Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Colossians 2:16 ¶ Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Colossians 2:16 ¶ Therefore let no one judge you in regard to food and drink or in regard to [the observance of] a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day. |
Subject: Correcting the translation |
Bible Note: Fixed a bug on the introduction page of my study to Colossians 2:16 (for some reason I got clipped!); here's part of it: For those who might wish to skip the analysis altogether here's the real high points: 1) The words translated as "in meat and drinks" is not about unclean food or dietary laws. This is because there are simply no laws about unclean drinks. Also, the words translated as "in meat and drinks" should be translated as "in eating and drinking." Therefore, it is most likely that these words are about "feasting and fasting as the case may be." So, the believers in Colossae were being criticized about feasting on the days that follow; rather than fasting which the Gnostic ascetics alleged would bring them into a closer union, or communication, with God. 2) The words translated as "in respect of" mean "in portion of"; thus when we link the previous observation with this it is reinforced: the believers at Colossae were being criticized about feasting on the days that follow rather than fasting which the Gnostic ascetics alleged would bring them into a closer union, or communication, with God. It is amazing the number of people who can't seem to read the English translations correctly! The words "in respect of" tell you the days on which the believers were feasting and fasting. In their rush to condemn the seventh-day Sabbath far too many people (even some high-powered scholars among them!) have simply glossed over these very simple words. These words are one of the major keys to understanding these two verses. In effect, these words begin a parenthetical statement that could be dropped with no effect on the meaning of the verses. 3) The Greek word translated as "holyday" (heorte) in the KJV is never used in reference to the Feast of Trumpets or the Day of Atonement. If you wish to check the txts for yourself they are provided in Table 3.16 And both are ceremonial sabbath days. So, Paul would not be redundant to say "sabbath days" if he was trying to list all of the feast days of the Jewish religious economy. This is a crucial key to understanding the text. 4) In looking at the days that are mentioned in Col. 2:16 I believe that it is we as Westerners who would tend to assume that Paul is talking in terms of a calendrical progression: annual, monthly, weekly. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support this assumption. It is true that there is a relationship between the terms; but there is no evidence that it is basedsolely, and only, on the calendar. This idea is being read into the text. 5) Some sources incorrectly claim that the following OT texts exhibit the same, or exact, or identical, progression of terms: 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17 and Hos. 2:11. In fact, only the last two have the same sequence of terms. The verses are given in Table 1 along with notes about the relevant Hebrew words -- see if you can spot the pattern! In Table 2 are three more verses with differing sequences of terminology of worship days. 6) Another key to understanding what Paul meant by "sabbatwn" is given when Paul appears to refer to it as a "shadow" in vs. 17. When compared with the facts that a) the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted before sin and thus before any shadow was necessary and b) even in both accounts of the Law it is given as a memorial and not a shadow or type of something to come.17 Thus, it would be mis-leading, at best, to refer to the seventh-day Sabbath as a "shadow-sabbath." 18 The reasons just given alone, at a minimum, strongly imply that Paul is not talking about the seventh-day Sabbath in vs 16 but rather the ceremonial sabbaths. It has been interesting to note that virtually all of the critics of this study to date never seemed to have had read anything beyond this point! They seem to develop a real severe case of tunnel vision that prevents them from seeing any further. 7) A number of sources attempt to escape the implications of the present tense in vs 17a by changing it to a past tense! |