Again, I don't see how the translation/interpretation of τῶν ἀγγέλων changes any implications for our understanding of 2:16-18. Even "messengers" could be used to describe spirit beings rather than human prophets (Ps. 103:20; 2 Pet. 2:11). We must also think about the context in which 2:18 was written and what necessitated its composition. In other words, what is the Sitz-im-Leben for the verse?
2:16 is fairly specific when it maintains what Christians should reject. The dietary laws of Lev. 11 seem to be encompassed along with Jewish festivals like new moon and the Sabbath. Historically, keeping the Sabbath has been an identifying marker for reverent Jews (Exodus 31:14-17). Furthermore, according to the Tanakh, Sabbath was only given to Israel--not to Gentiles.
I also keep asking myself, why observe dietary laws for devotional reasons if Christ died for my sins and I'm now justified by exercising faith in his shed blood? What religious purpose would keeping dietary laws serve?
From Coffman's Commentary on Col. 2:16:
All of these refer to Jewish observances; as Macknight said, "Some of these were enjoined in the Law, and others by private authority." Of particular importance is the appearance of the sabbath commandment in this list. "Although the article the is not in the Greek, it clarifies the meaning; Paul was resisting the Judaizers who insisted on legalistic sabbath observance." As F. F. Bruce expressed it, "It is as plain as may well be that Paul is warning his readers against those who were trying to impose the observance of the Jewish sabbath upon them." The sabbath observance is here placed upon the same footing as the other things abolished, and "Thus Paul commits himself to the principle that a Christian is not to be censured for its non-observance."
See http://classic.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=002
29 comments:
Ps 103:17,18 LXX.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Col/Righteousness-Without
All highly speculative. We do not have evidence to know what these "angels" are.
Hope I've understood your point correctly from the Psalms. I believe those words, but think they were chiefly/primarily and contextually addressed to fleshly Israel (1 Cor. 10:18): βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα
I don't claim to know with certainty, who these angels are, but extensive arguments have been given for understanding them as spirit beings--which seems more likely to me than believing they are human messengers. Loren Stuckenbruck has a detailed investigation on this matter and related issues. Many other studies have been produced. While we cannot have 100% certainty on the point, I recommend studying how Paul uses angel terminology and it also helps to know the context of Col. 2:16-18.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ap1AKye0_kAC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=loren+stuckenbruck+colossians+2:18&source=bl&ots=X_K198wAKu&sig=FqBnwuvUZIIsuskNqccFhRBhdTw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQxdqTl8HUAhULziYKHTXLA1sQ6AEILDAD#v=onepage&q=loren%20stuckenbruck%20colossians%202%3A18&f=false
(Stuckenbruck's work)
Here is another commentary that looks interesting: https://books.google.com/books?id=9JLkAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=loren+stuckenbruck+colossians+2:18&source=bl&ots=1OGGg8lFc8&sig=3LCH5DXTD2RErtc_mdsrnoLNogc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQxdqTl8HUAhULziYKHTXLA1sQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=loren%20stuckenbruck%20colossians%202%3A18&f=false
How Paul uses the terminology is what would be expected from someone with a pharisaic education. The seduqim contradict but Jesus only seems to correct them regarding ressurection.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=jesus+enoch+and+elijah&oq=jesus+enoch+elijah&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j69i60.8218j0j4&client=tablet-android-pega&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
No man has ascended but what about a messenger?
http://bibleq.net/answer/558/
https://youtu.be/ppqqq9Rap34
Messenger is admittedly ambiguous, but the one link even says messenger can apply to human or spirit messengers. Context sometimes clarifies what kind of messengers are at issue.
I am surprised at the hoops people jump through to explain away John 3:13. While an allusion to the resurrection is possible, ascent might also be distinguished from resurrection proper. His resurrection and ascent are two different actions. Regardless, the NT suggests that Christ is a prodromos in relation to heavenly ascent and entrance.
Compare John 1:51; 6:62; 20:17; Acts 2:34; Revelation 4:1.
Lastly, on Paul, I don't want to limit his vocabulary or writing style to his rabbinic/Pharisaical background. Other things factor into his approach/writing style.
My point is that in the tradition it seems that prophets and patriarchs become heavenly messengers.
The three verses in John are strange to say the least. Do not touch me because I have not yet ascended! What does this have to do with not touching?
Evidence of what other thing affect Paul's writing style?
Isn't Psalm 110:5 LXX past tense?
The translation of meros is critical here.
I was thinking about this matter a little more today. Ascent is most likely to be distinguished from resurrection, even if we allow for the exaltation/ascension of prophets or patriarchs.
Does Christ say don't touch me or don't cling to me? Again, in either case, katabasis and anabasis go together. If that is true, then ascent language does not mean resurrection, strictly speaking.
Paul sometimes uses what appears to be classical rhetoric. What accounts for these epistolary features? He invokes Stoic philosophers and Cretan poets. These things could not be fully explained by rabbinic training.
συνέθλασεν in Ps 110 is aorist indicative active 3rd pl.
Meros in which verse?
I now see you were talking about meros in Col 2:16. The translation seems clear to me. How else would you suggest rendering it? And what differences arise from a different rendering?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/meros.html
The parts of the festival NOT the festival itself and this fits with the rejection of the Pharisaical following of the oral Torah.
My response is manifold:
1) Logically, I cannot understand why a Christian would keep the Law in any form since it was a shadow, not the substance. Secondly, why keep Jewish festivals in the light of Galatians or what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 5:7?
2) Meros doesn't mean "part" in Col. 2:16. This is why I stress knowing semantic ranges/domains and contextual usages. As the link above also shows, meros can also mean: "any particular, in regard to this, in this respect"
That is what the word means in Col 2:16.
Cambridge Bible: in respect of] Lit., “in the portion of;” i.e. “in, or under, the class of;” and so, idiomatically, with regard to. The Latin Versions render literally, in parte diei festi; and so Wyclif, “in part of feest dai;” Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, “for a pece (peece) of an holy daye.”
Bengel's Gnomon: ἘΝ ΜΈΡΕΙ ἙΟΡΤῆς, [in part or partly] in respect of a holiday) The expression, [in part or partly] in respect, here seems to have the power of separating. One might disturb believers on the subject of meat and drink (Colossians 2:21), another again about holidays.
See John Eadie's discussion of Col 2:16 here: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jec/colossians-2.html
ABP translates "in the rank" - jmnt "nor in a part of a festival"
I am not concerned with whether a Christian would or would not follow the law. Only what the text says. Being a gentile myself it would not be an issue and as I have said before we do have rabbinical writing that probably date to the time that state that gentiles should not be allowed to follow the law.
Duncan,
I say Christian, since Colossians is a Christian book or a text followed by Christians and also it is a text that informs Christian theology. I do not see how we can separate Christianity from Jewish edicts in this context. If Paul, a Christian apostle, permitted or advocated the observance of Jewish festivals, I would think that matters for Christians. If the apostle enjoins Christians to observe festivals, then they should.
For me, Col. 2:16 indicates that Christians-whether Jew or Gentile--are not obligated to follow the Law or to keep Jewish festivals. I think the text is actually saying, do not let people judge you adversely because you do not observe the festivals.
ESV: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
NASB: Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--
HCSB: Therefore, don't let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day.
NET: Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days--
"as respects a part" is the usage and the link showed it is only translated once as respect and this is no guarantee of meaning . Eg. Strongs teaches us how the KJV translate NOT how it should translate.
The language is idiomatic where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. As from my previous post, ESV translates "with regard to"
I am not relying on Strong's and I never do. The lexicons support "with respect to" and so do the sources I quoted above. Eadie points out that the idiom is established in classical literature (pre-NT) and even Thayer's gives examples of the usage, then refers us to Lightfoot's commentary on Colossians. Lightfoot has "in the matter of"
See https://archive.org/stream/saintpaulsepistl90ligh#page/190/mode/2up
Where are eadies footnote examples from classical?
http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/10/what-is-tu-bshevat-how-to-celebrate-todays-jewish-agricultural-new-year-6410940/
The celebrations gravitate around the cycles of agriculture and inevitably must end.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/29.cfm
This is horticulture.
Did you read Lightfoot? He provides examples, including one from Philo. I do not see examples in Eadie's commentary; at least, not the online version.
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=PbIKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA910&dq=%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82+with+respect+to&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5ydyawsjUAhWD6iYKHfqWAGIQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82%20with%20respect%20to&f=false
Another work that supports the idiomatic wording, in respect of can be found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=GGMZAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA426&dq=%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82+with+respect+to&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5ydyawsjUAhWD6iYKHfqWAGIQ6AEISDAG#v=onepage&q=%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%82%20with%20respect%20to&f=false
Here are other classical examples from Meyer's NT: ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς κ. τ. λ.] ἐν μέρει, with the genitive, designates the category, as very frequently also in classical authors (Plat. Theaet. p. 155 E, Rep. p. 424 D Dem. 638. 5, 668. 24); comp. on 2 Corinthians 3:10, and see Wyttenbach, ad Plut. I. p. 65.
I am not sure how the tu-bshevat link or the blueletterbible one relate to our discussion of Col 2:16, but I see where you stated that these festivals by their very nature must end. I guess my view is that the festivals have religious significance too. That being the case, they are superfluous for me, but interesting nonetheless. I find Ramadan and its related festivals interesting also, but I don't celebrate Muslim holidays because I am not Muslim or Jewish, but a Christian Witness of Jehovah.
"Bruce, F.F. [Frederick Fyvie] (1980) [1969]. New Testament History. New York, NY, USA: Galilee/Doubleday. pp. 415f. ISBN 0385025335. Retrieved 17 February 2016. [Quoting:] Those churches which claimed an apostolic foundation attached great importance to the maintenance of the teaching which they had originally received. There were powerful forces at work in many of them which militated against the maintenance of that teaching; chief among these were those tendencies which in a few decades blossomed forth in the elaborate systems of the various schools of Gnosticism. One form of incipient Gnosticism is the syncretistic angel-cult of nonconformist Jewish foundation and pagan superstructure attacked in the Epistle to the Colossians."
http://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2012/11/dp124.pdf
Unfortunately I cannot find a similar study that goes back to the first century but the Majority of Jews in Colossae were NOT farmers.
see Irenaeus Dial. i 27
ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ μέρει γῆς
How would you translate?
I would agree that the majority of Jews living in Colossae were not farmers.
We could translate: in the smallest part/portion of the earth.
However, this example is not entirely analogous to Col. 2:16, IMO. We have ἐλαχίστῳ in the prepositional phrase + γῆς following μέρει.
Thayer also points to 1 Pet 4:16 in the TR as an example:
εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ
One other thought. I guess ἐλάχιστος is often understood to mean (in most contexts), very small or something to that effect.
Post a Comment