Need help understanding Col 2:16-23 from a Catholic perspective

[Huiou_Theou]

Let me break it down how I understand it thus far.

Col 2:16-17 Paul is therefore admonishing new Christians to not let the “Jews”; or “Judiazers” looked down upon them because of or worry them with specifically Judaic laws as governed in Torah with regard to eating, drinking, and festivals because these all “foreshadow” what Jesus Christ has done for us. As per our discussion “drink” is not a referrence to Eucharist but specifically blood or the mixture of blood in drink.

If you are familiar with Kosher laws, even the production of wine in a place that had meat before would be a violation. It isn’t necessary that blood be mixed in visibly – just that purifications weren’t done. In the Jewish Talmuds, great detail is gone into about whether or not one could drink wine from a vat that a pagan fell into (and got out of) , etc. The detail of Jewish purification was quite scrupulous. Very likely, if the wine used at a Eucharistic meal had been produced by a Gentile (those not of the circumcision) that alone would have been grounds to condemn the drinking of it.

Therefore Pork prohibitions, and blood prohibitions aren’t really in effect. Neither are the specific “traditional” jewish Holidays used to trump Christian celebration (such as the 8th day). Because in effect these things were proclimations of Jesus’ first advent since this advent has occured and is fulfilled the holidays of proclimation are of no effect.

That is correct, those portions of the Law no longer have a hold on Christians because the Law of Moses looses claim over a Jew upon their death. As St. Paul holds, we are baptised into his death and resurrection — Colos 2:12 “You were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him…” So that the oath of the Old Covenant, and the negotiations of Angels of God, are no longer binding on the Christian. Therefore a Jew who converted to Christianity would be freed of the Jewish ritual observances at their baptism – But they could not go back to being a Jew under the old law either, for to re-enter it would require rejecting the Oath made to Christ and paying the penalty for their transgressions against the Law and breaking of the oath.

This doesn’t prohibit making of new holidays but the days such as passover have been replaced by the Pascha. Ok I think I got that. Now the following passages
Now your argument is that since God uses angels to facilitate his interaction with men and perform his will where they are required Angels in and of themselves aren’t bad things which are venerated. However, Paul uses the term “worship the messangers”.

I think I ought to point out how central the idea of Angel is with respect to both the old and new covenant to understand the dangers (or reasons) why others would try to exploit it with respect to Christianised Jews – The very word “Gospel” used in
in Colossians 1:5 “…OF this you have already heard through the word of Truth, the Gospel” (NAB, caps mine) is Ev-angel-on (In English people Evangelise) The word ANGEL is part of the word Gospel.

Note what is being said: the Truth was heard (from God), in the Good-Angel.

Literally, The word for Gospel means the “Good Angel”, and secondarily – “The Good message”. Given that Angels mediated the old covenant, subtle arguments could be made along the lines of their authority – should Jesus too be seen as an “angel”, he might even be undermined by Jewish law arguments. (Jehova witness arguments as well).

I’ll read back through Colossians in Greek to refresh my memory on exactly how Paul says what he does – regarding worship – and I’ll take a look again at Hezekiah, and Ahaz, and other figures, because I am fairly certain that abuses along the lines of worshipping angels was part of the problem of those times.

Notice, St. Stephen in Acts talks about the Jews of the time of Moses being given up to worship the “host of heaven”, meaning the stars which are “fire” and “elemental”.

In Revelation, 1/3 of the stars fall to Earth – and this is commonly understood to be the historic fall of Satan (Lucifer – light bearer) and his angels. There is, then, a history in Jewish thought of the centrality of a war among the angels associated with worship – and I suppose one could “defect” to the other side and worship the angels themselves.

Idolatry, is the worship of Idols – I suppose Angolatry might have been a problem too. St. Stephen mentions Rephaiam as one of the host of heaven. I’ll post again later – so don’t take this as the full answer – but I wish to consider your question in more depth before answering.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… Now the following passages
Now your argument is that since God uses angels to facilitate his interaction with men and perform his will where they are required Angels in and of themselves aren’t bad things which are venerated.

Yes. And you appear to know the difference between veneration and worship.

However, Paul uses the term “worship the messangers”. Which I think to be better understood what he was thinking is to take a look at second temple period writings and literature. Since the previous verse context had to do with Jewish law I suppose a judaic “worship” of angles is at issue here. Well we don’t see in the intertestimental period a “worship of angels” like the failed kings Ahab and Manasseh. So the context of Paul must be different then a catholic understanding of providing Latria to Angels.

We do see worship of Angels in the intertestamental period. Notice that St. Stephen talks about “Rephaim” and exile beyond “Babylon”.

Acts 7:42 And God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the books of the prophets: Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years, in the desert, O house of Israel?
Acts 7:43 And you took unto you the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Rempham, figures which you made to adore them. And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

The “prophet” spoken of here is Amos 5:26, and the star God is fairly specific to that passage: Eg: Rempham is not a name used elsewhere. (Hebrew translation says: Chiun). All of chapter 4 & 5 of Amos is concerned with astral signs, elemental messages, eg: God makes the “wind” and 4:13 “and createth the wind, and declareth unto man what is his thought”; Again, the dwelling of God is on the mountain – and in 4:13, Amos reaffirms that God himself made the mountains.

Amos ties the condemnation back to the worship of the calf in the desert – the making of “Gods” – and this makes it clear to me that the kings of the time of Amos were introducing elemental worship – Angels, Stars, Sun, Moon, etc.

(Bulls of Bashan in Amos chapter 4 recalls Jezebel and Achab, and the showdown on Mt. Carmel with Elijah). So, it is precisely the mixing of pagan worship elements and the confusion of “angels” with Gods which is involved in the exile beyond “Damascus” (or Babylon according to acts 7:43)

What we do find in the inter testimental period is the Maccabeans calling upon the unnamed angel during Hezikiahs time. This seems to match the Dulos view with regard to Angelic personages. We see the assistance of Raphael in Tobit, the Names and purposes of the Angels in 1 Enoch and the Talmud prohibts a conjuration of Angles.

I’m not sure of the reference in Maccabees, Do you mean 2Macc 11:5 ?
I don’t have 1Enoch handy, as it isn’t a canonical book – but it would contain non-christian logic regarding angels, and may shed some light on why St. Paul in Colossians states some things in the way he does.

So I can only assume in Pauls time he’s referring to a dulos “worship” of Angels where by a person has seen a “messanger” of God and gives defference to the vision implied by that where by Paul later says in the chapter So, I’m still in question of this matter.

Dulos worship is just veneration. It stems from the understanding that the angel comes from God, and therefore what is said is to be respected. The angel itself isn’t worshipped; and I can find examples where a Hebrew mistakenly tries to worship an angel beyond their due – and God corrects the Hebrew without punishing them for the attempt. But a typical example of normal interaction is found in Acts 11:13 where an Angel is the cause of St. Peter visiting a Gentile, and the same Angel carries out the task of introducing St. Peter in visions. This is akin to Marian apparitions, and the role angels play in them. Again, one is not required to believe in an apparition – but the role of angels in these events are nothing like angel worship claims of Amos.

I think it important to understand the St. Paul, as a Pharisee, was of a group who believed in angels and dreams and visions. The Sadducees believed in none of these things.

Acts 23:6 And Paul, knowing that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, cried out in the council: Men, brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees: concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Acts 23:7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. And the multitude was divided.
Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
Acts 23:9 And there arose a great cry. And some of the Pharisees rising up, strove, saying: ** We find no evil in this man. What if a spirit hath spoken to him, or an angel?
**

Also to bring it full circle to the first point what of Paul who latter says seeming to indicate since Christ return why the restraint, fasting, treating objects as holy ext…?

Draw your comparison more fully.

There are clearly angels which minister to the old covenant, which have no authority in the new – in the new, there are angels which speak the words that Jesus tells them to, and so they are “his” messengers.

How is it more than just a coincidence that an angel in the new testament might encourage a fast, as well as one ministering to the old testament?
I think the distinction is the angel’s willingness to profess Jesus christ as Lord, vs. one who does not – rather than fasts, etc.

See if you can outline an example that we could work through together.

Peace,
Your brother in Christ Jesus,
–Andrew