From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Judaizers in Colossians
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:26:26 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA


Malachi Robertson wrote:

> Recently Tom said that Colossians 2 was directed at Judaizers.  This is
> the second time in recent days I have come across this notion.  I consider
> this wrong as the context says otherwise.  I won't say much but here are a
> few pointers away from the Judaizers.

I don't see how any of these items point away from the Judaizers.  And I
fail to see how the context is against it.  If you like we can examine the
context.

> (1) The group in question taught things focusing on the elemental spirits
> of the universe.

What does that mean?  Why does this mitigate against Judaizers?

> (2) They were into angel-worship.

It is not out of the question that some Pharisees/Judaizers might have had
problem with angel worship.  I'll have to check some other sources to
verify this.  I'm unaware of any gentile philosophy of the day that even
believed in the existence of angels, nevermind worshipped them.

> (3) They were into ascetic practices ("self-mortification"; "do not handle
> this, do not taste that, do not touch the other"; "forced piety";
> "severity to the body"; interested in combating sensuality)

These points you've mentioned come AFTER the passage in Col. 2:16,17, which
says:

  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an
  holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
  Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

These specific things -- meat, drink, feast days, new moons, sabbaths --
point directly at the old covenant ceremonial law.  We know the Judaizers
where trying to force Chistians into keeping these old covenant
commandments that had passed away under the new covenant (cf. Heb. 8:13).

Paul also compares baptism to circumcision in vv. 11-13, hardly useful if
the context is arguing against a gentile philosophy.

Earlier Paul used the phrase "tradition of men":

    Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after
    the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after
    Christ. (Col. 2:8)

This phrase points directly at the Judaizers, who were the spiritual sons
of the Pharisees:

    For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,
    as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
    (Mark 7:8)

    Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they
    wash not their hands when they eat bread. (Matt. 15:2)

Nowhere in the NT is the word "tradition" used with reference to any
gentile philosophy.  Why assume that's the way it's used in Colossians?

>                         Paul also emphasizes that real saving power is in
> Jesus and not in the observance of rituals.

Amen.

The error of the Judaizers was twofold, 1) in failing to distinguish
between the moral law, which all men are required to observe, and the
ceremonial law, which was a temporary pointer to the work of Messiah, and
2) then forcing that error on the rest of the Christians.

-- 
Tom Albrecht