When we study English translations of the Bible, we frequently encounter conjunctions. When we proof-text the Bible, we frequently ignore conjunctions.
Conjunction: A word that links other words, phrases, or complete ideas together.
Examples of conjunctions include: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so, either, or, neither, nor, also, but, therefore, because
Conjunctions are a significant red flag that something else comes before or after the word, sentence, or verse we are reading. The conjunction directly signals what we are reading is connected to something we just read or are about to read. When we read a conjunction, we should understand the portion of text we are reading is connected with a portion we just read or a portion that is coming next. We should never ignore a conjunction and read text in isolation from its linked parts.
Example: A Proof-Text For Abolishing the Sabbath, Feasts, and Dietary Laws
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17, ESV)
This verse is one of the most frequent proof-texts I encounter from people who want to assert the Sabbath, feasts, and dietary laws have been abolished. The obvious problem with this proof-text is it begins with “therefore”.
The word “therefore” is a conjunction, and its use at the beginning of the sentence in verse 16 tells us verse 16 directly links to what came before it. When people lift Colossians 2:16 out of context they are ignoring everything that came before it in the same book, even in the very same chapter, and forcing the verse to stand alone without its supporting ideas and statements. Lifting the verse out of context and willfully ignoring its complete message makes it easy to distort the meaning of the verse.
“Therefore” presents the conclusion of an argument. All the premises were given before the “therefore”. A logical argument would be structured and phrased in a manner such as the following example:
Premise 1: “If…”
Premise 2: “And…”
Conclusion: “Therefore…”
When we start at the “therefore” and ignore everything that came before it, we are reading only the conclusion to the matter while ignoring all the premises. If we disregard the premises of an argument and read only its conclusion, we can erroneously fill in our own premises and make the conclusion mean what we want it to mean.
To understand the conclusion beginning in Colossians 2:16, we have to back up to the initial premise in Colossians 2:8.
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8, ESV)
Paul begins his argument in verse 8. Paul is warning the people at Colossae to guard themselves against being snared by something that is philosophy, empty, deceitful, based on human tradition, based on worldly principles, and contrary to the Messiah. Paul can’t be warning the people of Colossae against the Sabbath, feasts, or dietary laws because these things were all given by YHWH in His Torah. Torah is holy, perfect, and just. Torah is not a philosophy, it is not empty and deceitful, it is not something that takes people captive, it is not a human tradition, and it does not go contrary to the Messiah. Whatever Paul is warning the Colossian people against is something other than Torah, so his conclusion cannot reasonably be that we are free to disregard Torah commandments.
Paul’s opening premise begins in verse 8, and he continues to build on it through verse 15. If we study verses 8 through 15 in their complete context, then the conclusion in verse 16 can be correctly understood. In fact, what Paul is teaching in verse 8 flows from what he wrote from the beginning of the letter. So, if we read Colossians 1:1 through Colossians 2:16 we will get the best contextual understanding of what Paul wrote. But, if we cherry-pick a piece of the letter and disregard its surrounding context then we end up with a distorted message that leads people to false doctrine.
Please keep conjunctions in mind as you study scripture. If you’re presented with a proof-text containing a conjunction, you should immediately ask questions such as “Where’s the other part of this verse?”, “What is the rest of this verse saying?”, or “What is the complete thought behind this verse?” If it’s obvious a verse if being taken out of context, insist on reading the full context of the verse. If someone insists on only considering the cherry-picked verse in isolation, do not believe his or her interpretation of the text.
And when you look for portions of scripture to answer a question or confirm a belief, be honest with the conjunctions. If one verse seems to say exactly what you want but contains a conjunction, don’t ignore the conjunction. Rather, study the full surrounding text to properly understand what is being said. Our goal in Bible study isn’t to affirm our existing beliefs but to understand the objective truth of God’s word, even if it means we must abandon deeply held theological doctrines.