Thursday, June 15, 2017

Issues Related to Colossians 2:16-17

Col. 2:16-17 was written to the "holy ones" in Colossae, so yes, it strictly applies to the anointed but also is incumbent on all followers of Christ. Whether 2:16-17 is referring to written laws or spoken ones, the principle is the same: Christians are not under Jewish dietary laws and they should not let others judge them adversely because they refrain from such laws. The referent for τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων is not clear. Does it refer to Greek, Phrygian, or Jewish traditions? We don't know for sure, but the point from 2:16-17 still holds in my estimation. The law was a shadow, but Christ is the reality/substance: divine edicts concerning food, drink, Sabbath, and new moon all issued from the written law.

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:

Duncan said...

Ps 103:17,18 LXX.

Duncan said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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

Duncan said...

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/

Duncan said...

https://youtu.be/ppqqq9Rap34

Edgar Foster said...

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.

Duncan said...

My point is that in the tradition it seems that prophets and patriarchs become heavenly messengers.

Duncan said...

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?

Duncan said...

The translation of meros is critical here.

Edgar Foster said...

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?

Edgar Foster said...

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?

Duncan said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

Duncan said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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


Duncan said...

ABP translates "in the rank" - jmnt "nor in a part of a festival"

Duncan said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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--

Duncan said...

"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.

Edgar Foster said...

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

Duncan said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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

Edgar Foster said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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.

Duncan said...

"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.

Duncan said...

see Irenaeus Dial. i 27

ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ μέρει γῆς

How would you translate?

Edgar Foster said...

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.

Edgar Foster said...

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

Edgar Foster said...

One other thought. I guess ἐλάχιστος is often understood to mean (in most contexts), very small or something to that effect.