Commentary and Notes

1:15† ^{^}And he is the image of the invisible Almĭghty, the one first-born [in rank], over all creation. First-born: see John 1:1-3. The “first­born” is a status or rank designating the heir. The firstborn is “over” (genitive case) the whole estate. This text illustrates one of the dangers of always trying to translate the genitive case with English “of”, and has been abused to mislead many into thinking that Mĕssiah was the “first” created being “of” creation.

1:19† ^{^}For it was the Făther’s good pleasure for all the complement to dwell in him. Complement: the word πλήρωμα ple­ro­ma, means that which makes something else complete. Hence the Făther is the greater part of the Almĭghty, and the Sŏn the lesser part. The part that is the Sŏn is the complement of the part that is the Father. Understanding Yăhwēh this way, as complex, removes the paradox, yet He is still a mystery.

2:13† ^{^}“And the uncircumcision of your flesh - That is, Gentiles, and giving unrestrained indulgence to the desires of the flesh. They lived as those who had not by any religious rite or covenant brought themselves under obligations to lead holy lives” (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible).

2:14† ^{^}He makes you alive ... blotting out the record of debt—the judgments against us, which were hostile to us, and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. This is the infamous passage which interpreters claim say the Law was nailed to the cross to abolish it. The passage only teaches the nullification of our sin penalty by Yĕshūa̒ allowing divine pardon to take place. The word χειρόγραφον has the literal sense of hand-writing, which refers to a list of punitive penalties assessed against a convict. Therefore, the NIV puts, “the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us.” The NLT renders, “He canceled the record of the charges against us.” The ESV starts out right “canceling the record of debt that stood against us,” but then ruins the sense with the words “with its legal demands.”

Translators again show their bias against the Law by translating δόγμασιν “ordinances” (or some equivalent), which connotes a piece of positive or prohibitive legislation. The word also means legal opinions, decrees, and edicts, that are judicial rulings relating to sentences. Even the Complete Jewish Bible has to be judged a failure with this word, translating “because of the regulations.” The word is properly translated “decision, judgment” in this context (cf. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δόγμα).

A law should define or legislate whatever is righteous and just. Laws are abolished when they are not righteous and just, and those who legislated abolished laws are generally regarded as mistaken by those doing the abolishing. When a law is abolished its penalties no longer apply.

But Yĕshūa̒ paid the penalty of the Law. This implies the validity of the Law, and that the solution offered was not to abolish it, but to make a way for the penalty to be satisfied.

Now if the Law were abolished after the penalty were paid, (interpreting against the implication stated above), then no further penalties could be assessed after that point in time. For instance, if the law of murder were abolished, then thereafter it would be unjust to assess a penalty against killers. There would no “sin” of murder. And if some did engage in killing, there would be no need for any kind of atonement. Therefore, those who argue that the Law was abolished at the cross are hypocrites when they claim that Christ paid their penalty. This is because they say it was abolished, and then by claiming he paid their penalty, they imply there was a penalty for them to be paid, and the existence of a penalty implies the existence of valid Law. But since they assert these contradictory ideas, they are intellectually hypocritical. It can truly be said that their position means that Christ did not pay their penalty at all, but only the penalties of the Jews before the instant the law was abolished.

A lot of Christians are sensible, and do not go down the path described above for a general or total abolishment of the Law. But they say instead that part of the law is preserved, which they distinguish from the part they think is abolished by calling it moral law. These Christians agree that none of the texts alleged to abolish the law in general are correctly interpreted so. And we should hold them to this, and not let them use a general statement alleged to abolish the law, where they agree that it is only talking about its penalty, when the disagreement is only over a specific point of the law.

Now, they are entitled to their opinion that some part of the law is abolished, however, there is no proof that any part of it is abolished. We cannot call them hypocrites or condemn them for misunderstanding passages that the lawless people in the hypocritical category have deceived them about. But neither should they condemn us for thinking that none of the law is abolished!

In this passage the word χειρόγραφον must include the penalties of the moral law. All of it, of course, is moral. But it cannot be justly argued that the word refers to the part of the law that is allegedly abolished. For to do so would ruin Paul’s presentation of the good news here. It would be incorrect to argue that Mĕssiah only paid the penalty of part of the law that one thinks is abolished. One would have to argue that the passage is only speaking about part of the law being abolished, and not about Mĕssiah’s death for our sins at all.

A like argument can be given for the word δόγμασιν. This refers to judgments or decisions that we broke the law and deserved punishment. It cannot justly refer to part of the law someone thinks is abolished, because then that would reduce the message of the cross to atonement for only that part of the law. For these reasons, abolishment of the ceremonial laws is in logical contradiction to the context.

One is bound to interpret the passage as referring to the penalty of the moral law under the words δόγμασιν and χειρόγραφον. And since this is the case, the words cannot be defined as referring only to ceremonial law. For such limitation would immediately undo the correct interpretation that the penalty for moral law violations was paid.

On only one point do we have much in common with those wanting to abolish the Levitical law, and that is that its precepts apply to priests and Levites, and will operate only when the commonweath of Yisra’ēl is re-established. Therefore, from a practical point of view, the current situation is exilic, and actual observance does not concern us at the present time.

To restate the argument: if record of debt and judgments mean the whole law is wiped out (ἐξαλείψας), then this means that Mĕssiah only died for sins committed before his death on the cross. For there would be no sins after that point for which his death would be needed. For those who lived their entire lives after AD 34, then, it would imply that they do not need any atonement. If someone says the whole law is abolished then they have no need of forgiveness. However, since Scripture mentions the need for forgiveness, and mentions sin and repentance after the cross, the main premise is contradicted. The Law still has to exist. Also, we should note, that it would not be fair to make people guilty with a law that they are not required to keep.

If record of debt and judgments only refer to part of the law being wiped out, such as the ceremonial law, then this accordingly implies that the penalty for the rest of the law, such as the moral law is not wiped out. But this is clearly contrary to Scripture after the cross which remind us that serious moral sins will be judged (Gal. 5:19-21).

Since record of debt and judgments only refer to the penalty of the Law, which is satisfied, not by removing it, but by the principle of substitution, established by the law, then none of the Law is abolished, the whole penalty is paid, and not part of it, and there is still the need for repentance and forgiveness after the cross. This view is the only view that is logically consistent with Scripture. All the other views create utter contradictions. Once we put the spotlight of truth on the contradictions, it becomes plain that all theologies to the contrary are lying heresies.

2:16-17‡ ^{^}Therefore let no one judge you in eating and in drinking: either when partaking of a feast or new moon or Sabbaths, which are a reflection of the things to come. Certain heretics were telling the Colossians that holy days had to be kept in an ascetic manner without feasting. Sometimes they went so far as to advocate fasting.

Philip Schaff, the Lutheran Church historian writes, “The Colossian heresy was an Essenic and ascetic type of Gnosticism; it derived its ritualistic and practical elements from Judaism, its speculative elements from heathenism; it retained circumcision, the observance of Sabbaths and new moons, and the distinction of meats and drinks; but it mixed with it elements of oriental mysticism and theosophy, the heathen notion of an evil principle, the worship of subordinate spirits, and an ascetic struggle for emancipation from the dominion of matter. It taught an antagonism between God and matter and interposed between them a series of angelic mediators as objects of worship. It thus contained the essential features of Gnosticism, but in its incipient and rudimental form, or a Christian Essenism in its transition to Gnosticism” (The Epistle to the Colossians).

Paul and the Colossian faithful (Jews and non-Jews) kept the Sabbath as a matter of course, and so did the Colossian Jewish Gnostics who came into contact with Paul’s work. However, The Gnostics, with the goal of spiritual enlightenment in mind, advocated ascetic practices as a means of attaining their goal. Therefore, their observance of holy days emphasized the non-material and de-emphasized actually enjoying the days. They had philosophical reasons for drinking little, avoiding tasty drinks, eating little, and avoiding feasts. Therefore they judged those who enjoyed the Sabbath and feast days in the traditional ways as less spiritual, more worldly, and unlikely to become the spiritual men they themselves claimed to be. We can compare the strictures of their Sabbath observance with that of the Essenes.

The Jewish Gnostics were not anti-Law per se, but they tended to convert its observances into spiritual exercises for denying the flesh and the ordinary things of Creation (cf. vs. 21), however, later on Anti-Law Gnostics rose up among Christians when it became politically unpopular (and a risk of persecution) to associate with anything Jewish. The scribes and teachers in this heresy made changes in the Scripture texts and introduced new interpretations to oppose the Law.

The later Catholic Church Fathers state that Marcion (ca. AD 150) was a principle figure in Gnostic Christianity, and that he collected and edited the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul to reflect Gnostic doctrine. Wherever the Gnostics could re-interpret a text using their symbolism and subjective philosophies to get around the plain sense of texts, they did so. If they could not reach the goal by interpretation, then they deleted them, or they changed them. We still do not have enough manuscripts earlier than the Gnostic heresy to guarantee that all of their deletions or additions to the text have been expunged from the critical edition. But we do have testimony on the trend of the changes. The trend was to oppose the Law, and to reinterpret it as a graceless production of an unjustly angry god of Israel, whom Gnostics equated with the devil.

From this we should learn the text critical rule: the reading that supports the Law is correct. The reading that opposes the Law is not.

On this text we have two readings in Col. 2:16: “βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει...” read by Nestle-Aland 27 and “βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει...” The first reading is supported by P⁴⁶ B 1739. 1881 b vg^ms. The second reading is read by a host of texts including Marcion according to Epiphanius. The change from καὶ to ἢ makes a big difference in the structure of the verse and the interpretation of the text. The Lawless when coming to the text want to make it say that no judgment should be passed on eating OR in drinking, OR in regard to a feast, OR new moon, OR Sabbaths. Following this pattern we have the NIV, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” The NLT is lawless, “So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths.” Every word in red has been poisoned by a lawless translator theology in order to provoke the thinking of the reader to a lawless conclusion.

To understand the text, the Lexicons say that a sequence of ἢ…ἢ…ἢ or ἢ…ἢ…ἢ…ἢ, as the case may be, should be translated “either…or…or…(or).” Therefore to construct the text properly the variants are, “eating, either in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or new moon, or Sabbaths.” The correct text reads, “Therefore let no one judge you in eating, and in drinking, either in part of a feast, or new moon, or Sabbaths.” It now becomes obvious that “eating and in drinking” is the focus of the text, in particular the manner of it. For the Gnostics wanted them to deny themselves festive pleasures. The following clause “either in part...” serves to cite the occasions when the Gnostics wanted the faithful to curb their festive enjoyment.

The gloss, “either...or...or...or” may be found in the most respected and best Lexicon, BDAG, 3rd edition, Liddell Scott and Jones, and Friberg under the variant, “whether...or.” Lingusitically speaking, all the terms are equivalent to whether, hence: “Therefore let no one judge you in eating, and in drinking, whether in part of a feast, whether a new moon, whether Sabbaths.”

If the exact sense of the original is not painfully clear, then the words, “in part” (ἐν μέρει) make it so. Lawless translators have tried to blunt the force of these two words by translating the second one respect, regard, or some equally vague circumlocution, designed to draw attention away from the fact that the text is talking about what happens in part of a feast, namely that part having to do with eating and drinking. According the the Lexicons the word also means share (Friberg, BDAG), portion (LSJ), partaking, sharing (TDNT). If we put the dative phrase with the following genitive, then the sense is exactly “whether in a share of a feast, whether of new moon, whether of Sabbaths.”

Further, the words “eating and in drinking” are not the words “food and in drink” so as to mean primarily the kind of food or drink; for βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει denote the activity of eating and drinking, and not so much what is eaten and what is drunk.

Meyer hints that ancient sources did indeed approach a more correct reading of ἐν μέρει, but he condemns it with the words, “ἐν μέρει has been erroneously understood by others in the sense of a partial celebration (Chrysostom: ἐξευτελίζει λέγεν· ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς· οὐ γὰρ δὴ πάντα κατεῖχον τὰ πρότερα, Theodoret: they could not have kept all the feasts, on account of the long journey to Jerusalem; comp. Dalmer), or: vicibus festorum (Melanchthon, Zanchius), or, that the participation in the festival, the taking part in it is expressed (Otto, dekalog. Unters. p. 9 ff.), or that it denotes the segregatio, “nam qui dierum faciunt discrimen, quasi unum ab alio dividunt” (Calvin).”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges also lets the proverbial cat out of the bag, with bias of course, but worthwhile reading, “in meat, or in drink: Rather better, in eating and in drinking. For the Mosaic laws about food cp. Leviticus 11, 17; Deuteronomy 14, &c. Of allowed or forbidden drinks little is said in the Old Law; Lightfoot notices Leviticus 10:9 (the prohibition of wine to the priests at special times); Leviticus 11:34 (the prohibition to drink liquid from an “unclean” vessel); and the law of the Nazirite, Numbers 6:3. Cp. with the text, Hebrews 9:10.—Possibly the Colossian misleaders forbade wine in toto; not at all on modern philanthropic principles, but as a token of abjuration of social life.”

“in respect of: Lit., “in the portion of;” i.e. “in, or under, the class of;” and so, idiomatically, with regard to. The Latin Versions render literally, in parte diei festi; and so Wyclif, “in part of feest dai;” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, “for a pece (peece) of an holy daye.” So even here we see the literal truth of the text peeking through the layers of anti-Law tradition.

From the standpoint of the Greek text itself, the context of the verse, and the assumptions of the larger context of readers in the first century, there is no question that they would have understood the judgment to regard the manner of eating and drinking in one’s participation in a feast, new moon, or Sabbaths. For all of Paul’s converts went to the Synagogue when possible, or assembled on the the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts. The anti-Law heresy did not take off until the time of John in Asia Minor, and the anti-Jewish heresy did not come to a head until after the second Jewish Revolt against Rome.

Paul wrote in his day that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2Thess. 2:7). “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (ESV Acts 20:29-30). And Peter also writes, “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” (2Peter 3:16-17).

The Ceremonial Argument: Historically, the Seventh Day Adventist Church teaches that “Sabbaths” in Colossians 2:16 refers to annual Sabbaths, or so called ceremonial Sabbaths, as opposed to the moral commandment to rest on the seventh day. This position contradicts Matthew 5:17-19 taken in its historical context. Yĕshūa̒’s Jewish audience would never have consented to a moral/ceremonial distinction in the passage. At the same time, it is impossible to argue that he fulfilled a ceremonial law to abolish it in the Matthew passage, and then at the same time argue that the rest of the Law is exempt from that conclusion. The plain sense is that none of the Law was or is abolished.

Further, the interpretation of σαββάτων in 2:16 to mean only annual Sabbaths, and to exclude the weekly Sabbath reduces the term feast (ἑορτῆς) to meaninglessness or redundancy. Every annual Sabbath is a feast. In fact, by the term feasts, the annual Sabbaths are normally comprehended. So the annual Sabbaths are included in the term feasts. This means that σαββάτων in the verse refers to the weekly Sabbaths. This is confirmed in Nehemiah 10:33, where the LXX mentions, “τῶν σαββάτων τῶν νουμηνιῶν εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς”: of the Sabbaths, of the new moons, for the feasts. At the beginning of the verse, it mentions the holy bread (לְלֶחֶם הַמַּעֲרֶכֶת), and this bread was only changed on the weekly Sabbath. So the clause includes the seventh day under the term σαββάτων. The threefold taxonomy is in 2Chron. 31:3 also, “εἰς σάββατα καὶ εἰς τὰς νουμηνίας καὶ εἰς τὰς ἑορτὰς”: for the sabbath(s) and for the new moons and for the feasts. Surely such a phrase would not exclude the weekly Sabbath. Even more certain that “feasts” comprehends the annual Sabbaths is 2Chron. 8:13, “ לַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וְלֶחֳדָשִׁים וְלַמּוֹעֲדוֹת שָׁלוֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת וּבְחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת וּבְחַג הַסֻּכּוֹת”: for Sabbaths and for new moons, and for appointed times three times in the year, in the feast of Unleavened Bread, and in the feast of Weeks, and in the feast of Tabernacles. Here again, the parallel to the other usages shows that “feasts” refers to the annual Sabbaths, and not the term σαββάτοις as found here, which refers to only the seventh day Sabbaths. The same pattern is found in 1Chron. 23:31; 2Chron. 2:4; Ezek. 45:17; and Hos. 2:11.

So it is impossible that Paul meant annual Sabbaths under the term σαββάτων. It means the weekly Sabbaths, and since the weekly Sabbaths are now brought into the same clause as new moons and feasts (which are the annual Sabbaths) it is plain that the Colossians were keeping all three: annual Sabbaths (feasts), new moons, and the weekly Sabbath! All members of the tripartite division of holy days are mentioned as occasions on which the Jewish Gnostics were judging the eating and drinking of the faithful. And because this is so, it is evident that the faithful were keeping all those days.

If the annual Sabbaths are termed only under Sabbaths, then what does the term feasts refer to? It cannot be the same thing, because the items are separated by disjunctive conjunctions, which are alternatives and not one term explaining another.

So it is evident that the term σαββάτων must refer to the seventh day Sabbath to avoid a complete socio-linguistic contradiction, and a grammatical-historical contradiction. This means the imperative not to judge, if extended to σαββάτων, would release breaking it from being a sin. Therefore, the only correct sense of the text is the one I have given, namely that “do not judge” refers only to “eating and in drinking.” To extend it further would remove the Sabbath from the moral law. And since “do not judge” only extends to “eating and drinking,” the feast days and the new moons are also retained in the moral law, along with the Sabbaths at the end of the verse.

The ceremonial moral law distinction itself is a doctrine of men. All Yăhwēh’s laws are moral, and none is to be condemned as merely ceremonial. The distinction only comes from the conflict between the unbelieving Jews and the non-Jewish faithful, who were not grown up in the knowledge of the Law. Having been taught that Yĕshūa̒ died for their sin, and living outside the land of Yisra’ēl where the Levitical offerings were not practiced, and having heard of the destruction of the Temple, they faced the argument from unbelieving Jews that Mĕssiah was unnecessary for redemption because the Levitical service would provide all that was necessary when it was restored. Through two Jewish revolts, and the anti-Jewish and anti Law Gnostic influence, they came up with the assumption that the Levitical Law was abolished. And most of it was because they were deceived into hating Jews instead of loving them, and trying to understand Gŏd’s revelation of the truth through them.

Therefore, they evolved a theology of the cross that excluded the Levitical offerings for ritual cleansing, and sin-offerings for unwitting sins. This theology was combined with Gnostic thought, as it influenced and evolved into the Ecclesiastical Church, and sees its expression in the heretical book of Hebrews, which does not meet the requirements for scripture canon, because it factually contradicts what the Law says concerning the arrangement of the Tabernacle, as well as contradicting the prophesies that say the Temple and Levitical service will be restored! Sound doctrine requires us to forsake these unsound teachings.

2:17† ^{^}which are a reflection of the things to come.‡ And the Mĕssiah is the reflection source.† The figure projected here is like Mĕssiah standing by a pool of water reflecting into it, and we are standing on the other side looking at the reflection. The pool and the reflection from it are the waters of Torah, which are the waters of life given from Mĕssiah. Since we do not see face to face, we have to live by the revelation which he has given us in his word.

In this context, the translation “shadow” is a poor translation. This is because a shadow contains little information, an outline only. A reflection on the other hand is deep and rich. Also, under the term “shadow,” the anti-Law heretics have sought to denigrate and put down the Torah. We find reflection in Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon: σκιὰ.

The text reads: ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων: which are a reflection of the things to come. Paul has tossed in a positive assessment of feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths. And he has used a present tense verb with a future phrase, “things to come.” The NAS, KJV, and ESV correctly read the text as a present tense verb (ἐστιν) followed by “things to come.” The NIV, which is frequently quoted in anti-law polemics has “that were to come.” This is because the NIV translator did not like what he saw in the Greek text because it did not agree with his theology, and he changed it to past tense. And those quoting his lie feel similarly. Other translations engage in the evil of adding “only” or “mere” to the text (NLT, NASB, NAB, NET) in order to diminish the Law. That is also a lie. By doing so, the translators are enslaving their readers to their evil anti-law traditions. And there is no doubt about it. Changing texts to abolish the Law is an evil that can only be condemned, and those who do it will have to answer for it.

τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ: And the body is Mĕssiah. What the text means here by body is the source making the reflection. Retaining the word body and the sense reflection source is an impossible feat in English. So we have to choose either form or meaning. I have chosen meaning and to explain the form in this note.

The Torah is not fully understood without keeping it. For it is only in the elimination of false assumptions concerning it that the work of Mĕssiah can be fully understood. The timings of his death and resurrection, and the meaning put on his sacrifice all depend on Torah. Only to the point that a person actually desires to keep the law can he understand the underpinnings of the good news, the types of it, and the mysteries of the kingdom. Those who keep it not are deprived of both knowledge and blessings, and devitalize their spiritual lives so as to reap death instead of life. The one who does not believe this should read Deut. 30 and Romans 10. The Law and the Prophets reflect everything that Mĕssiah is about, and by being rid of them, then we do not perceive him at all.