Colossians 2:17

A reason why these things should not be objects of scrupulous anxiety on the part of the Colossians.

ἅ. The plural most naturally refers to the five points in Colossians 2:16 considered singly, for even the dietary laws served as a preparation for higher things, and thus may be fairly included under σκιά.

The singular would consider the five points as one whole.

ἐστιν. Not temporal (Meyer) but expressing the abstract nature of the things. ἦν would have implied that they had absolutely ceased as facts, which of course they had not. Similarly Romans 5:14, Ἀδάμ, ὄς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος.

σκιὰ. Meyer says rightly “not an outline (σκιαγραφία, σκιαγράφημα), as in the case of painters, who ‘non exprimunt primo ductu imaginem vivis coloribus et εἰκονικῶς, sed rudes et obscuras lineas primum ex carbone ducunt,’ Calvin.” For the contrast to a sketch would be at least εἰκών (cf. Hebrews 10:1) not σῶμα. It is properly a shadow, which indeed gives a certain representation but has in and by itself no independent existence, nothing real and substantial. The term thus indicates (a) the futility of these five things considered in and for themselves, and yet also (b) the reality of something which is represented by them. Thus the suggestion is that if the Colossians have scruples about these five things they are grasping at the shadow and forgetting, and therefore losing, the substance.

For a probably similar use of σκιά cf. Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 8:5.

τῶν μελλόντων, “of the things to come,” i.e. from the point of time when the five things were enjoined. The things that were “future from the standpoint of the Law.” So also in Romans 5:14; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 6:5; cf. also Hebrews 9:8-9.

Observe (1) possibly St Paul intended to represent τὰ μέλλοντα as throwing a shadow in front of them, so that naturally when they came up the shadow would pass away. But this is probably an over-refinement of his metaphor. (2) To understand τῶν μελλόντων of things still future to Christian times, i.e. of the perfected Messianic Kingdom, is not only against the general usage of the phrase, but would apparently nullify St Paul’s argument, for the σκιά has confessedly been useful, and there is then nothing to show that its utility is over. Hence the Colossians may as well observe it. But St Paul’s argument is that they ought not to do so, or at least that they cannot be criticised for not doing so.

τὸ δὲ σῶμα. In contrast to σκιά, σῶμα is the substance, the reality. Cf. Jos. B. J. II. ii. 5, where Antipater accuses Archelaus at Rome of having come thither to ask for the kingdom only after having in fact exercised royal authority, but νῦν ἥκει παρὰ τοῦ δεσπότου σκιὰν αἰτησόμενος βασιλείας, ἦς ἥρπασεν ἑαυτῷ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ποιῶν οὐ τῶν πραγμάτων�.

So guph, lit. body, is often used in post-Biblical Hebrew as = substance, essential part, e.g. Talm. Jer. Ber. I. 8 (p. 3c middle), “The ten commandments are the essential part of the Shema (guphah shel shma‛).” Compare Mishna Pesachim, X. 3 in contrast to the Talmudic and present custom of only bringing symbols at the Passover Feast “in the sanctuary they used to bring before him (the person eating) the very substance of the Passover,” i.e. the actual lamb itself (ובמקדש היו מביאים לּפניו גופו של פסח)

There appears to be here no thought whatever of σῶμα as a body, either as being the organised sum of τῶν μελλόντων, or as referring in any way to the Church (Colossians 1:18). Through insisting on this last reference persons mentioned by Chrysostom, without disapproval, took τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ χριστοῦ in apposition to ὑμᾶς in the following verse, explaining it evidently as Augustine himself explains it (without any hint that he finds more difficulty in it than in the rest of the chapter), Corpus autem Christi nemo vos convincat: turpe est, inquit, et nimis incongruum, et a generositate vestrae libertatis alienum, ut cum sitis corpus Christi, seducamini umbris, et convinci videamini veluti peccantes, si haec observare negligitis (Ep. 149 § 27, Migne II. p. 641). The same division is found in ABP aethiop., but it is utterly improbable.

τοῦ χριστοῦ. (1) The genitive is hardly of apposition (e.g. Romans 4:11). If so it would mean that the reality to which the O.T. pointed is Christ, Christ in His various aspects according to each type. But ὁ χριστός would have been more natural.

(2) It is probably possessive. The reality has to do with Christ, coming from Him and belonging to Him. Each type points to something brought about by Christ. “The passover typifies the atoning sacrifice; the unleavened bread, the purity and sincerity of the true believer; the pentecostal feast, the ingathering of the first fruits; the sabbath, the rest of God’s people, etc.” (Lightfoot).
Thus the Christian man, as such, receives from Christ, and not from any other, the reality of which those five points (Colossians 2:16) were but a shadow.