Colossians 2:16-17 is one of the passages most commonly used to

document the claim that the Sabbath and Holy Days are not required

to be kept in the new covenant. The conclusion is that the

"judging" refers to Judaizers trying to put pressure on the

Colossians to keep these days, which Paul allegedly says should not

be kept because they are only a shadow of the spiritual reality--

Jesus Christ.

Herbert Armstrong had to deal with this argument in defense of his

belief that the Sabbath and Holy Days must still be kept. Based on

that presupposition, he sought to refute the standard explanation

of this passage and vindicate his understanding. He claimed that

the Colossians were were being judged for keeping the Sabbath and

Holy Days. He felt the translators' addition of the word "is"

after "body" perverted the meaning of the verse. Instead, he added

the word "let" as a continuation of the thought of judging. So he

understood Paul to be saying, "Don't let any man judge you . . .,

but [rather] let the body of Christ [i.e. the Church] be your

judge." In other words, don't let those outside the Church talk

you out of doing what the Church teaches you should do. Let the

Church be your guide, not anyone outside the Church.

Let's take a fresh look at these verses to see what they actually

mean. Proper exegesis is necessary to clarify the meaning of this

controversial passage. If we carefully examine the verses in

question on the basis of grammatical points and historical facts,

we can eliminate errors of interpretation and clearly understand

what Paul meant.

By way of historical background, it is widely known that the

"Colossian heresy" was not Judaizers but Gnosticism. Many have

assumed that both elements were present due to the references to

circumcision, Sabbath and Holy Days. However, Gnosticism was not a

separate religion but a religious concept that could be combined

with an established religion with the promise of "improving" it.

It was a sort of spiritual "hamburger helper" in the sense that it

was a belief system that combined with, and allegedly improved, the

host religion. So Gnostic Judaism was a blend of Jewish religious

practices with a Gnostic flavor (to extend the hamburger helper

analogy). It is most important to bear in mind that Gnostic

Judaism, seeking to absorb the newly emerging Christian religion

into its syncretic admixture, was the main culprit Paul was

combatting in this epistle, as it was in Galatians and other New

Testament books. This fact provides a perspective which is vitally

col216, page 2

A brief summary of the basic tenets of Gnosticism will enable us to

understand the philosophical underpinnings of the problems in

Colosse that Paul was addressing.

Gnosticism gets its name from its claim of higher knowledge (Greek

"gnosis") which it promised to its disciples.

One of the basic tenets of Gnosticism was that matter is evil. This

belief led many down the road of asceticism as a way to avoid

physical pleasure, which was considered evil. (This makes the

hamburger helper analogy a humorous oxymoron.) The idea was that

one must purge himself of evil matter by asceticism (avoiding

physical pleasures) and by punishing the flesh. The libertine

element of Gnosticism took an opposite approach that since one

cannot avoid matter, and being spiritual is totally unrelated to

matter, one could do as he pleases and indulge the flesh to the

limit and still be spiritual. The ascetic aspect is the obvious

target of Paul's warnings in chapter 2.

Angel worship was also a fundamental aspect of Gnosticism. This

took many forms, including celebration of special days and other

religious customs based on astrological concepts of time.

Gnosticism achieved a large measure of success in Judaism and

Christianity, as evidenced by the many Gnostic-based terms and

concepts found in several New Testament books. This is a

fascinating topic, but we need not consider any further information

on the subject at this time.

The Daily Study Bible by Barclay (vol. 11, pp 97-99) has a good

basic description of Gnosticism. International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia contains a lot of good information on the topic as

well. With this in mind we will now delve into the text.

After Paul's customary salutation, he stresses his wish for the

Colossians to be filled with, and increase in, knowledge (1:9-10).

This is an oblique reference to, and subtle putdown of, Gnosticism.

The word "knowledge" in the Greek is "epignosis" ("gnosis" preceded

by the preposition "epi"), which means complete knowledge (implying

Gnosticism was not complete despite its lofty claims.

The primacy of the incarnate Jesus Christ is a major point of

emphasis throughout the epistle because of the heretical

Christological claims of Gnosticism, another interesting topic that

we need not digress into here. One significant point that needs to

be stressed, however, is the emphasis on the body of Christ, both

col216, page 3

spirit and flesh were totally incompatible according to the

dualistic Gnostic concept of evil matter. It was utterly

inconceivable to the Gnostic mind that God could appear in literal

flesh and blood. So Paul also uses "soma" (the Greek word for

"body") to stress the corporeality of Christ (1:22, 2:9), a point

which is fundamental to the message of the cross. He also

emphasizes by the figurative use of "soma" that the Church is the

body of Christ (1:18,24; 2:17,19; 3:15).

Paul clearly identifies the "Colossian heresy" in 2:4-8 as a

philosophical system based on worship of "the Elemental spirits of

the world" (Moffatt for Greek "stoicheia tou kosmou", cf. RSV,

NRSV). So Expositor's Bible Commentary explains:

Understood in this manner, the passage means either (1)

that the "philosophy" of the errorists was a system

instigated by the elemental spirits (perhaps thought of

as the powers of evil) or (2) that it was a system

having the elemental spirits as its subject matter. The

second meaning is more likely the one intended by Paul,

for we know from 2:18 that the Colossian heresy made

much of the "worship of angels" (vol. 11, p 198).

Paul tells the Colossians, "See to it that no one take you captive

(NIV) ("plunder you or take you captive," NKJV margin)".

Expositor's Bible Commentary points out:

was regularly used of taking captives in war and leading

them away as booty, depicts the false teachers as 'men

stealers' wishing to entrap the Colossians and drag them

into spiritual enslavement" (vol. 11, p 197-198).

This is the same source of "bondage" that many of the members in

Galatia had already gone back into (GAL 4:3, 8-10). Gnosticism was

the culprit there also as Walter Schmithals explains in his

blockbuster book entitled Paul & the Gnostics. Identification of

the Gnostic influence in the apostolic church is a major key to

understanding many scriptures that have long been erroneously

explained in an anti-Judaizer context and thus used to denigrate

anything "Jewish." Syncretism does not lend itself to either/or

reasoning when identifying the source of heresy in the early

church. Gnosticism was combined with Judaism, which was the

catalyst for introducing Gnosticism to Christianity. One must

recognize the Gnostic twist behind the alleged "Judaizing" to avoid

"throwing the baby out with the bath water." In other words Paul

is not condemning "Jewish" customs but the manner in which they

col216, page 4

It doesn't require much scholarship to recognize from the context

of the second chapter that the pressure upon the Colossians was

decidedly not from Judaizers. Paul issues a series of three

warnings linked together to identify the same source of danger.

The terminology in 2:8 and 2:18 (before and after the passages in

question) clearly identifies Gnosticism and just as clearly rules

out Judaism. It therefore would make no sense to read Judaism into

v 16.

The main point of v 16-17 is the Colossians should not allow these

heretics to judge them. Zodhiates says, the word "judge" (Greek

and evil . . . . In the NT, it means to judge, to form or give an

opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a case"

(The Complete Word Study, by Spiros Zodhiates). The verb form is

imperative (a command). The emphatic statement is linked to the

previous context by the conjunction "therefore." The point is that

since Christ wiped out our debt of sin and "disarmed principalities

and powers" ("wicked spirits in high places" - EPH 6:12) by His

death (cf. HEB 2:14, ROM 8:38-39), angel worship (climbing the

ladder of "emanations" to work one's way up to God, the idea behind

Gnostic angel worship) was unnecessary and inappropriate. The

"false humility" (v 18) involved ascetic practices of Gnostic

Judaism, as Rienecker explains, " . . . the consequence of this

ascetic practice is entrance into the heavenly realm." (A

Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, by Fritz Rienecker, vol.

2, p 230).

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament by Horst Balz and

Gerhard Schneider explains the link between ascetic food

regulations and the "elemental spirits" of COL 2:8, 20:

This philosophy . . . regarded these spirits as powers

capable of preventing a person from attaining the

fullness of salvation (cf. v. 9), if that person did not

submit to them by following certain religious practices

such as worship of angels, partial renunciation of food

[emphasis mine], etc. (volume 3, page 278).

There are many grammatical points that bear upon the true meaning

of this passage. Greek is a very precise language. Verb

inflections, case endings of nouns, and syntax offer important

exegetical clues, as we will soon see. Translation from one

language to another also presents problems that can blur the

col216, page 5

The expression "in meat or in drink" in verse 16 (KJV) is an

(Expositor's Greek Testament, by W. Robertson Smith, vol. 3, p

530). The two practices under attack were "eating and drinking"

(proper translation) and part of the matter observance of

Festivals, new moons and Sabbaths. It was not the fact of what

should or should not be eaten or drunk but the act of eating and

drinking in the process of worship, because feasting would be

considered indulging the flesh and thus sinful.

The question is not altogether between lawful and

unlawful food, but between eating and drinking or

abstinence. Asceticism rather than ritual cleanness is

in his mind. The Law is not ascetic in its character,

its prohibitions of meats rest on the view that they are

unclean, and drinks are not forbidden, save in

exceptional cases, and then not for ascetic reasons"

(Expositor's Greek Testament, by W. Robertson Smith,

vol. 3, p 530).

A. T. Robertson explains,

Paul has here in mind the ascetic practices . . . of the

Gnostics (possibly Essenic or even Pharisaic influence .

. . . The Essenes went far beyond the Mosaic

regulations. (Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol.

IV, p 496).

So the topic in question was decidedly not clean and unclean meats

but asceticism versus Christian rejoicing and feasting.

Let us now consider the other matter for which the Colossians were

being judged. We now encounter yet another misleading translation.

Most versions give the impression that the nouns "festival," "new

moon" and "sabbaths" are objects of a preposition "regarding"

(NKJV). There are several problems with this misconception. If

Paul had meant to use a preposition, he could have used "peri"

("concerning") as in I COR 8:1. Instead the Greek word is "meros"

which is not a preposition but a noun, derived from the verb

"merizo," which means "to cut in portions." "Meros" is nearly

always translated "part" or "portion" elsewhere in the New

Testament. It denotes a sharp division or separating off from

something. When used conceptually it sets up a dichotomy by

drawing a distinction between what it represents and that to which

it is contrasted, emphasizing the need for separate consideration

col216, page 6

preposition "en" ("in"), whereas "festival," "new moon" and

"sabbaths" have the genitive case ending, which connects them to

"meros" in the sense of "portion of a Festival or a new moon or

Sabbaths." The "anarthrous" construction of the nouns (i.e. not

preceded by the definite article, "the" in English) implies quality

or nature rather than identity, although the identity as "Jewish"

days in not in question. Putting all this together, the

significance is that only a portion or aspect of the inherent

quality or nature of the Festivals, new moons and Sabbaths were

being criticized, namely how they were to be observed. Gnosticism

had no problem with observation of special days. In fact

astrological observance of special segments of time was a major

part of Gnostic practice (GAL 4:10). The conflict in Colosse was

the manner in which the members were celebrating them. We know

that LEV 23 designates the weekly and annual Sabbaths as feast

days. Apparently the new moons were also major festive occasions

at the time, as pointed out by Vincent:

The day was celebrated by blowing of trumpets, special

sacrifices, feasting [emphasis mine throughout], and

religious instruction. Labor was suspended, and no

institutional or private fasts were permitted to take

place. The authorities were at great pains to fix

accurately the commencement of the month denoted by the

appearance of the new moon. Messengers were placed on

commanding heights to watch the sky, and as soon as the

new moon appeared, they hastened to communicate it to

the synod, being allowed even to travel on the sabbath

for this purpose (Word Studies in the New Testament, by

Marvin R. Vincent, vol. 1, ch. II, p 495).

Again one can easily recognize the potential for gnosticizing this

God ordained occasion by emphasis on the chronological aspect and

by eliminating the festiveness on the basis of the dualistic

concept of self-denial.

Now we come to v 17, which is where Herbert Armstrong's explanation

appears to contradict the virtually unanimous conclusion of the

entire Christian world. Here again the language plays an important

role in determining the specific meaning.

It is most important to note the tense of the verbs, which are

correctly translated as "are" (present active indicative) and "to

come" (present participle). The point is that the tenses rule out

the interpretation that the Sabbath and Holy Days became obsolete

with the coming of Christ because of the time perspective of the

statement. To have that meaning, it would have to say "were" since

col216, page 7

resurrected by the time Paul wrote Colossians. Yet he says the

Festivals, new moon and Sabbaths are (still) a shadow at the time

Paul wrote, years after Christ's death. Shadow of what? Of

"things to come." This is an accurate rendering of the present

about (to do something)', often implying the necessity and

therefore the certainty of what is to take place" (Vine's

Dictionary of Biblical Words). The identical construction (except

for gender and case ending) is also found in I COR 3:22, where its

contextual meaning is instructive. The present participle form in

Greek projects a timeless, ongoing activity extending into the

future as viewed from the temporal vantage point of the main verb,

which in this case is the present tense ("are" or technically "is"

in Greek to denote the aggregate of the three nouns) of the

intransitive verb "to be." So the grammar makes a very decisive

case for, not against, Christian observance of these occasions, not

to "earn salvation" (which is impossible) but to foreshadow events

yet to unfold in God's master plan, of which Jesus Christ is the

focal point and central figure.

("body") and "tou Christou" ("of Christ") in an attempt to clarify

the meaning in English, since English grammar demands a verb in

this clause. No verb is required in Greek, and none is present in

the original text of this verse. A similar example of this

construction is I COR 7:19, "Circumcision is nothing and

uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments is what

matters" (NKJV). The words "is what matters" are added to make

sense of what is implied but left out in the text. Both are

examples of "antithesis," which is "the rhetorical contrast of

ideas by means of parallel arrangements of words, clauses, or

sentences (as in 'actions, not words')" (Webster's Ninth New

Collegiate Dictionary).

Adding the word "is" between "body" and "of Christ" sets up an

antithesis between "shadow" and "body," thus implying the

inferiority and foreshadowing aspect of the Festivals, new moon and

Sabbaths to Christ. This serves as a theological basis for

rejecting their observance under the new covenant by pitting them

against the "reality" of Christ. Mr. Armstrong added the verb

"let" prior to the expression "the body of Christ," which sets up

an antithesis between the sources of "judging"--humans outside the

church (v 16) versus "the body of Christ" or the Church. Either

is permissible in Greek. Let us consider both possibilities on the

basis of the following points to determine which verb best fits the

col216, page 8

"skia" ("shadow") in contemporaneous extra-biblical sources,

including Philo, who was in fact an influential figure in the

development of Gnosticism.

used in the entire New Testament for anything other than a literal

physical body (usually human) or to the corporeal "body of Christ,"

establishing an antithetical nuance of "substance" or "reality" in

apposition to "shadow."

are the human body (2:11,23, cf. ROM 7:24), the physical, human

body of Jesus (1:22, 2:9, the latter actually an adverbial form of

24; 2:19; 3:15).

4. Placing "is" within the expression "body of Christ" also has no

precedent in the New Testament. The phrase "body of Christ" is

found in four other passages (ROM 7:4; I COR 10:16, 12:27; EPH

that context, even though the full expression "body of Christ" does

not appear.

5) Judging is the main subject of the context of 2:16-17 as well as

the entire section beginning in v 8 and continuing through v 23.

This presents a stronger case for a the meaning derived from

inserting the word "let" than for a shadow/body antithesis implied

by breaking up the expression "body of Christ" with the word "is,"

for which there is no New Testament precedent. Furthermore, I COR

6:1-7 presents the matter of "judging" (same Greek word) within the

Church in a positive context as defined earlier, "to form or give

an opinion after separating and considering the particulars of a

case." Likewise in this verse, "Let the body of Christ finishes

the thought at the beginning of the sentence, "Let no one judge

you, . . . " which, as we have seen, is the main theme of the

larger context of the chapter.

Let's briefly summarize the conclusions we have drawn in this

paper.

1. The Colossians were observing the Festivals, new moons and

col216, page 9

2. The ascetic, Gnostic-based heretics were criticizing them for

eating and drinking and rejoicing in celebration of these festive

occasions.

3. These occasions (including the "new moon," which is not one of the commanded Holy Days but would not be wrong to observe) still have symbolic value and should continue to be observed as a  continual reminder and source of instruction about the basic historic truths of the plan of God, past, present and future.

4. Therefore, the members should not allow anyone to stand in

judgment of them or criticize them for keeping these days.

5. Rather, they must continue to look to Christ (the focal point of

God's plan and of these occasions which foreshadow His future role

in that plan) to determine the way they observe these days. They

must also look to Christ to keep God's people united together. The

Sabbath and Holy Days (and New Moons.... editors note)   also help promote this unity by bringing members together in commanded assembly and reminding them they are "sanctified" ("holy" or uniquely special) members of the family of God.

Here is a paraphrased version of what Paul is saying in COL 2:16-

17, based on the points made in this paper, "Don't let any man

judge you for eating or drinking or for any portion of your

Paul said in I COR 15:19, "If in this life only we have hope in

Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." God's Sabbath and

Holy Days remind us of the past, present and future reality of

Jesus Christ. Those who would advocate abandonment of these

intensely meaningful, relevant days and consider them obsolete

ceremonial laws fulfilled by Christ, and who teach that the

obligation (make that "privilege!") to observe them is no longer

required of a Christian under the new covenant are indeed to be

pitied and "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (MATT

5:19).

In his final appeal Paul admonishes the Colossians, "Let no one

defraud you of your reward . . . " by means of the deception of the

pagan Gnostic heresies that were being foisted upon them. Vincent

col216, page 10

judge or umpire." Hence "to decide against one, or "to

declare him unworthy of the prize . . . , which . . . I

think must be retained, in continuation of the idea of

judgment in ver. 16, "let no man judge," etc. The

attitude of the false teachers would involve their

sitting in judgment as to the future reward of those who

refused their doctrine of angelic mediation (Word

Studies in the New Testament, vol. 1, ch. II, p 494).

Those who allowed their thinking and conduct to be swayed by these

heretics from outside the Church were "not holding fast" (Greek

Church], nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments

[individual members - cf EPH 4:15-16], grows with the increase

which is from God" (COL 2:18-19).

This brings to mind a very sobering and timely warning issued by

Jesus Christ to "the church at Philadelphia" to "Hold fast [same

crown."

Is there a message here even though the source and exact nature of

the theological argument is not the same today? Would we be

jeopardizing our "crown" by throwing away the Holy Days and

Sabbaths on the basis of "persuasive words" (COL 2:4) and "empty

[void of truth] deceit" contrary to what the Head of the Church led

His Church to understand, and which still remains in print to

instruct (or "judge") us? Perhaps the best way to answer the

question is in the words of Jesus Christ Himself in REV 3:13, "He

who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the

Address to author at P.O. Box 36, La Pine, OR 97739. (Internet address:

Larry_Walker@ucg.org )

Copyright© 1995 by Larry J. Walker, minister, United Church of God. All rights

reserved.

Taken from: Bible Study-The Church of God Web Site.