Objections to the Sabbath using Colossians 2:16

[Unoriginalname]

First off, I am not trying to subvert the confessions just to get that out of the way. I am just unsure what the confessional answer is to the objection that says "Colossians 2:16 relegates the sabbath to an old testament ordinance."

 

[Unoriginalname]

I understand the appeal to the whole council of God. I am just wondering how someone can prove that the sabbath as mentioned in this particular text is not the sabbath of the 4th commandment. Disclaimer again, I do not doubt that the 4th commandment is binding I am just curious if anyone posesses a knock down exegetical argument that can put this silly objection to rest.

 

[toddpedlar]

I understand the appeal to the whole council of God. I am just wondering how someone can prove that the sabbath as mentioned in this particular text is not the sabbath of the 4th commandment. Disclaimer again, I do not doubt that the 4th commandment is binding I am just curious if anyone posesses a knock down exegetical argument that can put this silly objection to rest.

Eric -

Joshua has already alerted you to the contextual cues in Colossians 2:16. These will not be heard by everyone, because if one is predisposed to see "liberty in the matter of the sabbath", then they are likely to ignore any context that presents itself in Colossians 2:16. The context is, it seems to me, the best "knock down exegetical argument". Paul in this section of Colossians 2 is very clearly addressing the ceremonial observations of the judaic system, and calling upon the saints at Colossae to reject and dispense with the judgments of those judaizing elements within the community who would judge them based on, as he says in this verse, "meat, the festivals, the new moon, and the sabbaths" These practices are wholly identifiable parts of the ceremonial law that, as Paul writes in 2:17, pointed forward to Christ, who has now come. Those are GONE. He is calling again, as he does in other of his letters, for the recognition that Christ, being the one sacrifice for sin, the atonement for his people once and only once, is the cause for those "pointing forward" practices to be dispensed with. It's not about "the sabbath" as an institution, but "the sabbaths" as ceremonial rituals - presumably this is indicative of the many sabbaths over and above the first day sabbath, which is not (it seems quite plain to me) something that fits the context well at all.

But those predisposed to reject the sabbatarian argument generally don't listen well to arguments such as the above (because they reject it a priori, out of hand).

Todd

 

[Peairtach]

All good books on the Christian Sabbath (Lord's Day) have useful sections on Romans 14, Colossians 2:16 and Galatians 4:10.

Scripture must interpreted with Scripture in a covenantal rather than dispensational way. Any other approach is inconsistent and arbitrary exegesis that does not account for all the biblical data.

We start with the fact that the one day in seven was given to Man rather than the Israelites - unlike the many other days that were given to them - and work our way forward through Scripture.

http://www.amazon.com/Call-Sabbath-...=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323635004&sr=1-4

http://www.amazon.com/Lords-Day-Jos...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323635032&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Commandme...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323635163&sr=1-1

 

[MW]

We should bear in mind that the ceremonial holiness of the Sabbath day has been laid aside in the New Testament. Such texts as speak to the abrogation of the Sabbath are effectively teaching that there is no ceremonial holiness in the day. We intuitively accept this because we acknowledge the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath.

 

[jwithnell]

Rev. Winzer, that is an interesting point you raise; one that I'm not sure I've seen before. What ceremonial holiness was added to the sabbath under the Mosaic covenant?

 

[elnwood]

It's not about "the sabbath" as an institution, but "the sabbaths" as ceremonial rituals

If I'm understanding this correctly, the use of "Sabbath" here is a metonymy, referring to the rituals performed on the Sabbath, not to the Sabbath institution itself. Is that correct?

Are there other examples in Scripture using the word "Sabbath" as a metonymy that we can point to, in order to show that Colossians 2:16 is also using "Sabbath" that way?

 

[jwithnell]

Don if I'm following your thinking correctly, the instructions given for the 7th year rest and the year of Jubilee would be examples? These rituals were not necessarily completed in the temple but carried strong religious, if you will, meanings or teachings..

 

[Unoriginalname]

Joshua has already alerted you to the contextual cues in Colossians 2:16. These will not be heard by everyone, because if one is predisposed to see "liberty in the matter of the sabbath", then they are likely to ignore any context that presents itself in Colossians 2:16. The context is, it seems to me, the best "knock down exegetical argument". Paul in this section of Colossians 2 is very clearly addressing the ceremonial observations of the judaic system, and calling upon the saints at Colossae to reject and dispense with the judgments of those judaizing elements within the community who would judge them based on, as he says in this verse, "meat, the festivals, the new moon, and the sabbaths" These practices are wholly identifiable parts of the ceremonial law that, as Paul writes in 2:17, pointed forward to Christ, who has now come. Those are GONE. He is calling again, as he does in other of his letters, for the recognition that Christ, being the one sacrifice for sin, the atonement for his people once and only once, is the cause for those "pointing forward" practices to be dispensed with. It's not about "the sabbath" as an institution, but "the sabbaths" as ceremonial rituals - presumably this is indicative of the many sabbaths over and above the first day sabbath, which is not (it seems quite plain to me) something that fits the context well at all.

That makes sense, Joshua I apologize if i sounded dismissive.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, that is an interesting point you raise; one that I'm not sure I've seen before. What ceremonial holiness was added to the sabbath under the Mosaic covenant?

Older works which sought to be systematic generally dealt with this question. Popular modern works often overlook it. Fundamentally, there are three elements to the Sabbath command -- moral obligation to set aside some portion of time for the worship of God; creation ordinance that this time be one whole day in seven; and the positive prescription of the day itself. Under the Mosaic law the last day of the week as a specific day was made holy and fell under the ceremonial prescriptions of that law. The day as a holy day has been set aside by the resurrection of Christ, which has freed us from the handwriting of ordinances. The Lord's Day is a positive New Testament prescription which is based on the moral obligation and original creation ordinance, but not upon the positive ceremonial prescription of the Mosaic law.

 

[Filipe Luiz C. Machado]

I agree with you, brother. Here we have the "shabbaths":

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, {Concerning} the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim {to be} holy convocations, {even} these {are} my feasts. Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day {is} the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work {therein}: it {is} the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings. These {are} the feasts of the LORD, {even} holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth {day} of the first month at even {is} the LORD'S passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month {is} the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day {is} an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work {therein}" Leviticus 23:1-8.

All of these practices are going away, because they appointed to the Son of God. So, the apostle Paul never said that the 4th commandment was canceled, if they did, we now have a 9 commandments and it can't be true, because the 10 commandments are the expression of the moral character of God and He can not void yourself - "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" James 1:17. "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" Titus 1:2. "If we believe not, {yet} he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" 2 Timothy 2:13.

God bless you.

 

[py3ak]

A good exponent, I think, of the view Mr. Winzer stated so clearly, is Patrick Fairbairn. In his Typology he speaks at some length about the Sabbath. He takes the view that Colossians 2:16 includes the other Sabbath days, but also the weekly Sabbath; and yet this does not mean that we are not bound to observe the Lord's Day. Unfortunately the version I found on Google books excludes a vital page of the argument, so I can offer only his conclusion:

But as baptism in the Spirit is Christ's circumcision, so the Lord's Day is His Sabbath; and to be in the Spirit on that day, worshipping and serving Him in the truth of His Gospel, is to take up the yoke of the Fourth Commandment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The word in use here is σάββατον, which is the same word for the Sabbath day used elsewhere but it's not necessarily the meaning of the word here but the way Paul is using it. A similar thing occurs when he uses the word "circumcision" to address a broader problem in Galatia.

When determining the use of a word, it is the context that drives interpretation. In this case, it is clear what Paul has in mind. Notice Paul doesn't say: "Don't observe a sabbath anymore" to make it clear that the Sabbath has been abrogated but he says: "Don' let anyone judge you..." and lists sabbath among ceremonial festivals. He further qualifies what he's talking about in the entire context:

16*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. 17*These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18*Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19*and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20*If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21*“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22*(referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23*These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Col 2:16–23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The pericope begins and ends with a focus on passing judgment with respect to an ascetic standard of righteousness on the basis of abstaining from food and drink and special days. From the verses that follow, how could it ever be said that the Scriptural practice of the Sabbath or any festival was "...according to elemental spirits of this world..."? How could it be said that the Sabbath or any festival was ever "...according to human precepts and teachings..."?

Here is where not only immediate context plays a key role in understanding what is going on but the provenance of the letter itself. We have to read between the lines in order to gain a full appreciation of what Paul is dealing with but the variant of the heresy here is not necessarily identical to other letters and there is a gnostic element here that Paul is railing against.

At the very least, proper hermeneutics takes in all the exegetical data on any given topic. There is certainly very little in the way of GNC to contribute to an idea that the entire Sabbath, which God ordained in creation and not in Moses, is to be understood to be abrogated by this somewhat unique problem which existed in Collose.

 

[JP Wallace]

I used to believe that the Colossians text was about ceremonial Sabbaths and not THE Sabbath, I have come to the conclusion that as Rev. Winzer has explained that Paul is including the weekly Jewish 7th Day Sabbath as well.

Therefore what he is saying is that no man can bind us to any day for worship or resting as a Sabbath and we are not to keep the 7th day Sabbath. Yet the Sabbath is a creational ordinance and contained in the Moral Law. If man cannot bind us to any day, and the Jewish Sabbath (7th day) is fulfilled in Christ, what day shall we/must we keep? The answer must come from the positive law of the NT Scriptures and only day mentioned is the 1st Day - The Lord's Day Sabbath.

 

[Pergamum]

Here is part of a letter I wrote to a friend (who adheres to New Covenant Theology):

When “sabbaths” are mentioned in Colossians 2 this is a technical term that describes the ceremonial Sabbaths – not the weekly Sabbath:

1. Feast days, 2.New moons, and 3.Sabbaths:

New Covenant Theology adherents often put forth Colossians 2:16 as a proof against the abiding obligation to maintain a “Christian Sabbath” – called “The Lord’s Day” in the New Testament. After all, both Romans 14 and Colossians 2 tell us not to honor one day above another. Therefore, the first day of the week has no special place among our worship. It seems pretty cut and dried, right?

Wrong!

Colossians 2 and Romans 14 are not adequate proofs to prove the abrogation of the 4th Commandment. The sabbaths spoken of in Colossian 2 are part of the ceremonial law and not the moral law.

The Jewish ceremonial calendar had many New Moon and sabbaths other than the weekly Sabbath. Colossian 2 speaks of these special ceremonial “holy days” - not the weekly Sabbath, which is part of the Decalogue (God’s summary of his moral law).

This is vital! The phrase used in Colossians 2:16, “feast days…new moons…sabbaths,” is a technical phrase. It is a specific phrase relating to the ceremonial laws of the Old Covenant. It is specifically used in the OT, to designate specific ceremonial events - and is nowhere used in reference to the weekly Sabbath. By using this phrase in Colossians 2, Paul is clearly referring to the ceremonial Sabbaths and not the Sabbath that is commanded in the Decalogue.

Hosea 2:11, clearly referring to the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant, contains this same three-part formulation of “feast days, new moons…sabbaths” that is also found in Colossian 2:16. This three-part phrase refers to the special feast and Sabbath days in the Jewish calendar. It is not referring to the weekly Sabbath. Likewise, I Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33, and Isaiah 1:13-14 all contain this common phrase, again clearly referring to ceremonial law and not the weekly Sabbath.

A Jewish Rabbi, such as Paul, would know this phrase (this 3-part formulation) well, and would be intimately familiar with its ceremonial connotations. The weekly Sabbath is not being removed here, but only the ceremonial system of feasts and holy days.

Plural sabbaths

Paul’s very grammar in Colossians 2:16 shows that he is not speaking of the abrogation of the Sabbath. In Colossians 2:16, Paul uses the plural in reference to “sabbaths.” He does not refer to the weekly Sabbath (singular), but many sabbaths (plural). Paul is referring to ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath.



Why wasn’t Paul clearer? If he meant yearly or ceremonial sabbaths and not the weekly Sabbath why didn’t he specify this?

Probably because he didn’t feel that he had to! He was being clear to his first-century audience by 1. his use of a well-known technical phrase (feast days, new moons and sabbaths), 2. his use of the plural for sabbaths, 3. his context of speaking – asserting that the ceremonial aspects of the old covenant are being done away with (i.e. and focusing on this ceremonial aspect of the law specifically).

Paul saw no need to say, “Remember, I am not speaking of the weekly Sabbath here.”


Receiving one that is “weak” in the faith versus receiving a sinful one:

Many appeal to Romans 14 to show that all days are alike and no weekly Sabbath exists. One man treats all days alike, another regards a day. Paul commands to receive the one who is weak in faith.

It is curious that this cannot refer to moral law, lest Paul would then need to modify his words so that a “sinful” one may be received. There is a difference in being weak in conscience and sinful. What is being talked about then must be ceremonial days. Paul is not white-washing sin here!

Moral law cannot be the object of Paul’s discussion. In Romans 14, Galatians 4 and Colossians 2, ceremonial days are being addressed and Paul is speaking on the subject of those who are trying to impose Jewish feast days and holy days upon believers. The weekly Sabbath, rooted in the Decalogue – which is a summary of God’s moral Self, cannot be the object of Romans 14 or Colossians 2.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

A blog I did on this topic. It mentions the Colossians passage and sets it up in context.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...ts-sabbath-concerning-colossians-hebrews-444/

The London Baptist Confession of Faith
Chapter 22

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

8. The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.
( Isaiah 58:13; Nehemiah 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-13 )

Here is part of a study of the triad (holydays, new moon, and Sabbaths) that a friend Richard Barcellos pointed out in one of his books which benefited me a lot. I quote a portion of it below and part of an article on Hebrews 4:9 by Robert Martin out of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

Here is a portion of an article taken from the Reformed Baptist Theological Review.

http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?categoryId=1&productId=13

I am posting it here for an examination of Colossians 2:16 and the triad phrase that is used in this passage along next to the Old Testament passage in Hosea 2:11.

(Col 2:16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

(Hos 2:11) I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

A lot of Baptist and non sabbattarians like to quote Colossians 2:16 as a passage that declares we need not keep a weekly Sabbath day to the Lord.


Richard Barcellos is the author. Please forgive my inept mistakes in copying it from a pdf to here.

1. The Old Testament prophesies the abrogation and cessation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.


The OT clearly prophesies the abrogation and cessation of ancient Israel‘s Sabbaths. It does so in Hos. 2:11, which says, ―I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her New Moons, her Sabbaths--all her appointed feasts." We will make several observations that bear this out. First, Hosea‘s prophecy is dealing with the days of the New Covenant. The phrase ―in that day" (vv. 16, 18, 21) is used prophetically of New Covenant days in Is. 22:20. Revelation 3:7 quotes Is. 22:22 and applies it to Christ. The prophecy in Is. 22:20 mentions the Lord‘s servant, who is Christ. Isaiah 22:20-22 says:

Then it shall be in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe and strengthen him with your belt; I will commit your responsibility into his hand. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.

Revelation 3:7, quoting Is. 22:22, says:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ―These things says He who is holy, He who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.

The phrase, ―in that day,
' refers to the days of Christ–the days of the New Covenant. Paul references Hos. 1:10 and 2:23 in Rom. 9:25, applying them to Christians. ―As He says also in Hosea: ‗I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved‘" (Rom. 9:25). Peter references Hos. 1:9-10 and 2:23 in 1 Pet. 2:10 and applies them to Christians as well. He says, ―who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Pet. 2:10). Hosea is clearly speaking of New Covenant days. According to the NT usage of Hosea, he is speaking of the time in redemptive history when God will bring Gentiles into a saving relationship with Jews. Much of the NT deals with this very issue.

Second, Hos. 2:11 clearly prophesies the abrogation of Old Covenant Israel‘s Sabbaths, along with ―all her appointed feasts." Hosea uses a triad of terms (―feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths") that is used many places in the OT (1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4; 31:3; Neh. 10:33; and Is. 1:13-14). Clearly, he is speaking of the abrogation of Old Covenant ceremonial laws. When the Old Covenant goes, Israel‘s feast days, New Moons, Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts go with it.

Third, the NT confirms this understanding of Hos. 2:11. It uses this triad of terms in Col. 2:16, which says, ―So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths." In the context, Paul is combating those who were attempting to impose Old Covenant ceremonial law on New Covenant Christians. So Col. 2:16 is clear NT language that sees Hosea‘s prophecy as fulfilled. It is of interest to note that Paul uses the plural for Sabbath in Col. 2:16 (σάββατον). It is not too hard to assume that Paul had the OT triad in mind and Hosea‘s prophecy while penning these words. The NT announces the abrogation of the Old Covenant in
many places. For instance, 2 Cor. 3:7-18; Gal. 3-4; Eph. 2:14-16; and Heb. 8-10 (cf. esp. 8:6-7, 13; 9:9-10, 15; 10:1, 15-18) are clear that the Old Covenant has been abrogated.

(Heb. 8:6-7)

But now He [Christ] has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant [the New Covenant], which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant [the Old Covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

(Heb. 8:13)

In that He says, ―A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(Heb. 9:9-10)

It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

(Heb. 9:15)

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

(Heb. 10:1)

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

(Heb. 10:15-18)

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ―This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them, then He adds, ―Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

The Old Covenant and all its ceremonies are obsolete and have vanished away (Heb. 8:13). Taking these passages and Col. 2:16 together, they clearly teach that when the Old Covenant goes, the triad of Col. 2:16 goes as well.

2. The Old Testament prophesies the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant.

Just as there is evidence from the OT that the Sabbath will be abolished under the New Covenant, so there is evidence that it will continue. At first glance this appears contradictory. But on further investigation, it is not contradictory and, in fact, fits the evidence provided thus far for the creation basis of the Sabbath and its unique place in the Decalogue in its function as moral law. Two passages deserve our attention at this point, Is. 56:1-8 and Jer. 31:33. Isaiah‘s prophecy of the Sabbath under the New Covenant is explicit and Jeremiah‘s is implicit.


Isaiah 56:1-8

(Isaiah 56:1-8)

Thus says the LORD: ―Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil. Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, "The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, "Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant--even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, ―Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.

Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of the Sabbath under the New Covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 points forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the New Covenant. It is understood this way by the New Testament in several places (see Matt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).

Second, Is. 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (cf., esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of "all nations" in v. 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about New Covenant days.

Third, in several New Testament texts, using the motif of fulfillment, the language of Is. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ‘s first and second comings (Matt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matt. 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer," with Is. 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations." This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Is. 56:3-5, which says:

(Is. 56:3-5)

Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, ―The LORD has utterly separated me from His people; nor let the eunuch say, ―Here I am, a dry tree. For thus says the LORD: ―To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

The Old Covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, ―He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions will no longer apply.

In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the "household of God" and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called "the house of God."The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 1 Tim. 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now consider Is. 56:7, which says:

(Is. 56:7)

Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.

The NT sees Isaiah‘s prophecy as fulfilled under the New Covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold there (Is. 56) are transformed to fit the conditions brought in by the New Covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the New Covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the New Covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the New Covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the New Covenant (i.e., from the seventh to the first day). Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the Old Covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with thepromise of the New Covenant. What was promised to "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the New Covenant people of God, the transformed Israel of OT prophecy.

With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the Old Covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) are becoming the Lord‘s and frequenting his house, which is his Church, a Sabbath (see Is. 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath-keeping in New Covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, "Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles."7

Again, the essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not in the Old Covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God‘s moral law.

Also concerning the Hebrews 4:9 passage concerning a Sabbath rest...

Those guys who quote the Colossians and Hebrew verses need to know that there are legitimate discussions and commentaries that support a sabbatarian view. I read an article by Robert P. Martin in the Reformed Baptist Theological review were he spoke on these verses. I am going to leave a quote from this article here concerning the Hebrews passage and the terms used.

Reformed Baptist Theological Review
vl. 1.2 A Sabbath Remains.. The Place of Hebrews 4:9 in the New Testament's Witness to the Lord's Day by Robert P. Martin
(Heb 4:9) There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

In it he notes the Word used here is σαββατισμός and not κατάπαυσις

(rest).
G4520
σαββατισμός
sabbatismos

This is an obscure term evidently that is used in just a few other places outside of the scriptures but used only once in the New Testament. Robert Martin says,

"I think that it is of interest that "in each of these places the term [σαββατισμός] denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath," i.e., not "a Sabbath rest" as a state that is entered into but "a Sabbath-keeping" as a practice that is observed. This, of course, corresponds to the word's morphology, for the suffix -μός indicates an action and not just a state. see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 151.
Reformed Baptist Theological Review Vl. 1;2 p.5

In other words there is still a 1 in 7 day where we are still required to observe a sabbath.

Obviously the article consists of the surrounding verses but it is a good read and quotes John Owen who is one of my faves.

 

[jwithnell]

I don't think that our Lord's Day continues to be commanded of us was in question here -- but coming to an understanding of what the Col. passage does teach. I didn't start all this but I certain do appreciate the insights the more learned have offered!

I do want to take a closer look at the Hosea 2:11 passage our dear Norseman has quoted. Its use in the quotation doesn't line up with my memory of the "legal" case that was being made against the northern kingdom and the impending judgment against her.

 

[Scott1]

I used to believe that the Colossians text was about ceremonial Sabbaths and not THE Sabbath, I have come to the conclusion that as Rev. Winzer has explained that Paul is including the weekly Jewish 7th Day Sabbath as well.

Therefore what he is saying is that no man can bind us to any day for worship or resting as a Sabbath and we are not to keep the 7th day Sabbath. Yet the Sabbath is a creational ordinance and contained in the Moral Law. If man cannot bind us to any day, and the Jewish Sabbath (7th day) is fulfilled in Christ, what day shall we/must we keep? The answer must come from the positive law of the NT Scriptures and only day mentioned is the 1st Day - The Lord's Day Sabbath.

It's interesting,
The Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession, virtually identical here, use the term
"the Christian sabbath."

Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter XXI.
Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day

VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[37]

London Baptist Confession
Chapter 22.
Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

7._____ As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.
( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

That is in line with distinguishing it from the ceremonial law (and perhaps civil law of Israel) bound sabbath that Christians of the first century, at the time of Colossians, would have been dealing with. Many believers, being Jewish were making the transition away from that toward recognizing the fulfillment in Christ (both in terms of the ceremony and to that particular nation as Messiah).

So, it quite reasonably was a significant issue to explain.

The new moon festivals, feasts and other ceremonies oftentimes connected with the sabbath day had been fulfilled. The civil law given Israel was expiring because the Messiah had come to the nation as God's vehicle to go to the nations...

It's quite understandable how this was a lot to "digest" to first century believers.

 

[JP Wallace]

Scott

I'd have no problem using the term Christian Sabbath as well, I think the Lord's Day = the Christian Sabbath, it is the Sabbath now, continuing on from the Old Covenant Sabbath. The day has changed, the duty, responsibility and privilege of keeping 1 in 7 holy unto the Lord has not.

I'm only saying that in case anyone thinks I'm meaning something different by the terminology.

 

[JP Wallace]

It should also be noted, that Dr. Pipa (in The Lord's Day pages 95-110) espouses this position - that last-Day-Sabbath keeping is set aside by Paul here, not just the other ceremonial Sabbaths (though it does all that too!).

"The most significant sign, however, was the seventh-day Sabbath. When Adam fell into sin, God gave the promise of the Saviour. Until He came, the Old Testament saints would remain under bondage, awaiting the day of their inheritance (Gal. 3:23-26). In their end-of-the-week Sabbath, they anticipated the coming of the Messiah who was to be the true rest-giver. Thus, the day of their Sabbath observance was a shadow of the Saviour's coming. When he came, He actually did part of His atoning work on the seventh-day Sabbath, by remaining in the tomb, suffering death and burial in the place of His people. When he arose on the first day, He entered into His rest."

(The Lord's Day, Page 103)

This is THE best modern book, and in my opinion THE best book ever, on the Sabbath Day, at least that I have read.

 

[Marrow Man]

Some thoughts on Colossians 2:16 from a study we did on Wednesdays earlier this year. Some of this follows Dr. Pipa's book, as well as Keith Weber's book on the Sabbath, published by Day One.

• It is not just the Sabbath that is mentioned; all the Jewish holy days are included.
• It is not the days themselves but the festivals associated with the days that are in view (see 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:32-33).
• Why? These days were a relic of the older administration of God (they were shadows), and something new had come in Christ (the substance); to revert back to them would be like denying Christ (the lesson of Hebrews).
• “In short, in this section of his letter Paul has nothing to say about the Fourth Commandment, and his reference to Sabbaths is simply a natural one on account of his argument concerning the rituals of the Old Testament law which took place on such days.” ~ Keith Weber

I would add, though, that Colossians 2:16 is a passage I would go to if someone (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists) insisted on a seventh day observation of the Sabbath. I think such a position would present enormous theological problems, such as an implicit denial of Christ's resurrection on the Lord's Day and the fulfillment of the ceremonial law in Him.

 

[Presentist]

I think the Lord's Day = the Christian Sabbath

What is the scriptural reason to believe that "the Lord's Day" is the *first* day of the week?

I think the term "the Lord's Day" is only mentioned once in the Bible and that passage does not say *what* day of the week it is.

It would seem that the term "the Lord's Day" could just as easily refer to the *seventh* day since "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it".

Do we rely on *tradition* to demand that "the Lord's Day" is the *first* day of the week?

 

[JP Wallace]

As Joshua says above, but also specifically the unmistakable similarity between Rev 1 Lord's Day terminology and Isaiah 58

Isaiah 58:13 13 " If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words,

Those who received Revelation first of all would obviously have been able to identify what the Lord's Day was, it would have been a familiar phrase, and since we see the practice of the early church was 1st worship, and that this was obviously likewise their Sabbath, it is pretty clear that this 1st Day Sabbath was the Lord's Day.

 

[Presentist]

Isaiah 58:13 13 " If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words,

I am not sure I follow you. What day do you believe Isaiah was referring to as "My holy day" and "the Sabbath"? The seventh day or the first day of the week.

 

[JP Wallace]

He was in the first place referring to the creational principle of keeping 1 in 7 sacred, in the second place, he is referring to the 7th day Sabbath, as he is writing to the Old Covenant Jews.

Regardless of that my point was to illustrate that the terminology Lord's Day, or Day of the Lord is (as Joshua wrote above) all over the Bible and frequently refers to the Sabbath Day. Thus the expectation is that when John uses it in Revelation he is referring to the Sabbath Day, which day (from the book of Acts data) is the 1st Day.

 

[Presentist]

[the first day of the week] was obviously likewise their Sabbath

What scripture reference shows that the first day of the week was their "Sabbath?" There are passages that could show they got together on the first day of the week for collections etc., but what passage shows that they "rested and did not do any work" on the first day of the week (which would be a sign that they were observing the Sabbath on that day)?

On the contrary, Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

That verse shows that Paul intentionally made his plans so that he would travel on the first day of the week. I don't think he would have done that if he were observing the first day as the Sabbath (the day of rest).

---------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------

he is referring to the 7th day Sabbath

My point was that since (as you agree) "My holy day" and "the Sabbath" refer to the seventh day, that we could naturally expect John's reference to "the Lord's day" to refer to the seventh day as well.

And since the one verse that mentions the phrase "the Lord's day" does not mention which day of the week it was...

Do we rely on *tradition* to demand that "the Lord's Day" is the *first* day of the week?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The day change is getting a bit off topic. Here is a page that has some helpful writings on it concerning the issue.

A Puritan's Mind » Search Results » The day changed

 

[JP Wallace]

Philip,

Two questions:

1) Have you read this discussion from the beginning?
2) Do you subscribe to the 1689 Second London Confession of Faith, because you appear to be taking positions that are either questioning its theology or are in opposition to the 22nd Chapter Paragraph 7?

If you had read from the beginning you would see that the discussion has been about how Colossians 2 is about the change of day on which the Sabbath is to be observed.

You would also have picked up that we do not rely on "tradition" to establish that the Lord's Day is both the Christian Sabbath and the 1st Day of the week, rather we rely on

a) an understanding that the Sabbath is a creational ordinance and is therefore of permanent applicability to God's people
b) that 7th day Sabbath and all other sabbaths have been fulfilled in Christ, though that fulfilling of the ceremonial, Mosaic sabbath regulation does not render the creational ordinance null and void
c) the 7th day regulation was designated as the day of the Lord, His holy day and that, the 4th commandment urges us to keep one day in 7 holy unto the Lord, it would appear that the Lord's Day (or similar terms) is a term for the Sabbath Day (in whatever administration)
d) it is clear from Colossians 2 that we are NOT permitted to bind anyone to keep the 7th day Sabbath, or any other Jewish ceremonial Sabbath, though in no way does Paul even intimate that the creation ordinance requirement is nullified.
e) the early church obviously met on the 1st day. Since no other day is highlighted and since the creation ordinance was and is still binding upon all, we assume therefore that this 1st day was indeed kept as the Sabbath, there is no other evidence to go on. (though Church history backs this up)
f) since the Sabbath was called the day of the Lord, his Day, the Lord's Day in the Old Covenant administration, and, since the only day highlighted as the worship day in the New Covenant church is the 1st day, then we assume that when John says he was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day that this was the 1st day and the Sabbath.

I remind you again that this is a confessional belief and as such is not up for discussion on this board.

2nd LBCF 22:7._____ As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.

 

[Presentist]

"The first day of the week" is Sunday. Ergo, "the morrow" would have been Monday.

Acts 20:7 says "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Since the first day of the week started at sundown Saturday, and since "upon" seems to imply the *beginning* of the day, I have understood that they "came together to break bread" after sundown on Saturday (the beginning of the first day of the week). Paul then preached until midnight, and traveled the next morning (still the first day of the week).

What day and what time of day are you saying is referred to by "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread?" Saturday evening, Sunday morning, Sunday afternoon, or Sunday evening?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That still is assuming that morrow doesn't mean the next succeeding day. The next succeeding day would be Monday no matter how you slice it. And it is off topic as I noted above.

succeeding day
ἐπαύριον

not morning
πρωΐ́