Download a PDF here:
Having removed "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (v. 14), we can "therefore" walk in freedom as it relates to things we eat, drink, or the celebration (or non-celebration) of holy days. Each of the things mentioned in v. 16 relate to the Law. When Christians substitute Mosaic Law for a new law, or they put themselves back under Mosaic law, they reject the glories of this dispensation which God has given. The imposition of kosher regulations or feast observances or sabbath days is a return to the Law. Sadly, many find a self-congratulatory comfort in returning to portions of the Law, almost always insisting that others join them.
In Greek, the words "shadow" and "body" share a poetic resonance not found in English. They are σκιά (skia) and σῶμα (soma), respectively. In this context, σῶμα (soma) represents the reality, while σκιά (skia) stands for the testimony or witness.
The use of the present tense linking verb, "are," in this context is intriguing. If the things of verse 16 are the "shadow" of a "body" yet to come, then it raises the question of why we or anyone else would want to dissociate from these things. This presents several possibilities for interpretation:
We could reinterpret "are" as "were," implying that these things were precursors to Christ, now fulfilled in Him. Since the shadows have completed their "pre-announcement" function and the body is now present in reality, it would make sense that we would not want to be judged by the shadows, but by the substance. However, this interpretation of verb tenses is rather liberal ought to make us uncomfortable. In practicality, however, I suspect that almost all evangelical interpretations of this verse assume that “are” means “were.” In fact, the New International Version simply disregards the present tense and translates the beginning of verse 17 as, “These are a shadow of the things that were to come.” There really is no linguistic basis for this change, as far as I am aware. It seems the NIV has made adjustments in tense to reflect their perceived intent of the original text. In this regard the NIV is not a Bible version, but rather a version of evangelical perception of the meaning rather than the words of Scripture. But what the NIV has done “on paper,” most evangelical teachers do “in voice,” assuming a past-tense rather than present tense. For example, Bibleref.com, a ministry of Got Questions?, has this commentary on verse 17:
“This is the reason adherence to the Law is not a requirement: The Law was merely an outline; it is a shadow, or a hint of things to come. Christ is the actual substance. In making this statement, Paul did not speak against the Law, but rather spoke of Jesus as superior to the Mosaic law. It is the difference between a book and the author of a book. The Law could not exist without the Author. Jesus serves as the author of life (Acts 3:15). He fulfilled the Law…” [FN1]
BibleRef.com. "What Does Colossians 2:17 Mean?" BibleRef.com, accessed 20 June 2024, www.bibleref.com/Colossians/2/Colossians-2-17.html.
In saying, “Christ is the actual substance” they change “are” to “were,” making the verse past tense.
Another possibility is to see them as a foreshadowing of the future messianic reign (thus "Christ" in a future sense), which aligns with the verb tense but prompts the question of why Paul wouldn't regard them as still worthy of adherence. By interpreting the present tense as referring to the future, it implies that these observances still have significance as they point to future realities in Christ. This perspective maintains that while Christ has come, there remains an eschatological aspect that these shadows still signify.
Some would suggest that there is a “shadow” factor in the Jewish feasts, giving at least some of them a futurist interpretation. While this satisfies the future aspect of the verb-tense, it does not satisfy the curious question of Paul seemingly abandoning that which still displays an outline or shadow of the future. Furthermore, verse 16, it seems, has far more than just the Jewish feast days, including kosher regulations and Sabbath observance.
Alternatively, we could take a somewhat poetic approach, not interpreting them as shadows (outlines), but rather as not being "the important thing" in a person's relationship with Christ. However, on the surface it seems there are far better ways to communicate that one thing is more important than another.
While I am reticent to take a poetic interpretation of any verse in which the context does not clearly demand it, this may be a case for doing so. There is the poetic resonance in the Greek previously mentioned between σκιά (skia) and σῶμα (soma). Further, the things of v. 16 are not a literal "shadow," so some degree of figurative interpretation is required. Finally, Paul is giving us a freedom to do with these things as we wish, which seems at odds with option #2 above, and option #1 above takes a rather flippant attitude towards verb tenses. So, while I am reticent to take poetic interpretations, I think that is the best solution here.
Considering Hebrews 10:1 can add useful context to this discussion. The verse states, "the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things...." This passage, presumably written around A.D. 68, addresses Hebrews, for whom the obligations of the Law would be quite different from those for Gentiles. Both Colossians and Hebrews discuss aspects of the Law, using the present tense and referring to these aspects as a shadow of future things. Both are written to different audiences but convey similar messages. Moreover, if we interpret the theme of verses 16-17 as "Christ is superior," this aligns with the overarching theme of Hebrews, further supporting a poetic interpretation of Colossians 2:17.
After instructing us to “let no man...judge you” (v. 16), Paul now warns us not to “let no man beguile you of your reward”. The Greek term used here, 'καταβραβεύω' (katabrabeuo), means 'beguile', and is unique to this passage in the New Testament. The root word, 'brabeuo', denotes 'to rule or control', as used in sports-related contexts like an umpire. The prefix 'kata' intensifies the root, hence the word represents 'overextended control'. The apt analogy is an umpire who excessively controls the game beyond the rules and cheats you out of the prize. It's essential to note that 'reward' isn't present in the original text but is implied by the Greek term's necessary extension.
Paul then lists three behaviors of those who might beguile you of your reward:
At the core, this person is “vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” Such a person should not be given leeway in our lives.
Paul underscores that this individual, possibly a Judaizer, is "not holding the Head," which is undoubtedly a reference to Jesus Christ. Though Paul is speaking metaphorically about the Body of Christ, he employs highly accurate physiological understanding, demonstrating him to be a learned man in a learned society addressing other educated individuals. The body is held together "by joints and bands," and these joints and bands draw their nourishment from the head.