Studies in Colossians #23

The Peril of Legalism (2:16-17)

This section begins with a warning: “Therefore no one is to act as your judge” The KJV is a more precise and powerful translation of the phrase: “Let not man therefore judge you….”  This judgment centers upon our practice, not our position in Christ. The word therefore moves us to another critique of the false teaching. The text turns its attention to some of the problems confronting in Colossians. It centers not on theological issues, but issues of practice that the false teaching is demanding. The word judge is a strong one. It is the Greek word krino, meaning to judge judicially, to assume censorial power over one, or to call them into account. It “carries the since of passing an unfavorable judgment upon a person.”^[1] Lightfoot says it means to “take one to task.”^[2] Gromacki points out that the imperative is in the present tense and denotes that the false teachers were constantly attacking the believers for the lack of conformity.^[3] It is related to the idea of condemnation (cf. Rom. 2:1). This warning is repeated in Romans 14:13. Like the false teachers, many fail to understand that legalism is not a measurement of spiritually.

Believers are to be separated from legalistic practices; no matter if they are Jewish or gnostic in nature. The legalistic practices are twofold.

·  “In regard to food or drink” (2:16). The word food (or meat—KJV) is the Greek word brosei indicating the entire area of eating. There was a strong element of Jewish dietary laws (cf. Lev. 11; Acts 10:14) still prevalent in a number of Jewish converts. It is indicated by Jesus and Peter that this would be the case—see Mark 7:15; Acts 10:12. The Jewish dietary laws have now been annulled (cf. Rom.14:17;1 Cor. 8:8; Gal. 4:9-11). Paul warned against the teaching of abstaining form meats (1 Tim. 4:2). All food was now a provision that should be accepted with prayer and thanksgiving (cf. 1 Cf. 1 Cor. 10:25-26; 1 Tim. 4:3-5). Paul instructed the church that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). The believer is not under the law, but grace (Rom. 6:14).

·   “In respect to festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” (2:16). The word festival (holyday—KJV) has a broad appeal and application both to the Jews and the Gentiles. Both had their religious festivals. Likely in this context it refers to the Jewish festivals, but the word is somewhat ambiguous. The word literally means feast. The same can be said of the reference to new moons, pointing to the lunar calendar (cf. Num. 10:10; 28:11). However, the word Sabbath day points directly at the Jewish legalist.

Harris points out that these legalistic rituals fall in three categories: food, drink, and calendar.^[4]

The reason they are not to be judged or condemned for not observing these things are clear: “things which are a [mere] shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” (2:17). A couple of general observations about Paul’s critique: (1) it gives a negative and a positive reason that they are not to be judged. (2) It gives a contrast that stresses between the past, the present, and or future.

The negative is expressed first— “a shadow of what is to come.” It is speaking of the rituals that are being used to attack the believers. Rituals after time tend to become legalistic. The key word is clearly shadow. The Greek word is skia meaning a shade, shadow, a sketch, copy, or something vague. “A shadow is a faint outline of an object rather than the object itself.”^[5]  Therefore, there are two concepts connected with the word in the context of the epistle: (1) The fleeting representation of the object in contrast to the permanent. (2) The emptiness of a shadow to fulfil real substance. Believers are not to be judged in these shadowy things because of their transitory order (cf. Heb. 10:1). The shadow points to “what is to come.” This phrase is interesting because it is a present active participle. It could refer to future things such as the second coming of Christ. However, the context seems to narrow this down to the eschatological event of the coming and working of Christ, which has already happened. The participle can explicitly refer to the eschatological figure (cf. Matt. 11:14). This fits well in the context for two reasons: (1) the viewpoint is from the past were these shadowy things point to a reality fulfillment in time. (2) The climatic eschatological event had already taken place in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Col. 2:11-15). It speaks of the relative future to be interpreted from the period of when the shadows were ordered. (3) The reasoning of Paul is not just eschatological, but Christological as well as seen in the remainder of the verse. It speaks of the shadows giving way to the reality. Christ is the fulfilment of Jewish eschatological hope in this context. Notice the word “but”, which denotes contrast. It is a past/present (future) contrast.

The positive is seen in the phrase— “but the substance [body—KJV] belongs to Christ” (2:17). The Greek word soma refers mainly to a physical body (human or animal); it can also refer to a person; or a form or substance. The phrase is somewhat ambiguous. Thus there are three possible ways to interpret the phrase. (1) The resurrection body of Christ. (2) The Church, the body of Christ. (3) The form, substance, or reality of a person.

Some dispensationist argue this refers to the Church, the body of Christ. Campbell holds this view saying: 

To clarify the meaning let us translate it, ‘but the body belongs to Christ.’ It appears that Paul is trying to get them to focus their attention on the Body of Christ, the Church, instead of one of the things being pushed by the Judaizers. The thing that really counts is that we are members of the Body of Christ, and as such, we are directly under the Head, Christ. Paul is literally saying, Away with these legalistic tenets of the Law, concentrate on Christ and your position in His Body, the Church.^[6]

I do not disagree with the general truth he is presenting, however, I question that in this context this is the correct meaning. It seems to me that this falls short in the following areas:

First, there is a contrast presented between the shadow and the body. It is a common Pauline thought process of promise-fulfilment, or the old-new antithesis. I ask how is the body of Christ, the church a fulfillment or reality of a shadow? Since the shadow is the Law, where in the Law or the Old Testament is the truth of the body of Christ presented or foreshadowed? There is no shadow in the Old Testament of the church, the body of Christ. The church body of Christ was a mystery, not revealed, hinted at, nor presented by shadowy figure in the Old Testament (cf. Eph. 3:8-10; Rom. 16:25-26).

Second, there is nothing in the context, or in these verses, that confirm that the church is the subject. The overall context centers upon Christ, not the church. Baker is correct in his analysis: “All of these observances were merely shadows cast by Christ before he arrived on the scene. A shadow has no reality or substance; yet millions of people are still trying to grasp the shadows, instead of seeing that the reality is in Christ.”^[7]

In this light, I think the best understanding of the word body as that of substance or reality. Body is not to be taken in a literal sense, such as the resurrected body nor the church, the body of Christ. One could say the reality of the shadows belong to Christ. The word has this connotation in both Philo and Josephus. This concept is the least problematic understanding of the text. There are four things that point to this understanding:

·  The but of contrast is used and denotes equivalence between the two clauses by position.

·   It fits the contrast and context of the inadequacy of legalistic ritualism and the sufficiency of Christ.

·  This contrast is confirmed by Hebrews 10:1.

·  The article in the Greek (tou) should be given full weight—the Christ.^[8]

Christ is the reality of what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Christ is the real thing. 

---

[1]  Pao, ZECNT: COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 184.

[2]  Lightfoot, COLOSSIANS, 191.

[3] Gromacki, STAND PERFECT, 118.

[4]  Harris, EGGNT: COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON, 105.

[5] Ibid, 105.

[6]  Campbell, COLOSSIANS & PHILEMON, 111.

[7]  Baker, UNDERSTANDING THE BODY OF CHRIST, 136.

[8]  Dunn, NIGTC: THE EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO PHILEMON, 177.