| Let No Man Judge You |
The lack of clarity with a few words in a passage of Scripture can alter themeaning to the extent that a change of doctrine can result. Such is the case with Colossians2: 16-17. Twenty versions are examined in this essay to point that out. It appears that thetranslators had problems in deciphering the intent of the original writer. Which of these, ifany, have interpreted the passage correctly?
The problems lie particularly with two concepts in verse 17. Thus, the conceptin verse 16 is altered in relation as to how they have been translated. The interpretations arediscussed here, based on the following ways of translating which have occurred:
The versions are consistent in that the list mentioned in verse 16 represents foreshadowings.
As you examine each, note how and where the six categories above are applied.After the listing, I shall discuss the versions collectively according to these categories.
| Versions Compared |
| Colossians2: 16-17 |
| AAT | Then nobody shall say you are wrong in what you eat or drink or do on afestival, on the first day of the month, or on a Sabbath. These have been a shadow of the comingthings, but the real things are in Christ. |
| AB | Therefore let no one sit in judgment on you in matters of food and drink, or with regard toa feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath. Such [things] are only the shadow of things that areto come, and they have only a symbolic value. But the reality -- the substance, the solidfact of what is foreshadowed, the body of it -- belongs to Christ. |
| ANT | Let no man judge you, therefore, in matters of food and drink, or in such a matter as afestival, new moon, or sabbath, which represent only a shadow of things to come, and of whichChrist is the substance. |
| BNT | You must not therefore let anyone criticize you in matters of what is right or wrong to eator drink, or with regard to the alleged correct observance of festivals, new moons and sabbaths.These things are no more than the shadow of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ. |
| CEV | Don't let anyone tell you what you must eat or drink. Don't let them say that you mustcelebrate the New Moon festival, the Sabbath, or any other festival. These things are only ashadow of what was to come. But Christ is real! |
| CJB | So don't let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking, or inregard to a Jewish festival or Rosh-Chodesh or Shabbat. These are a shadow ofthings that are coming, but the body is of the Messiah. |
| CNT | Therefore, let no one take you to task over what you eat and drink, or in the matter ofobserving a festival, a new moon, or a sabbath, these things being no more than a paleforeshadowing of what was to come, the proper reality to be found nowhere but in Christ. |
| DRB | Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or thenew moon, or of the sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body isof Christ. |
| HBME | Therefore let no one condemn you as to food, and as to drink, nor in respect to a festival,or new moon, or Sabbaths: which were a forecast of the future; but the substance belongs toChrist. |
| IB | Then do not let anyone judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or thenew moon, or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of coming things; but the body is ofChrist. |
| IV | Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of thenew moon, or of the sabbath days; Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is ofChrist. |
| KJV | Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of thenew moon, or of the sabbath days. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the bodyis of Christ. |
| LB | So don't let anybody criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewishholidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these were only temporary rules thatended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing -- of Christ himself. |
| NET | Let no man criticize you, then, as to what you eat and drink or in regard to a festival day,a first day of a month or Sabbath days. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the bodyitself is Christ. |
| NNT | Consequently, no one can call you to account on rules of food and drink, or on observancesof a festival, or a new moon, or a sabbath. For they were only symbols of future realities. Thesum total of these realities is Christ. |
| NSNT | Let no one, therefore, be your judge as to what you may eat or drink, or in the matter ofobserving feast days and new moons and sabbaths. These things foreshadow what is to come. Theone foreshadowed is Christ. |
| SGAT | So no one can call you to account for what you eat or drink, or do about annual or monthlyfeasts or Sabbaths. That was all only the shadow of something that was to follow; the realityis found in Christ. |
| SNB | Let no one therefore, be judging you in eating and in drinking, or in respect of feast, ornew moon, or sabbath, Which are a shadow of things to come, whereas the body is of theMessiah. |
| SSBE | Let no man judge you therefore in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a newmoon, or a sabbath: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of the Messiah. |
| WNT | Stop letting anyone pass judgment on you in matters of eating and drinking, or in thematter of annual or monthly feasts or sabbaths. These were but the shadow of what was coming;the reality belongs to Christ. |
| The Six Categories |
1. -- It is stated that the list in verse 16 pointed to Yahshua and thatthey were completely fulfilled in His life. Thus, none of these things are any longerapplicable. They were done away by Him. If He fulfilled all the law, the past tense would beappropriate. In Matthew 5: 17, Yahshua stated that He did not come to destroy the law, but tofulfill it. Translating this concept back through the Greek to the Hebrew, He stated that Hecame to interpret the law. In the following verse, He stated that no part of the law would beeliminated until all of it be fulfilled, even till earth or heaven should pass away. Let us seeif any part has yet to be fulfilled. There were nine feasts commanded by Yahweh. The springfeasts were fulfilled at the time of the impalement and shortly after. The fall feasts have notbeen fulfilled. Has Yahweh, our Creator, changed His mind? The weekly sabbath is a foreshadow ofthe millennium. Although some people believe that this period of time has come, it has still tobe fulfilled. Has He changed His mind again? Since everything has not been fulfilled, do yousuppose that we should give more consideration to this list? The versions that refer only to thepast would say that there is no need to do so.
2. -- The versions that use the present tense with reference to thefuture are implying that fulfillment is incomplete. They do not mention exactly which are yet tobe fulfilled. There is, however, a playing down in regard to keeping the law in these things.Whether the past or the present tense is used, we see a common attitude among present-dayChristians, that is, the law terminated with the coming of Jesus and a better one wasinstituted.
3. -- The versions which use is in regular type in the last partof verse 17 state for a fact what is suggested as possible in those versions which italicize theword is. There really is no question that these things are shadows relating to Yahshua. However,in what sense are we to understand the word body? Does it mean the physical being ofYahshua, or does it mean his followers, the church? In some versions, the meaning is veryunclear and even does not coincide with what precedes it. There is something missing.
4. -- In these versions, there are some variations from the other fivecategories in the verb used. They, like many other versions, stress that this list isforeshadowings, while Yahshua represents the real thing. One of the words which appears in a fewversions is belongs.
5. -- Three versions, two of which are older, italicize the wordis. The italicization indicates the addition of that word by the translators. Without it,there is no verb within the clause. It would appear that the early translators could notascertain sense to the sentence as it was. Therefore, they added what they thought was theproper word. Translators of later versions followed the pattern as though it were correct. Now,let us suppose that the word is were interpolated in error. Let us further suppose thatthe word but is not a conjunction as of the versions indicate. Let us consider that it isa preposition instead. Thus, it now clearly means except. This would alter the sense ofthe passage dramatically. Now, the passage states that a person should not concerned with whatpeople in general say about how he relates to the things in the list. Only the people who aremembers of the church of Yahshua have that right. The church would be familiar with these laws,which are foreshadowings in respect to Yahshua. This would not include any church which believesthat everything in the law has been fulfilled, thus eliminating the need to be concerned aboutit anymore. What Yahshua eliminated was the need to perform the long list of works andsacrifices, because He became a sacrifice for us, doing what the sacrifices of the Old Testamentcould not do.
6. -- Only one of these versions does not include a verb, thus renderingthe above interpretation, although another does the same, but in a different sense. This oneversion also refers to the future as though all the foreshadowings have not been completed. Itbrings out a completely different meaning to the passage.
| Commentary |
Most of the versions state or imply that it does not matter what you eat ordrink, and whether you honor feasts, new moons, or sabbaths (weekly or others). Incidentally,the timing of the new moon in the first month of the Jewish religious calendar determines thetiming of such observances as Passover. Thus, the law initiated by Yahweh is redundant toChristians. What was the purpose of the law being given if it were to be rescinded later?Although all the versions indicate its purpose, the translators have not totally comprehendedits significance. This lack of comprehension has continued in Christian churches. The otherversions in my collection would fall within the first four categories listed above.
Is the one in the sixth category correct in its translation, or is one of theother versions correct? Whichever version you choose as being correct places a doctrinal changeupon the others. Examine each one carefully to determine if your present concept of the law isstill valid or if there is a change for you to be made.