Colossians II 16 19 Draft 2 Final

7/28/2019 Colossians II 16 19 Draft 2 Final

1/31

1

Michael Bremner, 1060

Susan Wendel, Ph.D.

GRK 364y

21 March 2013

COL 2:16-19: PAULS OPPONENTS AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD

Colossians 2:16-19 is a passage that has left everyone who approaches the text in

awe and wonder, pondering what Paul is trying to say. Paul only makes brief references

to the problem the Colossians are experiencing, assuming that the audience reading the

letter has firsthand knowledge of the issue at hand.1

The vast amount of theories that

scholars have developed to answer the question of whose Pauls opponents are leaves one

with another question unanswered. Namely, how one can understand what this passage

means for the Church. If these passages are inspired by God for the Church, we must

somehow figure out a way in order to read them for our own edification.2

Although the

speculationspertaining to Pauls opponents are at times helpful, they are ultimately

irrelevant as the major speculations all share a common contention which is refuted by

Saint Pauls argument that as long as the Church community holds to Christ, it will

prosper as the people of God.

The overview of the context preceding this passage is that Paul is attacking

teachings that would cut off the Colossians from Christ. Although the Colossians do not

seem to be in danger of heresy, as Paul is impressed by them (cf. 1:4; 2:5),3

Paul fears the

1 Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians: A New Translation with introduction and

commentary (Broadway, NY: Doubleday, 1996), 378.2 N.T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 19.3 Barth, Colossians, 384.


2/31

2

Colossians will be deceived () bypersuasive speech () (Col

2:4). However, he still wishes to warn them of the practical consequences of these

teachings, rather than trying to exposit what these teachings intellectual speculations

are.4

The beginning of Colossians 2:16 already reveals a connection to the Colossians

status as the people of God. The inferential conjunction connects this passage to the

previous passage in v. 2:15, in which Paul had written of the victory () of

Christ over the rulers and authorities ( ). Paul then warns the

Colossians that they must beware of being taken captive by them (

), since these powers had tried to disqualify gentile Christians

membership as Gods people. And so, Paul now warns the Colossians against letting any

ordinary mortal accomplish what these 'powers' have failed to do,5

which was attempting

to stop Christian gentiles from growing fully as a mature Body (cf. Col 2:8-19).

Paul utilizes the imperative word ,prohibiting the Colossians to let

anyone exclude them from Gods people. The word is rendered as judge, however this

should not be seen as a criticism, that they are just looking down on the Colossians for

not fasting or practicing asceticism. Rather, it should be read as in excluding the

Colossians6

or perhaps informing them they have been excluded from the people of God.

This is warranted by the context of disqualification that will be clarified later on. The

judgment pertains to whether or not one is truly a member of the Church. Finally, we can

see the same problem of disqualification happening in Galatia, in which the law looks to

alienate the Galatians from the Church (cf. Gal 4:17).7

4 G.B. Caird,Paul's Letters From Prison (Oxford University press, Great Britian, 1976), 196.5 Wright, Colossians, 118.6 Ibid.7 Ibid., 119.


3/31

3

Not only that, although it only appears we are focusing on Jewish law, it cannot be

the only problem, because the following prohibition does not plainly pertain to that law.

Both the prepositions are referential, connecting drinking and eating to the manner

in which the Colossians would be excluded unless they followed these opponents

teachings. Paul has previously dealt with food and drink from the Law elsewhere;

remarking eating and drinking ( ) are not a matter for Gods people (Rom

14:17; cf. Rom 14:5-6).8

He says this because eating and drinking are important when

they pertain to shared Christian fellowship as the Body of Christ (Rom 14:3).9

The

situation here is different in that these are not just related to Jewish food laws, since

beverages are not something the Jewish food laws cover, except the Nazarite vow (cf.

Num 6:3). However, one did not need to be a Nazarite in order to be Gods people. The

disjunctive supported with the repeating shows this all the more, since the eating

and drinking would be viewed separately from one another.10

If viewed separately, these

could be viewed on their own terms, leading one to question what exactly drinking on its

own has to do with being the people of God. Furthermore, it cannot be established that

this is the situation in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-13; 10:19-30), as there is no mention of meat

being sacrificed to deities.11

One might then conclude that this is an altogether different

situation, one that is not related only to kosher laws.12

However, there is still a connection to Jewish Law that Paul is fighting against

elsewhere. The LXX also talks about

8J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Zondervan Publishing

House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1981), 194. Also see Hebrews 9:10 for non-Pauline use9 Lawrence R. Farley, The Epistle To the Romans: A Gospel For Al, The Orthodox Bible Study

Companion, (Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2002), 179.10 Murray J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon, EGGNT (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 118.11 F. F. Bruce, Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesiansm, NICNT (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 113.12 Wright, Colossians, 119. Wright tried arguing that this is related to kosher laws.


4/31

4

(Ezk 45:17)13 when it discusses atonement for Israel. Failure to observe these

implied one did not belong to God's people.14

For Paul, atonement is through Christ (c.f.

Rom 5:6-11), and so it appears there really is a very Jewish problem here. Furthermore,

,, and are all partitive genitives modifying . This gives

some warrant to view these as all related to eating and drinking, as is the object

of the referential preposition , referring to eating and drinking. Thus, there is more

confusion of whether Paul is talking about the normative Jewish law held by the

Pharisees, or whether he is talking about something else.15

There is more reason to see a close connection to the Jewish Law with the phrase

. The antecedent to is most likely all of the things

previously stated. What follows is that the shadow () refers to these Torah -related

items. The word is used by Paul only once, and in this passage. In Hebrews, we see

that refers to law,

(Hebrews 8:4-5; emphasis mine), and even stronger

(Hebrews 8:4-5; emphasis mine).16 In the phrase

, the here contrasts the body that belongs to Christ as being the

substance. Perhaps the shadowy sense is from Platonic thought, contrasting the world

of shadows to the real world of 'forms'17 explaining why some translate as

substance. Philo, utilized this language in order to draw a contrast between a true reality

and its archetype. More importantly, Philo used and in order to contrast

13 H. B. Swete, Vol. 3: The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint(Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press, 1909), 488.14 Wright, Colossians, 119.15 Harris, Colossians, 118. An alternative reading if translated as or in connexion with the

observance of festivals or new moons or Sabbaths,or Paul is trying to refer to the matter ofannual ormonthly or weekly festivals.

16 Bruce, Colossians, 118.17 Wright, Colossians, 119.


5/31

5

something to what it represents.18

Furthermore, the previous words

, would appear to be contrastive, in that it is a contrary statement that does

not rebuke these things of the laws, but it reveals that the real Christian form is that of

Christs body, namely being his people. Perhaps Paul here is portraying Judaism as just

another religion,19

trying to illustrate that the new Christians do not need to cling to

Judaism as it is the shadow and no longer is what denotes the people of God.

In support of this idea is that the body and Christ are mentioned together later

(Col 2:19), so it does appear that perhaps the body in this instance is the Church.

is the possessive genitive, and so the Church would be viewed as the

substance,20

the real people of God that belongs to Christ.21 However, there are two

meanings here, as Christ is also the real substance in this passage as well. First, the

Platonic language (between heaven and earth) is converted into a Jewish expression with

eschatological implications (cf. Heb 10:1). Secondly, the definite article would render the

term as belongs to theChrist22 giving a clear eschatological picture of the Messiah

fulfilling the Jewish hope. Christ is the real substance of the eschatological hope of the

people of God that is not properly or fully realized with Torah. Furthermore, with the

context of v. 1:1823

, the Church which is Christs body is also charged to symbolize or to

18 James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGNT (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1996)176-77.19

Wright, Colossians, 120.20 See also Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians, 177. Dunn only comments on Christ as being the

substance.21 Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2008), 223. However, Moo does not see this as being clearly established because double

meanings should not be used unless the context makes it pretty clear. (223). Although, he does admit thatthe context is suggestive of this meaning.

22 Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians, 177.23And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,

that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Col 1:18)


6/31

6

embody this eschatological reality.24

Paul continues explaining the importance of being the people by revealing how

one can severe themselves from the Body. is a word that appears in the NT

only one time. In Hellenistic use outside of the Scripture it is found to be used as an

umpire. Namely, the opponents would act as an umpire who has the ability to

disqualify25one from a race. This disqualification would in essence, rob a person of a

prize and ultimately lead to condemnation. In this sense, perhaps these opponents of

Paul would be looking to disqualify Christians as the people of God through something

other than Christ. Similarly, N.T. Wright notes that what Paul would get across is that

You are already members ofthe body of Christ, no one should be allowed to rule you

out of court.26 Thus, anyone who is not a part of this Body it is because they hold to the

shadow when they should be holding to the real substance, namely Christ.

may be translated in many different ways because of the many

hypothesized syntactical forces this word can have,27

but it is possible to see that there are

wrong kinds of humility. Given the context which implies condemnation through

disqualification, has been rendered as desirous of effecting rather than the

translation BDAG gives, which is rendered as taking pleasure in.28 Since the syntactical

force of is a participle of attendant circumstance it is dependant semantically on

the verb . Thus, the addition in the English translation the

24 Question idea: How can we embody this reality?25 Dunn, Colossians, 177.26 Wright, Colossians, 121.27 Harris, Colossians, 121.According to Harris, it may be translated as willfully, of his own

mere will, intentionally, by a voluntary humility, delighting in, order, require.28 Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker,A Greek-English

Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of

Chicago, 2000), 448. See also Moo, Colossians, 225. Moo also says that it can be translated as delights inand working with the teachings that Pauls opponents have. Saying that this is what they delight in.


7/31

7

condemnation29 is added to the passage and is read as, Do not [let] anyone condemn

you desirous of effecting [the condemnation] in order to more clearly show how it is

functioning. The Participle, denotes the idea of desiring something,30 and what

they desire is the previously mentioned condemnation (). Furthermore,

the proceeding has a syntactical force that is instrumental, revealing the way

in which these opponents would disqualify the Colossians as being the people of God.

This may be seen as problematic, because if taken at face value it appears that humility

() is an instrument of condemnation. However, with that conclusion it

would be a type of false assumption about the technical meaning of humility,

31

for Paul

also states that humility is an attribute of a Christian (Col 3:12), and thus his use of the

word can have negative and positive connotations. When Paul uses humility in a positive

manner, it is in a way which humility is a means for the community to grow in Christ (cf.

Eph 4:2, Phil 2:3, Col 3:12). When Paul uses the word humility in a negative sense, it

lacks this building up of the Christian community, and rather has an individualistic

semantic tone (Col 2:18, 2:23).

Paul then begins to mention the worshipping of angels in his epistle, criticizing

the emphasis the opponents have given the angels as an object of worship. For strict

Judaism some see the worship of angels as a celebration pertaining to the law being

handed to them through angels.32

This means the cult would find itself in a form of

legalism through the Law being delivered by the Angels. However, the text does not say

29 The condemnation here is by disqualification30 Dunn, Colossians, 178.31D. A. Carson,Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 45.32 Wright, Colossians, 122.N.T. Wright notes Perhaps the people he is opposing spend so much

time in speculations about angels or in celebrating the fact that the law was given to them, that they are in

effect worshipping them instead.


8/31

8

the Law was given by angels.33

Additionally, there are liturgies found in the Qumran

(Cave 4) which addressed angels utilizing psalms such as Praise God, all ye angels,

(Psalm 103:20) and exhorts the angels to offer various forms of worship to God.

However, this is not the worship of Angels, as they are not the object of the worship.34

In

the case of translating this passage as worshiping with the Angels, the word

would be taken as a subjective genitive. However, there are no examples that ,

when paired with objects of worship or divines beings, should be taken as a subjective

genitive.35

Another problem is whether or not worshipping with angels would cut

someone off from Christ. For example, the elders who worship with the Angels in front

of the throne of God (Revelation 5:8-14) are not condemned, nor are they cut from

Christ. Furthermore, there is a proto-Gnostic notion that we go through angels to get to

heaven, and not Christ. Saint John Chrysostom seems to just assume this, referring to

some kind of Gnosticism of his time when he writes There are some who maintain that

we must be brought near by Angels, not by Christ, that were too great a thing for us.36

Furthermore, proto-Gnostics perhaps believed that their souls entered into the realm of

light and then to the realm of the archons (Angels or demons), and so measures were

required to be taken to get past them. We must add that based on the use of the concepts

'rulers and powers' in the Hymn of Colossians 1:15-20, and also in 2:15, it must be

assumed that the author of Colossians did recognize the existence of some proto-Gnostic

33 Saint John Chrysostom,Homily 7 on Colossians, trans. John A. Broadus (Buffalo, NY:

Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889), Homily 7. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230307.htm

(accessed on March 8, 2013).34 Bruce, Colossians, 119. See also Dunn, Colossians, 181-82.35 Clinton E. Arnold, The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and

Folk Belief at Colossae (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 90.36 Chrysostom,Homily 7 on Colossian, Homily 7.


9/31

9

archons.37 The resulting conclusion when seeing it in this way is that there were proto-

Gnostic tendencies that this opponent would have, resulting in their worshipping of the

Angels in order to get past them. Thus, is naturally read as an objective

genitive, resulting in the angels being the object of worship.

The rendering I used for this passage , isTaking his

stand on visions, however this is an educated hypothesis of what this phrase should be

translated as, since these words have confused so many commentators.38

The weakness

of the rendering taking stands on that which he has seen is that it does not take on the

meaning of the verb .

39

The phrase can be rendered as invading [or

entering],40or also going into detail.41 And so, this translation does not render

accurately. N.T. Wright mentions that perhaps there is a Detection of

Irony,42 instead of entry into the heavenly worship (bringing in the concept of the

angelic liturgy mentioned previously);instead of the idea that they will pass through

archons (angels), they have entered into their own delusions.43 Since the nominative

participle agrees with the subject of , it is one of the

circumstances of the attempted disqualification,44

pointing this phrase back to whatever

the disqualification includes. Thus if seen in this way, it doesnt matter what position one

takes when it pertains to what is being critiqued; it is the fact that they stand on their own

37 Barth, Colossians, 381.38 See Moo, Colossians, 225; Bruce, Colossians, 120-22. Harris, Colossians,121-22. Note that

there are many different ways to render this text; contra Dunn, Colossians, 125. Dunn only gives his

rendering when it pertains to worshipping with Angels.39 Caird,Paul's Letters From Prison, 195. See also Dunn, Colossians, 182-84. Dunn sees this

phrase to support the idea that Paul is referring to worshipping with Angels. Basically he claims that Paul

would be speaking against the idea that heaven was something you could enter, and then worship with the

Angels.40 Lightfoot,Epistles to the Colossians, 196.41 Moo, Colossians, 225. Moo translates it as going into great detail42 Wright, Colossians, 123.43 Ibid.44 Harris, Colossians, 121.


10/31

10

teachings and visions apart from Christ.

The problems of these opponents do not end with humility, worship of Angels, or

their delusions, since they are utilized to puff up ones own self (). These

opponents humility was not for the community of Christ, but it was a cover-up for their

own pride.45

The preposition of means denotes that these things were done by their

own fleshly mind ( ). Allowing their minds to take precedent

and thus losing contact from the head.46

Again, the overarching problem of these

passages is that the opponents appear to remove the centrality of Christ to the fixation on

other things such as angels, humility, and legalism. The phrase

is connected to the last statement with the connective conjunction , connecting this

phrase to the condemnation (). There has been a progression of seldom-

defined practices which leads ultimately to what Saint Paul is trying to communicate.

Whoever these opponents are, they no longer hold fast to Christ, and as a result are no

longer united to Christ. The word adds negation to 47 (holding fast to), another

participle that agrees with the subject of , showing that while this

condemnation is in process they are not holding fast to the head (). Thus, there is

separation between anyone who might try to condemn the Colossians (because of a lack

of adherence some legal practice), and the which is in reference to the body of

Christ (c.f. Eph 4:16),48

who are Gods people.

Indeed, it is the Body that has unity with the head (Christ); instead of these

supposed opponents who appear to put their emphasis into other things. Aristotle speaks

45 Lightfoot,Epistles to the Colossians, 198.46 Bruce, Colossians, 113.47 All the participles that are working with are attendant circumstance.48 Ibid., 122.


11/31

11

of two kinds of union contact and cohesion when explaining the

connection of different parts together [to] effect structural union.49 Paul also utilizes

similar language in order to give a description of the relation between the head ()

and the body (). The preposition of source denotes that it is the head (),

that is the source of the proceeding participles (supported)

(unites).50 The preposition of agency () also connects the means by

which the body and its source of life are related.51

Furthermore, the participles

(supported) (unites) areparticles of means, showing

that this is the means by which the growth occurs. However, we shouldnt put too much

emphasis on this phrase into how the members grow, but rather we should realize that

Paul is emphasizing Christ as its source.52

Finally, the progression of these passages ends

with the idea that God is the producer of the growth of the body. The phrase

here refers both to the ultimate growth () and the growing()

produced by God when one is united to the head.53

As Saint John Chrysostom wrote, All

the Church, so long as she holds The Head, increases,54 which Paul argues these

opponents, whoever they may be, have not done. Thus, these opponents have no part in

the body of Christ, since it is the head through which all the body acquires its growth and

capacity to function.55

49 Lightfoot, Colossians, 199. See also Dunn, Colossians, 186. Dunn notes that this is an ancient

medical term; cf. Moo, Colossians, 230. Moo also finds this to be a body metaphor to make an illustration,when it pertains to the relationship between the head and the body.

50 Harris51 Harris, Colossians, 12452 Moo, Colossians, 232; contra Dunn, Colossians,53 Ibid.54 Chrysostom,Homily 7 on Colossian, Homily 7. See also Dunn, Colossians, 187. Dun states that

the concern here is more ecclesiological than christological: failure to hold to Christ is destructive of thebodys unity and growth.

55 Bruce, Colossians, 123.


12/31

12

In conclusion, we have found that whoever Pauls opponents may be, their

teachings and practices were not centered upon Christ, but for puffing oneself up.

Furthermore, we established that the opponents teachings were not centered upon

Christs role of establishing us as a people of God, by perhaps turning to other teachings

such as Torah or worship of angels. As a result they would disqualify us as the people of

God through judging us by things other than Christ. Thus, the Colossians are edified by

being reminded that it is not asceticism or law that denotes the Body of Christ, but that is

Christ who they should hold fast to in order to prosper and be the body () which is

united to the head (Christ).


13/31

13

APPENDIX A: SYNTACTICAL NOTES

Verse 16

NegationInferential Conjunction

indefinite pronoun, nominative, singular, masculine, subject is personal pronoun, 2

ndperson, accusative plural | direct object

Present active imperative 3

rdper sing | Prohibition

: Object of preposition | Dative Singular Feminine: Preposition, + dative | referential/locat.Could be instrumental/causal (Harris, 118)

Disjunctive conjunction

56

: Object of a preposition | Dative, Singular, Feminine: Preposition, + dative | referential/locat.

Could be instrumental/causal|

BDAG sees this as an act of drinking (855)

,


: Object of a Preposition | Dative, Singular, Neuter: Preposition, + dative | reference or respect : could be a stylistic

variant of the previous s according to Harris (Harris, 118)Could also be manner

Partitive | Genitive, Singular, Feminine | Modifying These are the parts of the eating and drinking.

Perhaps descriptive


56 It seems to meit is or, not the connective and. In computer programming for instance, AND gives

the idea of both conditions needing to be present. Namely, you can let them judge you when it is food only,

or drink only, but not when they are together! I think that would be the wrong idea. Additionally, Harris

notes that the repeated shows that dietary regulations concerning food and drink are being viewedseparately (Harris, 118). Both are viewed separately, something that the English word or gives to thispassage. Thus, I would say that it is disjunctive even though the word given is in order to give theidea that even if it is only drinking, you are not to be judged.


14/31

14

Epexegetical | Genitive, Singular, Feminine | Modifying

Perhaps partitive


,Epexegetical | Genitive, Singular, Neuter | Modifying Perhaps partitive

Verse 17

,Relative pronoun | nominative, plural, neuter | Subject of

The antecedent is most likely all of the things previously stated. However,

Harris notes that the antecedent can be just (Harris, 118)

Finite verb | Present Active Indicative, 3

rd

person, singularProgressive

Predicate Nominative | Nominative, Singular, Feminine

BDAG notes it is opposed ,Adjectival, Substantival | Present active participle plural genitive neuter

Genetive is functioning as attributive maybe?

Contrastive Conjunction

Perhaps Emphatic Conjunction -> Christ is certainly lord of the Sabbath?(Harris)

: Subject | Nominative, singular, neuter | Subject of an implied finite

verb

BDAG notes it is in contrast to (984)Possessive | Genitive, Singular, Masculine

modifying NETS Bible notes sees it as is appositional and translated as such: the

reality is Christ.Verse 18

Substantival (Wallace, 292) | Nominative, Singular, Masculine

Subject of Direct Object of | Personal pronoun, 2nd person, accusative,plural.


15/31

15

Prohibition | Present, Active, Imperative, 3

rdperson, singular

Harris notes that this can be trans. Which allows it to take an accusativeobject.(Harris, 120) This is what I did.

Attendant Circumstance |Present, Active, Participle, singular, nominative,masculine

Given that I render it as Attendant Circumstance, it would dependent semantically

to the verb Harris also states that it could also be read

1. Adverbly with 2. Adverbly or Adjectivally with 3. Modal sense, being septuaginitism4. Modal sense, meaning Order, require : by insisting

on

Perhaps Participle of meansMoule notes that this may be better taken as a Semitism (= delighting in) than

as though were uses absolutely, separate from the (183)Could also be attributive

: Object of a Preposition, | dative, singular, feminineBDAG notes that humility can also be wrongly directed (989)

: Preposition, + dative | instrumentalperhaps manner , or means

,Connective ConjunctionObject of a preposition -> governed by | Dative Singular Feminine

The dative could be functioning as instrumental

Objective | Genitive, Plural, Masculine

Harris notes it could be Subjective The worship of God of angels orAngelic worship or Worship with Angels

BDAG notes that it is Objective Genitive (459)

,

57Object of,Relative pronoun | Accusative, plural, neuterMoulton notes that we might take the translation of

as upon what he vainly imagined in the vision of his initiation (making theconjectural emendations unnecessary) (246)

57 Textual Variant, pg 690 of greek bible, pg 122 of harris


16/31

16

Finite Verb | perfect active indicative, 3rd

person singular

maybe Perfect Tense: Intensive.

,Temporal | Present active participle, singular nominative, masculine

Harris notes that since this agrees with the subject of , it depicts

the attendant circumstance of on the attempted disqualification. (121)BDAG notes it can be, subjective translated as entering at length upon the tale ofwhat one has seenin a vision (321). It appears to me if it were to work this way, thenperhaps we have an idea of visions being shared with each other. Perhaps delusions.

BDAG is not clear what they mean by this though.Could be attributive

,Manner | Adverb,

Qualifying

Attributive | present passive participle, singular, nominative, masculine

: Object of a preposition | Genitive, Singular Masculine: means

Attributive | Genitive, Singular, Feminine

modifying Harris notes that this can be subjective to [the attitude] produced by the

flesh (Harris, 123),Possessive | Genitive, Singular, Masculinemodifies both and

,Connective Conjunction

Negation | adverbPorter notes that some instances occurs with the indicative and with theparticiple Grammarians have attempted various explanations for these

occurrences. They may simply be grammatical slips (284)Attendant Circumstance |present active participle, singular, nominative,

masculine

BDAG notes it is working with the accusative (565)NETS translates it as a finite verbCould be attributive

,Direct Object of | accusative, singular, feminine


17/31

17

Source | Preposition

Harris notes that it can be source of either growth (relating to near the endof the verse)

or it can be the source of nourishment and unity (relating to and Relative Pronoun | genitive, Singular, Masculine

Antecedent is Attributive |Nominative, Singular, Neuter

Subject of | Nominative, Singular, Neuter

: Object of a preposition | genitive, plural, feminine: Proposition, + genitive | Agency/InstrumentalHarris notes that this belongs to with both nouns and participles

Connective Conjunction

Object of a preposition | Genitive, Plural, Masculine

Object of BDAG notes w. (966)

Means | Present Passive Participle singular nominative, neuter

Perhaps Circumstantial

Connective Conjunction

Means | Present, Passive, participle, singular nominative, neuter

Perhaps Circumstantial

Finite Verb | present, active, indicative, 3

rdperson, singular

Harris notes it can be Trans. Or Intrans.

Direct Object of Transitive Verb | accusative, singular, feminineCognate accusative

Also according to Harris (124) is the accusative of inner contentGenitive of Producer | genitive, singular, Masculine

Harris notes that it can also be


18/31

18

1. Subjective2. Gen of source3. Qualitative4. Gen of reference

APPENDIX B: EXPANDED PARAPHRASE

16

, 1758 , . 18

58 There is one insignificant textual variant that introduces the word .


19/31

19

,

, , 19

,

.

16Therefore, do not let anyone judge you, with reference to eating or with reference to

drinking, in the matter of a feast, or a new moon, or a Sabbath,17

[all] which are shadows

of things that were to come, but the body [that casts the shadow] belongs to Christ.18

Do

not [let] anyone condemn you desirous of effecting [the condemnation] by humility and

the worship of Angels, taking stands on that which he has seen, inflated without cause by

his fleshly mind,19

and not holding fast to the head, from whom all the body, by the

ligaments and sinews being supported and unites, grows a growth produced by God.


20/31

20

APPENDIX C: WORD STUDIES

1. Number of times used in the Scriptures

a. 1 timei. Colossians 1 times2. Number of times the word is used by Paul

a. 1 times3. Range of meaning:

a. Classical usage: being cast in his suit by means of Meidias.(LSJ)b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: N/A (Lust)c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use: arbitrator, umpire (Moulton)d. Hellenistic Biblical usage:; rob of a prize, condemn; decide against

(BDAG, 321)

Conclusion: In other writings, this word can be seen as deciding against as an

umpire, giving the idea of someone sort of condemnation if this empire deemsyou to be condemned. Col 2:18 would see then Pauls opponents as doingsomething that only Christ should be able to do.


a. 3 timesi. Colossians 1 times

2. Number of times the word is used by Paula. 1 times

3. Range of meaning:a. Classical usage: step in or on, frequent, haunt; enter on, come into

possession of; mount, cover, of the male; to be initiated into the mysteries.(LSJ)

b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: to step in or on; to enter on, to come intopossession of; to enter into a subject, to go into detail (Lust)

c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use:d. Hellenistic Biblical usage: humility, set foot upon, enter, visit; come into

possession of, acquire; investigate closely, enter into (BDAG, 321)

Conclusion: The literal meaning seems to be enter in. However, it is not actuallyclear that this is how Paul meant to use the word in either to mean entering anoracle for interpretation of what he has seen orentering at length upon the tale

of what one has seen."4. Number of times used in the Scriptures

a. 7 timesi. Acts 1 time

ii. Ephesians 1 timeiii. Philippians 1 timeiv. Colossians 3 times


21/31

21

v. 1 Peter 1 time5. Number of times the word is used by Paul

a. 5 times6. Range of meaning:

a. Classical usageb.

Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: Never used (Lust)c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use

d. Hellenistic Biblical usage: humility, modesty (BDAG, 889)7. Context of word

Passage Notes

Eph 4:2

, ,

with all humility and gentleness,with patience, showing tolerance

for one another in love, (NASB)

Humility here is a positive thing

There is a communal aspect to this humility,namely it is for one another

With With all The syntacticalforce that gives it the idea of manner.

Philippians 2:3

, ,

Do nothing from selfishness or

empty conceit, but with humilityof mind regard one another as

more important than yourselves;

Humility here is seen as a positive thing

There is a communal aspect to this humility,namely it is for one another

The syntactical force that gives it the idea ofmannerbut with humility

Colossians 2:18

, , ,

Let no one keep defrauding you

of your prize by delighting in

self-abasement and the worshipof the angels, taking his stand on

visions he has seen, inflated

without cause by his fleshlymind,

Humility here is seen as negative

No communal aspect to this humility. Rather,

it is self-abasement

Only time this one uses preposition . Couldbe manner/means/instrumental.


22/31

22

Colossians 2:23

, .

These are matters which have, to

be sure, the appearance of

wisdom in self-made religion

and self-abasement and severetreatment of the body, but are of

no value against fleshly

indulgence.

Humility here is seen as negative

No communal aspect to this humility. Rather,

it is self-abasement

The here again probably denotes manner.

Colossians 3:12

, ,,, ,,

So, as those who have been

chosen of God, holy and

beloved, put on a heart ofcompassion, kindness, humility,

gentleness and patience;

Colossians 3:13 bearing with

one another

Humility here is seen as a positive thing

There is a communal aspect to this humility,

namely it is for one another

This time it doesnt appear to be manner.

Conclusion: In the Pauline writings, can either be somethingpositive, which is of Christian character (Col 3:12) as well as something for theedifying of the Christian Church (cf. Col 3:12, Phil 2:3, Eph 4:2). However, it is

not always used for Christian character. It can have negative connotations when it

is not used for the Church, but to puff up oneself, and individualistic in nature (cf.Col 2:18, 23).


a. 7 times in NT, 53 times in LXXi. In the NT

1. Matthew 1 time


23/31

23

2. Mark 1 time3. Luke 1 time4. Acts 1 time5. Colossians 1 time6. Hebrews, 2 times

2.Number of times the word is used by Paula. 3 times

3. Range of meaning:a. Classical usage: overshadow, shade, darken.(LSJ)b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: shade, shadow (Lust)c. Hellenistic Non-Biblical use:d. Hellenistic Biblical usage: shade or shelter from light and any heat

associated with it, shade(BDAG, 929). The shape cast by an object as it

blocks rays of light, shadow; a mere representation of something real,shadow (BDAG, 930)

4. Context of worda.

In the LXX, I skimmed over all 53 times it occurred. It usually refers to ashade, or gives the imagery of a shadow in which one takes refuge under.

Its never paired with the law, and it is never paired with drinking oreating.

Passage Notes

Mark 4:32

, ,

yet when it is sown, it grows upand becomes larger than all the

garden plants and forms large

branches; so that THE BIRDSOF THE AIR can NEST UNDER

ITS SHADE. (NASB)

modified by

object of preposition

Here the word is used for a physical shadow

cast by the tree.

refers to the kingdom of God (Mark4:32) (when it is sown...)

Matthew 4:16

,

THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING

: modified by and

: object of proposition

is locative.

Interestingly, the next verse has Jesus preachto them the kingdom of heaven. The Shadow

of death has a light coming into it this shadow


24/31

24

IN DARKNESSSAW A GREAT

LIGHT,

AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN

THE LAND AND SHADOW OF

DEATH,UPON THEM A LIGHTDAWNED.(NASB)

of death.

Perhaps there is a contrast; the Kingdom of

heaven is contrasted to something else, in this

case, the shadow of death.

Luke 1:79

TO SHINE UPON THOSE

WHO SIT IN DARKNESS ANDTHE SHADOW OF DEATH,

To guide our feet into the

way of peace. (NASB)

: modified by and


is locative.

Again, like Matthew 4:16, there is shadow or

darkness that people are in, and a light guidesthem into the way of peace

Furthermore, Zachariass Prophecy is aboutChrist and Salvation. Remembering His holycovenant with Abraham. (Luke 1:72) andthat this referring to the child is given toHis people (Luke 1:77).

Perhaps there is a contrast; Christ is

contrasted to something else, in this case, to

whatever was before Christ: the shadow ofdeath.

Acts 5:15

, .

to such an extent that they evencarried the sick out into the

streets and laid them on cots and

pallets, so that when Peter came

by at least his shadow might fallon any one of them. (NASB)

: subject is the one falling upon people

Pretty disconnected from the other verses.Not used for reference to kingdom of God or

law.


25/31

25

Isaiah 9:2

, ,

.

The people who walk in darknessWill see a great light;

Those who live in a dark land,

The light will shine on them.

(NASB)

: modified by and


is locative.

Colossians 2:17

,

.

things which are a mere shadow

of what is to come; but thesubstance belongs to Christ.

+ make it refer to back to verse16, Namely, modifies those things. Either it

refers to orall of them.

subject

: nominative predicatethese things arequalified as shadows, but shadows perhaps

are not all those things.

: Attributed. The things to comeare qualified by the shadow.

givethe idea of Torah.

Hebrews 8:5

(,,, , )

who serve a copy andshadow of the heavenly things,

just as Moses was warned by

Godwhen he was about to erect

the tabernacle; for, SEE, Hesays, THAT YOU MAKE all thingsACCORDING TO THE PATTERN

WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE

modified by (heavenly)

heredenotes the idea that. Verse 8:4 ends with

setting up the context that the

shadow refers to the law.


26/31

26

MOUNTAIN.Hebrews 10:1

,

,

For the Law, since it has only a

shadow of the good things to

come and not the very form ofthings, can never, by the same

sacrifices which they offer

continually year by year, makeperfect those who draw near.

again is what the shadow is referringto

: direct object

: perhaps referring to Christ? Theimage and form? Christ is the image ()of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). There could

be the idea of contrasting the shadow to theimage (Christ)?

Philo The Decalogue (82)

,

(Exod. 20,7).

Now the principle on which thisorder or arrangement proceeds is

very plain to those who are gifted

with acute mental vision; for thename is always subsequent in

order to the subject of which it is

the name; being like the shadow() which follows the body().59

Having, therefore, previously

spoken of the existence of God,

The name here is compared to what it

represents

59 Philo of Alexandria, & Yonge, C. D. (1995). The works of Philo: Complete and unabridged(525).

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.


27/31

27

and also of the honour to be paid

to the everlasting God; he then,following the natural order of

connection proceeds to command

what is becoming in respect of

his name; for the errors of menwith respect to this point are

manifold and various, andassume many different

characters.60

Conclusion: In the Pauline writings, the term shadow is used only once (Col 2:17). Itis used to something that is very similar to the law, referring to back to verse 16, or at least . In the gospel writings, it isused as a contrast between a place people were (Shadow of Death) to the kingdom (Mark

4:32, Matthew 4:16) or to Christ himself (Luke 1:67-80). In Hebrews it is used to refer to

the Law. (Heb 8:5, 10:1). Furthermore, in Hebrews 10:1 there appears to be a contrastbetween image/form and shadow (law). Philo also uses it in a way to contrast somethingto what it represents. We should note that this does not mean that Paul is actually dealing

with Torah in the same way it is in Hebrews, but given the textual evidence it is very easy

to want to move towards this position.


a. 239 times in the LXXb. 15 times in the NT

2. Number of times the word is used by Paula.

43 timesi. 17 times in 1 Cor

ii. 18 times in Romiii. 2 times in 2 Coriv. 1 time in Colv. 1 time in 2 Thess

vi. 1 time in 2 Timvii. 1 time in Titus

viii. 2 times in Hebrews3. Range of meaning:

a. Classical usage: to Judge; decide against; pick out, choose; .in Trag.,question; bring to trial, accuse (LSJ)

b. Hellenistic Biblical usage [LXX]: to judge, to consider, to think; to decideto, to determine to do [+inf.]; to condemn, to punish []; M/P: todispute, to contend (LSJ)

c. Hellenistic Biblical usage: to make a selection, select, prefer; to passjudgment upon (and thereby seek to influence) the lives and actions of

60 Philo of Alexandria, & Yonge, C. D. (1995). The works of Philo: Complete and unabridged(525).

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.


28/31

28

other people; pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with,

condemn; to make a judgment based on taking various factors into

account, judge, think, consider, look upon; to come to a conclusion after acognitive process, reach a decision, decide, propose, intend; to engage in a

judicial process, judge, decide, hale before a court, condemn, also hand

over for judicial punishment; to ensure justice for someone, see to it thatjustice is done. (BDAG, 567)

Conclusion: In the context of Col 2, there could be some warrant for viewing this

as also hand over for judicial punishment or perhaps to seek influence on orpass judgment upon one. Criticize doesnt seem to be what we should be lookingat. Furthermore, this is different than the Corinthians problems in that there was

no meat sacrificed to idols (cf. Col 2:14).

APPENDIX D: SERMON OUTLINE: COLOSSIANS 2:16-19

Introduction:

A. Bible Arc ReviewB. Pauls Mystery Opponents


29/31

29

Overview of Context:

A. Pauls warning of being taken captive by the ruling powersB. : Judgement and Gods people

Jewish Law

A. Eating and drinking and the referential B. Problem: beverages not needed to be the people of GodC. Eating and drinking and its connect to the LXXD. The Antecedent to E. and the Law as a shadowF. and its double meaning.

The Body and disqualification

A. and disqualification as a peopleB. and desirous of effectingC. How will they disqualify the Colossians?D. HumilityE. Worshipping the AngelsF. Proto-gnostic Speculation on ArchonsG. Taking his stand on visions and its hard to grasp meaningH. Puffing up ones own self.

Union with the head and prospering as the people of God

A. Classical use of and .B. Growing the Body

Conclusion

Discussion


30/31

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism: The Interface between Christianity and

Folk Belief at Colossae. Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Books, 1996.

Barth, Markus., and Blanke, Helmut. Colossians: A New Translation with introduction

and commentary. Broadway, NY: Doubleday, 1996.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker.A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd

ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.

Bird, Michael F. Colossians Philman. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2009.

Bruce, F. F. Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians . NICNT.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Caird, G.B.Paul's Letters From Prison. Oxford University press, Great Britian, 1976.

Carson, D. A.Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996.

Chrysostom, Saint John.Homily 7 on Colossians, translated by John A. Broadus. Buffalo,

NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230307.htm (accessed on March 8, 2013).

Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGNT. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Farley, Lawrence R. The Epistle To the Romans: A Gospel For All. The Orthodox Bible

Study Companion. Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2002.

Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. EGGNT. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

Lightfoot, J.B. Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. ZondervanPublishing House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1981.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. PNTC. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2008.

Moulton, James Hope.A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol 3. T. & T. Clark:Edinburgh, 1976.


31/31

Porter, Stanley E.Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press,1992.

Swete, H. B. Vol. 3: The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michael-bremner
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Colossians II 16 19 Draft 2 Final

Documents