Adventist International Institute

of Advanced Studies

EXEGESIS

Colossians 2:16-17 as part of doctrine in Christology

Law abolished? – Shadow of things to come? How did, Apostle Paul approached
the Law in Colossians?

proposal

presented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for

OTST/NTST 612 Biblical Hermeneutics (2021)

by

Veli-Lauri Kotilainen

December 2021
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................1

Background of the Study...............................................1

Statement of the Problem..............................................1
Purpose of the Study.....................................................1
Significance of the Study...............................................2
Scope and Delimitations................................................2
Methodology..................................................................3

2. A BIBLICAL APPROACH......................................................4

Contextual Analysis.......................................................4

General Background of the Book...............................4

Literary Context.........................................................4

Historical and Geographical Context.............................5

Canonical Context......................................................6

3. FORMAL AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS...................................7

A. Literary Types................................................................7

B. The Literary Style of the Epistle of Colossians..............8

Genre.........................................................................10
C. Literary Structure of Colossians 2:16-2:17
11

ii
 4. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT 1...................................13

D. Grammar & Syntax

13
E. Literary Analysis - Arguments and Rhetoric of Colossians
18
Additional Word Study
22
F. Exegetical Synthesis
24

5. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT 2 & SYNTHESIS

29
A. Theology
30
B. Application
31

6. THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION & CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

The Written Document Nailed to the Cross

32

BIBLIOGRAPHY
34

iii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

When doctrinal development begun in the Early Church, and Apostle Paul´s
Missionary Journey had reached Jewish-Hellenistic influenced people at Colossae,
Apostle Paul refutes Colossae Heresy.

Statement of the Problem

. N.T. Wright writes in his commentary of the message of Apostle Paul to

Colossae concerning Col. 2:16, 17 compressing it into “do not submit to Jewish
regulations1”. It leaves interpreting it into understanding that it is regulations not the
whole Mosaic Law that was abolished.

Purpose of the Study

This study aims to analyze different approaches to the text of Colossians 2:16, 17
in order to reach unbiased understanding what Apostle Paul meant with his instruction.

1
Wright, N.T, The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon. Inter-Varisty Press
Leicester, England Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1986, reprinted 1994.

1
 Significance of the Study

This research seeks to analyze some of the many challenges interpreting Apostle
Paul´s instruction for Colossians in connection with his emphasis doctrinal and
Christological expression “but the substance is of Christ”.

Scope and Delimitations

Establishing the text: Analyzing the text of Col 2:16, 17 (Delimitated considering
Word Study)

Colossians 2:16, 17 in its immediate context, and in larger context as it is stated in

one of the statements of the problems:

1. Textual establishment (original wording of text, beginning and ending

points of passages);

2. Historical context (events before and at the time scriptures were written,
also includes social settings and culture)

3. Literary context (investigation of sources and authorship),

4. Form (what is the genre? or form?)

2
 5. Lexical and syntactical - usage of individual words in order to determine
the meaning to draw out the original meaning.

6. Biblical context (how do the passages fit into the Bible as a whole?)

7. Structural and theological meaning.

Methodology

I will be using The Historical-Biblical Method on my exegesis

The historical-biblical method is sometimes called the biblical-grammatical approach to

Scripture, the historical-grammatical method, or the grammatical-historical method. It is
to be distinguished from the predominant historical-critical method with its source
criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition history, and socio-scientific
criticism2.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

General Background of the Book

The church at Colossae was not established by Apostle Paul as
Col 2:1 seems to indicate. Epaphras had apparently been the preacher
who brought the Christian Gospel to the city (1:7), Paul describes
Epaphras as “faithful minister of Christ on our behalf” (1:7), which
seems to mean that Paul had sent him to Colossae. While Paul could
not preach in every place, therefore it made sense to send trustworthy
fellow workers to proclaim the gospel in places where he could not go

2
Müller, Ekkehardt. 2006. “Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture.” In Understanding
Scripture: An Adventist Approach, edited by George W. Reid, 1:111. Biblical Research Institute Studies.
Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute.

3
himself. If so, he would retain an interest in the progress of such
church, and this letter may well have arisen out of such an interest.
When Paul wrote the book, he was in prison (Col. 4:3, 10, 18).3

Literary Context
Apostle Paul had heard that some false teachers had come to
Colossae, so he wrote refute their errors, lest the new little church be
harmed. The precise nature of the false teaching is not clear (as it is
always when we don´t have teaching itself, but we have what is
written to refute it), but some things are fairly plain. Paul puts
emphasis on the supremacy of Christ (1:15-19), so it seems that the
false teachers detracted in some way from a high Christology.
Evidently they thought that Christ was no more than a beginning; to go
on to spiritual maturity, it was necessary to follow their rules and
practices4. The false teachers at Colossae were teaching the existence
of angelic beings arranged in different orders, intermediate between
God and the world, who acted as mediators for men, brought them
salvation, and merited their worship. At the same time these teachers
insisted on an extremely legalistic ceremonialism, following the Jewish
pattern, and emphasizing circumcision, taboos in matter of food and
drink, and observance of festivals. Against such teachings Paul wrote
the Colossian epistle5.

Historical and Geographical Context

Colossae was a city of Phrygia, situated on the South bank of the
River Lycus, a tributary of the Maender (Ramsay), Christianity was

3
Ralph P. Martin in his Colossians and Philemon favors an imprisonment near Ephesus (NCB
London: Oliphants, 1974)
4
Carson, Moo, and Morris, 1992 Introduction to The New Testament, Colossians, Zondervan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
5
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7. p. 184

4
introduced to Colossae and the other cities of the Lycus Valley during
the years of Paul´s Ephesian Ministry, recorded in Acts 19. Acts 19:10
“All which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and
Greek”6. The work was directed by Paul. Paul made Ephesus the
headquarters of his missionary enterprise for about three years (Acts
20:31). Even Demetrius affirmed that “throughout almost all Asia, this
Paul has persuaded and turned away many people” (Acts 19:26) from
paganism7. As William Hendriksen writes; “Paul was released from his
first Roman imprisonment, the imprisonment during which he wrote
Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Philippians. Having regained his
freedom he probably journeyed to Ephesus and from there to Colossae,
just as he had intended (Philem. 22). What happened during his visit
with the Colossians has not been revealed8.
Lying in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of
the Mæander, were three neighboring towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and
Colossæ. The river flows, roughly speaking, from east to west; but at
this point, which is some few miles above its junction with the
Mæander, its direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west.
Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated respectively
on the southern and northern sides of the valley, at a distance of six
miles, and within sight of each other, the river lying in the open plain
between the two. The site of Colossæ is somewhat higher up the
stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles from the point
where the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus.
Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite
sides, Colossæ stands immediately on the river-bank, two parts of the

6
F.F. Bruce: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans Publishing
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957
7
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7. p. 183
8
Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, Baker
Book House 1962, Michigan U.S.A

5
town being divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each
other, that it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a
single day9.
As to the congregation at Colossae, its further history is obscure.
It would seem that the gradual decay of the church went hand in hand
with that of the city. For a while the church had a bishop of its own.
However, when the population moved to Honaz, the episcopal see
followed the population, until at length, with the coming of the Turkish
conquest, “the golden candle stick was removed forever from the
Eternal Presence” (J.B. Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 72).

Canonical Context

Adoption into the Canon: There may be a reference to Colossians

in the Epistle of Barnabas, but otherwise we must come down to Justin
Martyr in the middle of the second century for references to this letter.
But it is accepted by Marcion, included in the Muratorian Canon, found
in the Syriac and Old Latin versions, and cited by authors such
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. No real doubt as to its
canonicity appears to have been raised in antiquity, and the church
seems to have had no difficulties in recognizing it as Scripture10.

CHAPTER 3
FORMAL AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

A. Literary Types

9
Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. 1886. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. 8th ed.
Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament. London; New York: Macmillan and Co.
10
Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. 1886. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. 8th ed.
Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament. London; New York: Macmillan and Co.

6
 The Epistle to the Colossians was meant not only to be read by
the believers in Colossae but also in Laodicea and in turn the letter to
the people of Laodicea, and also to be read by the Colossians (Col.
4:16). Two of the most striking features of Paul’s epistle to the
Colossians is the hymn to Christ in Colossians 1:15-20 and household
duties in Colossians 3:18-4:1.
The former is lyrical in style and is divided into two stanzas. It
forms one of the two highest praises of Jesus Christ in the New
Testament canon, together with Philippians 2:6-11. The Colossians
1:15-20 affirms the fact that He is the creator of the universe as well as
the creator of the church. Colossians 3:18-4:1 parallels Ephesians 5:22-
6:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-3:7.
Paul’s central message in Colossians is the affirmation of the
sufficiency of Christ in the face of false philosophy in Colossae and the
threat it posed to the truth of the gospel. Paul uses each section of the
letter to address this problem. In the opening section he gives thanks
for the Colossians’ acceptance of “the word of truth” (the gospel) and
asks God to fill them with knowledge of His will (Col 1:3–10). The
theological reality behind the great Christ hymn in Col 1:15–20 is
presented as the antidote to the poisonous philosophy described in Col
2:6–2311 .
The letter to the Colossians explicitly states that the apostle Paul
is the writer in that he is named the author in the opening greeting
(1:1) and within the body of the letter (1:23) and at its conclusion
(4:18). Some scholars have argued that Colossians is “deutero-Pauline”
meaning that they view certain allegedly non-Pauline features of
vocabulary, style and theology in this epistle that it was not written by

11
Brown, Derek R. 2013. Colossians. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham Research
Commentaries. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

7
Paul himself but rather by one of his disciples such as Timothy while he
was still alive12.
They even claim that it could have been written by a member of
a so-called Pauline “school” who was well versed in Paul’s theology.
They believe that this individual was dealing with certain theological or
pastoral issues with the theology he learned from the apostle. There
are some scholars who regard Colossians as pseudo-epigraphic 13.
Colossians presents the problem of having, on the one hand,
numerous (though superficial) affinities with the circumstances of the
Letter of Paul to Philemon while, on the other hand, being addressed
mainly to a different situation. In this new situation he uses ideas and
expressions that seem to be rather a development of Pauline ideas
about the cosmic realm than genuinely Pauline argumentation14.

B. The Literary Style of the Epistle of Colossians

For some time it has been observed that some of the sentences
in Colossians are extremely long, that their style is rather loose, with
repetitions, close synonyms, and the piling up of expressions. 15 In other
words, “the style, particularly the grammar, of Colossians is different in
some respects from Romans, Galatians, or the Corinthians literature.” 16
Walter Bujard in 197317 was the first to attempt to give a more
scientific basis to the analysis of the syntax of this epistle (i.e.,

12
(see Dunn 38-39, 105, 117, 169, 171, 192 and esp. 269-270).
13
(see M. Kiley, Colossians as Pseudepigraphy [Sheffield: JSOT, 1986])
14
Wenstrom - Sunday November 23, 2014 - www.wenstrom.org
15
Hume, 30. Similarly Thurston, 5; Hultgren, 26; Radford, 4
16
Davids, 230.
17
In Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief: ein Beitrag zur Methodik von
Sprachvergleichen (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck, 1973). Schweizer (18, footnote #14) provided a summary of
challenges to Pauline authorship, based on stylistic analyses

8
specifically, how its phrases and sentences are put together). 18 Kiley’s
more comprehensive study, building on Bujard’s initial work, similarly
concluded that “the style of the letter is sufficiently divergent from the
seven-letter corpus to suggest that Col is not by Paul.”19
Eduard Schweizer alleged that such a stylistic analysis leads to
only one uniform result: “The letter can neither have been written nor
dictated by Paul.”20 These matters will be considered below in greater
detail. William Hendriksen observed that “Colossians contains well-nigh
endless sentence-chains. Thus, chapter 1 has only five sentences in
the original, and one of these, verses 9-20, is a sentence of 218 words
[in Greek].”21 In addition, Colossians 2:9-15 forms a single sentence in
the original22; and the writing style has been classified as
“cumbersome, wordy, over-loaded.”23 In response to this challenge,
already in 1897, T. K. Abbott pointed out that “the long sentences,
such as Col. 1: 9-20, are not without analogy in other Epistles, e.g.
Rom. 1:1-7, 2:5-10, 14-16, 3: 23-26; Gal. 2: 3-5, 6-9; Phil. 3: 8-11.”24
A second concern raised is regarding occasions where
expressions that belong to the same stem are combined. However, as
Ian Smith indicated, this type of repetition “also occurs in an

18
Hume, 30. So also, Furnish, 1093. See Kiley’s summary (55-59) of Bujard. Hume (33)
considered the question, meaning and usage of stylistic tests, and then cautioned: “The results of these
statistical analyses will depend to a degree on the ways the material is fed in, and the presuppositions with
which the statistics are read.”
19
Kiley, 73 (emphasis added)
20
Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary, Andrew Chester, trans.
(Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1982), 19
21
Hendriksen, A Commentary on Colossians & Philemon, 30. Two of the other long sentences are
in 1:3-8; and 1:23-26.
22
Wilson, 13. Similarly, Kümmel, 341
23
Kümmel, 341.
24
Abbott, liii. Similarly, Hendriksen, A Commentary on Colossians & Philemon, 30; Mullins, 17.

9
undisputed Pauline letter such as in 1 Cor. 7.20, 1 Cor. 10.16; and 1
Cor. 11.2.”25
Third, the author of Colossians tends to heap up synonyms, such
as “praying and asking” (1:9); “in all wisdom and spiritual
understanding” (1:9); “patience and longsuffering” (1:11); “holy,
faultless, and blameless” (1:22); “grounded and steadfast” (1:23);
“ages and generations” (1:26); “rooted, built up, and established”
(2:7)26. However, Hendriksen noted that such heaping up of synonyms
can be found in the undisputed epistle to the Romans 27. For example,
“ungodliness and unrighteousness” (1:18); “worshiped and served”
(1:25); etc. Similarly, Philippians has “full knowledge and keen
discretion” (1:9); “pure and blameless” (1:10); “glory and praise”
(1:11); “envy and rivalry” (1:15); “eager expectation and hope” (1:20);
etc.28
Fourth, a concern has been raised regarding the verbose use of
dependent genitive constructions in Colossians. For example, “the
word of the truth of the gospel” (1:5); “all the riches of the full
assurance of understanding” (2:2); “putting off of the body of the
flesh” (2:11); “the faith of the working of God” (2:12) 29. These kinds of
dependent genitives do, however, appear in other accepted Pauline
letters, such as “a day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous
judgment of God” (Rom 2:5); “a seal of the righteousness of the faith”
(Rom 4:11); and “the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age”
(1 Cor. 2:6).30
Genre
25
Smith, Heavenly Perspective, 10. Similarly, O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xliii.
26
See Kümmel, 341; Hendriksen, A Commentary on Colossians & Philemon, 30; Wilson, 13;
Smith, Heavenly Perspective, 10; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xliii
27
Hendriksen, A Commentary on Colossians & Philemon, 30.
28
Ibid
29
See Wilson, 13. Similarly, O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xliii.

10
 Colossians belongs to the genre of the ancient letter. Although
Colossians contains the majority of the common sections of the letter
genre31, observes that the letter displays a unique literary style. The
inclusion of Colossians among the so-called “prison letters” (Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) further confirms that the writing
belongs to the letter genre.32

C. Literary Structure of Colossians 2:16-2:17

A discourse analysis of Colossians 2: 16-3: 17 (hereafter central
section) suggests that this portion of Colossians is hortatory discourse
with embedded exposition. The structural framework is a simple
chiasmus. It provides the cohesion that holds the book together, and it
provides the rubric in which the central section progresses to its
discourse peak or climax. To illustrate this structure within the context
of NT interpretation:
Colossians 1:2 is an example of a simple chiasmus. The interior
elements are "saints" and "faithful brethren." The exterior elements
are two prepositional phrases, "in Colossea" and "in Christ” 33 Note the
following figure, as an example of chiasmus:
A in Colossae
B saints
B' faithful brethren
A' in Christ
Identification of Chiastic Structure A chiasma marks the central
section of Colossians. The chiasma provides the cohesion which ties

30
Smith, Heavenly Perspective, 11.
31
Davids (2008, 236)
32
Brown, Derek R. 2013. Colossians. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham Research
Commentaries. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
33
The English translation is "to the saints in Colossea and to the faithful brethren in Christ"
(alternative translation). The chiasmus is lost in the English

11
together the two halves of the book, and provides the rubric around
which the argument of the central section develops to a climax. I will
now summarize my interpretation (alternative positions are cited in the
notes). First, 2: 16-3: 17 is taken as a unit 34 . The basis for this
interpretation is the shift of tense-aspect-mood and word order.
The central section of Colossians is hortatory discourse (see
discussion below) and is set off from the earlier expository section by
the conjunction ouv "therefore" in 2:1635 .

Paragraph Elements Tense-Aspect-Mood

Word order
A (2: 16-19)
(1) Let no man, therefore, judge you (2:16) Pres. 3rd singular
S-O-V
(2) Let no man condemn you (2: 18) Pres. 3rd singular
S-O-V
B (2:20-23)

34
There are several alternatives in the literature. Edward Lohse, for example, makes a major break
between 2:23 and 3: I. He suggests that the former section is instructional, while the latter is hortatory. The
conjunction ouv "therefore" marks the transition between sections (Colossians and Philemon [Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1971] 132). See also Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians (Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1982) 171; N. W. Meyer, The Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians and to Philemon (New
York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1985) 372, 372; Werner Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982) 217; 1. L. Houlden, Paul's Letter from Prison (Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1977) Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) 89; Donald Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1970) 560; Everett Harrison, Colossians:
Christ All-Sufficient (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971) 17, 74; and Homer Kent, Treasures of Wisdom
(Winona Lake: BMH, 1978) 25. Peter O'Brien offers a second position. A major break is made in 3:4. The
former section is doctrinal, while the latter is practical. The conjunction ouv marks the transition
(Colossians and Philemon [Waco: Word, 1982] 174). See also Robert Gromacki, Stand Perfect in Wisdom
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981) 131; D. Edmond Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament
(3 vols; Chicago: Moody, 1977) 233; and E. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistle to the
Ephesians and the Colossians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 174, 175.
35
George Cannon makes a major break at 2: 16 and 2: 17. The basis for these conclusions is an
epistolary analysis of Colossians (The Use of Traditional Materials in Colossians [Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1983] 156, 157). See also Ralph Martin, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1973) 89; and T. K. Abbott, Epistle to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (ICC; Edinburg: T.
and T. Clark, 1985) lxi.

12
If you have died with Christ (2:20) Mitigated imper.-Rhetorical
question

More specifically note that the central section begins with two
imperatives, both present tense 3rd person singular. Word order is
subject-object-verb. Subsequent imperatives deviate along either or
both parameters (e.g., subsequent imperatives are 2nd person plural,
there is a shift to the aorist tense and word order changes to verb-
subject-object). The final two imperatives, however, return to the
original form (i.e., present tense 3rd singular). It is at these two
locations in the central section that the tension of the argument is
lowest. I return to discuss tension below.
It is enough to suggest that the imperatives in A and A' mark the
on-set and the terminus of the central section, forming an envelope
structure. Second, A (2:16-19) and A' is the exterior elements of the
chiasma. Recall, that the imperatives of A and A' form an envelope
structure. One should not conclude, however, that these imperatives
balance each other to the exclusion of the other imperatives in A'
(specifically 1 a and 1 b). Rather take A and the whole of A' to balance
each other as the exterior elements because both A and A' are
hortatory discourse. The two features which characterize hortatory
discourse-agent orientation and non-chronological linkage-are present
in A and A', suggesting why these sections are hortatory discourse.
With regard to the former feature, note that the imperatives in A and
A' are not embedded. The expectation of A and A' is that believers (i.e.,
agents) will behave in a certain manner. Behavior, not exposition (of a
topic), is the focus36.
The logical progression in A (2: 16-19) is not as pronounced.
Nonetheless the fact that the imperatives carry the reader forward
through this paragraph suggests that A is also hortatory discourse.
36
Italics addes

13
Here also believers (i.e., agents) are expected to behave in a certain
manner. The lack of tension in A is further explained37.

4. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT 1

D. Grammar & Syntax

To begin with, Gregory T. Christopher has argued based on his
evidence, that “2: 16-3: 17 is a unit” 38. This would bring forth a
challenge in exploring syntax of Col 2:16, 17 alone. Whereas Murray
sees Unit in Col 2:4–3:4 forms unit under the title “Error and Its
Remedy39”, this brings forth another challenge. However, Murray
brakes Col 2:16–19 passage, under the title “Warning against Mystical
Legalism”.40 Concerning the structure of the passage, Murray explains
that our text has its connection to previous verses, in following manner
“Paul alerts his readers to a further pair of dangers (cf. ἵνα μηδείς, v. 4;
μή τις, v. 8), thus specifying in more detail the nature of the
“philosophy” of v. 8. A. μὴ . . . τις the danger of ὑμᾶς κρινέτω
illegitimate accusation ἐν βρώσει regarding καὶ ἐν πόσει religious ἢ ἐν
μέρει κτλ. observances B. μηδεὶς the danger of ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω
unjustifiable disqualification θέλων ἐμβατεύων Paul’s description
φυσιούμενος and criticism of οὐ κρατῶν τὴν κεφαλήν the false
teachers. ἐξ source of growth, διά channels of nourishment and means
of unification of the Body41.
37
Christopher, Gregory T; A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF COLOSSIANS 2:16-3:17, Grace
Theological Journal 11 .2 (1990) 205-220. p. 9 https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/11-2_205.pdf
38
Ibid
39
Harris, Murray J.. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (p.
295). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition
40
Ibid
41
Harris, Murray J.. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (p.
166). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

14
 On this grammatical analysis Murray does as an introduction
before he deals with the real body text Col 2:16 in detailed, which he
begins in following manner: “Verse 16 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω 3 sg.
pres. act. impv. of κρίνω, judge. In general μή + pres. impv. It either
demands the termination of some action already begun (“stop . . . !”)
or, as here, depicts action that must always be avoided 42. It issues
general directions (that are less dramatic than those expressed by μή
+ aor. subjunc.) about a course of conduct to be avoided. Being
parallel to καταβραβευέτω (“disqualify,” “rob of a prize,” “condemn,”
v. 18), κρινέτω clearly has a pejorative sense: not “adjudicate,” but
“pass an unfavorable judgment upon” (BDAG 567d), “sit in
judgment”43, “criticise” (NJB), “take (you) to task” (REB), “pass
judgment on”44 (RSV, NAB²; O’Brien 135). In the light of (cf. οὖν,
“therefore”) God’s triumph in Christ over all spiritual powers that would
enslave human beings (vv. 8,15), the Colossians should resolutely
resist any effort that certain propagandists (cf. μὴ . . . τις [. . .
κρινέτω], “Allow no one . . . to take you to task,” REB) might make to
42
(cf. BDF §§335, 336[3]; Burton §165; Moule 135; Moulton 122–26; R 853–54, 890, 947; T 74–
78)
43
Weymouth's New Testament translation “Therefore suffer no one to sit in judgement on you as
to eating or drinking or with regard to a festival, a new moon or a sabbath”
44
Decker, Timothy L.,THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS, AND SABBATHS OF COLOSSIANS 2:16
IN OLD TESTAMENT AND ANCIENT, NON-BIBLICAL LITERATURE: A Case for an Old Covenant
Colloquialism, 46, Journal of IRBS Theological Seminary 2018; “The Puritans argued that this passage has
to do, not with the passing away of the weekly Sabbath day instituted at creation, but rather with the
ceremonial observances that were part of other feasts and festivals under the old covenant.” Edward Elton,
a puritan minister in London and commentator wrote, “Some thereby that take occasion from this text of
the Apostle, to open their mouths against the Lord’s ordinary Sabbath, and to say it is here put among the
ceremonies of the Jews, and so is abrogated, and quite abolished, and we ought not to keep it: but if we
remember the exposition of the words, they may be answered in a word, that the Apostle here speaks not of
the Lord’s ordinary Sabbath, but of the first and last day of the great feasts of the Jews” (spelling updated).
Edward Elton, An Exposition of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Colossians: Delivered in Sundry Sermons
(London: Felix Kyngston, 1620), 336–37. This is consistent with John Owen’s interpretation, in
Exercitations Concerning the Name, Original, Nature, Use and Continuance of a Day of Sacred Rest
(London: R.W. for Nath. Ponder, 1671), utilizing the twelfth-century Rabbi Maimonides or Moses Ben
Maimon who said, “Just as we sanctify on the night of the Sabbath and separate upon the going out of the
Sabbath, so too we sanctify on the nights of holy days of Festivals and separate upon their going out and
upon the going out of the Day of Atonement, in that all of them are sabbaths [ ‫ ];שׁתֹות ְּב ַ בתֹות ְ ּ תוֹת‬of the LORD.”
Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 29:18.

15
restrict their freedom by legalistic regulations. ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει
Βρῶσις, -εως, ἡ, eating; food. Πόσις, -εως, ἡ, drinking; drink.
Nouns with the suf. -σις generally denote “names of action”
(nomina actionis), verbal abstracts (MH 373)—thus “eating,” “drinking”
(TCNT; Wilson 215). But, by metonymy, βρῶσις can be equivalent to
βρῶμα,“ food,” and πόσις to πόμα, “drink” (thus NRSV, NASB²; O’Brien
135), so that one could tr. “what you eat or drink” (GNB, REB, TNIV).
On the significance of Jewish dietary regulations, see Dunn 172–74. ᾽Εν
is locat./referential (“in the matter of,” “regarding”; sim. most EVV) or
conceivably instr./causal (“by,” TNIV; “on the basis of”). Prep. phrases
are often anar. (cf. 2:1,12).
The repeated ἐν shows that dietary regulations concerning food
and drink are being viewed separately. ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας
ἢ σαββάτων Tr.: “or with regard to” (BDAG 355b, 633d), where ἐν
μέρει (+ gen.) is a stylistic variation of the previous simple ἐν, used to
avoid a succession of five datives. The first ἤ (“or”) introduces a third
category (after βρῶσις and πόσις; note the threefold ἐν) that consists
of three alternatives separated by the second and third uses of ἤ.
Ἑορτή, -ῆς, ἡ, festival, feast. Νεομηνία, -ας, ἡ, new moon; first of the
month. Remarkably, σάββατον, -ου, τό in either the sg. or the pl. can
mean either “sabbath” or “week” (see BDAG 909b–10a; BDF §141[3]; T
27)45. Tr. “or concerning [the observance of, REB] a festival or a new
moon or a Sabbath.” But it is also possible that the first two nouns are
generic sgs. and therefore may be tr. as pls. (“or about observance of
annual festivals, New Moons or Sabbaths,” NJB; sim. NRSV), or that
Paul is referring to “the matter of annual or monthly or weekly
festivals” (TCNT; and note the reverse order in Gal 4:10). The three

45
Harris, Murray J.. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament)
(pp. 166-167). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

16
nouns are anar. after ἐν μέρει, in accordance with the canon of
Apollonius46.

The grammar of Col 2:17: ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων = which

are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Murray continues exploring this verse in a following manner The
antecedent of ἅ (nom. pl. neut. of the rel. pron.) is either σαββάτων (R
712), or regulations in the three categories cited (viz., food, drink, and
calendar), or the material objects implied or referred to by βρῶσις and
πόσις, or the Law (S. Schulz, TDNT 7:398) as implied by the reference
to three types of religious festival. Alternatively ἅ may be very general:
“all such things” (GNB), as typifying the old order. As a neut. pl.
subject ἅ is followed by a sg. vb. (see 1:16). Movable ν is found even
before initial consonants (here, ἐστιν σκία) (cf. BDF §20). Σκία, -ᾶς, ἡ,
shadow, a faint outline of an object rather than the object itself. It is
nom. after ἐστιν and sg. in spite of the pl. subject ἅ (cf. Gal 5:19):
“these things are a shadow.”
On the “shadow/reality” antithesis47. “The conception of the
shadow as thrown before the substance -- implies both the
unsubstantiality [sic] and the supersession of the Mosaic ritual” 48
(Lightfoot 193). Gen. pl. neut. (here not masc.) of the pres. act. ptc. of
μέλλω, be about to. Τὰ μέλλοντα are “things to come” (NAB²), where
the ptc. is used abs. as an adj. that means “future,” “to come” (BDAG

46
Harris, Murray J.. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament)
(pp. 167-168). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
47
see S. Schulz, TDNT 7:398; O’Brien 139–40
48
Lightfoot p.193 Lightfoot says let no one "take you to task".Let (no one) act as… judge (2919)
(krino) primarily signifies to distinguish, separate or discriminate; then, to distinguish between good and
evil, right and wrong, without necessarily passing an adverse sentence, though this is usually involved and
certainly is in the present context. The false teachers were judging the saints and passing judgment on
whether they were truly "spiritual" or not. These false teachers used non-Biblical criteria (legalism,
mysticism, ritualism) by which to judge the saints. Paul presents the truth about the saint's position in Christ
in order to counter the lies of the adversaries.

17
628c). Because the reality (the σῶμα) to which the shadow
corresponds has arrived, it is appropriate to tr. “the things that were to
come” (TNIV; O’Brien 135), “what was to come” (REB). “What is to
come” (NRSV) is ambiguous, since it could refer to the second advent
and subsequent events. This gen. is either obj. (“these things
foreshadow what was to come”) or poss./subj. (“these things are a
shadow cast by future events”); “a shadow of what was to come”
reproduces this ambiguity. τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ In dramatic
contrast (adversative δέ ) with the insubstantial “shadow” (σκία) is the
substantial “reality” (the σῶμα), “the substance” (NRSV, HCSB): “the
reality, however, belongs to Christ.”
Although σῶμα could also refer to the body of Christ, the Church
(cf. 1:24), or to the resurrection body of the exalted Christ, a double or
triple meaning or referent for σῶμα seems improbable, given (a) the
absence, on this view, of an explicit pred.; and (b) the explicit contrast
with σκία (but see Moule, Col. 103; and NAB¹, NJB, “the reality is the
body of Christ”)49. Although the NT epistles usually omit the art. with
Χριστός when it is a proper noun (cf. BDF §260[1]; R 760), art. Χριστός
here is a personal name (“Christ,” possibly standing for the Christian
“economy” [Vincent 910] or era) rather than a title (“the Messiah” (as
HCSB; Barth-Blanke 341; cf. BDAG 1091b). As poss. gen. τοῦ Χριστοῦ
may mean, with ἐστιν understood, “belongs to Christ” (NAB², NRSV;
ZG 607), “is found in Christ” (TNIV), or even “is Christ” (GNB, JB; “It can
be assumed that the declarations ‘the “real thing” is the Messiah’ and
‘the “real thing” is of the Messiah’ are interchangeable,”50).
Food regulations and calendrical observances, and all such legal
prescriptions that belonged to the transitory old age, were merely pale
adumbrations of a coming permanent reality now realized in the
49
Harris, Murray J.. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (p.
169). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
50
Barth-Blanke 341

18
person and gospel of Christ. The implication is that the shadows not
only are now superfluous but actually disappear with the appearance
of the “substance.”51

E. Literary Analysis
Arguments and Rhetoric of Colossians
The two main tendencies of the Colossian heresy are discernible in this
warning (vv. 16–19), as they were in the previous statement (vv. 9–15).
Here however the order is reversed. The practical error, an excessive
ritualism and ascetic rigorous, is first dealt with (vv. 16, 17); the
theological error, the interposition of angelic mediators, follows after
(vv. 18, 19). The first is the substitution of a shadow for the substance;
the second is the preference of an inferior member to the head. The
reversal of order is owing to the connection of the paragraphs; the
opening subject in the second paragraph being a continuation of the
concluding subject in the first, by the figure called chiasm: comp. Gal.
4:5.
κρινέτω] not ‘condemn you,’ but ‘take you to task’; as e.g. Rom. 14:3
sq. The judgment may or may not end in an acquittal; but in any case
it is wrong, since these matters ought not to be taken as the basis of a
judgment.
ἐν βρώσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘in eating and in drinking’; Rom. 14:17 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ
βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη κ.τ.λ., Heb. 9:10
ἐπὶ βρώμασιν καὶ πόμασιν καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, δικαιώματα
σαρκός, comp. 1 Cor. 8:8 βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ.
The first indication that the Mosaic distinctions of things clean and
unclean should be abolished is given by our Lord Himself: Mark 7:14
sq. (the correct reading in ver. 19 being καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ

51
Harris, Murray J.. Colossians and Philemon (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament)
(pp. 168-169). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

19
βρώματα). They were afterwards formally annulled by the vision which
appeared to St Peter: Acts 10:11 sq.
The ordinances of the Mosaic Law applied almost exclusively to
meats. It contained no prohibitions respecting drinks except in a very
few cases; e.g. of the priests ministering in the tabernacle (Lee. 10.9),
of liquids contained in unclean vessels etc. (Lev. 11:34, 36), and of
Nazarite vows (Num. 6:3). These directions, taken in connection with
the rigid observances which the later Jews had grafted on them (Matt.
23:24), would be sufficient to explain the expression, when applied to
the Mosaic law by itself, as in Heb. l.c. The rigor of the Colossian false
teachers however, like that of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes,
doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law.
It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether:
see the introduction pp. 86, 104 sq. For allusions in St Paul to similar
observances not required by the law, see Rom. 14:2 ὁ δὲ ἀσθενῶν
λάχανα ἐσθίει, ver. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον κ.τ.λ.,
1 Tim. 4:2, 3 κωλυόντων … ἀπόχεσθαι βρωμάτων ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν
κ.τ.λ., Tit. 1:14 μὴ προσέχοντες … ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων … πάντα
καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς. The correct reading seems to be καὶ ἐν πόσει,
thus connecting together the words between which there is a natural
affinity. Comp. Philo Vit. Moys. 1. § 33 (2. p. 110) δεσποίναις χαλεπαῖς
συνεζευγμένου βρώσει καὶ πόσει, Ign. Trall. 2 οὐ γὰρ βρωμάτων καὶ
ποτῶν εἰσὶν διάκονοι.
ἐν μέρει] ‘in the matter of,’ etc.; comp. 2 Cor. 3:10, 9:3 ἐν τῷ μέρει
τούτῳ. The expression seems originally to mean ‘in the division or
category,’ and in classical writers most commonly occurs in connexion
with such words as τιθέναι, ποιεῖσθαι, ἀριθμεῖν, etc.: comp. Demosth.
c. Aristocr. § 148 ὅσα … στρατιώτης ὢν ἐν σφενδονήτου καὶ ψιλοῦ
μέρει … ἐστράτευται, i.e. ‘in the capacity of.’ Hence it gets to signify
more widely, as here, ‘with respect to,’ ‘by reason of’: comp. Philo

20
Quod det. pot. ins. § 2 (1. p. 192) ἐν μέρει λόγου τοῦ προκόπτοντος
κατὰ τὸν πατέρα κοσμοῦνται, in Flacc. 20 (2. p. 542) ὅσα ἐν μέρει
χάριτος καὶ δωρεᾶς ἔλαβον. But Ælian V. H. 8.3 κρίνοντες ἕκαστον ἐν
τῷ μέρει φόνου, quoted by the commentators, is a false parallel: for
φόνου is there governed by κρίνοντες and ἐν τῷ μέρει means ‘in his
turn.’
ἑορτῆς κ.τ.λ.] The same three words occur together, as an exhaustive
enumeration of the sacred times among the Jews, in 1 Chron. 23:31, 2
Chron. 2:4, 31:3, Ezek. 45:17, Hos. 2:11, Justin Dial. 8, p. 226; comp. Is.
1:13, 14. See also Gal. 4:10 ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ
καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, where the first three words correspond to the
three words used here, though the order is reversed. The ἑορτή here,
like the καιροί there, refers chiefly to the annual festivals, the
Passover, Pentecost, etc. The νεομηνία here describes more precisely
the monthly festival, which is there designated more vaguely as μῆνες.
The σάββατα here gives by name the weekly holy-day, which is there
indicated more generally by ἡμέραι.
νεομηνίας] See Num. 28:11 sq. The forms νεομηνία and νουμηνία
seem to be used indifferently in the common dialect, though the latter
is more common. In the Attic νουμηνία alone was held to be correct 52.
On the whole the preference should perhaps be given to νεομηνίας
here, as supported by some authorities which are generally
trustworthy in matters of orthography, and as being the less usual
form in itself.
σαββάτων] ‘a sabbath-day,’ not, as the A. V., ‘sabbath days’; for the
coordinated words ἐορτῆς, νεομηνίας, are in the singular. The word
σάββατα is derived from the Aramaic (as distinguished from the
Hebrew) form ‫שבתא‬, and accordingly preserves the Aramaic
termination in α. Hence it was naturally declined as a plural noun,
σάββατα, σαββάτων.
52
see Lobeck Phryn. p. 148

21
The general use of σάββατα, when a single sabbath-day was meant,
will appear from such passages as Jos. Ant. 1.1.1 ἄγομεν τὴν ἡμέραν,
προσαγορεύοντες αὐτὴν σάββατα, ib. 3.10.1 ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν ἥτις
σάββατα καλεῖται, Plut. Mor. 169 c Ἰουδαῖοι σαββάτων ὄντων ἐν
ἀγνάμπτοις καθεζόμενοι, ib. 671 f οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν σαββάτων
ἑορτὴν μὴ παντάπασιν ἀποσδιόνυσον εἶναι, Hor. Sat. 1.9.69 ‘hodie
tricesima sabbata.’ In the New Testament σάββατα is only once used
distinctly of more than a single day, and there the plurality of meaning
is brought out by the attached numeral; Acts 17:2 ἐπὶ σάββατα τρία.
On the observance of days and seasons see again Gal. 4:10, Rom.
14:5, 6. A strong anti-Judaic view on the subject is expressed in the
Epist. ad Diogn. § 4. Origen c. Cels. 8.21, 22, after referring to Thucyd.
1.70 μήτε ἑορτὴν ἄλλο τι ἡγεῖσθαι ἢ τὸ τὰ δέοντα πρᾶξαι, says ὁ
τέλειος, ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ὢν καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις καὶ τοῖς διανοήμασι τοῦ
τῇ φύσει κυρίου λόγου Θεοῦ, ἀεί ἑστιν αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ἀεὶ
ἄγει κυριακὰς ἠμέρας, and he then goes on to explain what is the
παρασκευή, the πάσχα, the πεντηκοστή, of such a man. The
observance of sacred times was an integral part of the old
dispensation. Under tbe new they have ceased to have any value,
except as a means to an end. The great principle that ‘the Sabbath
was made for man and not man for the Sabbath,’ though underlying
the Mosaic ordinances, was first distinctly pronounced by our Lord. The
setting apart of special days for the service of God is a confession of
our imperfect state, an avowal that we cannot or do not devote our
whole time to Him.
Lightfoot continues by stating: Sabbaths will then ultimately be
superseded, when our life becomes one eternal Sabbath. Meanwhile
the Apostle’s rebuke warns us against attributing to any holy days
whatever a meaning and an importance which is alien to the spirit of

22
the New Covenant. Bengel on the text writes, ‘Sabbatum non laudatur,
non imperatur; dominica memoratur, non praecipitur. Qui profundius in
mundi negotiis haerent, his utilis et necessarius est dies definitus: qui
semper sabbatizant, majori libertate gaudent.’ Yes: but these last are
just they who will most scrupulously restrict their liberty, so as
ἀπρόσκοποι γίνεσθαι.
Colossians 2 verse 17. Two ideas are prominent in this image
says Lighfoot:
(1) The contrast between the ordinances of the Law and the teaching
of the Gospel, as the shadow and the substance respectively; Philo de
Conf. ling. 37 (1. p. 434) νομίσαντας τὰ μὲν ῥητὰ τῶν χρησμῶν σκιάς
τινας ὡσανεὶ σωμάτων εἶναι, Joseph. B. J. 2.2.5 σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος
βασιλείας ἧς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα; comp. Philo in Flacc. 19 (11. p.
541) σκιὰ πραγμάτων ἄρʼ ἦσαν, οὐ πράγματα.
(2) The conception of the shadow as thrown before the substance (ἡ δὲ
σκιὰ προτρέχει τοῦ σώματος, says a Greek commentator), so that the
Law was a type and presage of the Gospel; Heb. 10:1 σκιὰν ἔχων ὁ
νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν (comp. 8:5). Thus it implies both the un-
substantiality and the supersession of the Mosaic ritual.
ἅ] ‘which things,’ whether distinctions of meats or observances of
times. If the other reading ὅ be taken, it will refer to the preceding
sentence generally, as if the antecedent were ‘the whole system of
ordinances.’
τὸ δὲ σῶμα κ.τ.λ.] As the shadow belonged to Moses, so ‘the
substance belongs to Christ’; i.e. the reality, the antitype, in each case
is found in the Christian dispensation. Thus the Passover typifies the
atoning sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the
true believer; the Pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first fruits;
the Sabbath, the rest of God’s people; etc.53

53
Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. 1886. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. 8th ed.
Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament. London; New York: Macmillan and Co.

23
 Furthermore, Douglas Moo has stated concerning Literary
Content Analysis, following: The eschatology of Colossians is strongly
tilted toward the “already” side of the typical Pauline eschatological
tension. But this is not unexpected in a letter that must make the case
for the sufficiency of Christ’s work for spiritual victory and fulfillment in
the present. If differences with Paul’s theology are discerned in these
areas, other significant Pauline theological conceptions are notable for
their absence in Colossians. Missing are typical Pauline words and
concepts such as “sin” (in the singular), “justify,” and “to believe.”
Granted the legalistic tendencies of the false teachers, the lack of any
reference to “law” is surprising. Particularly striking is the failure to
develop a theology of grace (it is mentioned only in the formulas in 1:2
and 4:18; 1:6; and perhaps 4:6) or to refer to the Spirit in connection
with Christian obedience (the Spirit is mentioned only in 1:8, 9; 3:16) 54.

Additional Word Study

Substance (4983) (soma) can mean a literal living human body
but here is used figuratively as the reality which stands in contrast to
the shadow.
The Law of Moses and the Levitical sacrifices, rituals and feasts
are all shadows pointing to Christ. The Colossians, who possess the
reality as members of the body of Christ, would be foolish to return to
the shadow. The ritualistic and ceremonial trappings of religion, the
esoteric doctrinal extremes of cults, and the deceptive philosophies of
secular faiths are not the essence of or basis for true faith. The reality
is to be found only in Jesus Christ, Who is in us the Hope of glory. We
are righteous (and spiritual) before a Holy God now not because of
what we do or don't do but because we are COMPLETE IN CHRIST, Who
has become to us Righteousness (1Co1:30). That is our position. We

54
Moo, Douglas J. 2008. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. The Pillar New
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

24
work out that "positional" righteousness by faith and obedience,
motivated and empowered by His Spirit. Colossians 3-4 emphasizes the
practical side of "righteousness", showing what a righteous life should
look like in ways that can be applied to our everyday life55.
Sabbatōn in Col. 2:16 - Paul’s terminology in Colossians 2:16 of
“feasts,” “new moons,” and “sabbaths” was a stock reference of
standard language for the Jewish ceremonies and ritual worship under
the old covenant.56
At times, “sabbath[s]” may refer to the weekly observance of
seventh day rest in the context with “new moons” and/or “feasts.”
However, in every case the emphasis is not upon the moral aspect of
the Sabbath (rest from worldly employments or recreation) but rather
the occasion for ceremonial and ritual observance of old covenant
worship that corresponded to it.57
If such a pattern in language can be substantiated, it will
corroborate the Puritan interpretation of Colossians 2:16 – 17 which
upholds the fulfillment and passing away of the ceremonial aspects of
the old covenant rituals all the while maintaining the perpetuity of the
Sabbath in its moral function. To this end, this article will set out to
observe such a pattern from the Old Testament as a basis and move

55
https://www.preceptaustin.org/colossians_216-23
56
48 | Journal of IRBS Theological Seminary Ceremonies:Giem refers to these as “catch phrases,”
noting that it seemed common enough in Colossians to use such phrases as “do not handle, do not taste, do
not touch” in Col. 2:20. Paul Giem, “Sabbatōn in Col. 2:16,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 19.3
(1981): 197. He cites Ralph Martin’s brief commentary, which mentions Paul perhaps using “slogans and
watchwords of the teachers.” Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, Interpretation
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 83
57
For this distinction of the Sabbath, see Turretin in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols.
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1997), section 10 question 13. Even today, Jewish scholars such as Ron
Feldman recognize a distinction and disagree with “the conflation between the periodicity of the Sabbath
and the rest laws of the Sabbath i.e., between the Sabbath’s temporal structure vs. its ritual content.” Ron
H. Feldman, “The Sabbath versus the New Moon: A Critique of Heschel’s Valorization of the Sabbath,”
Judaism 54.1 – 2 (2005): 30

25
forward into an expansive survey of extra-biblical or non-biblical
materials58.

F. Exegetical Synthesis
An objection to the applicability of the Sabbath as a new covenant
institution is the claim that in Colossians 2 Paul appeals for Christians
not to judge one another with regard to the Sabbath 59. However, as
Ron du Preez has argued “For hundreds of years many Bible students
have studied the meaning of the Greek term σάββατα (sabbata) in
Colossians 2:16. The English word “sabbath” in the New Testament is
translated from either the Greek word σάββατον (sabbaton) or
σάββατα (sabbata). These terms show up frequently in the Gospels, as
well as in the history of the early church in the book of Acts. However,
there is only one mention of the term “sabbath” in the theological
section of the New Testament—the sabbata of Colossians 2:16. As
such, it has become the focus of much discussion. It is a generally
accepted principle of biblical interpretation that a major doctrine
usually should not be developed on the basis of a single section of
Scripture. However, it also is well-recognized that there are specific,
pivotal passages without which it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to establish an entire doctrinal teaching. Such is the case, for example,
with the Millennium, which is specifically mentioned only in Revelation

58
While it does not appear that such a study of all relevant extra-biblical sources has been
undertaken, there has been some research done in some of the areas that will be examined here. The closest
and most expansive was by Paul Giem who not only examined many of the OT uses of the phrase in
question but also discussed some of the Apocryphal and Pseudo-epigraphal documents examined here. He
called the grouping of words in Col. 2:16 a “catch -phrase tied to the sacrificial system.” However, where
this article differs from Giem’s is the expansiveness of adding other Apocryphal and Pseudo-epigraphal
works along with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) (Giem did mention 1QM), Rabbinic, and early Christian
literature. Considering the lack of modern software and search functions of today, Giem’s study was
extensive for his time. Also, he did not engage in the use and significance of the plural “Sabbaths.” Finally,
his conclusion was to maintain similarly the ceremonial components of the phrasing as found in Col. 2:16
but more specifically, and too narrowly, limit it to the sacrifices referred to in Num. 28:9–10.
59
MacCarty, Skip. 2007. In Granite or Ingrained?: What the Old and New Covenants Reveal about
the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press

26
20:2–7. Colossians 2:16 has similar import for those denying seventh-
day Sabbatarianism, for it is the primary, if not the only, passage in the
New Testament upon which such a denial can be based.
At least as far back as 1880, the crucial significance of
Colossians 2:16 was recognized by William Love, who noted: “Some
seventh-day Sabbatarians acknowledge that if the word ‘Sabbaths’ in
this verse does refer to the seventh day, then that settles the case
against them. And all non-sabbath Lord’s day -men might well
acknowledge that if this verse does not teach that the fourth
commandment is abolished, then the case is settled against them.”
Thus, Love stated, “This text, by its true meaning, has a key to the
right understanding of the Scriptures pertaining to the Sabbath.” More
recently, cult critic Walter Martin concluded: “In the light of this
Scripture alone, I contend that the argument for Sabbath observance
collapses.” Since “much depends upon the meaning of this one verse,”
it would seem a worthy enterprise to engage in a careful examination
of it60.

From the Church Fathers

Although by the middle of the second century Justin had
identified Christian living as a perpetual Sabbath which consists in
abstaining from sin, not work. Irenaeus understood the Sabbath to be a
symbol of God’s kingdom, still future, in which those who have served
God ‘shall in a state of rest, partake of God’s table’. And Tertullian
declared, ‘We have nothing to do with Jewish festivals’. Origen said of
the perfect Christian, ‘All his days are the Lord’s and he is always
keeping the Lord’s day’, even while he recognized that the majority
were unable to keep every day as a festival. 61 And additionally even
when W.C. Fields argues that “Paul indicates the symbolic nature of

60
Preez, Ron du. 2008. Judging the Sabbath: Discovering What Can’t Be Found in Colossians
2:16. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.

27
this rite and declares that Christ makes circumcision unnecessary. In
this instance, and in his references to baptism, and to other ritualistic
regulations regarding food, drink, and feast days, he declares that
these observances were the shadows whereas Christ is the substance
(vv. 10–17). Don’t confuse the symbols with the real thing!62
We should however, take in consideration, what Skip MacCarty
has well pointed out in his book “In Granite or Ingrained?” That “The
Sabbath(s) of Colossians 2:16–17 is/are ceremonial while the Sabbath
of Creation is permanent;
“The Sabbath is something infinitely greater than a merely
Jewish institution, for it was made ‘for man’ and dates from creation.
There is scarcely anything more significant than the fact that just as
the Jewish institution was being brought to an end Christ called himself
‘the Lord of the Sabbath.’ Thus Christ’s canceling of the bond set aside
the Sabbath as Jewish, but at the same time because we are ‘under the
law to Christ,’ we have the Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, as a divine
institution dating from the beginning and intended for permanent
observance63.” “Shadow … reality. The ceremonial laws of the OT are
here referred to as shadows (cf. Heb. 8:5; 10:1) because they
symbolically depicted the coming of Christ; so any insistence on the
observance of such ceremonies is a failure to recognize that their
fulfillment has already taken place.64”
“The Sabbath—Omit ‘THE,’ which is not in the Greek.…
‘SABBATHS’ (not ‘the Sabbaths’) of the Day of Atonement and Feast of

61
Shedd, Russell P. 1987. “Worship in the New Testament Church.” In The Church in the Bible
and the World: An International Study, edited by D. A. Carson, 126. World Evangelical Fellowship.
62
Fields, W. C. 1972. “Colossians.” In The Teacher’s Bible Commentary, edited by H. Franklin
Paschall and Herschel H. Hobbs, 755. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers. (Italics added)
63
(W. H. Griffith Thomas, Christ Pre Eminent: Studies in the Epistle to the Colossians [Chicago:
The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1923], 83.)
64
(Scholarly note on Colossians 2:17, The NIV Study Bible: New International Version [Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985], 1815.)

28
Tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which
they belonged (Leviticus 23:32, 37–39). The weekly Sabbath rests on a
more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to
commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Leviticus 23:38
expressly distinguishes ‘the Sabbath of the Lord’ from the other
Sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and
ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is
commanded eternally, because it is eternally right.… Even Adam, in
innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the
Sabbath is still needed, and is therefore still linked with the other nine
commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law
has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence
of law and Gospel alike (Romans 13:8–10).65”
“ ‘Or of the Sabbath days.’ Greek, ‘of the Sabbaths.’ The word
Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day
but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and
particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is,
doubtless, reference to those days in this place, as the word is used in
the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the
Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage
that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy
time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to
teach that one of the Ten commandments had ceased to be binding on
mankind.… The use of the term in the plural number, and the
connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days
which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as part of their
ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten
commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the Ten
Commandments could be spoken of as ‘a shadow of good things to

65
(Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory,
on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2 [Hartford: The S. S. Scranton Company, n.d.], 378.)

29
come.’ These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of
perpetual and universal obligation.66”
The following extended statement by Gordon Clark has in mind
several of the above-stated themes: “The context [of Col. 2:16–17]
speaks of food and drink, feasts, and new moons. All this is ceremonial.
Then are not the Sabbaths, here condemned, ceremonial Sabbaths,
and not the creation ordinance? Given the Jewish milieu and Paul’s
training, he could have written these words on the reasonable
assumption that no one would ever have thought of an attack on the
Ten Commandments. “What needs emphasis, however, in our
contemporary unfamiliarity with ancient Jewish customs, is their
celebration of Sabbaths on various days of the week. That these
special celebrations were now prohibited, but that the weekly Sabbath
is still required, the following argument aims to show.
“First, the Sabbath is a creation ordinance: it is not a Mosaic
innovation. God not only rested from his work of creation, he blessed
the day and sanctified it (Gen. 2:3). This is such an obvious and
tremendous consideration that the reduction of the Sabbath to nothing
more than a Mosaic ceremony is incredible. What can anti-
sabbatarians make of Genesis 2:3? “It is often said that there is no
mention of the Sabbath before the Exodus from Egypt. Note, however,
that before the time of Abraham the account is sparse on all points. For
example, the law of monogamous marriage is not mentioned, though
Christ referred to it as imposed at creation. Also, there is no mention of
sacrifices from the time of Abel to Noah, nor from Genesis 47:1 till after
the Exodus, a period of four hundred years. There is no mention of the
Sabbath from Joshua to 1 Kings inclusive; and yet this was a post-
Mosaic period. Even Psalms and Proverbs do not mention the Sabbath

66
(Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistles of Paul to the Ephesians,
Philippians, and Colossians [New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1873], 252–253.)

30
with any frequency. Hence sparsity, with reference to sacrifice,
marriage, and the Sabbath, does not prove their non-existence.
“Sparsity, furthermore, is not silence. There are passages in
Genesis which can be explained only on the basis of a previous
Sabbath law. The word itself may not be used, but note the seven-day
divisions in Genesis 7:4, 10 and 8:10, 12 … 17:12 and 21:4 … 29:27–
28.… “Incidentally the division of time into weeks and so observed by
the heathen nations, must be, since it cannot be justified
astronomically, a reminiscence of creation.
“That the weekly Sabbath was not first instituted by the Ten
Commandments, Moses himself makes clear. Exodus 16—the
Decalogue comes in Exodus 20—without any mention of inaugurating a
new custom, but rather giving the impression of something already
known, indicates that the Sabbath is a day of rest.… Had it been a new
law, the wording would have had to be different. Furthermore, the
Mosaic law itself, the Ten Commandments, indeed the Fourth
Commandment, says, ‘Remember.’ During the slavery in Egypt, the
people had probably been forced to work every day. It is not likely that
the Egyptians were Sabbatarians. Over the centuries the Israelites had
perhaps half forgotten the Law. Now, on Mt. Sinai, God says,
‘Remember.’
“The opponents no doubt reply, ‘God at Sinai promulgated a new
law and told them to remember it henceforth.’ But the division of time
into weeks, and the revelation in Genesis 2:3, are ruinous to such a
reply. “If the Fourth Commandment was newly instituted in the desert,
how can one avoid inconsistency without regarding the other nine also
as new? Now, there is no mention of any law against murder in the first
four chapters of Genesis. Yet Cain clearly knew that murder was
forbidden. He also knew that God had sanctified the Sabbath.

31
 Skip MacCarty´s conclusion, is when he states: “For this reason
the Ten Commandments must be regarded as the moral law, in the
words of the [Presbyterian] Catechism, ‘summarily comprehended.’ Is
it not utterly incongruous to think of a temporary ceremonial regulation
embedded in the Decalogue? If all mankind, not the Jews only, are
obligated to worship the one true God, to avoid images and profanity,
are they not also obligated to sanctify the Sabbath forever? A negative
answer is utter absurdity.67”

5. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE TEXT 2 & SYNTHESIS

Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and

drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only
a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ
Colossians 2:16–1768

A. Theology
Sigve Tonstad has quite recently elaborated the debate of the
message in Colossians 2:16-17 without partiality in following manner:
While (1) the view that the sabbata in Colossians refers to the Jewish
Sabbath remains viable, featuring agitators who are pushing a
Judaizing agenda, it has also been suggested (2) that the sabbata in
Colossians refers to something other than the seventh-day Sabbath;
(3) that Paul is referring to the Sabbath but is affirming the Sabbath
observance of the Colossians rather than decrying it; (4) and that the

67
(Gordon H. Clark, Colossians: Another Commentary on an Inexhaustible Message [Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979], 94–97.) And MacCarty, Skip. 2007. In Granite or
Ingrained?: What the Old and New Covenants Reveal about the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath. Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
68
Tonstad, Sigve K. 2009. The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press.

32
sabbata in Colossians refers to sabbaths that have lost their Jewish
character, now referring to religious observance that is carried over
into a non-Jewish set of beliefs. Each of these options deserves careful
scrutiny69.
On the other hand Bacchiocchi has stated that “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.”
Furthermore, he asks: 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”
(Col. 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 70.
Bacchiocchi also defines the Theological aspect of Colossian Philosophy
in following manner: 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

69
Tonstad, Sigve K. 2009. The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews
University Press.
70
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. 2000. The Sabbath in the New Testament: Answers to Questions. Vol. 5.
Biblical Perspectives. Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives.

33
 error consisted in interposing inferior mediators in place of the Head
Himself, Jesus Christ (2:9–10, 18–19)71.

B. Application
When it comes to the text itself in Colossians 2:16-17, we can certainly
agree with Bacchiocchi´s extended quotation about practicality:
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” (2:11—apparently
meaning withdrawal from the world); rigorous treatment of the body
(2:23); prohibition to either taste or touch certain kinds of foods and
beverages (2:16, 21), and careful observance of sacred days and
seasons—festival, new moon, Sabbath (2:16).
Christians presumably were led to believe that by submitting to
these ascetic practices, they were not surrendering their faith in Christ,
but rather they were receiving added protection and were assured of
full access to the divine fullness. This bare outline suffices to show that
the Sabbath is mentioned not in the context of a direct discussion on
the nature of the law, but rather in the context of syncretistic beliefs
and practices advocated by the Colossian “philosophers.”72

6. THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION & CONTEMPORARY

APPLICATION

The Written Document Nailed to the Cross

71
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. 2000. The Sabbath in the New Testament: Answers to Questions. Vol. 5.
Biblical Perspectives. Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives.
72
Ibid

34
While our main study is about Colossians 2:16-17, the immediate
context concerns also previous verses, especially Col. 2:14. This verse
brings forth contemporary application of Colossians 2:16-17 – In other
words: To combat the false teachings, Paul chose to extol the centrality
and superiority of Christ who possesses “the fulness of deity” (2:9) and
provides full redemption and forgiveness of sin (2:11–14).
To emphasize the certainty and fulness of Christ’s forgiveness, Paul
utilizes three metaphors: circumcision, baptism, and “the written
document” (2:11–14).
Of the last he says that God through Christ has “cancelled … set
aside, nailed to the Cross … the written document—cheirographon”
(2:14). Mosaic Law? What is the “written document—cheirographon”?
Traditionally it has been interpreted to be the Mosaic law with all its
ordinances, including the Sabbath, which God allegedly set aside and
nailed to the Cross.

This popular interpretation is unwarranted for at least two reasons.

First, because as E. Lohse points out, “in the whole of the epistle the
word law is not used at all” - Second, this interpretation detracts from
the immediate argument designed to prove the fullness of God’s
forgiveness. The wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law would
hardly provide Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness.
Guilt is not removed by destroying law codes.

Through Christ, God has “cancelled,” “set aside,” “nailed to the cross”
“the written record of our sins which because of the regulations was
against us.” The legal basis of the record of sins was “the binding
statutes, regulations” (tois dogmasin) but what God destroyed on the
Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement into sin, but
the written record of our sins.

35
We can close with closing statement of Christology, citation from
Samuele Bacchiochi:
“By destroying the evidence of our sins, God has also “disarmed the
principalities and powers” (2:15) since it is no longer possible for them
to accuse those who have been forgiven. There is no reason, therefore,
for Christians to feel incomplete and to seek the help of inferior
mediators, since Christ has provided complete redemption and
forgiveness.73
Bibliography

Wright, N.T, The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon.

Inter-Varisty Press Leicester, England Eerdmans Publishing Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan 1986, reprinted 1994.

Müller, Ekkehardt. 2006. “Guidelines for the Interpretation of

Scripture.” In Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, edited
by George W. Reid, 1:111. Biblical Research Institute Studies. Silver
Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute

Ralph P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon favors an imprisonment near

Ephesus (NCB London: Oliphants, 1974)

Carson, Moo, and Morris, 1992 Introduction to The New Testament,

Colossians, Zondervan Grand Rapids, Michigan

Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7.

73
Bacchiocchi, Samuele. 2000. The Sabbath in the New Testament: Answers to Questions. Vol. 5.
Biblical Perspectives. Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives.

36
F.F. Bruce: The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Eerdmans Publishing Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957

Hendriksen, William, New Testament Commentary Philippians,

Colossians and Philemon, Baker Book House 1962, Michigan U.S.A
Lightfoot, Joseph Barber. 1886. Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians
and to Philemon. 8th ed. Classic Commentaries on the Greek New
Testament. London; New York: Macmillan and Co.

Brown, Derek R. 2013. Colossians. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham

Research Commentaries. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Kiley M., Colossians as Pseudepigraphy [Sheffield: JSOT, 1986]

Wenstrom, Bill, Colossians: Introduction-Canonicity, Literary Genre,

Literary Style, and
Authorship, Sunday November 23, 2014, www.wenstrom.org

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R

Publishing, 1997),

Ron H. Feldman, “The Sabbath versus the New Moon: A Critique of

Heschel’s Valorization of the Sabbath,” Judaism 54.1 – 2 (2005)

Shedd, Russell P. 1987. “Worship in the New Testament Church.” In

The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study, edited
by D. A. Carson, 126. World Evangelical Fellowship

37
In Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum Kolosserbrief: ein Beitrag zur
Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck, 1973).
Schweizer (18, footnote #14)

Martin. Ralph, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1973)

Carson, Moo, and Morris, 1992 Introduction to The New Testament,

Colossians, Zondervan Grand Rapids, Michigan

Thomas. W. H. Griffith, Christ Pre Eminent: Studies in the Epistle to the

Colossians [Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1923],

Eduard Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary,

Andrew Chester, trans. (Minneapolis:Augsburg, 1982),

Barnes, Albert, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistles of Paul

to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians [New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers, 1873

https://www.preceptaustin.org/colossians_216-23

Christopher, Gregory T; A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF COLOSSIANS 2:16-

3:17, Grace Theological Journal 11 .2 (1990)
https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/11-2_205.pdf

Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary,

Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2
[Hartford: The S. S. Scranton Company, n.d.]

38
Scholarly note on Colossians 2:17, The NIV Study Bible: New
International Version [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers,
1985], 1815

Clark, Gordon H., Colossians: Another Commentary on an Inexhaustible

Message [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1979], 94–97.)

Preez, Ron du. 2008. Judging the Sabbath: Discovering What Can’t Be
Found in Colossians 2:16. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press.

MacCarty, Skip. 2007. In Granite or Ingrained?: What the Old and New
Covenants Reveal about the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath. Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press

Tonstad, Sigve K. 2009. The Lost Meaning of the Seventh Day. Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. 2000. The Sabbath in the New Testament:

Answers to Questions. Vol. 5. Biblical Perspectives. Berrien Springs, MI:
Biblical Perspectives.

39
40