A Closer look at Colossians 2:14
Colosse Colossians 2:14 controversy Paul Epistle Letter handwriting nail cross
dogma
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although Thayer's
lexicon places references to the Law of Moses in its own definition, not all
other lexicons do this. The comprehensive Liddell and Scott lexicon and
the Arndt and Gingrich lexicon do not. In those works the Law of Moses
is simply another decree or ordinance to which 'dogma' might refer.
Thayer's treatment might lead one to conclude that 'dogma' of and by itself
refers to the Law of Moses. This is not the case at all. There
must be something in the context that makes it apparent the author intends
the Law of Moses. This is why the other lexicons do not place the Law
of Moses in a separate category.
The Liddell and Scott
lexicon divides the word into two possible definitions, "that which seems
right or reasonable, opinion or belief" and "decision,
judgment, public decree, ordinance"
Let’s look at some of
these examples of usage where Thayer's believes the Law of Moses is intended.
Thayer's first lists 3
Maccabees 1:3. A translation of this work by
Clayton Croy, (Brill publishers, 2006), actually
translates the word as "teachings". There is a close-by
reference to the law, but the context would lead one to believe the subject
of 'dogma' includes the whole traditional Jewish approach, which would
include the oral law (Talmud) as well as the written. This is likely
why 'dogma' is included with its context as 'ancestral teachings'. So
while the Law of Moses was likely intended in the ancestral teachings, so
were other ordinances, decrees and/or judgments that were not directly part
of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch. So in this case 'dogma' is not
talking of just the Law of Moses.
Thayer also quotes
Philo's Allegorical Interpretation, Book 1. "Dogma' is used
in Philo's section XVI, (55). An English translation was done by F. H.
Colson and G. H. Whitaker., published in 1929. 'Dogma' is translated
'opinions' in this text. It is not clear at all that it is limiting
itself to the Law of Moses. In fact, the subject is the creation of man
and his placement in Paradise. Although this work of Philo is a
commentary on the beginning of Genesis, which is part of the Law of Moses,
his use of 'dogma' has no direct connection to it. He simply states
that memory serves to preserve 'opinions'. Specifically Philo is
talking of 'holy opinions'. That doesn't make them the Law of Moses.
Thayer’s also
references Ephesians 2:15, 'the law of commandments contained in
ordinances'. What is it about this phrase that assures us it is
talking of the Law of Moses?
The verse talks of
Christ unifying Jew and gentile by breaking down the enmity between
them. Does the Law of Moses create enmity? "One law shall
be for the native–born and for the stranger who dwells among you."
(Ex 12:49). "You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress
him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Ex 22:21).
"He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and
loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the
stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Deu 10:18-19). How does that instruction create
enmity between Jew and gentile? The rest of the Law of Moses is in
accord with that instruction. Where does the enmity come from?
Ephesians 2:14 tells
us where it comes from. "For He Himself is our peace, who has
made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation".
This middle wall of separation refers to a block wall the Jews built at the
approach to the temple in Jerusalem. The gentiles were not to pass
beyond this point. It was not required by God, but added later by the
Jews to highlight their status above the gentiles. The mentality that
created this wall is what created the enmity. The Jews ratcheted up
their oral traditions that distinguished them as 'holy' and the gentiles as
'common'.
‘Then he said to
them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with
or go to one of another nation."’ (Acts 10:28) It is not
unlawful, because Moses said it was. Moses said no such thing.
This was due to Jewish traditions that even Peter respected.
"For Jews have
no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9c). Again this is not
because of the Law of Moses, but later Jewish tradition.
It is the enmity
erected by Jewish tradition that Christ has destroyed. His approach is clear, "But in
every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him."
(Acts 10:35). "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in
Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:28)
So again, we see that
what some want to assume subverts the Law of Moses, doesn't reflect on the
Law of Moses at all. Careless reading of scripture has caused
generations of seekers to be misled. There may well be cases where
'dogma' refers to the Law of Moses. If this is the case it will be
clear in the context. None of the references Thayer's lexicon used, fit the definition he tries to support. That
ought to give us pause to consider.
What then does 'dogma'
refer to in Colossians 2:14?
Keep in mind the
primary definition of this word. The New Testament writers were not
trying to be obscure. They used words in the normal way everyone else
used words. Liddell and Scott often highlight the secular meanings of words
as opposed to highlighting the technical 'Christian' lingo, which is promoted
by some individual’s bias theology.
The Liddell and Scott
definition would assume first that Paul was talking of someone's opinion,
decision, decree or judgment. It is this definition that is reflected
in other uses of 'dogma' throughout the New Testament. Besides its use
in Ephesians 2:15 mentioned above and here in Colossians 2:14, 'dogma' is
used three other times in the New Testament. Twice it is referring to decrees
of Caesar (Luke 2:1, Acts 17:7). The other use is talking of the judgments of
the Apostles as recorded in Acts 15 (Acts 16:4). These all use the word
to describe a judgment, determination, opinion and/or pronouncement of what
is felt to be appropriate.
The Emphasized Bible by J.B. Rotherham
uses the word in accord with this understanding. It also maintains the
singular form of the subject and verb and uses indentation to highlight and
separate thoughts.
"Having blotted
out the handwriting against us by the decrees, -
Which was hostile to
us, -
And hath taken away
the same out of the midst.
Nailing it up to the
cross:"
The single verb 'was'
refers to the single noun 'handwriting', not the decrees. It is Messiah
that issues judgment. He declares us clean. "Being justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through
the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness:
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus"
(Rom 3:24-26 KJV).
Jesus Christ issues
His decrees and opinions as our judge. He declares us free from debt,
because our debt is paid by His death, if we truely repent.