"in meat or in drink"
(This page was last edited on April 23, 2003)
The first thing we should note here is that the Greek word here is "kai" not "n" (I'm using the UBS 4th revised edition text for the Greek and the Nestle-Aland 3rd edition which is based on the 26th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece).1 We should also point out that some commentators miss this fact.2
The phrase "in meat or drink" can refer to a number of possibilities. It is either: what is being eaten or drunk that is being considered here, as in the NIV, Beck or New American translations, "what you eat or drink",3 or that, Paul is talking about "dietary regulations."4 An interesting alternative here can be found in Knight's suggestion that the "Gnostics wished to lay down ascetic rules and regulations about what a man could eat and drink ...".5
If one were to take "meat" to be referring to clean or unclean foods then one has to explain, as virtually all commentators that I have seen have failed to do, what is clean or unclean about what is being drunk?6 It is also interesting to note how many talk about unclean meats and then skip the "drink" entirely!7 And I certainly can't blame them for that! However, Bowman correctly notes that "the Law did not declare any drinks unclean."8 This particular point was noted by Olshausen back in 1851!9 O'Brien points out that while there were some minor exceptions10 there was no prohibition concerning drinks.11 Ash points out that Lev. 10:9; 11:34, 36 and Num. 6:3 "were special cases.".12
One unique suggestion in an email message about this verse was that possibly Paul was talking about "blood drinks" that some pagan rituals required. Of course, it is highly unlikely that Paul would then admonish them to not let others judge them for doing so; he'd probably use even stronger language than he used in Galatians!
Matthew Henry's comment on this verse refers to the ceremonial laws which "consisted in the distinction of meats and days."13 To which we can ask: Where's the distinction about drinks? Note instead the astute observation by Walker, that "the topic in question was decidedly not clean and unclean meats but asceticism versus Christian rejoicing and feasting."14
We can safely say that Barclay exceeds the bounds of the evidence when he says that Gnostic asceticism "is a return to all the food laws of the Jews, with their lists of things clean and unclean."15 Likewise, Yates when he claims that this is about "abstention from food and drink."16 The weakness of these claims can be very quickly seen by asking: In what way would the unclean food laws, or abstaining from food and drink, be a "shadow of things to come"? Like the above, Bengel simply states: "meat, drink, etc., are the shadow of things to come" without offering any sort of proof as to how and why this is so.17
Harris claims that "by metonymy" the Greek words here "can be equivalent" to "food" and "drink."18 Unfortunately, there is no way we can tell if this is so in this particular context nor does he offer any proof for it. The only other scholar whom I have seen that makes a similar appeal is Barth who claims, also without offering support, that these words can "designate not only food and drink but also the act of eating and drinking."19 Note that this interpretation does not escape the dilemma we have already noted about there being no law about clean/unclean drinks. I think we can consider this option as not very likely.
b) Another unlikely alternative is the suggestion that these words "concern fasting and ascetic practices that were foreign to normative Judaism at the time. Fasting and vegetarianism were more associated with paganism at that time."20 A similar view was expressed by Newton: "it could be that some of the local customs which believed that demons loved food and drink so much that they could invade peoples lives through the vehicle of food and drink. So, in order to avoid demons, the person was to fast or at a minimum, refrain from eating certain foods."21 Are we really to believe that the same Paul who used the strong language of Galatians when they were reverting to Judaistic practices would now write in such a gentle and mild manner to a church that was consorting with paganism? However, there is another possibility here: is it possible that these words could, at least in part, concern feasting/fasting and/or ascetic practices were normative to Judaism at that time?
c) does the "eating and drinking" refer, as Mansell
suggests, to what is being offered "unto the Lord" (Lev. 23:37)?22 It
has been noted that according to Num. 28:9-10 meal and drink offerings were
offered every Sabbath. So, according to the SDA Bible Commentary:
These words doubtless refer to the meal and drink offerings presented by the Israelites in compliance with the sacrificial system, which was codified in the ceremonial law.23
After looking at all the verses that mention the series of calendrical occasions that are either exactly or relatively identical with those given Col 2:16 Giem concludes that these are "a way of describing those offerings" that would have been made on those days.24 However, Richardson notes that then the correct terminology would have been "thusia" and "spendo."25 Or,
d) it has been suggested that the food and drink refers to the communion service with its bread and drink (citing 1 Corinthians 11:232-26 and John 6:52-57) as support. Bowen notes that these while symbolizing the death of Christ "foreshadow things to come, i.e., eternal life."26 Unfortunately, for this unique approach to the problem at hand, in 1 Cor 11 Paul doesn't use the same terms as found here; there bread is "arton" and drink is "pino".27 Or,
e) the act of eating and drinking (could it be a short-hand for "feasting or fasting as the case may be"?).28 Armstrong points out that the Greek here means "in eating and drinking."29 Walker notes that the topic in question here is not the what is being eaten "but asceticism versus Christian rejoicing and feasting".30 And Richison who notes that the "terms "food" and "drink" refer to the acts of eating and drinking. It is not a question of food and drink; it is a matter of ascetic attitudes toward them."31 Bacchiocchi points to verse 21 where it says, "Touch not; taste not; handle not" for support of the view that the dietary prescriptions of the Mosaic law are not indicated here.32 Blair points to verse 21 as well noting that verse 16 here refers to prohibitions or taboos "of human origin" and that Christians "are free from ascetic regulations".33 Also, Richardson notes that the words used here "brosei" and "posei" have action endings.34 De Lacey concurs that it is the acts of eating and drinking that are in view here and not the "foodstuffs and liquids themselves".35
We also need to consider whether it is the feasting on the specific days which are then mentioned, or is it, feasting vs. fasting as per the ascetic regimen "to serve the purpose of chastising the body" and/or as "preparation for a visionary experience (cf. 2:18) and evidently ... had become part of the cultic celebrations being advocated in Colossae in order to appease the "elemental spirits of the universe" (2:8, 20)."?36 This interpretation has the obvious and distinct advantage of paying attention to the immediate context.
ENDNOTES
1. The only translations that I have found so far that have handled this correctly are the RSV, the NRSV, the NAB, the Amplified Bible, Authentic New Testament, Cassirer New Testament, Holy Bible in Modern English, Jewish New Testament, New Evangelical Translation, Noli New Testament, Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, Williams New Testament and Lamsa which uses the Near Eastern Aramaic text (Lamsa has the text as "eating and drinking"; see also the Williams translation). Back to text
2. For instance, see Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. (Macmillan, 1892) [page 190; he has it correct on page 191] and Scott, E. F. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. Moffat New Testament Commentary (Harper & Row, 1930): page 51. Back to text
3. However, Peake, [A. S. "Colossians," Expositor's Greek Testament. (Eerdmans, 1961 reprint): page 530] writing for the 1942 edition notes that "Paul would have used [broma] and [poma]" if he had meant to refer to simply food and drink. He continues with: "Ascetism rather than ritual cleanness is in his mind. The Law is not ascetic in its character, its prohibitions of meats rest on the view that they are unclean and drinks are not forbidden, save in exceptional cases, and then not for ascetic reasons." Back to text
4. Ridderbos, Herman Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard De Witt (Eerdmans, 1975): page 284. Harrington, Daniel Paul's Prison Letters: On Paul's Letters to Philemon, the Philippians, and the Colossians. Spiritual Commentaries (New City Press, 1997): page 112. Muncherian, Stephen "How to Really Mess Up Our Faith," pages 1-2: "... what was okay to eat and drink and what was not okay to eat and drink - dietary laws." Copeland THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS ". MacDonald [ibid., page 110] while correctly noting the literal meaning of the words goes on to say: "but it is clear that dietary prohibitions are involved"! What was really clear was the absence of any sort of proof in the matter. See also Cannata [Raymond "Staying out of the Shadow-land. Colossians 2:16-23," page 3] who claims that the believers "were being judged, first of all, for not maintaining a strict dietary code." At this point we could, and should, ask: "Who's dietary code?". Hendrickson [William "Exposition of Colossians," New Testament Commentary. (Baker Books, 1964): page 123] suggests that "the false teachers seem to have superimposed their own regulations upon the old Testament laws regarding clean and unclean animals (cf. Lev. 11)." See also Bernard, David K. "Should Christians Keep the Sabbath?" Back to text
5. Knight, John A. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. Beacon Bible Expositions. Volume 9. (Beacon Hill Press, 1985): page 206. See also Vaughan, Curtis "Colossians," Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 11 (Zondervan, 1978): page 203 where he refers to the "peculiar ascetic tendencies of the Colossian heresy." Back to text
6. For instance, see Melik, Jr., Richard R. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. New American Commentary series, vol. 32 (Broadman, 1991): page 267; Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. A Commentary on the Greek Text (Eerdmans, 1996): pages 172-3; Thompson, G. H. P. The Letters of Paul to the Ephesians, to the Colossians and to Philemon. Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge, 1967): page 147 who claims that "what you eat or drink is reminiscent of Jewish rules about distinguishing between what is unclean and clean"; Clarke's Commentary (available online at CLARKE'S COMMENTARY - COLOSSIANS 2 ) boldly states that this refers to "the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law ..."; von Speyr, Adrienne The Letter to the Colossians. Translated by Michael J. Miller (Ignatius Press, 1998): pages 94-5, and Campbell, Ernest R. Colossians and Philemon. (Canyonview Press, 1982): page 109. See also, Zerwick, Max and Mary Grosvenor's A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. 3rd edition (Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988): page 607. Carson, Herbert Colossians and Philemon. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans, 1960): page 72 -- has the following: "... ceremonially eating or drinking unclean foods or drinks". To which we can then ask: What was ceremonial about eating unclean foods? The singular exception is by MacArthur " Spiritual Intimidation--Part 1". The flaw in his argument is that he fails to note the special circumstances surrounding the few exceptions. In all fairness we should note that they are not alone in this regard. For instance, in one pro-sabbatarian web page (Popular Arguments Against the Sabbath ) it takes these words to refer to the "clean food laws of Leviticus 11." See also, Evans, [Darroll " Colossians-Chapter 2 ," page 7 when he re-writes the text as "in things you eat or drink".
How Dibelius (noted by Rienecker, Fritz A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament. (Regency Reference Library, 1980): page 575) sees in this a reference to "indulgence in wine" is beyond me. Perhaps, he was influenced by Lightfoot's speculation [page 191] that the "rigour of the Colossian false teachers ..., like that of their Jewish prototypes the Essenes, went far beyond the injunction of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether ...". Thomas [ibid., page 90] appeals to Lightfoot's speculation on this matter. Note that there is no proof that any of it is true in this circumstance. Back to text
7. See, for instance, Hughes, R. Kent Colossians and Philemon: The Supremacy of Christ. (Crossway Books, 1989): page 82 who refers the reader to the unclean food laws in Lev 11:2-20 and he notes that these were given not only for the "excellent physical reasons"* but, for "spiritual reasons" as well, "for the distinctions between foods were meant to familiarize God's people with the fact of purity and impurity, and thus to stimulate the conscience in everyday life. But when Jesus came, these dietary laws were abolished." Note the complete absence of any Scriptural proof. Likewise, Pipa [ibid., page 98] who writes that Paul is dealing "with the claim that because certain foods are unclean, the truly holy will abstain from eating them." Warren [ibid., page 5], Faussett in J-F-B Commentary, and Mussner, Franz "The Epistle to the Colossians," in Gnilka, Joachim and Franz Mussner The Epistle to the Philippians and the Epistle to the Colossians. (Herder and Herder, 1971): page 143.
* contra McGee, [J. Vernon Philippians and Colossians. (Thru the Bible Books, 1977): page 164] who writes them off as "ordinances that are only ritual and liturgical"! What in the world would be "ritual and liturgical" about the clean and unclean meat rules? Likewise Paxton [Geoffrey J. "The Shadow and the Solid Reality", Present Truth Volume Nine - Article 3] refers to the "... empirical piety-regulations concerning eating and drinking (2:16)"--where is the piety in eating and drinking? Or, 11. Judging the Day One Keeps : "The sacrificial and dietary laws, and days of the Old Covenant all pointed to Christ." That the sacrifices and some of the ceremonial days pointed to Christ is plain enough; but, how did the dietary laws do that tho'? Back to text
8. Bowman, Jr., Robert M. "Samuele Bacchiocchi on Paul and the Sabbath: A Critique of Samuele Bacchiocchi's Treatment of Colossians 2:16 in His Book From Sabbath to Sunday (Pontifical Gregorian University Press, 1977)," (CRI Statement DB020): page 3 -- this paper is no longer available on the web. Back to text
9. Olshausen, Hermann Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. (T. & T. Clark, 1851): page 360. Back to text
10. See the practices of the Nazarites and Essenes to which several commentators appeal; for instance, Gill, John (1697-1771) Exposition of the Bible and Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. (Eerdmans, 1984): page 114, and Scott, [ibid., page 51]: he notes that the Nazirites and Rechabites were forbidden to drink wine but that this was also "a special vow and entailed a discipline over and above the Law." Back to text
11. O'Brien, Peter "Colossians," Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 44 (Word Books, 1982): page 138. This fact is also noted by Bruce [ibid., page 114]. Back to text
12. Ash [ibid., page 186]; also noted by Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in New Testament. Vol. 3 (Charles Scribner's, 1924): page 493. Available online at VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES - COLOSSIANS 2. Back to text
13. Matthew Henry's Commentary. See also John Wesley's Notes on the Bible on Col. 2:16 where he says that this refers to "the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars." Or, the People's New Testament on Col. 2:16 which takes the verse so far to "requiring you to eat only what the Jewish law prescribes (Lev. 7:10-27) ...". Back to text
14. Walker [ibid., page 3]; Richardson looks at the immediate context (Col. 2:20-3) and arrives at a similar conclusion. He also cites The Interpreter's Bible as being in agreement on this point (Vol. 11 (Abingdon Press, 1990): page 200). See also Lohse [ibid., page 30] who see's this as referring to "scrupulous observance of ascetic dietary regulations". Back to text
15. Barclay [ibid., page 144]. See also Melick [ibid., pages 267-8]; Mussner [ibid., page143] speculates that it "seems likely that the heretics maintained that certain foods were "unclean" ...." Note also the conjecture by Lightfoot [ibid., page 191] that the false teachers in Colossae "doubtless went far beyond the injunctions of the law. It is probable that they forbad wine and animal food altogether." Likewise, Vincent, [ibid., page 494]. See also Guthrie, Donald Epistles From Prison: Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. Bible Guides, #19 (Lutterworth and Abingdon, 1964): page 77 where he suggests that "scruples over food and drink (2:16) all suggest a tendency among certain Christians to regard Christianity as a branch of Judaism." He was correct in observing that the problem Paul was dealing with "lies deeper than appears on the surface;" he just didn't dig deep enough. Of course, we should be nice and point out that there's not too many people who are going to spend two years studying two verses! Back to text
16. Yates, Roy The Epistle to the Colossians. Epworth Commentaries (Epworth Press, 1993): page 58. He then goes on to note that "it is noteworthy that the Jewish law contains little about abstinence from drink." Shouldn't that in and of itself been a good hint that this isn't talking about abstention then? Back to text
17. Bengel, John Albert Bengel's New Testament Commentary. Vol. 2 (Kregel, 1981): page 464. Back to text
18. Harris, Murray J. Colossians & Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Eerdmans, 1991): page 118. Back to text
19. Barth, Markus and Blanke, Helmut Colossians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 34B. (Doubleday, 1994): page 337. See also Vincent's Word Studies, on page 493, which after noting that "properly" these words mean "eating" and "drinking" then notes that the nouns are "used for that which is eaten or drunk" citing John 4:32, 6:27, 55; Romans 14:17. Back to text
20. Paulien, Jon, "An Exegetical Overview of Col 2:13-17; With Implications for SDA Understanding," page 4. Back to text
21. Newton, Phil "Beware of Fakes Colossians 2:16-19," page 2 - note the complete absence of any proof for this claim. And would Paul really refer to these ideas as "shadows of things to come"? Back to text
22. Mansell, D. E. "Thoughts on Colossians 2:14-17," Ministry 44/12 (1971): 27-9; see page 29. Back to text
23. SDA Bible Commentary. vol. 7, page 205. This might be what Nisbett, [Michael John "Difficult Bible Texts"] is thinking when he refers to meat and drink offerings in his one-page glance at Col. 2:14-17. Back to text
24. Giem, Paul "Sabbaton in Col 2:16," Andrews University Seminary Studies 19 (1981): 195-210; see page 206. Back to text
25. Richardson, William E. "Sabbath: nailed to the cross? Colossians 2:14-17 revisited," page 3] and A Study of the Historical Background and the Interpretation of Colossians 2:14-17. M. A. Thesis (Andrews University, August 1960): page 69. See also, Newman [ibid., page 5], Coffen, Richard W. "Colossians 2:14-17," Ministry 45 (1972): 13-5; see page 14, and Coltheart, David An Examination of Colossians 2:14-17. (Andrews University, 1974): page 19 have "thusian" and "sponden" and refer the reader to (LXX): Ex. 29:41; Lev. 2:1-7, 9-10; 23:13, 18, 37; and Num. 6:15; Coffen also notes that "brosis" and "posis" occur in the NT at John 6:55 and Rom. 14:15, 17. The difference in terminology is overlooked by Ratzlaff [ibid., page 2] in his appeal to Ezekiel 45:17. See also Sullivan [ibid., page 6]: "Ezekiel 45:17 uses the exact same expressions in the exact same order as Colossians 2:16, 17 ..." Back to text
26. Bowen, Jim "Colossians 2:16-17," page 1; apparently no longer available on the web]. See also Martin, Troy W. By Philosophy and Empty Deceit: Colossians as a Response to a Cynic Critique. (Sheffield Academic Press, 1996): page 117. Martin suggests that the relative clause "a shadow of things to come" "limits the eating and drinking to the Christian celebration of the Lord's Supper since this meal in contrast to ordinary meals was considered a shadow of things to come."Back to text
27. A similar failure occurs when some appeal to Romans 14; for example, see Dunn [page 173]. Appeal to Romans 14 also involves an ignoring of the context. In the first place, the believers at Colossae were "eating and drinking" with no discussion by Paul about taking into account their brethren of weaker faith. Also, while Romans 14 involves food that was offered to pagan gods there is no evidence that such is the case in Colossae. Back to text
28. Goppelt, Leonhard "poma, posis, poton, potos," TDNT. Vol. 6 (Eerdmans, 1968): 145-60. [pages 145-6]; Lane, William L. Ephesians - 2 Thessalonians. Bible Study Book (Eerdmans, 1969): page 55; Lenski, R. C. H. "Colossians," Commentary on the New Testament. (Hendrickson, 1998 printing): page 123; Eadie, John Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians. (Zondervan, 1957 reprint; orig. 1856): pages 175-6; who notes that "in the writings of Paul [brosei] is uniformly actio edendi" [the act of eating?] and that [posei] "is also the act of drinking"; but, then inexplicably states that these refer "to the dietic injunction of the Mosaic law." Likewise, Scott who has "eating and drinking" [ibid., page 51] but then goes on to talk about "dietary rules" [ibid., page 52]. Vine, W. E. The Expanded Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. (Bethany House, 1984): pages 331, 347 and 443. Back to text
29. Armstrong [ibid., page 1]; see also Huie [ibid., page 10], MacArthur "Spiritual Intimidation--Part 1 ", and Smith, W. R. Expositor's Greek Testament. Vol. 3, page 530; see also the World English translation. Back to text
30. Walker [ibid., page 5]; see also Richardson [ibid., (1960): page 71]. Back to text
31. Richison [ibid., page 2], the J-F-B Commentary simply says that in the Greek it is "eating ... drinking." The Weymouth and Twentieth Century New Testament translations have "eating or drinking". Scott, [ibid., page 51] correctly translates the Greek as "eating and drinking" and yet still goes off an a tangent about "dietary rules". See also the SDA Bible Commentary [ibid., page 205] which translates it as "eating or drinking" and then tries to build the case that this "doubtless refer[s] to the meal and drink offerings ...." Back to text
32. Bacchiocchi, Samuele From Sabbath to Sunday. (Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Press, 1977): page 353. This would be contra Efrid, James M. Christ, The Church, and the End: Studies in Colossians and Ephesians. (Judson Press, 1980): page 70 who simply claims that this "obviously" refers to "eating (or not eating) certain food"; likewise, Rogers, Patrick V. Colossians. (Michael Glazier, Inc., 1980): page 38 when he mentions "particular foods" -- note how easily they skip over the "drinking"! Back to text
33. Blair, Edward P. Philippians, Colossians and First and Second Thessalonians. Basic Bible Commentary (Abingdon Press, 1988): page 88. Back to text
34. This could explain why Wuest has translated the words as "eating" and "drinking." Wuest, Kenneth S. The New Testament: An Expanded Translation. (Eerdmans, 1961): page 472. One email correspondent referred to "brosei" and "posei" as ""action" nouns". Back to text
35. De Lacey [ibid., endnote #163, page 194]; he cites Lohse as support. Cramer, Bob Nguyen at The BIBLETEXTS Online Bible Commentary: Colossians lists the following sources as support:
36. Pokorny, Petr Colossians: A Commentary. Translated by Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Hendrickson, ET, 1991): page 143 who refers to Col. 2:23 ("... neglecting the body ...") as support. Lincoln, A. T. "From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical and Theological Perspective," From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Edited by D. A. Carson (Academie Books, 1982): page 367. See also, for instance, the Walker quote above or Lane [ibid., page 55]. Back to text
Back to Colossians 2:16-17 Main Study Page (introduction)
Created using: The HTML Editor Version 1.3.54