of your life.
John 14:6 cited, and now quoted: Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.

That is, I'm asking you to ponder on only two little verses, think about what the words actually say, and then respond with your thoughts ... your own thoughts ... to engage in conversation, in other words.

Col, and Col 2:16-17 is consistent with the New Covenant. The New Testament. Which is fulfilled in and with a person. A human who became the life-giving Spirit to indwell His believers. Writing His law----that is, Himself---on their hearts. Making His home in their hearts. The truth, the reality, is Him. As He states in all His letters, through all His apostles. Through Paul so strongly in particular. But also all His words: the Truth shall set you free. Do not let dear robin judge you in eating and in drinking or in respect of a new moon or of the Sabbath. Which are a shadow...Let no one defraud you

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

,,, about Paul's tendency to add the parenthetical aside statements ... we have one of those situations, here, in verse 17 ... Now this parenthetical aside ... back to verse 2:17, most of which is that parenthetical aside ...

You go to a great deal of trouble to plant the thought that the words you question are an "aside" but they are not. They are list of exactly the kinds of things Paul is speaking of regarding the things the Colossians used -- and by extension, ourselves -- that we are not to give allowance for judgment from others. If you want to drink, in other words, then drink. If you wish to eat, do so. If you wish to worship on Sunday, go for it. Don't let anyone judge you for doing so. His list does not disassociate the practices from the body of what he is saying.

Again, if we deal with the conjunction "de" and simply apply it to where is easy fits, and makes good sense, a good part of the difficulty with these last few words goes away ...

You seem to be the only one here who has a problem with this verse. The rest of it read us quite clearly. You are making a very large deal out of a verb supposedly being added where you don't think one belongs. This is an argument that was raised by the heretic, Herbert W. Armstrong -- and with just about the same amount of hyperbole and excruciating detail you display in an obvious effort to confuse and mislead your readers.

His argument has been disproven long ago, so I see no point in entering into the discussion you want to raise, given I know that you, like Armstrong, will not abide by good scholarship.

 

[valiant]

2:17* ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
ha estin skia tOn mellontOn to de sOma christou

"(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] about-being), yet the body of Anointed."


(Robin)Question ... Paul includes the verb "estin" in the first part of this verse, so why not repeat the verb in the second part, if indeed, such a verb must be added?

that is the point. The verb having already been mentioned could be assumed in the contrast. such an action is common in koine Greek

 

[phil112]

A powerful voice form Heaven whispered to me:

"The passover foreshadowed christ's sacrifice on the cross.

Likewise, my other holy days also foreshadow future events

Do not let anyone judge you, because you are obeying me by observing them."

The bible says no such thing. You know what the bible calls folks that do as you?
[h=1][/h]

Proverbs 30:6: Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18,19: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Mac4Yuma]

Your post was very interesting and I want to add to the main subject:

SABBATARIAN POSITION: The following are three Sabbatarian viewpoints of Colossians 2:16-17:
1. Pagan Holidays or God's Holy Days_Which?, chapter written by L. Leroy Neff, 1986, WCG, p. 54-55:

Notice the key verses: "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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).
Paul does not here say, "Do not keep the Holy Days or Sabbaths" though that is what many people read into the text.
To start with, he warns them not to let a man judge them concerning the matters he then mentions. If they were not to let any man judge them in these matters, who was supposed to judge?
The answer is somewhat obscured by an added word in verse 17. This word, in the King James or Authorized Version, is indicated by the italic type, meaning that there is no equivalent word in the Greek, but that the word was added by the translators in the hope that the passage would be more clear in English. In this case, though, it obscures the point.
Here is the specific phrase: "But the body is of Christ." This should read "But the body is Christ." Here simply, is what Paul is saying in these two verses: "Don't let any man judge you...but let the Body of Christ judge you."
In Colossians 1:18 we learn that Christ is the Head of that body, which is the Church. Christ, as the Head of the Church and through His Church, will judge these matters. No one else should, especially someone not even in the Church. The matters not to be judged by outsiders concern meat and drink and their relationship to 1) a Holy Day, 2) the new moon, 3) the Sabbath. In other words, what people eat and drink on these days are not to be judged by outsiders, but by the Church and its Head Jesus Christ.
These days are a shadow (picture in advance) of certain aspects of God's plan of salvation. Each year as God's people observe these days [annual Holy Days and the Sabbath each week], they understand more clearly His plan and how it is being carried out.
...The fact that Paul had to write to Gentile Christians on this matter makes it clear that some people were judging what the people of Colosse were eating and drinking, or what they were doing, as part of the observance of these days.
This position rests on two points: 1) The Sabbath is a shadow of things yet to be fulfilled. The KJ, NKJ, NAS and RS all translate the phrase "are a shadow of things to come" as a future fulfillment. Other translators take a different view, notably NIV, NEB and The Jerusalem Bible, that the Greek implies that all these shadows were fulfilled in Christ. The former view would be supported by Hebrews 4:1-10 where the Sabbath is used as a type of the future rest Christians experience with Christ. 2) The Greek soma, translated "body" in the KJ and "substance" in the NIV, is the same word Paul used in reference to the Church in Colossians 1:18: "And He is the head of the body, the Church..." and in 1:24, "...the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the Church."
Bullinger1 views the problem as one of ellipsis and therefore connects the phrase "body of Christ" with "shadow." His conclusion is that the meaning is: "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ is the substance."
While most translators seem to take a similar view by translating soma as "substance" or "reality", the argument can be made that if we are consistent with Paul's use of the same word in Colossians 1:18 and 24 then the phrase "body of Christ" can be connected back to: "Therefore let no man judge you..." Paul's argument is to not allow the Essenes or others, either inside or outside the Church, judge you by their ascetic standards, but observe the Sabbath in its real meaning as a shadow of future fulfillment. The judging of how a Sabbath is be observed must be done by "the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments grows with the increase which is from God" (Col. 2:19). For a more complete explanation of this approach see Appendix, "Colossians 2:16-17, Larry Walker, 1995.
By comparing Colossians 2:14 with Ephesians 2:15 Brinsmead reaches the conclusion that the Sabbath, as well as the entire law, has been abolished. He uses the NIV to derive his point. When one compares the NIV with the KJ, NKJ and RS it can be seen that there is a dramatic difference in translation and meaning. The NKJ translates this verse as: "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace."
2. A detailed summary of the problems in the Colosse church is presented by K.J Stavrinides in the article, "The Colossian Heresy", The Good News, July-August 1989. A copy of that article is included in the Appendix.
3. The Sabbath in the New Testament, Samuele Bacchiocchi, 1990, p. 109-117:

Paul's reference to the observance of "Sabbaths" in Colossians 2:16 is only one aspect of the "Colossian heresy" refuted by Paul. It is necessary, therefore, to ascertain first of all the overall nature of the false teachings that threatened to "disqualify" (2:18) the Colossian believers. Were these teachings Mosaic ordinances and can they be identified with the "written document_cheirographon" which God through Christ "wiped out...removed, nailed to the cross" (2:14)?
Most commentators define the Colossian heresy as syncretistic teachings which incorporated both Hellenistic and Jewish elements. Such a false teaching had both a theological and practical aspect.
Theological Aspect. Theologically, the Colossian "philosophy" (2:8) was competing with Christ for man's allegiance. Its source of authority, according to Paul, was human "tradition" (2:8) and its object was to impart true "wisdom" (2:3, 23), "knowledge" (2:2-3; 3:10) and to assure access to and participation in the divine "fullness" (2:9-10; 1:19).
To attain divine fullness, Christians were urged to do homage to cosmic principalities (2:10, 15), to "the elements of the universe" (2:8, 20), and to angelic powers (2:15, 18) and to follow ritualistic ascetic practices (2:11-14, 16, 17, 21-22). Essentially, then, the theological error consisted in interposing inferior mediators in place of the Head Himself, Jesus Christ (2:9-10, 18-19).
Practical Aspect. The practical outcome of the theological speculations of the Colossian heretics was their insistence on strict ascetism and ritualism. These consisted in "putting off the body of flesh" (2:1