I think the passage at Colossians 2:16-23 is a casualty of translation errors. Italicized words that were added to the original KJV English translation were never found in the original manuscripts.
The words printed in italics in the King James Version of the Bible are for emphasis, but not for emphasis in the usual sense. The use of italics is a device to call attention to those words that were added by the translators in order to convey and/or clarify the meaning. That is, the italics enable the reader to distinguish between words found in the manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament that actually translate into English, and words that were necessarily added to make sense in English. This is a sign of the honesty of the translators, who wished to point out such places in their work.
(- Robert J. Matthews, chairman of the Department of Ancient Scriptures, Brigham Young University)
“The end proposed by the use of italics is thus explained in the Geneva edition of 1578. ‘Where as the necessity of the sentence required anything to be added (for such is the grace and propriety of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, that it cannot but either by circumlocution, or by adding the verb, or some word, be understood of them that are not well-practised therein), we have put it in the text with another kind of letter.’ If this be the rule which the translators of our present version proposed to themselves (and we have every reason for believing that it was), it follows that such a rule should be carried out uniformly, and on all occasions”
(- F. H. A. Scrivener; Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament, Vol. I, pp. 60-61)
Consider for a moment:
- What was to prevent doctrinal biases from influencing the translators?
- What's to prevent later editions & versions from absorbing those "added" words and presenting the text as 100% authentic without italics?
...the answer to both of these questions is "nothing"....and I believe that's exactly what happened to the text in later versions.
Those added words were absorbed into later versions of the bible - without italics - as if part of the original manuscripts and thus potentially changed the intended meaning of many passages, whether intentionally or unintentionally (it's the "whisper down the lane" phenomenon). Note the versions of Colossians 2:17...
NIV
These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
NLT
For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.
ESV
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Berean
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body that casts it belongs to Christ.
Each version above gives a slightly different message. "Shadow of things that WERE..." (emphasizing the shadows are in the past), "Shadow of things YET..." (suggesting a future fulfillment and thus continued relevancy), "the reality is found in...", "the substance belongs to...", "the body that casts it..."
The following is the original KJV with the added word in italics:
Original KJV (added word in red)
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
...just one word...a word that's admittedly not found in the original manuscripts...was added to this verse, changing the message of the entire passage. Now notice, when we remove that italicized word, what we get...
Original KJV (Italics removed)
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.
...Paul's full conclusion...
Colossians 2:16-23 (Italics removed)
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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ.
"Let no man therefore judge you...but the body of Christ."
This version of the text would suggest Paul is instructing that only fellow believers in Christ are to judge the believer in what they should obey, not anyone else outside of that group. This is a completely different message than what is currently taught from the passage.
-----
Now, we can't simply rely on this translation issue as an argument for commandment-keeping. We need to ask, does this message make sense contextually and historically? If Paul arguing for or against the commandments of God? Well, let's see...
Colossians 2:18-23 (For context)
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
Paul is arguing against "ordinances after the commandments & doctrines of men". We heard this argument before from the Messiah.
Matthew 15:8-9
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:9-13
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
So Paul wasn't arguing against the Commandments of God (or the Sabbath) but against vain doctrines and traditions of men that nullify the Almighty's Commandments, just like The Messiah argued during His ministry. The Pharisees were known for adding rules to the Law. And in the gentile city of Colosse, many were attempting to lead the new believers astray from both ends with worldliness and Phariseeism (respectively):
Colossians 2:6-8
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
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.
----
So the body of Christ IS to judge the believer in obeying the doctrines and commandments of God (which are foreshadowing good things to come) and ONLY the body of Christ, not anyone else. This is the only way sanctification is possible; when we spur one another unto obedience and good works.
