Subject: Colossians 2:16-17 has been used in our former association as the main passage for following the precedent of traditional Christianity. Those who hold to the teachings of Mr. Armstrong were accused of “eisegesis” (“interpreting a passage of Scripture ac
From: <Saved by Microsoft Internet Explorer 5>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:36:22 +1000

Further Information on Colossians
2:16-17

Analysis of
Journal of Biblical Literature article by Troy Martin

by Larry J.
Walker

(adapted from the
article by the same title originally published in the Ministerial
Quarterly by the United Church of God, an International
Association)

Colossians 2:16-17 has been used by many in traditional
Christianity as the main passage for rejecting the Sabbath and Holy Days. I
wrote a study paper on this passage to prove, by sound exegetical principles,
that our long-standing interpretation of this passage is accurate and correct.

A few months after I wrote my paper a very technical article
appeared in the prestigious Journal of Biblical Literature (Summer 1995)
entitled “But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ.” This article, written by
Saint Xavier professor Troy Martin, offers grammatical and syntactical support
for an interpretation of this passage that refutes the universal teaching of
mainstream Christianity, which casts the celebration of the Festivals, New Moons
and Sabbaths in a negative light. Based on his exposition of the text, he argues
that the members in Colosse were observing the Sabbaths, Festivals and New
Moons. His conclusion upholds their validity and value for Christians as “a
shadow of things to come.”

This landmark exposition provides a theologically sound basis
for our long-standing teaching and practice of keeping the Sabbath and Holy
Days. Because we are still challenged on this doctrine, it is good for us as
elders to understand the points discussed in Professor Martin’s article to add
to our arsenal of defense.

We are exhorted in I Peter 3:15 to “be ready to give a
defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in
you....” The word defense (Greek apologia) refers to a thorough
exposition, not just a brief answer as could be inferred from the KJV
translation “ready to give an answer.

This purpose of this article is to convey the vital
information from Troy Martin’s article in easy to understand layman’s
language.

Two important grammatical structures are critical to this
passage--antithesis and ellipsis. Webster’s Ninth Collegiate
Dictionary defines antithesis is “a rhetorical contrast of ideas by
means of parallel arrangements of words, clauses or sentences (as in ‘action,
not words’).” An ellipsis is “the omission of one or more words that are
obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction
grammatically complete” (ibid).

Several other New Testament passages contain both an
antithesis and an ellipsis. For example, “Circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God” (KJV). A
casual reader unaware of these grammatical structures could wrongly infer that
this passage is relegating circumcision to the realm of nothing more than
keeping God’s commandments. The NKJV correctly supplies the ellipsed is what
matters to complete the antithesis between circumcision and keeping God’s
commandments. So the intended meaning is that whether or not someone is
circumcised is not the main thing; keeping God’s commandments is the main issue.
This was to refute the Jewish emphasis on circumcision while often neglecting
keeping the commandments in their personal lives (Romans 2:17-26). That’s
another subject than what we are dealing with in Colossians 2:16-17. I cite this
passage simply to help explain these two grammatical forms which bear heavily on
the correct understanding of the passage in question.

The phrase to de soma tou Christou (“but the body of
Christ” (verse 17) is an ellipsis in the Greek text, which is universally
completed by supplying the verb is, or a paraphrased version of the
thought this conveys. For example NIV: “the reality, however, is found in
Christ.” This sets up an antithesis between skia (“shadow”) and
soma (“body”--which is often rendered as “substance” despite a total lack
of scriptural precedent).

We have long taught that the passage should read, “Let no
man [his emphasis] judge you..., but [let] the body of Christ [be
your judge]” (with regard to keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days).

One cannot simply pick the words that best suit his
understanding of the passage without being guilty of eisegesis (“interpreting a
passage of Scripture according to personal notions rather than according to the
original meaning” as defined by Baker’s Concise Dictionary of Religion).
Words must be added only as allowed by the rules of Greek grammar and syntax.
One would assume that the universality of the traditional explanation would
suggest that, since Bible scholars are much more knowledgeable about Greek, our
explanation is simply wrong.

Enter Troy Martin....

Referring to the prevailing theological treatment of the
passage, he says

The
critical exegetical tradition almost unanimously connects the last clause in the
sentence with the relative clause that immediately precedes it because of the
contrast between skia and soma.... This interpretive error
[emphasis supplied] is caused by forcing a coordinating conjunction to connect
two clauses that are not grammatically equivalent.... [The] connection of the
concluding independent nominal clause with the preceding clause is impossible
grammatically [emphasis supplied] because in this clause de
[conjunction translated “but”] is a coordinating conjunction that can only
connect grammatical equivalents....

Therefore, the clause to de tou Christou [“but
the body of  Christ”] does not
connect with the relative clause that precedes it in spite of the overwhelming
consensus of modern commentators (op. cit., p 250, 251).

In a word, the translators are wrong and we are right. Here’s
why.

An independent clause is part of a sentence that could stand
alone as a complete sentence.  So
“Let no one judge you....” is an independent clause. A subordinate or dependent
clause lacks either a subject or verb, so could not grammatically be a complete
sentence but can only be part of a complete sentence. The subordinate
clause in question is “which are a shadow of things to come” which has no verb
and is therefore a subordinate clause, not an independent clause.  Completing the ellipsis as “the body
is of Christ” makes what was a subordinate clause (“the body of Christ”)
into an independent clause (“The body is of Christ”), connecting with the
subordinate clause “which are a shadow of things to come.” Martin explains that
this is not possible grammatically. Even in English we would say “because” not
“but” in such a case.

“Let the body of Christ” also changes the subordinate
clause to an independent clause. But it connects with another independent clause
“Let no one judge you....” which is permissible grammatically because
both clauses are independent clauses and thus “grammatically equivalent.”

The incorrect translation establishes an antithesis between
skia (“shadow”) and soma (“body”), which denigrates the Festivals,
New Moons and Sabbaths as inferior to “the real thing” (Christ). This false
concept is often embellished by supplying a past tense which is not present in
the text. For example NIV: “These are a shadow of things that were
[emphasis supplied] to come.”

Troy Martin explains:

The
tense is present and affirms that these things are now shadows. These
commentators translate the past tense and conclude that these stipulations have
ended now that the true substance has arrived since they were only
shadows....

H.
A. W. Meyer  correctly argues, “The
mellonta (“things to come”) have not yet been manifested at all, and
belong altogether to the aion mellon [age to come] which will begin with
the coming again of  Christ to set
up His kingdom....” (op. cit., p 249).

Some translations take even more liberty by adding the word
only (which is also not in the text) since the assumption is that Paul is
writing against Judaizers trying to impose allegedly inferior, obsolete “Jewish”
practices on the Colossians.

In regard to the meaning and identity of the skia in
this passage, Martin concludes:

The
completely negative assessment of the shadow conception among some commentators
is not present in this text.... Many commentators ... interpret skia in
an absolutely pejorative manner. The regulations or stipulations of the
opponents are considered as worthless shadows.... However, the opponents’
regulations are not necessarily mentioned in v 16, which may mention the
practices of the Colossian community that are being critiqued. These
Christian practices [emphasis supplied] may comprise the shadow, and they
are not presented negatively except by the opponents (op. cit., p
249).

So far so good. But notice the title of the Martin’s article
(“But let everyone discern the body of Christ”). This is his translation of the
clause in verse 17 that we translate as “But let the body of Christ be your
judge.” This is the only major point where we would differ. I sent Troy a copy
of my study paper along with a letter contrasting his and my conclusions. I will
summarize them below.

The difference centers around the syntactical position of
soma in the passage. As in many other languages such as Spanish, all
Greek nouns have “gender” (masculine, feminine and neuter). “Case endings” of
these nouns indicate where they fit in the sentence. A nominative ending relates
to the subject; an accusative ending denotes the direct object. There are also
genitive and dative cases. Neuter nouns have the same case ending for nominative
and accusative. Which one is to be understood must be determined by context.
Soma is a neuter noun. So the case ending of soma in verse 17 can
be either nominative or accusative. Troy’s translation uses the accusative. Ours
uses the nominative. He allowed that either is “morphologically correct” but
feels his translation is preferable because he believes it better fits the way
ellipses and antitheses are used in the Greek language.

Troy’s version establishes an antithesis between “let no one”
and “let everyone” as well as between the negative and positive nuances of
krineo (criticize and discern, both of which involve “judging”). I
Corinthians 11:29 also speaks of “discerning the Lord’s body.” In both cases
soma is accusative, because it is the object of the verb
krineo.

Here is the basis of my argument. The main subject of
Colossians 2:16-17 is judging or criticizing. The validity of the Festivals, New
Moons and Sabbaths is the battleground. The word “Therefore” in verse 16
connects this thought (judging in a critical manner) with the points made in the
preceding context. Namely the centrality of Christ in the plan of God and the
danger of being deceived by heretical philosophical teachings which are
identified as stoichea tou kosmou (v 8, 20)--an expression which can
refer to teachings connected with demonic forces, as explained in my study
paper. Verses 14-15 explain that Christ has openly defeated and “disarmed” these
powers and principalities. This provides the rationale behind the “therefore” in
verse 16. Therefore, the Colossians should not allow the criticism of
non-Christian opponents (whose teachings are identified with these powers) to
deter them in their observance of the Festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths
(including their celebration by eating and drinking), but rather look to the
“body of Christ” (the Church) for guidance and instruction in these matters. 1
Corinthians 6:1-5 and Matthew 18:15-20 provide scriptural precedent for the
concept of the Church making judgments.

The antithesis in our understanding contrasts “anyone” with
“the Church”--or “mere men” (I Corinthians 3:3) versus sanctified members of the
body of Christ. In this case soma would be nominative, because “body of
Christ” would be the subject of the ellipsed verb krineo, which is in the
imperative mood in Colossians 2:16.

The word “let” is supplied in English in order to translate
the third person imperative, a Greek construction which is probably unfamiliar
to many readers. Imperative mood indicates that the action of  the verb is in the form of a command. In
the English language commands are directed toward to the person being addressed
(referred to grammatically as “second person”). Greek also has third
person imperative, which is directed toward a third party, even though
the command may be articulated to the person or persons being addressed.
In English we could say “No one should judge you; the body of Christ
should judge you.” This makes it clear that no one and (the)
body (of Christ) are the initiators of the action (judging), not
the recipients of the action. So grammatically, they are subjects not
direct objects. Therefore, tis (“anyone”) in verse 16 is the
nominative form of the pronoun because tis is the subject of the third
person imperative of krineo. The same is true of our addition,
“let the body of Christ (judge you)” (or “the body of Christ should
judge you”). So soma (“body) is nominative because soma is the
subject of the third person imperative of krineo.

The main point of whom to look to as “judge” is restated in
verses 18 and 19. “Let no one defraud you” (verse 18) is the same construction
(third person imperative) as in verse 16, only with a different but synonymous
verb (katabrabeuo) that carries even stronger implications than
krineo. Zodhiates defines katabrabeuo as “To judge against someone
in a game, to defraud or deprive of the prize” (The Complete Word Study
Dictionary: New Testament, p 827).

Verse 19 completes the thought by making the same point as
verse 17, but with a participle instead of an antithesis (“not holding fast to
the Head”). The word translated “holding fast” is a present participle of the
verb krateo, which when used in a figurative sense in the New Testament
always occurs in the context of holding on to doctrine (true or false) or to our
hope or profession of faith (II Thessalonians 2:15; Hebrews 4:14, 6:18;
Revelation 2:1,13,14,15,25).

The wording of verse 19 is very similar to Ephesians 4:16,
which addresses the role of “the whole body” (the entire Church) in combating
false doctrine, speaking the truth and growing to the full stature of  Christ (verses 11-16).

So I believe the “internal evidence” (scriptural context)
corroborates our understanding of Colossians 2:16-17.

I sent my study paper, Troy Martin’s article, my letter to
him and his reply to a Southern Baptist Greek professor in El Paso, a dear
friend whom I have consulted many times on matters of Greek. His reply, “For
what it is worth I will stay with our first translation, that the Church
is the judge.” So he agrees with our conclusion, has thanked me many times for
calling this to his attention and
teaches the passage that way in all his classes. In fact it was he who
brought up 1 Corinthians 6 in support of our understanding.

But regardless of which translation is correct, both lead to
the same conclusion. That the Sabbath and Holy Days (and for that matter, new
moon observance) are described in Colossians 2:16-17 as Christian observances
that foreshadow future events in God’s plan. Troy Martin’s translation implies
discerning the body of Christ as result of eating and drinking and observing the
Festivals, New Moons and Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come. (We
have long understood the Sabbath and Holy Days as commanded by God. New moon
observance is mentioned in the scriptures but with no command to observe them.
That subject is beyond the scope of this article.)

A situation similar to the problem addressed in Colossians
2:16-17 exists again today in that many may have allowed religious leaders with
errant theology to defraud them of their reward by forsaking the Sabbath and
Holy Days and once again embracing pagan days which are rooted in the elements
of the world (stoicheia tou kosmou). And ironically, it is the majority
of scholars who are guilty of eisegesis. Our understanding of the passage is
supported by sound exegesis, which Troy Martin’s article further expounds.

The apostle Peter wrote that Paul’s epistles contain “some
things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to
their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2
Peter 3:15). Bible scholars should know that the traditional explanation of
Colossians 2:16-17 is grammatically incorrect and is therefore exegetically
flawed and erroneous. Ironically, it is they who are guilty of eisegesis. The
true understanding of this passage upholds the Sabbath and Holy Days as relevant
to New Covenant Christians in that they foreshadow important events in the plan
of God. We owe a debt of gratitude to Troy Martin for the courage and candor to
set the record straight.