I’ve had a few conversations about this text recently and I thought a short essay may be helpful. Certainly not the complete answer to this text for most of you, but enough to start a conversation.
Honestly though, I have found most people to simply dismiss my comments and not engage in a discussion. I assume it’s because they are unable to do so since the argument I make 1)is to different from what they have always thought, or 2)they have no real ability to counter what I see as the obvious.
We shall see if any of you can engage…
Colossians 2:14-15: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [dogma] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” KJV
I use the King James Version only because I think the most literal version possible is best when discussing a text at this level. Some versions actually put the phrase “Mosaic Law” in place of “ordinances” which is poor translating.
In context these verses fall within an argument that Paul is making against “man made rules” which are “destined to perish.” See Col. 2:8, “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.”
We see here that Paul has begun to contrast mans’ law or mans’ philosophy with that of Christ and of God. In verse 16 Paul says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
In verse 16 Paul is speaking about God’s Law and not mans’, and he tells the Colossians not to let anyone judge them in regards to these things which are a shadow of Christ. So the contrast in Paul’s argument is set with mans’ Law on one side, and God’s (and Christ’s) law on the other.
By the time we get to verse 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 [dogma], … which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?”
Here the same word (dogma in Greek) is used and is clearly related to “living in the world” by “doctrines of men” and not in Christ. What was nailed to the cross with Jesus then? The Torah of God? The Law which is “for our good always” and “is your life”? This same Law that David speaks of as a light to his feet and lamp for his path? Even Paul calls it “good and holy” and says it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”? Is this what “was against us, which was contrary to us”?
I am really amazed that so many of us read Colossians 2 as a rebuke of following the Mosaic Law. Even if you hold that belief, which most Christians do, this still is the last place one would think to go.
Without the slightest understanding of the world in which Paul is writing to and without any historical back ground at all, still the simple plain meaning of the text spells it out so clearly. Man’s laws and philosophies are destined to perish; they were nailed to the cross with Christ. Jesus defeated the world with all its rules and lame wisdom.
To suggest that Paul could have ever spoken of the Scriptures as being against us is absurd in every way.
Sean Daily
Filed under: Uncategorized
Sean,
Thanks for visiting my blog and leaving a comment. I am always interested to engage in discussion, so this opportunity would be no exception.
First, the version you cite for v14-15 is insignificant, I think, because it is the context, as you point out next, that matters. By the way, though my blog reveals the NIV text, I primarily use the ESV for study. The ESV says in v13-14 that God made us alive when we were dead (monergism) and forgave our trespasses “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.”
Second, you say, regarding the context, “In context these verses fall within an argument that Paul is making against ‘man made rules’ which are ‘destined to perish,’” and you point to Colossians 2:8. Then you add, “We see here that Paul has begun to contrast mans’ law or mans’ philosophy with that of Christ and of God,” and point to v16.
Here’s where you, I believe, are mistaken. The context flows differently than you think. V6-7 go together, and v8 shifts gears. As I said in my blog commentary, “Paul exhorts them to continue in Christ, and by this he means to go back to what they have been taught and to grow in it, to go deeper within it. Positively, he states the truths that his readers need to know in this context, and negatively, he applies them against the errors that his readers must avoid. V6-7, as positive (‘do this’) reinforcements, summarize the whole letter, and then v8 moves to a negative (‘do not do this’) advisory. The simple message is this: ‘Remain faithful in Christ, but grow in Christ as well.’”
So when we get to v9, though it is not under a separate heading in your Bible, Paul reverts to comment further on v6-7. V9-15 correspond to the positive instructions given in v6-7; and v16-23 correspond to Paul’s negative charge given in v8.
When we get to v16, Paul moves back to comment on v8, which discusses the vain and deceptive, worldly philosophy of human tradition. He’s not talking about God’s law, per se. He’s talking about religious ritual in general, which is indeed a shadow that points toward Christ. Remember the entire letter to the Colossians is about exalting Christ. Nothing needs be added to Him. Vincent Cheung notes, “For one to persist in a religion of shadow when God commands a religion of reality means that this person has no spiritual reality, and no true contact with God.”
These Colossian Christians dwelled in a no-man’s land of mixed cultures and lax government. Colosse was a great place for exiles and crazed false teachers to hang-out. As v8 and v16-23 imply, these false teachers were demanding particular observances of feast days, ascetic rituals, and even angel worship. Paul is saying, “The mere practice of religion is not the crux of spirituality and relationship with God. Religion – including both the right practice of Old Testament ceremonial law and the evil practice of various forms of idolatry, is but a shadow; ‘the substance belongs to Christ.’ Christ is all that matters.”
Finally, as far as evidence that the law is against us, in the sense that it brought condemnation combined with sin and kept us from grace while we trusted in it, read Paul. Whether you read Romans 7-8, Galatians 2-5, or Ephesians 2, you’ll find it. Hebrews 9-10 are also helpful.
I’m sure you’re aware of the differences in the law, speaking of ceremonial, civil, and moral law… We dare not say that Christ has canceled the moral law! For the law, in this sense, shows us the very character of God and helps us, by the Spirit, to be conformed to the image of Christ. As Christians by grace through faith, we love the law – not the ceremonial law or even much of the civil law – but certainly the moral law, for it not only reveals the character of God, but also, by the Spirit, conforms us to the image of Christ, to whose image we are predestined to be conformed (Romans 8:29).
Here’s a good article to consider:
http://www.pacinst.com/nslaw/chapter2/ntlaw.html
Thanks for your comments:
I see in many places we are in agreement. Paul is certainly speaking out against these “crazed false teachers” that lived in Colossi. He is also definitely encouraging the Colossians to remain faithful to Christ and to grow in Him.
One place of disagreement is on whether Paul is speaking against observing “meat and drink, feast days, new moons, and the Sabbath” or speaking in support of these things. Traditionally the majority opinion has taught that Paul grouped these aspects of the Mosaic Law with the paganism addressed in the rest of this segment. My argument against this is that God’s Law and His Word can in no way be linked to the other statements in this text. Regardless of whether these things are applicable or are not, Paul simply would never have placed them in the same category.
Others have assumed this is connected to the Galatians’ argument against the Influencers, or “Judiazers” that preached “works of the law” for Gentile admittance into the covenant people. This is very unlikely both do to the timing of the letter (much later than that controversy which was put to rest in Acts 15.) and, as you state, this texts is about remaining/growing IN Christ, not getting in.
There is one word in this Text that influences the interpretation a lot. That word is “shadow.” When one looks at it from the Greek philosophy of asceticism, the very thing Paul is preaching against, we would see “shadow” as a negative (ala Plato). But any good understanding of Plato would negate this since Plato would see anything in the physical realm (The Tabernacle, the Feasts, the food, the Messiah Himself) as non-realities and only mere shadows. Yet, from a Hebraic point of view (ala Old Testament Hebrew), a Shadow of something given by God is viewed as a good thing. If we have a shadow of Jesus, this wouldn’t be bad, but rather good. The Feasts et.al. are shadows of the body of Jesus. Jesus is the shadow caster. Celebrating the feasts does not detract from what Jesus did or from who He is in anyway, but rather helps reveal Him.
Additionally, Deut 4:2 “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.” ESV
For Paul to have removed any commands of God, or void them, he would be breaking God’s command.
Deut 12:32 “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.” ESV
Deut 13 is a whole chapter on how to know if a miracle working prophet (of which Paul was one) is for real or not. The final judge is whether they teach against the LORD or “. . . to make you leave the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk.” ESV
Placing the commands of God in the same category as “rules taught by men” is mere folly…even if Paul didn’t think the so called ceremonial law applied. He still would not have used them as examples of rules taught by men or placed them in the same argument.
Like you said, the argument is about how to remain and grow in Christ. Col. 2:16-17 are examples of how to remain and grow in Christ, not as some works based faith, but an expression of the Grace based faith. Following any part of God’s Law is not “mere practice of religion” as you stated, but true religion if practiced with Jesus as the shadow caster. Obviously anyone practicing these things apart from Messiah would be practicing mere religious observance since they are missing the shadow caster, the goal, but if one is in Christ, they are not practicing mere religion.
The Text [Col. 2:16-17] begins with “therefore.” Therefore, [since you are in Christ,] do not let anyone judge you….” The only reason for Paul to include this in the letter is if the people are actually doing them. And if he says not to let others judge them, then what they are doing must be at the very least fine to do.
If they are NOT doing these things than there are only two options for why Paul would have added this Text: 1) these are really pagan festivals/rituals and not God’s commands he is speaking of (an obviously wrong view); 2) There are people who are judging them for NOT doing these things, people who would have to have been Jewish (yet the whole letter to Colossi fails to speak of these people, so this too cannot be a valid option.)
In light of this, the only option that makes sense is that Paul is telling them that, these things listed, that you are doing, do not let the pagans judge you concerning them because these things you are doing are actual shadows of your Messiah…Jesus is the caster of the shadow and what you are participating in helps you see Him better. Keep it up.
The Pagan asceticism taught against the physical body of a resurrected Messiah. To practice something that was a shadow required there to be a shadow caster. Only a physical body can cast a shadow. Why else would Paul begin verse 18 with, “let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism…”? The people Paul is against were teaching (among other things)…
Asceticim: “The doctrine that the ascetic life releases the soul from bondage to the body and permits union with the divine.”
This man made doctrine is the polar opposite of the teaching of the Bible which teaches that we will have a physical body and be on Earth in a physical creation and that God will dwell with mankind (not the other way around.)
Why does the majority of Christianity not read it this way? Because we have erroneously taught that Paul taught against following the Mosaic Law. But Paul never in fact did this.
Finally, your division of the Law into three parts is written as if this is a fact when in reality it is not. There is not a single scripture that speaks of this division and any attempts to find them are met with much difficulty. (See my link to a post on the history of the tripartite Law view.) Also, the covenant at Sinai is a single unit with many parts. It’s a Covenant that contains stipulations. Remove any of the parts and the whole is broken. Neither man nor God can abrogate any part of a ratified covenant. Man obviously has tried almost as soon as he agreed to it, but for God to lie or annul parts of the Covenant is simply impossible for He is always faithful; let every man be a liar.
The other Scriptures you mentioned are discussions of their own, some of which are tackled on my blog (usually by others more adequate to the task than me.) Those that are not addressed will be at some time in the future.
This blog is meant to compile the strongest arguments for each position. Not on each specific Text, but rather on the place of the Mosaic Law in the life of a Christian. I have views listed for most of the major “sects” of Christian thought. If you know of a better view that reflects your beliefs, by all means let me know. I am looking for a complete arguments rather than a simple bullet point “we believe this” type of article. The best I can find for each will be linked.
Thanks again for your well written response.
Sean Daily
Your argument is undoubtedly sincere, and well-written. Allow me a brief response.
First, you asked me to cite my source for my discussion of angel worship over at my blog. I can’t remember the exact location of the information, but it was one of these three spots (or perhaps a inference from the combination of sources): Calvin’s Commentaries on Colossians (http://tinyurl.com/5w5mka), Vincent Cheung’s Commentary on Colossians
(http://tinyurl.com/6d54w2) – start reading around page 50 or so – or Derek Thomas’ sermon on this passage in the context of worship (http://tinyurl.com/5sqhf3).
Next, I think there’s plenty to say in favor of Paul’s speaking against the observation of “meat and drink, feast days, new moons, and the Sabbath,” opposed to your view that he is speaking in favor of those shadows. For the sake of brevity, consider just two things. First, as I stated previously, Paul’s ultimate concern in this letter is the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. He is the substance to which all shadows point. In modern language, he might say, “Don’t concern yourself with the shadows anymore, like you once did, because we have the substance.” Second, if you don’t mind, read Romans 14.
Paul desires unity among the born-again, especially in regards to disputable matters. Now my great question which, alas, goes unanswered, is how we determine what matters are disputable and what matters are not, especially when there is strong disagreement!
Laying that question aside, we focus on the strong and weak brother bearing with one another for the sake of mutual edification. Paul gives the food and drink illustration; he also gives the Sabbath illustration.
Verses 5-6:
“One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”
I appreciate your concern for right-living, even and especially if that means obeying the so-called “ceremonial” law while most Christians (especially of the Gentile variety) do not. Consider that this observation may make you a strong or weak brother. You might see yourself as a “strong” brother and me as a “weak” brother; and I might see you as the “weak” brother in this area and myself as the “strong” brother.
Either way, our response to one another ought to be the same. We ought to be convinced in our own minds that what we do in terms of “ceremonial” law observation is right and good. And we ought to bear with those who disagree without judging them. For I view my freedom to cease from obeying the “ceremonial” law as a gift of God – I have the substance (pure light where no shadow is cast) and do not need the shadow to point me to the light any longer.
Verse 13 says, “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.” I know you’re not judging me for not following what I see as the obsolete “ceremonial” law; and please know that I won’t judge you for wanting to cling to it, seeing it as a way to get closer to Christ.
We can keep trying to convince one another of our positions, and the conversation is edifying for both parties. Certainly, we must not abstain from discussion for fear of offense. But we lay aside all judgment.
In verse 14, Paul, who has just said that being convinced is important, says, “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food (or perhaps a better translation would be “nothing”) is unclean in itself.” That seems to clearly contradict the “ceremonial” law, which says that we must not eat pork (Leviticus 11:7-8). Of course, it only seems to contradict the “ceremonial” law, because it, in fact, does not. The answer is that the law has been canceled by Christ (Colossians 2:14). And furthermore, to your point, I think, it may very well be better for humanity to eat a kosher diet, following the law for our good. But we’re not obligated to do so.
Paul adds in verse 15, “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.” There’s the principle – love. The whole law is summed up by the word “love.”
If you think you can best love God by obeying what I call the “ceremonial” law, that’s fine. Paul didn’t think he needed to do that. As the stronger brother, he thought all food was clean; it was fine to consider every day alike. Out of love, he didn’t make a big deal about days or food, because the substance – Christ – was all that mattered.
Verses 17-19 conclude my “brief” response (Ha Ha!): “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”
Chip,
Thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate the dialogue, truly I do. (Maybe I don’t need to say this, but just in case….my disagreements with you are not intended to be read as condemning you or “putting you down” personally.)
I am glad that you brought up Romans 14 because in doing so, you cleverly make my point.
My original argument was that Paul is not, in Col. 2, putting the commands of God (eating unclean, festivals, and Sabbath) in the same category as pagan dogma dreamt up by man. Paul is not in that passage telling the Colossians that they need to stop following those God given teachings because they are a “mere” shadow of Christ and to do so is to detract from the actual person of Christ.
If Paul is saying these things, than he can not say in Romans 14, that ones view in this area is a personal view that does not matter and do not judge your brother who continues to follow the Law when you do not need to.
Do you see the contradiction in your two arguments? In Col. 2 Paul is clearly, according to your understanding, stating that they ought not follow those parts of the Law, but in Romans 14, we are allowed to if we want to but not required.
Some point by point comments:
You said, “[Christ] is the substance to which all shadows point.” True for all shadows ordained by God, but not so for the false “shadows.” These are not pointing to him. Pagan rituals that are similar to God’s commands in some respect are not pointing to Jesus.
You said:
“Now my great question which, alas, goes unanswered, is how we determine what matters are disputable and what matters are not, especially when there is strong disagreement!”
- By seeing what Scriptures say. I know that is obvious. Both of us believe that Scripture is where our answers are coming from, but one of us is certainly wrong. (Note: I was exactly in your shoes for over 30 years before I changed…very slowly…very grudgingly…only to find joy. But I did share your views to a tee just 8 years ago.)
You said,
“The answer is that the law has been canceled by Christ (Colossians 2:14).”
I thought earlier you saw this verse as pointing to man made doctrines and not God’s Law. The word in this text is “dogma” which almost always refers to man made rules as can be seen by reading the same Greek word in verse 20 which is speaking of “worldly dogma.”
How could the Law [Torah] be nailed to the cross. It’s absurd and all together unnecessary. To say the teachings and commands of God are nailed to the cross is a most untenable position.
To sum up Romans 14 in a much to short of manner, I will simply say that the “special days” are not The Sabbath, but days some Jews made special in their Halacha. See multiple sources on first century theology for confirmation.
The food was about meat, not things that were not food (like pigs). The Torah clearly says one can not eat meat offered to an idol, and it was very well known that meat offered to idols was often sold in the public market and you couldn’t always know which was which. Paul’s “law” in this matter was to be lenient. If you do not know you do not need to assume it was offered. Others said, if you do not know, you should assume it was offered. Therefore they did not eat meat at all. Here, if eating meat is going to cause the brother who doesn’t to fall, then simply do not eat meat. Eating together was very important in the community of believers, so this issue was not a small matter. But Paul does not, and can not, change the issue of what is food and what is not food. (Note: Kosher is not the same as eating Biblically. Kosher includes many additional laws in addition to the laws stated in the Bible.)
Yet, I think our impasse is based more on a misunderstanding of history than of Paul’s theology. I have been really thinking a lot about our exchange and wondering how I can help any person come to see what Paul was teaching without the unnecessary recoil that occurs when I says, “The Torah is not abolished for the Jew or Gentile.” That statement is so foreign that it immediately elicits a strong reaction and assumptions of legalism and going back under the condemnation of the Law, etc… To even have someone like yourself engage in the discussion is very very rare, I can certainly attest to this.
So I was wondering how to better frame the discussion so as to allow people to see the first century issues without addressing their personal Theology. Once they can grasp the truths about the historical situation, then reading Galatians and Acts, etc.. will make much more sense. I know there will not be a large swell of people flocking back to the commands of God. I mean, lets face it, many Pastors have spoken so strongly against the commands of God that most Christians are frightened at even the thought of obeying them. When my own brother, whom I grew up with, knew I was observing Passover with my family, he nearly fell over. Didn’t Paul command us to NOT observe the Passover? (forget that 1 Cor. 5:8 says, “Let us therefore keep the feast [of Passover]”) Isn’t observing the Feasts against the new law? Imagine the disconnect. Paul is eager to get to Jerusalem to observe the festivals. When he arrives he sets out to prove he observes, not just the Laws of Moses, but even traditions. Yet we teach Christians that those who do observer the commands of God’s are possible heretics. It’s an upside down world we live in.
I appreciate the exchange and regardless of your disagreement, the discussion is helpful for me. I do believe my next post will be an historical overview of the first century Jewish theology as well as a look at the middle age Catholic Church and what Luther spoke out against. It’s obvious that Luther read Paul from the middle century perspective and applied to Paul’s world issues that existed in Luther’s world. We have been doing much the same ever since. Once we put Paul back in his own world, much of this will be far easier to discuss.
Until then,
Sean Daily
No grudges here… I tend to agree with your general remarks about Romans 14, in the sense that Paul is speaking to the specific issues of his day. In other words, he’s addressing cultural and traditional feast days, rather than “The Sabbath” itself, and the question of whether it was alright to eat meat that may have been sacrificed to idols or not. But I don’t think you allow Paul to go as far as he does.
He’s speaking of clean and unclean foods, to which the Torah issues a clear command, and he’s saying (in v14), “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that nothing is unclean in itself.” He’s basing his seemingly antinomian statement (at least from the legalist perspective) on his being “in Christ.” It is being “in Christ” that releases one from the law.
It’s not that the law is no longer good and appropriate to follow. Thus for you to celebrate the Passover is not foolish, nor does it deserve derision from your family. Rather, it’s that it’s a non-issue. What matters, as Paul says, is being “in Christ,” revealing the righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (v17), because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God (v18). Let’s seek mutual edification.
And this is where I’m not sure what you’re wanting. Back to the Colossians 2 issue, you asked:
“Do you see the contradiction in your two arguments? In Col. 2 Paul is clearly, according to your understanding, stating that they ought not follow those parts of the Law, but in Romans 14, we are allowed to if we want to but not required.”
I don;t see a contradiction, because there isn’t one. Keep in mind the context of the two letters. The Colossians were under pressure to ritualize their lives with a mix of ceremonies, perhaps some good and others really bad. The Romans had no such pressure, yet with their mix of Jew and Gentile, there was likely some confusion as to proper behavior among the brethren. Thus Paul treats the situations with different answers but the same motive – encouragement unto mutual edification.
I’m without electricity since the remnant of Ike swept through, so I’m short on time. Perhaps we’ll chat again soon. Thanks for your conversation. Blessings.