Was the Torah only a Shadow?
(Col. 2:16-17 & Heb. 10:1)
By
James Scott Trimm
Often when I share with Christians that the Torah is everlasting, for all generations, they respond by saying, “But the law was only a shadow.” By this they allude to Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1, two passages which have been very misunderstood.
Lets begin by looking at Col. 2:16-17 as it reads in the KJV:
Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a 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.
(Col. 2:16-17 KJV)
There are three issues we must look at here:
First the passage speaks not only of “meat” but of “drink” so it cannot be speaking about the kosher laws which deal with food not drink. Paul’s opponent here has differing views regarding “meat”; “drink”; “holydays”; “new moons” and “sabbaths”. Clearly his opponent here are the Essene influence within the movement which later re-emerged as the Ebionites. These Essene-Proto-Ebionites were vegetarians, they all took the Nazarite Vow (and thus abstained from wine) and they used a Solar Calendar. Thus they differed with Paul on issues of “meat”; “drink”; “holydays”; “new moons” and “sabbaths”. SO Paul is not speaking here about the validity of Torah, but of his opponents positions on these issues.
Secondly there is the “shadow” issue. Now we know that Passover was a shadow which Messiah fulfilled, yet rather than abolish the observance of Passover as a result, Paul says “therefore let us keep the feast” (1Cor. 5:7-8).
Lastly we must once again look at the KJV’s use of italic here. The italics in the KJV indicate words that are not really there in the Greek, but which the KJV has added to the text. This is supposed to be to help the text make sense in English, but in some cases like this one the italics have been used to completely and radically change the meaning of the text. If we remove the italicized word “is” from the phrase “body is of Christ” we see the familiar phrase “body of Christ” which appears over and over in the New Testament. Why would one disrupt the common phrase “body of Christ” by inserting the word “is”? If we reread the KJV without this word something interesting happens:
Let no man therefore judge you
in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon,
or of the sabbath:
Which are a shadow of things to come;
but the body of Christ.
(Col. 2:16-17 KJV without itallics)
Suddenly the passage is no longer contesting “shadow” with “body” it is contrasting “man” with the “body of Christ” or “body of Messiah”! The passage is now saying that no individual man has authority to judge in these matters, only the collective Body of Messiah has this authority.
Now lets look at Hebrews 10:1 as it appears in the KJV:
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
(Heb. 10:1 KJV)
It should also be noted that while most manuscripts of Hebrews do read in this verse “not the very substance” the oldest copy of Hebrews (p46) reads:
For the law having a shadow of good things to come,
and the very image of the things.
(Hebrews 10:1 from p46, the oldest copy of Hebrews)
The Hebrew text of Hebrews which Sabastian Munster obtained “from among the Jews” and published in the 16th Century has a conflation in this verse reading “and not the very substance”. Only Munster and p46 have the word “and” in this verse (the word “and” is in the KJV here, but is in italics, meaning that it was not in the Greek). The presence of the word “and” in the Munster Hebrew text could be seen as supporting the reading of p46 and the word “not” could have been added to the Hebrew text later to bring it into conformity with the majority of Greek manuscripts. In any case, it is ill advised to create an entire theology around a word in the text for which the evidence is divided as to whether that word even appeared in the original. And even if we accept that the word “not” belongs in the text, this still does not indicate that the Torah should no longer be kept. Paul here is referring in context to the fact that the earthly tabernacle is a shadow of the heavenly one (see Heb. 8:5; 9:11). This passage does not teach a doctrine that the Torah should not be kept because it is only a shadow, in fact the Torah has always been a shadow of good things to come, even in the days of Moses when the Tabernacle stood and was being used.
Yes the Torah is in fact a shadow of many good things. The tabernacle in the Torah is a shadow of the heavenly tabernacle. The holydays, the new moon and the sabbath day in the Torah are also shadows of things to come. For example the Passover was a shadow which Messiah fulfilled, yet rather than abolish the observance of Passover as a result, Paul says “therefore let us keep the feast” (1Cor. 5:7-8). In fact these elements of Torahs have always been “shadows of things to come” even when Moses was stoning people to death for violating the Sabbath. We should ask ourselves this: When Moses was stoning people to death for violating Sabbath why did they not timidly lift a finger and say “Excuse me Moses, but the Sabbath is just a shadow…”? Clearly then the fact that it is a “shadow” does not mean that it should not be observed, in fact the scripture indicates that the fact that it is a shadow is all the more reason to observe it. Note especially that in Paul’s day these things were still shadows of things to come, there were also still elements of Torah which had not then seen their allegorical prophetic parallels, and in fact many of these parallels still lay in the future, in the last days, the second coming of Messiah and the Millennial Kingdom.
The Torah is a shadow of good things to come, therefore let us keep the Torah.
(See bonus info from Philo of Alexandria at the bottom of this blog.)
We are losing the home we have been renting for seven years! We must be out by March 1st! We literally do not know where we will be living in just three months! We need your help today!
Visit our Go Fund Me Page:
https://gofund.me/f551fb4f
We cannot do this work alone, but if we work together we can accomplish so much. So don’t forget to support this work with your contributions, tithes and offerings.
You make this work possible. Please help us bring the message of Torah and Messiah to a lost world and create Scripture study materials for believers.
Now is time to step up to the plate!
Donations can be sent by Paypal to donations@wnae.org or by Zelle
Click HERE to donate
Bonus:
Philo of Alexandria had encountered others in his day who taught that observing the actual commandments was not necessary at all, that all that was really important was to understand the deep truths which they, through symbolism and allegory, teach us. Philo responded to this false teaching as follows:
(89) For there are some men, who, looking upon written laws as symbols of things appreciable by the intellect, have studied some things with superfluous accuracy, and have treated others with neglectful indifference; whom I should blame for their levity; for they ought to attend to both classes of things, applying themselves both to an accurate investigation of invisible things, and also to an irreproachable observance of those laws which are notorious. (90) But now men living solitarily by themselves as if they were in a desert, or else as if they were mere souls unconnected with the body, and as if they had no knowledge of any city, or village, or house, or in short of any company of men whatever, overlook what appears to the many to be true, and seek for plain naked truth by itself, whom the sacred scripture teaches not to neglect a good reputation, and not to break through any established customs which divine men of greater wisdom than any in our time have enacted or established. (91) For although the seventh day is a lesson to teach us the power which exists in the uncreated God, and also that the creature is entitled to rest from his labours, it does not follow that on that account we may abrogate the laws which are established respecting it, so as to light a fire, or till land, or carry burdens, or bring accusations, or conduct suits at law, or demand a restoration of a deposit, or exact the repayment of a debt, or do any other of the things which are usually permitted at times which are not days of festival. (92) Nor does it follow, because the feast is the symbol of the joy of the soul and of its gratitude towards God, that we are to repudiate the assemblies ordained at the periodical seasons of the year; nor because the rite of circumcision is an emblem of the excision of pleasures and of all the passions, and of the destruction of that impious opinion, according to which the mind has imagined itself to be by itself competent to produce offspring, does it follow that we are to annul the law which has been enacted about circumcision. Since we shall neglect the laws about the due observance of the ceremonies in the temple, and numbers of others too, if we exclude all figurative interpretation and attend only to those things which are expressly ordained in plain words. (93) But it is right to think that this class of things resembles the body, and the other class the soul; therefore, just as we take care of the body because it is the abode of the soul, so also must we take care of the laws that are enacted in plain terms: for while they are regarded, those other things also will be more clearly understood, of which these laws are the symbols, and in the same way one will escape blame and accusation from men in general.
(Philo; On the Migration of Abraham)
Philo pointed out that the literal meaning of the commandments was like a body and the symbolic meaning was like a soul. Since the soul inhabits the body, the soul depends upon the care of the body. Likewise the symbolic truths of the Torah depend upon the observance of the commandments to have any real meaning. As we read in the Talmud that no passage loses its PASHAT (literal meaning) (b.Shab. 63a; b.Yeb. 24a)
For example the Passover was a shadow which Messiah fulfilled, yet rather than abolish the observance of Passover as a result, Paul says “therefore let us keep the feast” (1Cor. 5:7-8).
