10 REASONS WHY COLOSSIANS 2:16 DOES NOT TREAT THE
WEEKLY SABBATH AS A CEREMONIAL PRECEPTProf. Azenilto G. Brito
The text says: “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”.1 – Because the apostle Paul wouldn’t absolutely contradict the divine law which he recognized as valid and in force, as he exalted it as holy, just, good, spiritual, pleasurable and deign to have in mind, according also to what the psalmist had said: “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” (Romans 3:31; 7:12, 14, 22, 25; Psalm 19:7). And besides exalting the divine law, Paul recommended its faithful observance and utilization in a legitimate form (Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:1-3; 1 Cor. 9:17; 1 Tim. 1:8).
2 – Because Paul knew that “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mar. 2:27), for his physical and spiritual benefit since creation (Gen. 2:2, 3; Exo. 20:8-11), and being himself a man, it applied to him also. The Apostle would never have any intention to get rid of something that God established, and knew he didn’t have authority to cancel anything from the divine law.
3 – Because the ceremonial laws were instituted AFTER the entrance of sin, exactly as a form of compensating for it and to provide a means for its atonement. The Sabbath was not ceremonial because it was established BEFORE the Fall. By the way, the only two institutions that still persist in the world from before the entrance of sin are the Sabbath and marriage, both equally established for man (see Mark 2:27 and Mat. 19:5). Both are similarly the object of tremendous Satan’s attacks, in the first case through false theologies (promoting either the ancient dies solis—day of the Sun—of Roman paganism, turned into Sunday by the Catholic tradition, or the ambiguous adoption of the “anydayism/nodayism”). In the case of the second of the only institutions from before the Fall—marriage—through the growing wave of separations, divorces, marital unfaithfulness and, more recently, same-sex marriages.
4 – Because Paul himself reveals fidelity to the Sabbath observance. He went to the synagogues to preach on the Sabbaths, and when there was no synagogue in Philippi, he went to a quiet place by the river to pray. In another occasion he spent one and half year in Corinth and preached regularly on the Sabbaths, with never telling his hearers that from that time on they should observe Sunday (Acts 13:14, 15, 42-44; 16:13; 18:4-11). If he did not respect the Sabbath principle he couldn’t have moral authority to declare in his defense under “grievous” accusations by the Jews “Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, . . . have I offended anything at all . . .” (Acts 25:8).
5 – Because it is almost certain that Paul himself wrote Hebrews (or dictated the letter to a Christian scribe), addressing especially the Hebrew Christians. The epistle deals with the meaning of the ceremonial laws in chapters 7 to 10 and doesn’t include the Sabbath as something of ceremonial nature, rather it dedicates to the Sabbath a very special treatment in chapters 3 and 4. Hebrews was written by the year 64 AD and Paul illustrates the spiritual rest that Israel could have reached remembering the principle of the Sabbath, not Sunday, which would be expected if at that time Christians had adopted such day as their special day of observance. Besides, those who in Israel entered in the spiritual rest didn’t exempt themselves of observing the Sabbath, as those heroes described in the 11th chapter of Hebrews (see also Psalm 40:8).
6 – Because when illustrating this spiritual rest in Hebrews 3 and 4, Paul uses the Greek word katapausin for ‘rest’, but in chapter 4, vs. 9, he uses a different word and it is the only time that it appears in the whole Bible: sabbatismos. The Bibles in general bring a footnote showing the meaning of that word as “Sabbath rest”. The translator George Lamsa thus translates the text: “There remains an observance of the Sabbath day for the people of God”. Certainly the author of Hebrews wanted to show that his use of the Sabbath as symbolism throughout chapters 3 and 4 doesn’t mean that he was reinterpreting the Sabbath to annul it as a normal practice, recognized as a divine commandment.
7 – Because throughout the epistle to the Colossians Paul never uses the word “law”, since he is not dealing with the validity of the law, something he never had any doubts about (see §§ 1 and 2, above). Scholars don’t have many details of which would be the heresy that disturbed the Colossian believers, which consisted in rules such as “touch not; taste not” (see Col. 2:21). He also recommends in the context of vs. 16: “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up y his fleshly mind” (vs. 18), which makes the problem of that strange Colossian heresy even more complex to be understood. However, what we know for sure is that Paul doesn’t tell the Colossians NOT TO observe the commandment, rather to not allow these heretical ones to pass judgment on their religious practices, especially their Sabbath observance.
8 – Because the context speaks of a “handwriting of ordinances” which were “against us”. But the Sabbath was made because of man”, certainly not a harmful ordinance, contrary to the children of God’s best interests. Also the Sabbath doesn’t point to the future as was the case of the symbolic ceremonies, rather basically to the past, to creation, for it is the memorial of the creative works of God [see Exo. 20:8-11 and Psalm 111:4].
9 – Because Christian scholars now understand that the cheirographon [“handwriting of ordinances”] is not the “ceremonial law”, as many think, but a report of sins “against us”. Paul in Colossians 2 discusses a local problem, and not a new notion of elimination of the principle of a day of rest. Such principle was always accepted by the Christian community along the centuries, according to what can be seen in their historical Confessions of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms.
10 – Because Evangelical specialists of the greatest authority and prestige always understood the Sabbath mentioned in Colossian as the festival ceremonial days of Israel, belonging to the “law of the commandments that consisted of ordinances”, that caused division among Jews and gentiles (Eph. 2:15).
Grammatically, the fact that the word is in the plural doesn’t impede absolutely that it refer to the ceremonial Sabbaths (see Lev. 23:38). The text speaks of “new moons, feast days and Sabbaths”, which doesn’t mean that these Sabbaths can’t be the ceremonial ones, as were the “new moons”. Several theologians understood that the “Sabbaths” in Col. 2:16 would refer to the ceremonial ones, such as the Methodist Adam Clarke, the Presbyterians Albert Barnes and Charles Hodge, the Baptists Jamieson, Fausset & Brown and others. Such researchers present their arguments because they notice that if Paul annulled the principle of the day of rest, he would eliminate in the process Sunday itself, leaving nothing in its place, and they defend Sunday as being the Christian manner of observing the Sabbath commandment.
Click here to return to the page on the Sabbath