Textual Discrepancies In Colossians 2:18

Nondenom40 · Dec 27, 2019

Hidden In Him said:
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. (Colossians 2:18-19, KJV).

Greetings all. There has been some debate lately about what are the most reliable Greek manuscripts. For me, answering this question involves examining in particular those places in the texts where the discrepancies present two completely different theological positions. One is found in the verse above, where the received text and a few others include the word "not" in verse 18, while others (including P46, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, UBS and Westcott & Hort) all read simply, "investigating into those things which he has seen," which is an exact opposite reading from that presented in the TR.

So for those interested in discussing it, which is the correct reading? I hold that the TR reading is illogical, as no man can investigate or "intrude" into anything he has not seen. He can only investigate into what he thinks he has.

For all who disagree, present a case for how you think the TR reading makes more sense and communicates more accurately what the writer was trying to say.

Blessings in Christ to all who respond.
Hidden in Him

Heres Robertson FWIW;

Dwelling in the things which he hath seen (α εορακεν εμβατευων). Some MSS. have "not," but not genuine. This verb εμβατευω (from εμβατης, stepping in, going in) has given much trouble. Lightfoot has actually proposed κενεμβατευων (a verb that does not exist, though κενεμβατεω does occur) with αιωρα, to tread on empty air, an ingenious suggestion, but now unnecessary. It is an old word for going in to take possession (papyri examples also). W. M. Ramsay (Teaching of Paul, pp. 287ff.) shows from inscriptions in Klaros that the word is used of an initiate in the mysteries who "set foot in" (ενεβατευσεν) and performed the rest of the rites. Paul is here quoting the very work used of these initiates who "take their stand on" these imagined revelations in the mysteries.

justbyfaith · Dec 27, 2019

Hidden In Him said:
Thanks for this. I have a bunch to say here, and unfortunately very little juice left in my iPhone, which I really need to save for calls. But let me just touch on one thing then until I have more of a chance to respond to the entire passage: I know it mentions “false dreams” but I think you may be interpreting this to mean dreams they didn’t actually have, whereas the text has them saying, “I have dreamed, I have dreamed.” This suggests they had actual dreams, only the dreams they had were not from God but generated by the flesh.
Is this the way you understand the passage or no?

Thanks again for the citation. I love discussing these sorts of passages.

Until I can post in more detail, blessings in Christ.

It could go either way. Either they had dreams generated in the flesh; or they did not have dreams, but said that they did in order that their words might have more credibility with the people.

justbyfaith · Dec 27, 2019

I know that in Joel 2 and Acts 2 we have the passages that tell us that your old men shall dream dreams in the power of the Spirit.

And in the Jeremiah passage, God encourages the prophet that has a dream to tell his dream.

Nevertheless, this is in context of men telling dreams of which the interpretation of them would lead the people of Israel astray. So that would indicate that there are dreams that are not of the Spirit, if these false prophets genuinely were relating dreams that they had.

So the question would be how to discern what dreams are of the Spirit and what dreams are not of the Spirit?

Enoch111 · Dec 27, 2019

justbyfaith said:
So the question would be how to discern what dreams are of the Spirit and what dreams are not of the Spirit?

Any dream that is at variance with Bible truth and Gospel truth is simply false. The Spirit and the Word are always in harmony.

BTW this whole idea of focusing on dreams has no foundation in the New Testament.

justbyfaith · Dec 27, 2019

Enoch111 said:
BTW this whole idea of focusing on dreams has no foundation in the New Testament.

Act 2:16, But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18, And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Act 2:19, And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
Act 2:20, The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
Act 2:21, And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Enoch111 · Dec 27, 2019

justbyfaith said:
...and your old men shall dream dreams...

Now show us a passage in the NT which actually speaks about this. There is not a single mention of any saint in the NT dreaming dreams like Joseph and then expounding on those dreams. So dream on.

BTW that was a quotation from Joel in the OT.

justbyfaith · Dec 27, 2019

Enoch111 said:
Now show us a passage in the NT which actually speaks about this. There is not a single mention of any saint in the NT dreaming dreams like Joseph and then expounding on those dreams. So dream on.

BTW that was a quotation from Joel in the OT.

So, do you believe that the OT is invalid; that it is not inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?

And, even if you disregard the OT, the scripture in Acts is enough to tell us that old men dreaming dreams will be the result of God pouring out of His Spirit on all flesh.

Enoch111 · Dec 27, 2019

justbyfaith said:
So, do you believe that the OT is invalid; that it is not inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?

No. What I am saying is that even though Joel prophesied about dreams, there is not a single dream by an old or young man recorded in the New Testament. That in itself is remarkable. Peter, Paul, and John had visions, not dreams. And when Peter thought he was dreaming about an angel coming to rescue him from prison, that was reality, not a dream.

That does not mean that it may not be applicable in the future after the Second Coming of Christ.

justbyfaith · Dec 27, 2019

There does not need to be a recorded instance of old men dreaming dreams for that to be a result of God's pouring out of His Spirit on all flesh.

One verse (in the NT) is enough to tell us that when God pours out of His Spirit, old men shall dream dreams.

That verse is Acts 2:17. It is derived from Joel 2:28; so that makes two verses that substantiate the pov.

Hidden In Him · Dec 28, 2019

Nondenom40 said:
Heres Robertson FWIW;

Dwelling in the things which he hath seen (α εορακεν εμβατευων). Some MSS. have "not," but not genuine. This verb εμβατευω (from εμβατης, stepping in, going in) has given much trouble. Lightfoot has actually proposed κενεμβατευων (a verb that does not exist, though κενεμβατεω does occur) with αιωρα, to tread on empty air, an ingenious suggestion, but now unnecessary. It is an old word for going in to take possession (papyri examples also). W. M. Ramsay (Teaching of Paul, pp. 287ff.) shows from inscriptions in Klaros that the word is used of an initiate in the mysteries who "set foot in" (ενεβατευσεν) and performed the rest of the rites. Paul is here quoting the very work used of these initiates who "take their stand on" these imagined revelations in the mysteries.

Thanks for this. The basic use of the verb was in the sense of "entering into" something, such as stepping foot into one's homeland, or entering into an inheritance. But it also carried a different sense of "to investigate thoroughly," such as is in 2 Maccabees 2:30 (one of only two LXX uses), and I believe this is the sense in which it is used in Colossians 2:18.

I'm aware of Ramsey's theory that it was used as a technical term for "entering into" or being initiated into the mysteries, but I reject it as a proper interpretation here. The heretics in the letter were stressing adherence to Jewish cleanliness laws as part of their system, and a very strict form of keeping the Jewish sabbaths and holy days, and Judaism is so utterly in conflict with the mystery religions that the idea there could be some form of syncretism between them is improbable in the extreme.

Hidden In Him · Dec 28, 2019

justbyfaith said:
I know that in Joel 2 and Acts 2 we have the passages that tell us that your old men shall dream dreams in the power of the Spirit. And in the Jeremiah passage, God encourages the prophet that has a dream to tell his dream. Nevertheless, this is in context of men telling dreams of which the interpretation of them would lead the people of Israel astray. So that would indicate that there are dreams that are not of the Spirit, if these false prophets genuinely were relating dreams that they had.

So the question would be how to discern what dreams are of the Spirit and what dreams are not of the Spirit?

Absolutely, and very good observations. I could give an answer from experience here, but the passage you quoted itself actually gives a few insights into how to tell the difference. For one, it describes the responsibility of speaking the prophetic message of the Lord as being "a burden" that the prophet must carry:

Jer 23:33, And when this people, or the prophet, or a priest, shall ask thee, saying, What is the burden of the LORD? thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith the LORD. Jer 23:34, And as for the prophet, and the priest, and the people, that shall say, The burden of the LORD, I will even punish that man and his house. Jer 23:35, Thus shall ye say every one to his neighbour, and every one to his brother, What hath the LORD answered? and, What hath the LORD spoken? Jer 23:36, And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God. Jer 23:37, Thus shalt thou say to the prophet, What hath the LORD answered thee? and, What hath the LORD spoken? Jer 23:38, But since ye say, The burden of the LORD; therefore thus saith the LORD; Because ye say this word, The burden of the LORD, and I have sent unto you, saying, Ye shall not say, The burden of the LORD; Jer 23:39, Therefore, behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I will forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and cast you out of my presence: Jer 23:40, And I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten.

What the expression meant was that the prophetic message was often NOT very well received by its hearers (but a burden the true prophet must discharge faithfully) as it spoke of warnings and chastisements against Israel and Judah if the people did not repent of their sins. The false prophets, however, are depicted as prophesying that everything would go well for them and no judgment was coming for their sins:

Jer 23:17, They say still unto them that despise me, "The LORD hath said, Ye shall have peace"; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, "No evil shall come upon you..." Jer 23:21, I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. Jer 23:22, If they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.

So one really big difference is that the true prophetic message is very rarely "everything is going to come up roses. You have nothing to repent of." God's people in our time are just as sinful and rebellious, and thus most of the message is one of warnings. From experience I can tell you that prophetic warnings are also given regarding the strategies the enemy is using or will use against a church or fellowship (or individual), and again these are not "fun" things to have to discuss with people. I've had to warn people a few times that their lives were actually in danger, and it is not an easy thing to say.

Then you have the following verses, which also give light on the question of what dreams and interpretations are truly from God:

Jer 23:28, The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. Jer 23:29, Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

The LXX here reads "What is the chaff to the corn," but the meaning is essentially the same. He was telling true prophets to speak what He gave them even though false prophets were speaking false dreams left and right, because the true prophetic message was like corn or wheat; i.e. true spiritual food that would bring life to those who received it. The false message was worthless, and would bring no such life or spiritual growth.

Also, "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?" These are likely expressions meant to communicate how the true message of the Lord effects people. It causes concern, and effects in them a need to repent, for as scripture says, "Our God is a consuming fire." It also "burns up the chaff," meaning that when spoken it turns false "prophesies" into ashes by exposing them as fraudulent.

Hidden In Him · Dec 28, 2019

justbyfaith said:
So, do you believe that the OT is invalid; that it is not inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness?

And, even if you disregard the OT, the scripture in Acts is enough to tell us that old men dreaming dreams will be the result of God pouring out of His Spirit on all flesh.

I've been around and around with Enoch half a dozen times on this. He's a staunch Cessationist, but good luck with that, LoL. Maybe you can get through to him more that I have (but I wouldn't get my hopes up. He needs prayer more than anything else, because discussing it with him is invariably unprofitable).

Hidden In Him · Dec 28, 2019

Enoch111 said:
No. What I am saying is that even though Joel prophesied about dreams, there is not a single dream by an old or young man recorded in the New Testament. That in itself is remarkable. Peter, Paul, and John had visions, not dreams.

Again, Enoch? If they were not receiving dreams in the New Testament era, then how could that be considered in any way a true fulfillment of what Peter said when he quoted, "your young men shall see visions and your old men shall dream dreams"?

Please answer me this time. I don't say it with animosity, but nevertheless it needs to be said: It's spiritually irresponsible of you to continue saying this stuff when you won't respond to questions which expose it as not only bad theology but a completely illogical interpretation. What was your answer?

ScottA · Dec 28, 2019

Hidden In Him said:
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. (Colossians 2:18-19, KJV).

Greetings all. There has been some debate lately about what are the most reliable Greek manuscripts. For me, answering this question involves examining in particular those places in the texts where the discrepancies present two completely different theological positions. One is found in the verse above, where the received text and a few others include the word "not" in verse 18, while others (including P46, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, UBS and Westcott & Hort) all read simply, "investigating into those things which he has seen," which is an exact opposite reading from that presented in the TR.

So for those interested in discussing it, which is the correct reading? I hold that the TR reading is illogical, as no man can investigate or "intrude" into anything he has not seen. He can only investigate into what he thinks he has.

For all who disagree, present a case for how you think the TR reading makes more sense and communicates more accurately what the writer was trying to say.

Blessings in Christ to all who respond.
Hidden in Him

I wouldn't say that "seen" or "not seen" even matters. But rather that those who know the truth not be swayed by intrusion. The key word is "intruding."

Hidden In Him · Dec 28, 2019

ScottA said:
I wouldn't say that "seen" or "not seen" even matters. But rather that those who know the truth not be swayed by intrusion. The key word is "intruding."

Well, as I was saying in other posts, I think "intruding" is something of a dubious translation here. But I do agree that the primary exhortation is not to be swayed by false teachers who are not connected to the Head, i.e. those who are not getting their teachings from Him.

Steve Owen · Dec 28, 2019

Hidden In Him said:
Greetings all. There has been some debate lately about what are the most reliable Greek manuscripts. For me, answering this question involves examining in particular those places in the texts where the discrepancies present two completely different theological positions. One is found in the verse above, where the received text and a few others include the word "not" in verse 18, while others (including P46, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, UBS and Westcott & Hort) all read simply, "investigating into those things which he has seen," which is an exact opposite reading from that presented in the TR.

Hello HiH,
The fact is that the vast majority of the extant Greek texts, 800 or so, support the Received Text, while the grand total of ten, according to the apparatus in my UBS Greek Testament, support the Critical Text. I tend to support the majority, so I'll go for the T.R.

Hidden In Him · Dec 28, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Hello HiH,
The fact is that the vast majority of the extant Greek texts, 800 or so, support the Received Text, while the grand total of ten, according to the apparatus in my UBS Greek Testament, support the Critical Text. I tend to support the majority, so I'll go for the T.R.

Ok, well I could respond to that, only it would end up redirecting the focus of this thread.

But I'm presuming by this then that you favor the reading of, "investigating into those things he has not seen." What do you interpret the phrase to mean specifically?

Blessings in Christ, and thank you for responding.

Steve Owen · Dec 29, 2019

Hidden In Him said:
Ok, well I could respond to that, only it would end up redirecting the focus of this thread.

But I'm presuming by this then that you favor the reading of, "investigating into those things he has not seen." What do you interpret the phrase to mean specifically?

Blessings in Christ, and thank you for responding.

Whether I prefer one reading to another, or whether I find one easier to understand than another is beside the point. The question is, which do I think is more likely to be what the Apostle wrote. It is the Critical Text supporters who have the zany view that the more difficult reading is always to be preferred.
However, the NKJV (my translation of choice) has, 'intruding into those things which he has not seen.' The people in view here are those who 'Take delight in false humility and the worship of angels.' These people know nothing of angels and are therefore intruding into things which they have not seen and of which they have no knowledge, 'vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind,' instead of trusting in the word of God.

Hidden In Him · Dec 29, 2019

Steve Owen said:
However, the NKJV (my translation of choice) has, 'intruding into those things which he has not seen.' The people in view here are those who 'Take delight in false humility and the worship of angels.' These people know nothing of angels and are therefore intruding into things which they have not seen and of which they have no knowledge, 'vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind,' instead of trusting in the word of God.

This view presumes that the heretics Paul was speaking of were literally endorsing the worshipping of angels, Steve. My problem with that theory is that they were also stressing the need to keep Jewish cleanliness laws and feast days and sabbaths. What sort of strict Jewish sect would advocate worshipping angels when Jews knew that their God was One, and He commanded them specifically not to worship anyone or anything other than Him?

Steve Owen · Dec 30, 2019

Hidden In Him said:
This view presumes that the heretics Paul was speaking of were literally endorsing the worshipping of angels, Steve. My problem with that theory is that they were also stressing the need to keep Jewish cleanliness laws and feast days and sabbaths. What sort of strict Jewish sect would advocate worshipping angels when Jews knew that their God was One, and He commanded them specifically not to worship anyone or anything other than Him?

Well people earn PhDs by writing about the 'Colossian Heresy,' but I don't think you'll find that it was a Jewish sect. It seems to have been some sort of proto-gnosticism that was inflicting the church in Colosse, a 'Christ Plus' amalgam of different ideas, but I don't think it can be argued that the heretics were strict Jews or, in the light of Colossians 2:18, that they did not advocate the worship of angelic beings.

I can go into more detail on this if you want, but I don't want to derail the thread.

Textual Discrepancies In Colossians 2:18

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads