# Sabbatarianism and Colossians 2:16



## RamistThomist (Aug 12, 2007)

Disclaimer: I hold to the Confession's position on the Sabbath. I am not bashing the confessions. But I hear this objection to sabbatarianism a lot. 

Colossians 2:16Therefore 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. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 

Now, could we evade the argument by saying that these are ceremonial elements of the Sabbath, while the Sabbath itself as normative is still intact?


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 12, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Disclaimer: I hold to the Confession's position on the Sabbath. I am not bashing the confessions. But I hear this objection to sabbatarianism a lot.
> 
> Colossians 2:16Therefore 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. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
> 
> Now, could we evade the argument by saying that these are ceremonial elements of the Sabbath, while the Sabbath itself as normative is still intact?



I'd go further and say he is talking about actual ceremonial sabbaths (plural) and not the normative observance of the Sabbath. So not just an element, but the special holy days outlined in the OT. 

I get this from noting that the Septuagint in Exodus 20:10 uses the singular, but Colossians 2:16 uses the plural for Sabbath. I think I read Jonathan Edwards using a similar argument.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 12, 2007)

Jacob,
That is certainly the way I would interpret it, although I do not think there was a great deal of "ceremonial" observance of the day spelled out in the Law. There was much more of that in the oral tradition. The Jewish opposition to Christianity would have angrily attacked these believers (and their multitude of Gentile converts) for their disinterest in the full panoply of Jewish law-life, all the ceremonial exclusivism. Specifically, as it related to the Sabbath, we would argue that Christ changed the specific day on which Sabbath was to be observed.

We would argue, then, that the Jewish insistence that "holy convocations" to God and "rest" must be observed on the Old Testament day of designation (not to mention whatever talmudic observances were added) was not to concern the Christian in the least. Now, if God had retained a day for himself, and simply changed the specifics, then this passage in Colossians has no weight to inveigh against a NT Lord's Day, or NT Sabbath

See here, this one Colossians passage cannot "undo" an entire, broadly constructed, biblical case that establishes that there *is* a moral principle at stake, in that God sets both the means and the times in which he _is to be_ be approached. The text most certainly does NOT say, "there is no Sabbath in this age." In fact, an argument can be made straight from the words of the text that "the substance belongs to Christ," is just as much of an argument that NT age Sabbath-keeping MUST be Christological, provided there be a well-founded argument for its existence.

The position Paul seems to be arguing against is a form of judaizing, of returning to pre-Christ formula out of the law. There are some who tie the Sabbath so closely to the law, even denying there is a Sabbath from creation--basically saying that a morally binding Sabbath is purely a Mosaic ceremonial ordinance (they say, since God made a Sabbath _for_ man, and not the other way around, then man was not morally bound to observe it from the creation of the world). It seems obvious to me that the recitation of the Sabbath law in the "10", as foundational to the Mosaic Law that follows, actually underscores its moral, eternal quality.


----------



## MW (Aug 12, 2007)

Thankyou, Bruce, that was very clear. We hold as Christians that God has appointed "one day in seven to be a holy Sabbath to Himself." The Jewish and Adventist idea is that the seventh day itself is holy. Our Lord's Sabbath is mutable, able to changed from the last day to the first. The Jewish and Adventist Sabbath is immutable.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 12, 2007)

Here are my notes from Joey Pipa's excellent book _The Lord's Day_. I heartily recommend it to you. He deals at some length with the issue of Colossians 2:16-17. My copy is at the office, however.


1.The teaching of Paul (Romans 14:5-6; Galatians 4:10-11; Colossians 2:16,17)
(1)The key text for consideration is Col. 2:16-17: _“So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”_ (Colossians 2:16-17 NKJV)
(2)Is Paul abrogating the principal of the Sabbath, or the observance of the 7th day (Jewish) sabbath?
(3)Note Paul’s language here: _“festival or a new moon or sabbaths”_ (eorthj h noumhniaj h sabbatwn); it is used in various other places.
·2 Chronicles 31:3; Nehemiah 10:32-33
·Leviticus 23 shows a commentary: (i) Lev. 23:1-3 deals with holy convocations, including the seventh-day sabbath; (ii) Lev. 23:4-44 explains the great festivals of Pentecost, Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Feast of Booths, the “feasts”; (iii) Lev. 23:24-25 explains the “new moons.”

2.A shadow of what is to come
(1)In the transitional period from the Old Covenant to the New, many Jewish Christians observed such days. Paul is repudiating any *required* observance of Jewish holy days. They pointed to Christ, and as such, are fulfilled in Him.
·Passover pictured Him as the Lamb of God (John 1:29)
·Feast of the Unleavened Bread was a picture of His resurrection (1 Co. 15:23)
·Pentecost was a shadow of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gathering of the nations to Christ
(2)A similar analysis is made for Romans 14 and Galatians 4; Paul is not attempting to abrogate the force of the 4th Commandment, but rather the observance of Jewish ceremonial law.


----------



## jbergsing (Aug 12, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Disclaimer: I hold to the Confession's position on the Sabbath. I am not bashing the confessions. But I hear this objection to sabbatarianism a lot.
> 
> Colossians 2:16Therefore 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. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
> 
> Now, could we evade the argument by saying that these are ceremonial elements of the Sabbath, while the Sabbath itself as normative is still intact?


That's what the SDA church claims. Or, at least, that's what my SDA friends tell me about this verse.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 24, 2007)

*John Gill's Commentary*

*Col 2:16 - Let no man therefore judge you,....* Since they were complete in Christ, had everything in him, were circumcised in him; and particularly since the handwriting of the law was blotted out, and torn to pieces through the nails of the cross of Christ, the apostle's conclusion is, that they should be judged by no man; they should not regard or submit to any man's judgment, as to the observance of the ceremonial law: Christ is the prophet who was to be raised up like unto Moses, and who only, and not Moses, is to be heard; saints are to call no man master upon earth but him; they are not to be the servants of men, nor should suffer any yoke of bondage to be imposed upon them; and should they be suffered and condemned by others, as if they were transgressors of the law, and their state bad, for not observing the rituals of the former dispensation, they should not regard such censures, for the judaizing Christians were very censorious, they were ready to look upon and condemn a man as an immoral man, as in a state of damnation, if he did not keep the law of Moses; but such rigid censures were to be disregarded, "let no man judge", or "condemn you"; and though they could not help or hinder the judgment and condemnation of men, yet they could despise them, and not be uneasy with them, but set light by them, as they ought to do. The Syriac version renders it, נדודכון, "let no man trouble you", or make you uneasy, by imposing ceremonies on you: the sense is, that the apostle would not have them submit to the yoke they would lay upon them, nor be terrified by their anathemas against them, for the non-observation of the things that follow: 

*in meat or in drink;* or on account of not observing the laws and rules about meats and drinks, in the law of Moses; such as related to the difference between clean and unclean creatures, to abstinence in Nazarites from wine and strong drink, and which forbid drinking out of an uncovered vessel, and which was not clean; hence the washing of cups, &c. religiously observed by the Pharisees. There was no distinction of meats and drinks before the law, but all sorts of herbs and animals, without limitation, were given to be food for men; by the ceremonial law a difference was made between them, some were allowed, and others were forbidden; which law stood only in meats and drinks, and such like things, but is now abolished; for the kingdom of God, or the Gospel dispensation, does not lie in the observance of such outward things, but in internal ones, in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; it is not any thing that goes into the man that defiles, nor is anything in its own nature common or unclean, but every creature of God is good, so be it, it be used in moderation and with thankfulness: 

*or in respect of an holyday;* or feast, such as the feast of the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the feast of Pentecost; which were three grand festivals, at which all the Jewish males were obliged to appear before the Lord; but were never binding upon the Gentiles, and were what the Christians under the Gospel dispensation had nothing to do with, and even believing Jews were freed from them, as having had their accomplishment in Christ; and therefore were not to be imposed upon them, or they condemned for the neglect of them. The phrase εν μερει, which we render "in respect", has greatly puzzled interpreters; some reading it "in part of a feast"; or holyday; as if the sense was, that no man should judge or condemn them, for not observing some part of a festival, since they were not obliged to observe any at all: others "in the partition", or "division of a feast"; that is, in the several distinct feasts, as they come in their turns: some (c) think the apostle respects the Misna, or oral law of the Jews, in which are several treatises concerning a good day, or an holyday, the beginning of the new year, and the sabbath, which treatises are divided into sections or chapters; and that it is one of these sections or chapters, containing rules about these things, that is here regarded; and then the sense is, let no man judge you or condemn you, for your non-observance of feast days, new moons, and sabbaths, by any part, chapter, or section, of יום טוב, or by anything out of the treatise "concerning a feast day"; or by any part, chapter, or section, of ראש השנה, the treatise "concerning the beginning of the year"; or by any part, chapter, or section, of שבת, the treatise "concerning the sabbath"; and if these treatises are referred to, it proves the antiquity of the Misna. The Syriac version renders it, בפולגא דעאדא, "in the divisions of the feast": frequent mention is made of פרוס החג, "the division", or "half of the feast", in the Jewish writings: thus for instance it is said (d), "three times in a year they clear the chamber (where the half-shekels were put), בפרוס, "in the half", or middle of the passover, in the middle of Pentecost, and in the middle of the feast. again (e). "there are three times for tithing of beasts, in the middle of the passover, in the middle of Pentecost, and the middle of the feast; that is, of tabernacles: and this, the Jewish commentators say (f), was fifteen days before each of these festivals: now whether it was to this, פרוס, "middle", or "half space", before each and any of these feasts the apostle refers to, may be considered: 

*or of the new moon;* which the Jews were obliged to observe, by attending religious worship, and offering sacrifices; see Num_28:11 2Ki_4:23. 

*Or of the sabbath days, or "sabbaths";* meaning the jubilee sabbath, which was one year in fifty; and the sabbath of the land, which was one year in seven; and the seventh day sabbath, and some copies read in the singular number, "or of the sabbath"; which were all peculiar to the Jews, were never binding on the Gentiles, and to which believers in Christ, be they who they will, are by no means obliged; nor ought they to observe them, the one any more than the other; and should they be imposed upon them, they ought to reject them; and should they be judged, censured, and condemned, for so doing, they ought not to mind it. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the Gentiles are not obliged to keep their sabbath; no, not the proselyte of the gate, or he that dwelt in any of their cities; for they say (g), that "it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common feast day; R. Akiba says, as for all Israelite on a feast day; R. Jose says, it is lawful for a proselyte of the gate to do work on the sabbath day for himself, as for an Israelite on a common or week day: and this last is the received sense of the nation; nay, they assert that a Gentile that keeps a sabbath is guilty of death (h); see Gill on Mar_2:27. Yea, they say (i), that "if a Gentile sabbatizes, or keeps a sabbath, though on any of the days of the week, if he makes or appoints it as a sabbath for himself, he is guilty of the same. It is the general sense of that people, that the sabbath was peculiarly given to the children of Israel; and that the Gentiles, strangers, or others, were not punishable for the neglect and breach of it (k); that it is a special and an additional precept, which, with some others, were given them at Marah, over and above the seven commands, which the sons of Noah were only obliged to regard (l); and that the blessing and sanctifying of it were by the manna provided for that day; and that the passage in Gen_2:3; refers not to the then present time, but על העתיד, "to time to come", to the time of the manna (m), 

(c) Vid. Casaubon. Epist. ep. 24. (d) Misn. Shekalim, c. 3. sect. 1. (e) Misn. Becorot, c. 9. sect. 5. (f) Maimon. & Bartenora in ib. (g) T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 9. 1. Piske Tosaphot Yebamot. art. 84. Maimon. Hilch. Sabbat, c. 20. sect. 14. (h) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 58. 2. (i) Maimon. Hilch. Melachim, c. 10. sect. 9. (k) T. Bab. Betza, fol. 16. 1. Seder Tephillot, fol. 76. 1. Ed. Amtst. (l) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 56. 2. Seder Olam Rabba, p. 17. & Zuta, p. 101. Ed. Meyer. (m) Jarchi & Baal Hatturim in Gen. ii. 3. Pirke Eliezer, c. 18.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 24, 2007)

*Albert Barnes*

*Col 2:16 - Let no man, therefore, judge you -* compare Rom_14:10, note, 13, note. The word judge here is used in the sense of pronouncing a sentence. The meaning is, “since you have thus been delivered by Christ from the evils which surrounded you: since you have been freed from the observances of the law, let no one sit in judgment on you, or claim the right to decide for you in those matters. You are not responsible to man for your conduct, but to Christ; and no man has a right to impose that on you as a burden from which he has made you free.”

*In meat - *Margin, or eating and drinking. The meaning is, “in respect to the various articles of food and drink.” There is reference here, undoubtedly, to the distinctions which the Jews made on this subject, implying that an effort had been made by Jewish teachers to show them that the Mosaic laws were binding on all.

*Or in respect of a holy day -* Margin, part. The meaning is, “in the part, or the particular of a holy day; that is, in respect to it” The word rendered “holy-day” - ἑορτὴ heortē - means properly a “feast” or “festival;” and the allusion here is to the festivals of the Jews. The sense is, that no one had a right to impose their observance on Christians, or to condemn them if they did not keep them. They had been delivered from that obligation by the death of Christ; Col_2:14.

*Or of the new moon - *On the appearance of the new moon, among the Hebrews, in addition to the daily sacrifices, two bullocks, a ram, and seven sheep, with a meat offering, were required to be presented to God; Num_10:10; Num_28:11-14. The new moon in the beginning of the month Tisri (October) was the beginning of their civil year, and was commanded to be observed as a festival; Lev_23:24, Lev_23:25.

*Or of the Sabbath days *- Greek, “of the Sabbaths.” The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number - “the Sabbath,” it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law - no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as “a shadow of good things to come.” These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 24, 2007)

I'm reading Pipa's _Lord's Day _with my wife. We're slowly discovering the delight it is to rest on the Lord's Holy Day!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 24, 2007)

http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/resolving-problems-in-colossians-216-17/

James Renihan just posted a blog on this topic on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 25, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> I'm reading Pipa's _Lord's Day _with my wife. We're slowly discovering the delight it is to rest on the Lord's Holy Day!



I have been through the same experience. It was reading Pipa's book that provoked me to call the Sabbath a delight. Try this also


----------

