Note that the phrase "but the body of Christ" seems to be in contrast with the phrase "let no man condemn" producing a chiastic structure.  On the one hand then, the "man" who condemns would refer to the Gnostic ascetic who condemns the physical body as evil and thus also the feasting on the ceremonial days.¹  On the other hand what Paul then seems to be saying is that we shouldn't let these people determine how we are to worship God, we are to let the church (the body of Christ) determine what is, or is not, proper.  Note that elsewhere in this letter to Colossae (Col. 1:18, 24; 3:15) Paul refers to the body of Christ as the church (see also Eph. 1:22-3).²  Schweizer isn't sure if this is a reference to Christ Himself or the church "that is set as reality in contrast to the shadow".³  But, Thurston points out that Paul also uses the word "soma" for the church in verse 19 of this chapter.⁴

     Lenski agrees:

Christians are not to allow any man to judge them in how they observe the festivities of God's Holy Days, but are to let the church of God - the body of Christ - teach them how to properly observe them to the glory of Christ, the very Head of the Body, the Church.⁵

     See also Martin:

The construction of [me oun tis umas krinetow ... to de soma tou kristou] is an antithesis. The negative member is stated first; the contrasting positive member introduced by an adversative conjunction occurs second. ... The verb [krineto] determines the action that is forbidden by the first member and then enjoined by the second member of this antithesis. ... The prohibition in the first clause of the antithesis in Col 2:16 indicates that the nuance of [krineto] is negative. ... However, the action enjoined by the second clause requires a positive nuance. ... An example of precisely this combination of nuances occurs in the antithesis in Rom 14:13 ....⁶

     Armstrong noted that in Col. 1:18 and in 2:19 the "body of Christ" is for Paul the church.⁷  And he noted that the "missing verb [for the last clause of verse 17] should be supplied from the most logical and grammatically parallel clause" as Martin has convincingly demonstrated above.  So, he suggests: "but [rather let] the body of Christ [determine it]" or "Let the body of Christ judge [these matters]".⁸

     This of course means that any interpretation of this verse that is based on a contrast between the shadow and the substance would be in error.⁹

1. De Lacey [ibid., page 182].  Back to text

2. Huie [ibid., page 11]; this was also noted by MacDonald [ibid., page 111] who wrote: "the most common modern translations mask the fact that the same term here is used elsewhere in Colossians to refer to the body of Christ and the church as the body of Christ." For an intersting look at Jesus as the head of the church see Clinton E. Arnold's article "Jesus Christ: "Head" of the Church (Colossians and Ephesians)" in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essay on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by Joel B. Greeen and Max Turner (Eerdmans, 1994): 346-366.  Back to text

3. Schweizer [ibid., page 158]. Nickels [Richard C. "New Moons," page 4 equates this phrase with "His Word" with no effort to substantiate it.  Back to text

4. Thurston [ibid., page 42]; see also Dunn [ibid., page 177].  Back to text

5. Lenski [ibid., page 125-6]; contra Buzzard in his Law pamphlet [page 17] - as Troy Martin will show it is not a "forced and unnatural translation" to see "but the body of Christ" as the Church which should judge on these matters.  Back to text

6. Troy Martin [(1995): 252-3].  Back to text

7. Armstrong [ibid., page 1].  Back to text

8. Armstrong [ibid., page 2].  Back to text

9. For examples, among many, see Beasley-Murray [ibid., page 478-9], Fields [ibid., page 194], Walter, [ibid., page 13], and Bornkamm, [ibid., page 130]. Harris [ibid., page 119] notes the "explicit contrast" with "shadow"; see also DeJong [Shawn Jay An Analysis of the Book of Colossians. (Cavalry Theological Seminary, April 1998): page 42] who after citing vs. 16 states "these things are inferior to Christ since they are merely a "shadow of what is to come." DeJong states that "the substance belongs to Christ" ..."  Back to text

For an in-depth look at Paul's use of "soma" in Colossians see Dunn's article (1994).

Created using: The HTML Editor Version 1.3.54