Colossians 3:16-23

[langlob]

With the season of Lent on us once again, could somebody please interpret these verses for me? I know the Church doesn’t teach that it is necessary to give something up for Lent, but I believe she teaches that it’s necessary to give up meat on Ash Wednesday. I know that giving up meat for one day isn’t a lot to ask, but isn’t that exactly the type of thing Paul is warning against here?

**
“16Therefore let no one** pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”

“20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, 21"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22(referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?23These have indeed the appearence of wisdom in promotiong rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh."**

Could somebody maybe interpret these verses in context for me? The verses seem to me to be condemning fasting and abstinence and being forced to give up meat on certain days, etc. Thank-you.

 

[Jeanette_L]

I’m not a theologian, but I think that these verses are talking about the Jewish prohibition on certain foods and festivals that were forbidden by Jewish law and Paul was saying that the Gentile converts did not have to obey Jewish law under the New Covenant. They were not to be judged as unclean by the Jews.

I don’t think it has anything to do with fasting in general, but Jews trying to impose Jewish law on Gentile converts.

Hope that helps.

 

[proclaim]

I Agree.

 

[mspencer]

Jesus himself is shown fasting for 40 days and nights(Matt 4:2), so he could hardly have thought fasting something empty.
And the original prohibition of the Jews that they not eat certain foods was by the commend of God. So that absolutely speaking it could be said to be an empty practice. I agree that this speaks of the Jewish law in particular, and not that it means that all abstinence and fasting is valueless.

 

[RyanL]

langlob:

Could somebody maybe interpret these verses in context for me? The verses seem to me to be condemning fasting and abstinence and being forced to give up meat on certain days, etc. Thank-you.

It is certainly interpretable that way (and many Protestants interpret the verse that way), though I think that’s a misunderstanding of the nature of what is being said. If read that way, it would directly contradict the following:
%between%

Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

Since the Bible isn’t going to contradict itself, there must be an understanding which permits both of these statements to be true. I would assert that the following is the case:

In Col 2, St. Paul is warning against the teachings of the Judiazers. These folks said that you must be circumcised and observe the Levitical dietary law, in addition to the Jewish liturgical calender. This is why St. Paul talks about not being circumcised by hands in Col 2:11, and tells people that they’ve already been circumcised (through baptism). St. Paul is telling people that they don’t need to observe the Jewish law, and that those saying that you do don’t have the proper authority to do so - see Galatians for a full refutation.

In Acts 15, the proper authority is making a disciplinary ordinance (which can be changed) that the faithful are to abstain from certain kinds of meat - it is not a dietary absolute, as the Judiazers were advocating, but a disciplinary measure taken to protect/encourage the faith of the faithful, and done with the proper authority. That’s why there’s no huge battle with St. Paul in Acts 21 when the matter is discussed - St. Paul knows what’s going on, why, and who said to do it.

This would then make sense of the words of Christ:
%between%

Mark 2:20
But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.
Matthew 9:15
mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroombridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
Luke 5:35
But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; in those days they will fast.”

Lent is the time for our fasting, as a directed discipline of the Church (and not as a dietary absolute ala the Judiazers). This teaching can change, but it is good that we observe it and it is sinful to disobey. We are being obedient to the prophesies of Christ and being obedient to the Church, for she is His Mystical Body. For further reading, try one of these.

Does that help?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[langlob]

RyanL:

It is certainly interpretable that way (and many Protestants interpret the verse that way), though I think that’s a misunderstanding of the nature of what is being said. If read that way, it would directly contradict the following:
%between%
Since the Bible isn’t going to contradict itself, there must be an understanding which permits both of these statements to be true. I would assert that the following is the case:

In Col 2, St. Paul is warning against the teachings of the Judiazers. These folks said that you must be circumcised and observe the Levitical dietary law, in addition to the Jewish liturgical calender. This is why St. Paul talks about not being circumcised by hands in Col 2:11, and tells people that they’ve already been circumcised (through baptism). St. Paul is telling people that they don’t need to observe the Jewish law, and that those saying that you do don’t have the proper authority to do so - see Galatians for a full refutation.

In Acts 15, the proper authority is making a disciplinary ordinance (which can be changed) that the faithful are to abstain from certain kinds of meat - it is not a dietary absolute, as the Judiazers were advocating, but a disciplinary measure taken to protect/encourage the faith of the faithful, and done with the proper authority. That’s why there’s no huge battle with St. Paul in Acts 21 when the matter is discussed - St. Paul knows what’s going on, why, and who said to do it.

This would then make sense of the words of Christ:
%between%
Lent is the time for our fasting, as a directed discipline of the Church (and not as a dietary absolute ala the Judiazers). This teaching can change, but it is good that we observe it and it is sinful to disobey. We are being obedient to the prophesies of Christ and being obedient to the Church, for she is His Mystical Body. For further reading, try one of these.

Does that help?

God Bless,
RyanL

Sorry for my late response. Yes that does help, a lot. I had a feeling I was taking the verse out of context. I understand now.

God bless and have a holy Lenten season.