Col 2 and The Sabbath

Co|oss|an 2:16, the Ieasts of Israe| and the Week|y Sabbath:
A cbolleoqe omooqst btotbets

5o let oo ooe joJqe yoo lo fooJ ot lo Jtlok, ot teqotJloq o festlvol ot o oew mooo ot sobbotbs, (col 2.16 - NkIv)

lnLroducLlon

An awful loL has been wrlLLen and debaLed on Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Colosslans 2:16. 1here are whole books on Lhls verse and a
number of webslLes devoLed excluslvely Lo lL as well.

ln facL, glven Lhe unlqueness of Lhe message ln Lhls verse, regardless of whaL lnLerpreLaLlon ls made of lL, lL seems Lo carry far
Loo much welghL, Lo have far Loo much lmpacL. lf lL could be unequlvocally shown Lo be a message LhaL was glven a number of
Llmes by elLher [usL Lhe AposLle aul or by several of Lhe new 1esLamenL wrlLers and/or ?eshua, Lhen lL would seem reasonable
Lo glve Lhls message, whaLever way lL ls lnLerpreLed, such sLandlng and lmpacL.

1he demonsLraLlon of such repeLlLlon appears lacklng.

1hus, lL would appear LhaL Lhls passage has galned lLs slgnlflcance prlnclpally from Lhe defense of malnsLream ChrlsLlanlLy's
observance of Sunday as Lhe 'day of resL'. lL also appears LhaL Lhls sLrong defense of Sunday as Lhe 'Lord's uay' has been a falrly
recenL evenL perhaps as a resulL ln Lhe growLh of ChrlsLlan groups LhaL have Laken Lo observlng Lhe SabbaLh on Lhe sevenLh day
of Lhe week, Lhe SaLurday.

WlLh Lhe growLh of Lhls defense, Lhere has also been a growLh ln Lhe arLlculaLlon of Lhe opposlng vlew, Lhe vlew LhaL Lhls LexL
says noLhlng abouL Lhe weekly SabbaLh, or alLernaLlvely, LhaL lL acLually encourages Lhe observance of Lhe varlous !ewlsh
'markers' such as Lhelr Poly uays.

Clven Lhe masslve amounL of commenLary on Lhls passage why am l maklng Lhe efforL Lo add Lo Lhls debaLe?

ersonal experlence has shown Lhls verse Lo be dlvlslve and LhaL such dlvlslon can resulL ln Lhe severlng of relaLlonshlps and
even Lo have a slgnlflcanL lmpacL on ChrlsLlan organlzaLlons and fellowshlps.

Whlle l would noL presume Lo pronounce LhaL l can brlng anyLhlng new Lo Lhls debaLe, l would llke Lo argue LhaL l may brlng
some clarlLy and raLlonallLy Lo Lhe debaLe, aL leasL ln Lhe eyes of Lhose who respecL my pasL efforLs and my Leachlng and
wrlLlng skllls.

l also don'L expecL Lo necessarlly convlnce any of Lhe correcLness of my lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhls sLaLemenL by Lhe AposLle aul, as
desplLe my besL efforLs l sLlll have some good frlends and broLhers who are scholars and well-known ChrlsLlan auLhors wlLh
whom l share much agreemenL docLrlnally, buL who Lake Lhe opposlLe vlew of Lhls verse.

ln Lhls arLlcle l hope Lo glve an hlsLorlcal overvlew of Lhe conLexL of Lhls verse, chapLer and eplsLle, Lo Lherefore lndlcaLe boLh
who Lhe AposLle aul was wrlLlng Lo and Lhe 'heresy' or error LhaL he was addresslng ln Lhls speclflc chapLer/secLlon of hls
eplsLle. l also hope Lo make lL abundanLly clear whaL hls ulLlmaLe and slmple message was, LhaL ls, whaL behavlour and acLlons
he was sLrongly encouraglng ln hls readers.

As parL of Lhls accounL, l wlll also aLLempL Lo succlncLly address Lhe currenL slLuaLlon LhaL Lhe AposLle aul's message speaks
lnLo, how Lhls may Lherefore lmpacL us Loday and how l suggesL we may respond.

1he n|stor|ca| Sett|ng of Co|oss|ans:

Whlle Lhe auLhorshlp of Lhls eplsLle ls quesLloned somewhaL by scholars, Lhere appears Lo be sLrong agreemenL LhaL elLher
aul, or someone wrlLlng on hls behalf, composed Lhls leLLer. 1he general consensus ls LhaL lL was composed ln 60-61 CL and
mosL llkely whlle aul was ln prlson ln 8ome.

aul was clearly addresslng Lhls eplsLle Lo CenLlle bellevers ln Colosse
1
- most teoJets wete qeotlle coovetts ." who . boJ
ooce beeo ottetly oot of botmooy wltb CoJ, eomesbeJ lo lJolotty ooJ slovety to slo, bot CoJ boJ tecooclleJ tbem to blmself -

1
Colosse aL Lhe Llme of Lhls eplsLle was no longer an lmporLanL cenLre. lLs lnhablLanLs were malnly Creek colonlsLs and naLlve hryglans, Lhough Lhere were
many !ews llvlng ln Lhe area as well. AnLlochus Lhe CreaL (223-187 8CL) had relocaLed hundreds of !ewlsh famllles from MesopoLamla Lo Lhls reglon. 1hey
seem Lo have been more llberal or PellenlsLlc !ews Lhan Lhose ln Lhe nelghborlng provlnce of CalaLla Lo Lhe easL.

Colosslan 2:16, Lhe leasLs of lsrael and Lhe Weekly SabbaLh:
"
col 1.21-22" (Cxford Companlon, MeLzger p128).

l wlll Lry now Lo dlscuss and evaluaLe Lhe relevanL phrases ln Colosslans 2 whlch are used Lo Lry Lo deLermlne who aul was
speaklng agalnsL and Lherefore seL Lhe scene for Lhe concluslon of Col 2:16.

lease noLe LhaL as we are seeklng Lo deLermlne Lhe conLexL and error LhaL Col 2:16 ls addresslng we cannoL use Lhls verse
lLself Lo deLermlne Lhls as Lhls would be clrcular loglc and Lhere ls also a sense ln whlch Lo use Lhe clear !udalc references ln
verse 16 as evldence of Lhe perspecLlve and hence Lhe error, ls Lo lncur Lhe loglcal fallacy of 'afflrmlng Lhe consequenL'.
2

colossloos 2.

1 lot l woot yoo to koow bow qteot o sttoqqle l bove fot yoo ooJ fot tbose ot looJlceo ooJ fot oll wbo bove oot seeo
me foce to foce,
2 tbot tbelt beotts moy be eocootoqeJ, beloq kolt toqetbet lo love, to teocb oll tbe tlcbes of foll ossotooce of
ooJetstooJloq ooJ tbe koowleJqe of CoJ's mystety, wblcb ls cbtlst,
J lo wbom ote blJJeo oll tbe tteosotes of wlsJom ooJ koowleJqe.
4 l soy tbls lo otJet tbot oo ooe moy !"#$!" &'$ ()*+ ,#-$.)/#" -01$2"3*.4
5 lot tbooqb l om obseot lo boJy, yet l om wltb yoo lo spltlt, tejolcloq to see yoot qooJ otJet ooJ tbe fltmoess of yoot
foltb lo cbtlst.
6 1betefote, os yoo tecelveJ cbtlst Iesos tbe lotJ, so wolk lo blm,
7 tooteJ ooJ bollt op lo blm ooJ estobllsbeJ lo tbe foltb, jost os yoo wete tooqbt, oboooJloq lo tbooksqlvloq.
8 5ee to lt tbot oo ooe tokes yoo coptlve by ,+)#'.',+& -3! "2,*& !"5")*, occotJloq to +$2-3 *0-!)*)'3, occotJloq to
*+" "#"2"3*-# .,)0)*. '6 *+" ('0#!, ooJ oot occotJloq to cbtlst.

1here are many new words lnLroduced by aul (or Lhe auLhor on aul's behalf), so lL can be challenglng Lo be cerLaln abouL
Lhese words/Lerms. 1he mosL llkely readlng Lhough (lf noL presupposlng Lhe answer based on Col 2:16-17, ls LhaL 'plauslble
argumenLs', 'phllosophy and empLy decelL' and 'elemenLal splrlLs of Lhe world'
3
,
4
especlally refer Lo PellenlsLlc or Creek
mlndseLs, even lf pushed by PellenlsLlc !ews. So we see flrsL here LhaL aul ls argulng agalnsL a Creek mlndseL.

1he Lerm 'plauslble argumenLs' ls falrly open Lo lnLerpreLaLlon buL cerLalnly sounds phllosophlcal raLher Lhan someone
aLLempLlng Lo speak Lhe word of Cod.

1he Lerm 'phllosophy (SLrongs #3383) and empLy decelL' ls much more clear cuL. 1he word 'phllosophy' ls noL found anywhere
else ln aul's leLLers or Lhe new 1esLamenL. 1he use of Lhe word 'phllosophers' ls found ln AcLs 17: 17 where lL ls used Lo
descrlbe some Creek scholars. (Lplcurean and SLolc phllosophers).

Whlle lL ls concelvable LhaL PellenlsLlc !ews ln Colosse may have engaged ln 'phllosophy and empLy decelL' as Lhese llberal !ews
embraced Lhe culLure around Lhem, we can be qulLe sure LhaL Lhe AposLle aul cannoL have been referrlng Lo !udalzers
3
aL all,
because some researchers and scholars such as Louls leldman ln 'lolestloloos & ulospoto IoJolsm lo tbe lltst ceototy',
ChrlsLlanlLy & 8abblnlc !udalsm (1993) sLaLe LhaL no rabbls dlsLlngulshed Lhemselves ln phllosophy or wroLe any LreaLlse ln
Creek nor dld Lhey use any Creek phllosophlcal Lerms ln Lhe Lalmudlc corpus (of Lhe Llme).

1haL ls, aul ln uslng Lhe 'phllosophy' label could noL have meanL Lo ldenLlfy any Pebralc !ews ln Colosse.

1he Lerm 'elemenLs' ls found ln only 3 places ln Lhe n1 wlLh a slmllar meanlng Lo here. 1he oLhers belng Col 2:20, Cal 4:3, Cal
4:9 and Peb 3:12. l wlll dlscuss Lhe flrsL Lhree of Lhese verses furLher on, and argue LhaL Lhey are noL referrlng Lo !udalzers.
Pebrews 3:12 Lhough ls lllumlnaLlng.

neb 5.12 lot wbeo fot tbe tlme ye ooqbt to be teocbets, ye bove oeeJ tbot ooe teocb yoo oqolo wblcb be tbe fltst ptloclples
(5ttooqs #4747) of tbe otocles of CoJ, ooJ ote become socb os bove oeeJ of mllk, ooJ oot of sttooq meot.

2
Surprlslng lL appears Lo me LhaL a slgnlflcanL number of leadlng scholars have made Lhls very mlsLake. 1hls lncludes 8ruce MeLzger, !ames uunn and ll 8ruce.
1hls does noL make Lhelr concluslons lncorrecL buL does brlng Lhem lnLo quesLlon.
3
'LlemenLs' (Creek word 'sLolchelon' - SLrong's #4747) - LranslaLed varlously as rudlmenLs, elemenLal Lhlngs, elemenLary prlnclples.
4
Clearly Lhls ls conLenLlous. !ames uunn argues LhaL Lhe Lerm ln Col 2:8, tbe elemeotol spltlts of tbe wotlJ ls a !ewlsh reference (1be plstles to Lhe
Colosslans and Lo hllemon: a commenLary on Lhe Creek LexL" !ames u. C. uunn, p130). 1he problem ls LhaL he uses Cal 4:9 as supporL, yeL Lhls passage ls
clearly addresslng CenLlles before Lhey knew Cod and Lhus ls addresslng Creek/pagan mlndseLs, noL !ewlsh ones.
3 Marvln Wllson ln 'Cur laLher Abraham' p 23, deflnes !udalzer as 'CenLlle converLs Lo !udalsm - Lhose LhaL submlLLed Lo Lhe enLlre Cral and WrlLLen 1orah
(lncludlng clrcumclslon)'. A more common usage Lhough ls anybody, !ewlsh or CenLlle who submlLs Lo Messlah buL also expecLs all bellevers Lo be physlcally
clrcumclsed and obey Lhe dleLary laws and all Lhe oLher !ewlsh 'boundary markers'.

#

Cf Lhe 3 slmllar uses of Lhls Creek word 'sLolchelon' ln Lhe n1, Lhe phrase here ls noL 'elemenLs of Lhe world' or 'elemenLal
splrlLs of Lhe world' or 'prlnclples of Lhe world' buL 'flrsL prlnclples of Lhe oracles of Cod'. 1hus lL appears LhaL when aul wlshes
Lo use Lhls word/Lerm Lo refer Lo 1orah or Lo some parL of Lhe ordlnances of Cod, he expllclLly adds 'Lhe oracles of Cod' raLher
Lhan 'of Lhe world' Lo clearly dlsLlngulsh LhaL Lhls ls hls focus.

1hus, by lnference, we can be more confldenL LhaL hls use of 'elemenLal splrlLs of Lhe world' was nC1 referrlng Lo !udalzers, as
he reference was noL Lo Moses buL Lo baslc pagan prlnclples.

WhaL abouL Cal 4:3 'In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world ?

aul lncludes hlmself here ln Lhose who are enslaved Lo Lhese 'elemenLal splrlLs of Lhe world' whlch l argue are humanlsLlc or
pagan prlnclples. aul was no pagan or PellenlsLlc !ew so how does Lhls flL?

1he facL LhaL aul admlLs Lo belng enslaved by Lhese 'elemenLary prlnclples' seems dlscordanL
6
.

Powever, noLe LhaL aul says 'when we were chlldren', LhaL ls, he ls referrlng Lo hlmself as a chlld (along wlLh hls llsLeners as
chlldren).

lL ls well undersLood ln !udalsm Lo Lhls day LhaL a chlld (even born lnLo Lhe !ewlsh race and clrcumclsed on Lhe elghLh day) ls
noL by defaulL a chlld of 1orah. Pe/she musL be lnsLrucLed ln 1orah and when he reaches 13 hls undersLandlng of 1orah ls
LesLed (hls 8ar MlLzvah) and he becomes a 'son of 1orah', a 'son of Lhe !ewlsh people'. lL ls only Lhrough Lhls lnlLlaLlon aL 13
years of age LhaL lL offlclally puLs off Lhe pagan/PellenlsLlc or naLural way of Lhlnklng and becomes a 'son of 1orah'.

1hus aul ln Cal 4:3 ls lncludlng hlmself, when he was a chlld, as a person enslaved Lo Lhe 'world's ways', Lo paganlsm or
human precepLs. So l Lherefore belleve Lhls passage also flLs wlLh my general perspecLlve on Col 2.

ll 8ruce (and some oLher scholars) ln 'aul, AposLle of Lhe PearL SeL lree' refers Lo an lranlan CnosLlc myLh LhaL was currenL ln
Lhe near LasL aL Lhe Llme. ln Lhe llLeraLure of Lhls myLh Lhe Lerm "Lhe elemenLary prlnclples" ls used Lo refer Lo Lhe sLellar
splrlLs whlch were ldenLlfled wlLh Lhe heavenly bodles. Agaln Lhls lndlcaLes LhaL a !ewlsh heresy was noL belng referred Lo -
speclflcally aul was noL addresslng !udalzers wlLh Lhe use of Lhls Lerm.

1he Lerm 'human LradlLlon' could of course be referrlng Lo Lhe 'LradlLlons of men' whlch are found ln all culLures and whlch
even ?eshua ralled agalnsL. 1hus, Laken by lLself, 'human LradlLlon' could be referrlng Lo !ewlsh error such as Lhe legallsLlc
adherence Lo Cral 1orah.
9 lot lo blm tbe wbole folloess of Jelty Jwells boJlly,
10 ooJ yoo bove beeo fllleJ lo blm, wbo ls tbe beoJ of oll tole ooJ ootbotlty.
11 lo blm olso yoo wete cltcomclseJ wltb o 5)05$25).)'3 2-!" ()*+'$* +-3!s, by pottloq off tbe boJy of tbe flesb, by
tbe cltcomclsloo of cbtlst,

now some may argue LhaL Lhe secondary reference Lo clrcumclslon here suggesLs an argumenL agalnsL !udalzers (as per
CalaLlans), raLher Lhan agalnsL Pellenlsm.

1he focus here Lhough has Lemporarlly changed Lo polnL aL ChrlsL. aul ls addresslng how Lhese CenLlle bellevers have been
grafLed lnLo Lhe body of ChrlsL, lnLo Lhe commonwealLh of lsrael. 1he proof of Lhls change of emphasls follows ln v14 whlch wlll
be dealL wlLh below.

aul ls slmply sLaLlng LhaL CenLlles have come lnLo Lhe body of Messlah wlLhouL needlng Lo be physlcally clrcumclsed - Lhls had
already been esLabllshed very expllclLly by aul.

1hus Lhe conLra/secondary reference here ls slmply Lo Lhe dlfference beLween !ew and CenLlle bellevers. aul ls noL addresslng
Lhe heresy or Lhose preachlng lL ln Lhls phrase 'a clrcumlclslon made wlLhouL hands'.

$
1he soluLlon Lo Lhe problem of aul's use of 'we' ln verse 3 had escaped me for some Llme. 1hanks Lo lrank Selch for Lhls lnslghL.

%
12 bovloq beeo botleJ wltb blm lo boptlsm, lo wblcb yoo wete olso tolseJ wltb blm tbtooqb foltb lo tbe powetfol
wotkloq of CoJ, wbo tolseJ blm ftom tbe JeoJ.
1J AoJ yoo, wbo wete JeoJ lo yoot ttesposses ooJ tbe oocltcomclsloo of yoot flesb, CoJ moJe ollve toqetbet wltb blm,
bovloq fotqlveo os oll oot ttesposses,
14 by coocelloq tbe 0"5'0! '6 !"/* tbot stooJ oqolost os wltb lts leqol JemooJs. 1bls be set oslJe7 3-)#)31 )* *' *+"
50'..4
15 ne JlsotmeJ *+" 0$#"0. -3! -$*+'0)*)". ooJ pot tbem to opeo sbome, by ttlompbloq ovet tbem lo blm.

1hls secLlon ls clearly referrlng Lo Lhe rules and auLhorlLy of men. 1he 'handwrlLlng ln ordlnances' (WL8/k!v) or 'record of debL'
(LSv) ls clearly a reference Lo laws of men noL Lhe 1orah of Moses. 1he concepL here of Lhe Lrlumph of Lhe cross and Lhe
removal of a barrler, a record of debL ls very slmllar Lo LhaL recorded ln Lpheslans 2. l recommend my arLlcle 'Slbllngs of Lhe
klng'
7
for an ln-depLh look aL Lph 2 and speclflcally verse 13 for furLher background and supporL of my argumenL here.

?eshua nalls 'someLhlng' Lo Lhe cross. Clearly Lhls 'someLhlng' ls ended or seL-aslde and no longer has any poslLlon of power
and Lhls acLlon resulLs ln sLrlpplng (or overcomlng) 'prlnclpallLles and powers', Lhe dlsarmlng of rulers and auLhorlLles.

As ?eshua speclflcally sald he dld noL come Lo desLroy Lhe 1orah, Lhere ls no loglc or sense aL all LhaL Lhe 'dlvlne lnsLrucLlons' of
Cod are Lhe 'someLhlng' LhaL ls nalled Lo Lhe cross.

Some verslons have ln v14 'conLrary Lo us'. 1he 1orah, speclflcally Lhe 1en CommandmenLs are noL conLrary Lo us," raLher
Lhey are a hedge of proLecLlon surroundlng us (see salm 119:6), glvlng us freedom (see !ames 1:23 and 2:8-12), and brlnglng
us Lo Messlah ?eshua (see CalaLlans 3:24), who supplles Lhe grace and power LhaL we need Lo keep Lhem, for Cod's honour
and glory.

16 1betefote let oo ooe poss joJqmeot oo yoo lo poestloos of fooJ ooJ Jtlok, ot wltb teqotJ to o festlvol ot o oew
mooo ot o sobbotb.
17 1bese ote o sboJow of tbe tbloqs to come, bot tbe sobstooce belooqs to cbtlst.
18 let oo ooe Jlspoollfy yoo, loslstloq '3 -.5"*)5).2 -3! ('0.+), '6 -31"#., qoloq oo lo Jetoll oboot vlsloos, poffeJ op
wltboot teosoo by bls seosooos mloJ,

Leavlng aslde Lhe focal verses 16 & 17, leL us lnvesLlgaLe Lhe phrases used ln v18.

1he Lerm 'worshlp of angels' was clearly CnosLlc as lL was condemned by Lhe 8abbls ln Lhe 1almud (eg. Amora 8 !udan). lf any
!ewlsh secLs dld parLlclpaLe ls such a pracLlce Lhey were cerLalnly noL malnsLream proLo-8abblnlc buL raLher, very llberal and
PellenlsLlc. 1haL ls !udalzers would noL have promoLed Lhe 'worshlp of angels'.
5tlll sttooqet opposltloo tboo tbot evokeJ /& ,0-&"0 *'7 -3! ('0.+), '67 *+" -31"#. wos otooseJ by tbe vlews tbot moJe tbe
ooqels pottoets lo tbe cteotloo of tbe wotlJ, ooJ oeeJless to soy, tbe ttoJltloo tbot tbe wbole wotlJ wos cteoteJ by ooqels,
)35$#5-*"! /& 8-0)'$. 93'.*)5 !'5*0)3"., oppeoteJ eveo to opocolyptlc cltcles (wblcb osslqoeJ o cooslJetoble tole to ltloces,
ooJ ooqels, ooJ eveo to ooqels of Jesttoctloo, ooJ ooqels of 5otoo, 8ellol ooJ Mostemo jbotteJ]) to be lo coofllct wltb lstoels
1otob. :3 5'3!"23-*)'3 '6 *+" ('0.+), '6 -31"#. - ;-0-)*- *"-5+".< =:6 '3" .#-$1+*"0.4 4 4 *' >)5+-"#7 *+" ?0)35" '6 *+" 90"-*
@'.*4 4 4 )* ). -. 6#".+ '66"0"! *' )!'#.4A 1he Sages - 1helr ConcepLs and 8ellefs" by Lphralm urbach.

laLo lnLroduced duallsm whlch led Lo CnosLlclsm and Lhls lnvolved asceLlclsm
8
- Lhls ls a mode of llvlng LhaL ls a far cry from
any Lyplcal !ewlsh llfesLyle. Some argue of evldence aL Cumran for Lhe !ewlsh secL, Lhe Lssenes, embraclng an asceLlclsm, buL
Lhere ls evldence LhaL Lhls was parLly due Lo PellenlsLlc lnfluences. CerLalnly ?eshua dld noL hlmself embrace asceLlclsm.

AsceLlclsm ls a mode of llfe LhaL lncluded dleLary llmlLaLlons, (buL noL Lhe dleLary laws of Lhe 1orah) and Lo whlch Lhe phrase ln
verse 21 below ls so clearly referrlng Lo, ls CnosLlclsm (see Marvln Wllson, 'Cur laLher Abraham' p 169).

Whlle lL may be Lrue LhaL such a form of asceLlc !udalsm (or 'non-conformlsL' !udalsm Lo use ll 8ruce's Lerm), was presenL ln

&
Avallable from www.resLoraLlonfellowshlp.lnfo or www.charslamcompuLers.com.au
8
AsceLlclsm: LxLreme self-denlal, self-morLlflcaLlon and ausLerlLy. A docLrlne LhaL Lhe asceLlc llfe releases Lhe soul from bondage Lo Lhe body and permlLs
unlon wlLh Lhe dlvlne. As Lhe 1anak and 1
sL
CenLury !udalsm LaughL Lhe unlLy of soul and body and re[ecLed Lhe lmmorLallLy of Lhe soul, asceLlclsm Lhen ls a
laLonlc/PellenlsLlc noL Pebralc or !udalc bellef. ll 8ruce re[ecLs Lhe argumenL LhaL Lhe Colosslan heresy ls some form of CnosLlc Lssenlsm based on whaL ls
mlsslng from Lhe LexL such as Lhere belng no menLlon of 'ceremonlal washlngs'. AnoLher scholar, Lphralm urbach lndlcaLes LhaL asceLlclsm ls noL !udalc: 1he
reasons for Lhls opposlLlon were many and varled, we shall menLlon only Lhose LhaL glve expresslon Lo Lhe ant|thes|s between the na|akha and ascet|c|sm."
(p447) '1he Sages: 1helr ConcepLs and 8ellefs' (Palakha/Palacha means 'Lhe way' or rlghL llvlng).

'
Colosse Lhere appears llLLle evldence for lL. Cn Lhe oLher hand Lhere ls good evldence for Lhe exlsLence of LgypLlan culLs LhaL
pracLlced 'absurd asceLlclsm' (Lo use Schurer's Lerm). AoJ so we floJ tbot sloce tbe tbltJ ceototy 8.c. qyptloo colts boJ come
to be vety wlJely ptoctlseJ tbtooqboot Cteece qeoetolly. 8eslJes tbese, otbet Otleotol wotsblps, ooJ tbot lo sttooqe oJmlxtote,
ote olso to be met wltb pottlcolotly lo tbe lslooJs of Cteece ooJ lo Aslo Mloot. 1he PlsLory of Lhe !ewlsh eople ln Lhe 1lme of
!esus ChrlsL" Schurer p301.
1hus, Lhere ls plenLy of evldence LhaL asceLlclsm has lLs foundaLlons ln Creek (yLhagorean) and LgypLlan or erslan culLs, noL
ln !udalsm.

1o embrace Lhe fesLlvals and Lhe sabbaLhs LhaL are parL of Lhem (excepL ?om klppur) meanL Lo en[oy food (meaL) and drlnk.
1herefore, Lrue asceLlcs would noL do so. 1hus Lhere ls clearly some confuslon here where Lhe language ls noL helpful. 1o llve a
llfe of slmpllclLy, of avoldlng any form of over-lndulgence ls noL Lo be asceLlc (see Lhe deflnlLlon of asceLlclsm ln Lhe fooLnoLe
below).
1hls ls a vlLal and mosL slgnlflcanL polnL.

lf ln v16 aul ls speaklng agalnsL bellevers belng lnvolved ln Lhe blbllcal feasLs lL cerLalnly would make no sense Lo argue for
Lhls concluslon lf Lhose promoLlng Lhe blbllcal feasLs were asceLlcs. 1o repeaL, by deflnlLlon asceLlcs would noL encourage or
embrace blbllcal feasLs, as Lhey are noL an acL of self-denlal buL a [oyous occaslon when Lhe lngesLlon of much food and wlne
was encouraged!

1hese CnosLlcs or PellenlsLs were clearly noL happy Lo see Lhelr nelghbours ln Colosse parLaklng of food and drlnk, LhaL ls,
en[oylng Lhe fesLlvals.

!usL Lry readlng v 16 wlLhouL Lhe fesLlvals secLlon and you geL 'B+"0"6'0" #"* 3' '3" ,-.. C$!12"3* '3 &'$ )3 D$".*)'3. '6 6''!
-3! !0)3E 44A

1he quesLlon here would Lhen be, whaL were Lhey dolng wlLh respecL Lo food and drlnk Lo be [udged and for aul Lo say Lo
lgnore Lhls [udgmenL?

Clearly, Lhey can'L have been fasLlng as Lhls would be conslsLenL wlLh asceLlclsm whlch aul very clearly re[ecLs ln verse 18. 1he
fesLlvals and weekly SabbaLhs on Lhe oLher hand are Llmes of good food and wlne. So even ln Lhls slmple exerclse lL should be
abundanLly clear LhaL aul was aL Lhe very leasL encouraglng Lhem LhaL Lhey should noL leL men or Lhe LradlLlons of men
deLermlne Lhelr behavlour where LhaL behavlour was Lhe resulL of Lhe free cholce Lo observe cerLaln rules relaLed Lo food and
drlnk.

1here are a couple of plauslble ways Lo lnLerpreL Lhls 'shadows' reference. lL may be a laLonlc one (see Pandbook Lo Lxegesls
of Lhe new 1esLamenL 8y SLanley L. orLer p332 for a good reference) namely: "1be wotlJ of oot expetleoce, wblcb we toke to
be teol, ls ooly o sboJow wotlJ. 1be teol wotlJ ls tbe wotlJ of lJeos, wblcb we teocb, oot by seose-koowleJqe, bot by lotoltlve
cootemplotloo. " bttp.//www.oewoJveot.otq/cotbeo/12159o.btm

1hls laLonlc concepL ls LhaL Lhe sun passes Lhrough Lhe 'Lrue' world of 'reallLy' or 'subsLance' lnLo Lhe world we lnhablL where
we only really see shadows of LruLh/reallLy. ln Lhls analogy or laLonlc mlndseL, Lhe Messlah ls ln Lhe 'real world' (heaven - Lhe
splrlLual world) and ls Lhus Lhe 'subsLance'.

lf aul ls speaklng ouL agalnsL a PellenlsLlc heresy, Lhen we would expecL hlm Lo refer Lo Lhls laLonlc mlndseL. ln Lhls
undersLandlng, everyLhlng we do here ls a shadow. 1hus Lhe fesLlvals eLc., are noL an endpolnL ln Lhemselves, as Messlah ls,
buL Lhls does noL devalue Lhem anymore Lhan lL devalues ALL our acLlons ln Lhls age.

19 ooJ oot bolJloq fost to tbe neoJ, ftom wbom tbe wbole boJy, oootlsbeJ ooJ kolt toqetbet tbtooqb lts jolots ooJ
llqomeots, qtows wltb o qtowtb tbot ls ftom CoJ.
20 lf wltb cbtlst yoo JleJ to *+" "#"2"3*-# .,)0)*. '6 *+" ('0#!, wby, os lf yoo wete stlll ollve lo tbe wotlJ, Jo yoo
sobmlt to teqolotloos-
21 F' 3'* +-3!#"7 F' 3'* *-.*"7 F' 3'* *'$5+
22 (tefettloq to tbloqs tbot oll petlsb os tbey ote oseJ)-occotJloq to bomoo ptecepts ooJ teocbloqs?

1he reference Lo Lhe elemenLal splrlLs of Lhe world Lakes us back Lo verse 8 and Lhe PellenlsLlc mlndseL. 1he uo noL handle, do
noL Louch .' ls Lhen clearly seen as referrlng Lo asceLlc pracLlces (Wllson, p169 argues Lhls as well and even LhaL Lhls asceLlc

$
pracLlce has conLlnued Lo be deeply buL falsely lngralned ln ChrlsLendom).

Some may argue LhaL Lhe Lssenes or a slmllar secL of !udalsm was promlnenL ln Colosse. A number of wrlLers such as hllo
sLaLe LhaL Lhe Lssenes were noL found ouLslde of lsrael.

More reveallng ls Lhe sLaLemenL by Lmll Schurer, ln 1he !ewlsh eople ln Lhe 1lmes of !esus" (1890 LranslaLed ln 2003) sLaLes:
lo oll tbese polots o sotpossloq of otJlooty IoJolsm ls oppoteot, ooJ tbls ls olso tbe cose lo tbe sttooqly potltoolcol ttolt, by
wblcb tbe sseoloo moJe of llfe ls cbotoctetlzeJ. 1bey sow lo mooy of tbe soclol costoms ooJ lostltotloos, wblcb tbe
Jevelopmeot of coltote eotolleJ, o petvetsloo of tbe ptlmltlve ooJ slmple woys of llfe ptesctlbeJ by ootote4 B+"& *+'$1+*
*+"0"6'0" *+-* *+"& 2-3)6".*"! *0$" 2'0-#)*& /& - 0"*$037 *' *+" .)2,#)5)*& '6 3-*$0" -3! '6 3-*$0-# '0!)3-35".. neoce tbelt
tejectloo of slovety, ootbs, ooolotloq oll, ooJ of loxoty lo qeoetol, beoce tbelt ,0)35),#" '6 #)8)31 - .)2,#" #)6" -3! -##'()31
*+"2."#8". '3#& .' 2$5+ 6''! -3! !0)3E -. 3-*$0" 0"D$)0"!. lt coooot be sbowo tbot tbey ptoctlseJ octool oscetlclsm by
fostloqs ooJ mottlflcotloos, by obstloeoce ftom flesb ooJ wloe. lt wos ooly tbe exceeJloq wbot ootote tepolteJ tbot tbey
cooJemoeJ.

Also noLe LhaL where Lhls phrase ln verse 21 ls used lL ls referred Lo ln verse 22 as a human precepL and Leachlng. lf lL was
lndeed a docLrlne of !udalzers, would aul have called ln a human precepL raLher LhaL a mls-lnLerpreLaLlon of scrlpLure? As far
as l can Lell Lhls phrase ls nelLher blbllcal or even any parL of Cral 1orah.

2J 1bese bove loJeeJ oo oppeotooce of wlsJom lo ,0'2'*)31 ."#6G2-!" 0"#)1)'3 -3! -.5"*)5).2 ooJ sevetlty to tbe
boJy, bot tbey ote of oo voloe lo stopploq tbe loJolqeoce of tbe flesb.
verse 23 relLeraLes Lhe phllosophlcal (self-made rellglon) and asceLlc naLure of Lhe heresy LhaL aul was speaklng agalnsL.

lL ls lnLeresLlng Lo reflecL on whaL was Lhe Lyplcal behavlour of Lhe CenLlle converLs ln Colosse. Lmll Schurer sheds some llghL
on Lhls:
1be tesolt of tbls wos tbot to olmost evety ooe of tbe Iewlsb commooltles of tbe Jlspetsloo tbete wos ottocbeJ o followloq of
CoJ-feotloq Ceotlles wbo oJopteJ tbe Iewlsb (l.e...... tbe moootbelstlc ooJ lmoqeless) moJe of wotsblp, otteoJeJ tbe Iewlsb
syooqoqoes, bot (+'7 )3 *+" '/."08-35" '6 *+" 5"0"2'3)-# #-(4 0".*0)5*"! *+"2."#8". *' 5"0*-)3 #"-!)31 ,')3*.7 ooJ so wete
teqotJeJ os ootslJe tbe fellowsblp of tbe Iewlsb commooltles. . Now lf we osk ootselves wbot tbose polots of tbe cetemoolol
low wete wblcb tbese Ceotlles obsetveJ, we wlll floJ tbem plololy eoooqb loJlcoteJ lo tbe possoqes olteoJy pooteJ ftom
Iosepbos, Ioveool, ooJ 1ettollloo. H## *+0"" -10"" )3 *+).7 *+-* )* (-. *+" I"().+ '/."08-35" '6 *+" J-//-*+ -3! *+"
,0".50),*)'3. ()*+ 0"1-0! *' 2"-*. *+-* ("0" )3 2'.* 1"3"0-# 6-8'$0 wltblo tbe cltcles lo poestloo." 314 Schurer 1he !ewlsh
eople ln Lhe 1lmes of !esus"

WhaL does Lhls Lell us?

lL Lells us LhaL CenLlles such as aL Colosse were obeylng Lhe edlcL
9
of Lhe !erusalem Councll (or were obeylng Lhe noachlde
Laws) and were also observlng Lhe SabbaLh. 1haL ls Lhey were observlng some resLrlcLlons regardlng food, Lhey were observlng
Lhe weekly SabbaLh and yeL noL observlng all Lhe ceremonlal laws (Lhe 613 mlLzvoL).

1hus when aul wrlLes Lo Lhem and speaks lnLo Lhelr llves he Lells Lhem Lo leL no-one [udge you regardlng food and drlnk, eLc.
Surely, Lhls was a word of encouragemenL noL condemnaLlon, a word Lo say 'en[oy belng parL of Lhe commonwealLh of lsrael,
en[oy Lhe pleasures of Lhe fesLlvals and Lhe worshlp, resL and fellowshlp of Lhe sabbaLhs (or weekly SabbaLh)
10
.

1he context of Co|oss|ans and the ep|st|es of au|:

1o help wlLh Lhe conLexL of aul's eplsLle Lo Colosse, l Lhlnk lL helpful Lo reflecL on Lhe pagan vlew of Lhe !ewlsh rlLuals LhaL aul
refers Lo. ln Lhls respecL, !uvenal
11
ls a good example, for hls words dlsplay some of Lhe derlslon felL by mosL 'ellLe 8oman'
pagans wlLh respecL Lo !ewlsh rlLuals: 1bete wete tbtee tbloqs lo pottlcolot wblcb tbe "!$5-*"! (?! my empbosls) ('0#! '6 *+"
*)2" 2-!" *+" /$** '6 )*. C""0., vlz. tbe obstloeoce ftom tbe ose of swloes flesb, tbe sttlct obsetvooce of tbe 5obbotb, ooJ tbe
wotsblp wltboot lmoqes. wblle lo llototcb lt ls setloosly JeboteJ wbetbet tbe obstloeoce ftom tbe ose of swloes flesb moy oot
be Joe to tbe foct of Jlvloe boooots beloq polJ to tbls oolmol, Ioveool oqolo jokes oboot tbe looJ wbete tbe clemeocy of tbe

9
1be tolloq of tbe cooocll lo Ietosolem (Acts 15.1-28) moJe lt cleot tbot Ceotlle bellevets wete excoseJ ftom tokloq oo tbe eotlte yoke of 1otob (l.e. coovetsloo)
bot losteoJ wete ptoblblteJ ftom foot tbloqs. fooJ offeteJ to lJols, fotolcotloo, meot sttooqleJ ooJ blooJ.
10
l wlll address Lhe lssue of wheLher of noL Lhe use of 'sabbaLh' ln v16 refers Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh or Lhe sabbaLhs LhaL are parL of Lhe fesLlvals furLher on ln
Lhls arLlcle. lL ls noL a vlLal lssue, aL leasL from Lhe perspecLlve l belleve aul was promoLlng.
11
ueclmus lunlus luvenalls, known ln Lngllsh as !uvenal, was a 8oman poeL acLlve ln Lhe laLe 1sL and early 2nd cenLury Au

&
Joys of olJ bos occotJeJ to plqs tbe ptlvlleqe of llvloq to o qooJ olJ oqe, ooJ wbete swloes flesb ls os mocb voloeJ os tbot of
moo. 1beo os fot tbe obsetvooce of tbe 5obbotb, tbe sotltlst coo see ootbloq lo lt bot loJoleoce ooJ slotb, wblle be looks opoo
Iewlsb wotsblp os beloq metely oo oJotloq of tbe clooJs ooJ tbe skles. lt woolJ oppeot oqolo tbot cootempototles wltb o
pbllosopblcol ttololoq boJ, lo llke moooet, oo oppteclotloo wbotevet of tbe wotsblpploq of CoJ lo spltlt. Schurer p293
ln Lhls quoLlng of !uvenal, we learn LhaL Lhe ellLe of 8oman socleLy around Lhe Llme of aul's eplsLle LhoughL very llLLle of
!ewlsh food laws, !ewlsh observance of Lhe SabbaLh and perhaps !ewlsh acknowledgemenL of new moons, eLc (from Lhe
reference Lo adorlng Lhe clouds and skles). ln oLher words, 8oman socleLy denlgraLed !ewlsh aLLlLudes Lo 'fooJ . festlvol(s) .
oew mooo ot sobbotbs .

So we could lmaglne some pagan 8omans speaklng, Lo Lhelr Creek or 8omans frlends or relaLlves who were 'Cod-fearers' and
followers of ?eshua aL Colosse, words llke (keject Iewlsb woys) lo fooJ ot lo Jtlok, ot teqotJloq o festlvol ot o oew mooo ot
sobbotbs,.

8uL walL a mlnuLe, Lhls ls whaL mosL malnsLream ChrlsLlan scholars argue LhaL Lhe AposLle aul acLually sald and he was no
pagan or pagan sympaLhlzer.
So Lhls sLaLemenL could noL have meanL don'L geL lnvolved ln Lhese pracLlces LhaL pagans Lhlnk are deservlng Lo be Lhe buLL of
[okes. 8aLher Lhe AposLle aul was surely saylng, don'L fear Lhe condemnaLlon of Lhe pagan socleLy abouL you when you uC
lnvolve yourself ln Lhls observance of Lhe 8lbllcal Poly uays.
lL ls lmporLanL Lo recognlze LhaL as Lhe AposLle Lo Lhe CenLlles, aul spoke ouL agalnsL all error LhaL would lead CenLlle
bellevers away from Lhe llberLy found ln Messlah ?eshua. 1hls meanL he spoke agalnsL !udalzers (as for example ln CalaLla)
who argued for Lhe necesslLy of physlcal clrcumclslon, and he also spoke ouL agalnsL pagan heresles LhaL had come lnLo Lhe
communlLy Lhrough Lhe Pellenlslng of !udalsm. l hope l have convlnced you LhaL ln speaklng Lo Lhe Colosslans he was
concerned wlLh Lhe Pellenlslng lnfluence LhaL was Lrylng Lo dlsrupL Lhe paLh of Lhe followers of ?eshua who had been LaughL Lo
adopL Lhe falLh of ?eshua
12
and Lherefore embrace Lhe 8lbllcal Poly uays as parL of Lhelr dally llves.

1he term sabbath(s) |n Co| 2:16:
ls Lhls referrlng Lo Lhe sabbaLhs LhaL are parL of Lhe lesLlvals, Lhe daLes of whlch are based on Lhe new moons, or was aul
referrlng Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh, Lhe 7
Lh
day of resL?
Agaln lL appears mosL commenLaLors, based on Lhelr prlor commlLmenL Lo Lhls verse argulng agalnsL !ewlsh rlLuals, have
conLended LhaL Lhe sabbaLhs (mosL LranslaLlons have Lhe plural), refers Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh, noL Lo Lhe sabbaLhs LhaL were
lnsLlLuLed as parL of Lhe blbllcal fresLlvals.
1here are a number of good reasons for quesLlonlng Lhls consensus Lhough.

asLor 8on du reez 1hu, uMln has publlshed a book 'uLLlng Lhe SabbaLh" Lo 8esL: A ScrlpLural SLudy of Lhe SabbaLn ln
Colosslans 2:16', ln whlch he argues LhaL Lhe sLrucLure LhaL Lhe aposLle aul employs ln Lhls passage ls Lhe chlasm, famlllar ln
Pebrew wrlLlng and havlng an A8A (or A8C8A, eLc.) sLrucLure.

1he key Lo Lhls undersLandlng ls Posea 2:11, ln whlch Cod sLaLes of lsrael's ceremonlal observances, l wlll also cause all her
mlrLh Lo cease, her feasL days, her new moons, and her sabbaLhs, and all her solemn feasLs." ln Posea 2:11, Lhe sequence ls
chlasLlc, whlch ls Lyplcal of Pebrew LhoughL.

1o beLLer appreclaLe Lhls form of exposlLlon, we flrsL need Lo remember LhaL Pebralc wrlLlng ofLen used varlous forms of
repeLlLlon or parallellsm. A slmple example of Lhls ls ln Lhe Shema (ueuL 6:4-6) where we read 'oo sboll love tbe lOku yoot
CoJ wltb -## &'$0 +"-0* ooJ wltb -## &'$0 .'$l ooJ wltb -## &'$0 2)1+*K4 1hls ls really a repeLlLlon of Lhe sLaLemenL LhaL you are
Lo love Cod wlLh all of you. 1he Lerms hearL, soul and mlghL really mean Lhe same Lhlng ln Lhls conLexL.

So uu reez's argumenL ls LhaL Lhe Lerms 'feasL days', 'new moons', 'sabbaLhs' and 'solemn feasLs' all refer Lo Lhe 8lbllcal feasLs
and so Lhe phraseology ln Pos 2:11 ls ln Lhe form A8CA, where each leLLer represenLs a repeLlLlon of Lhe same Lerm or concepL.

12
kom J.22 veo tbe tlqbteoosoess of CoJ wblcb ls by foltb of Iesos cbtlst ooto oll ooJ opoo oll tbem tbot belleve. fot tbete ls oo Jlffeteoce, kev 14.12 nete ls
tbe potleoce of tbe solots. bete ote tbose wbo keep tbe commooJmeots of CoJ, ooJ tbe foltb of Iesos.

(

1hls chlasLlc form
13
appears some 30 Llmes ln Posea alone and ln facL ls prevalenL LhroughouL boLh Lhe Cld and new
1esLamenLs. 1he chlasLlc sLrucLure ls very slgnlflcanL for proper blbllcal exegesls, buL seems Lo have been largely forgoLLen. lL
was recognlzed many years ago when !ohn A. 8engel ln 'Cnomon of Lhe new 1esLamenL' (3
Lh
vol. 1742, p. 399), wroLe: "Ofteo
tbete ls tbe qteotest ose lo tbe employmeot of tbls flqote, ooJ lt ls oevet wltboot some ose, vlz, lo petcelvloq tbe otoomeot, lo
obsetvloq tbe fotce of tbe looqooqe, lo ooJetstooJloq tbe ttoe ooJ foll seose, lo mokloq cleot tbe soooJ exeqesls, ooJ lo
Jemoosttotloq tbe ttoe ooJ oeot ooolysls of tbe socteJ text."

uu reez goes on Lo argue LhaL Lhls chlasLlc form ls employed by aul noL only ln Col 2:16 buL [usL 3 verses laLer ln verse 21 as
well! - uo oot booJle, uo oot toste, uo oot toocb (l.e. A8A). Pe argues LhaL aul ls maklng reference Lo Posea 2:11 by
speaklng of yearly feasL days, such as assover, Lhe monLhly new moon observances, and Lhe yearly solemn feasLs, e.g., Lhe
uay of ALonemenL (sabbaLhs).

1o furLher sLrengLhen hls argumenL LhaL Lhe use of 'sabbaLhs' ln Col 2:16 does noL refer Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh, ur. du reez
polnLs ouL LhaL when Lhe weekly sevenLh-day SabbaLh ls spoken of ln Lhe 8lble, Lhere are llngulsLlc clues LhaL help Lhe reader
dlsLlngulsh beLween Lhe ceremonlal sabbaLhs and Lhe weekly SabbaLh. Cne of Lhese llngulsLlc clues ls LhaL Cod refers Lo Lhe
weekly SabbaLhs as My SabbaLhs," whereas Pe refers Lo Lhe ceremonlal sabbaLhs as her," lLs," or your" sabbaLhs.

Pavlng been quesLloned ln depLh over Lhls lssue of wheLher Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls lncluded ln Lhls 'Lrlo' ln Col 2:16, l have come
Lo belleve, aL Lhls Llme LhaL desplLe du reez's alLernaLlve perspecLlve, Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls acLually belng referred Lo here.
1he lssue LhaL l flnd mosL convlnclng ls Lhe greaL parallel beLween Lx 43:17 and Col 2:16 ln Lerms of Lhls Lrlo of observances. ln
researchlng 1almudlc and oLher !udalc commenLary on Lx 43:17, l could flnd no clear lndlcaLlon as Lo wheLher Lhe weekly
SabbaLh or Lhe sabbaLhs (speclflcally of ?om 1eruah and ?om klppur) were belng descrlbed. l Lhen found a calculaLlon of Lhe
number of lambs needed for Lhe burnL offerlngs belng deLalled ln Lx 43:17 and noLed LhaL Lhe weekly SabbaLh was lncluded ln
Lhls calculaLlon. 1hus, aL Lhls polnL, l am swayed Loward Lhe poslLlon LhaL Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls lndeed lndlcaLed, however, l
remaln open Lo furLher elucldaLlon on Lhls maLLer.

lf we accepL LhaL Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls lndlcaLed here, does Lhls mean LhaL aul ls argulng for some exLremely momenLous
change here, a change of earLh shaLLerlng proporLlons lf he ls argulng LhaL Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls Lo no longer have Lhe cenLral
slgnlflcance LhaL lL had ln 8lbllcal Llmes and ln Lhe llves of !esus and hls dlsclples?

no, l do noL belleve so. noLe flrsL LhaL lf Lhe perspecLlve presenLed here ls valld Lhen aul ls argulng LhaL Lhe feasLs and SabbaLh
be embraced noL dlscarded. 1hus, CenLlles are Lo embrace Lhe weekly SabbaLh also buL clearly wlLh a freedom from [udgmenL.

1he weekly SabbaLh ls forever and wlll even be honoured ln Lhe new unlverse! See Lx 31:16-17 for example. 1o suggesL some
Lemporary suspenslon of lLs observance and Lhe reducLlon of Lhe 1en CommandmenLs Lo nlne for a perlod of Llme seems
exLremely unllkely, parLlcularly glven no expllclL lnsLrucLlons for such a dramaLlc and llfe-changlng evenL can be found
anywhere ln Lhe 8lbllcal cannon.

1he well known scholar AlberL 8arnes, referrlng Lo Lhe phrase ln Col 2:16, argues LhaL:
Ot of tbe sobbotb Joys. Cr, "of Lhe sabbaLhs." 1he word 5obbotb ln Lhe Cld 1esLamenL ls applled noL only Lo Lhe sevenLh day,
buL Lo all Lhe days of holy resL LhaL were observed by Lhe Pebrews, and parLlcularly Lo Lhe beglnnlng and close of Lhelr greaL
fesLlvals. 1here ls, doubLless, reference Lo Lhose days ln Lhls place, as Lhe word ls used ln Lhe plural number, and Lhe aposLle
does noL refer parLlcularly Lo tbe SabbaLh properly so called. . No part of the mora| |awno one of the ten commandments
cou|d be spoken of as "- .+-!'( of good th|ngs to come." 1hese commandments are, from the nature of mora| |aw, of
perpetua| and un|versa| ob||gat|on. -8arnes' noLes on Lhe new 1esLamenL, hlladelphla, AugusL 23Lh, 1832.

AnoLher very lnLeresLlng and plauslble undersLandlng ls suggesLed by uavld !. Conklln
14
. Pe polnLs ouL LhaL Lhe Creek word
'heorLe' (SLrongs #1839 - meanlng 'feasL' or 'fesLlval') ls LranslaLed as 'holy days' ln Lhe klng !ames 8lble and LhaL Lhls meanlng
of feasL ls never used of ?om 1eruah (uay of 1rumpeLs) or ?om klppur (uay of ALonemenL). 8oLh Lhese days are ceremonlal
sabbaLhs (see Lev 23: 23-32) and yeL do noL appear Lo be days for greaL feasLlng (?om klppur ls a day of fasLlng) as wlLh Lhe
oLher speclal days such as Lhe assover and Lhe leasL of 1abernacles. 1herefore lf aul had, ln Lhe orlglnal verslon of Lhe verse,

13
See hLLp://www.lnLhebeglnnlng.org/chlasmus/lnLroducLlon/chlasmus_lnLro.hLm for a good explanaLlon of chlasmus. Also see
hLLp://www.hccenLral.com/gkeys/chlasm.hLml and hLLp://www.bsw.org/pro[ecL/fllologla/fllo12/ArL09.hLml

)%
http://www.666man.net//Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/colintro.html

*
used Lhls word or some oLher word meanlng 'feasL' Lhen lL makes sense for hlm Lo lnclude 'sabbaLhs' ln Lhe expresslon Lo
clarlfy LhaL he was lncludlng all Lhe appolnLed feasLs ouLllned ln LevlLlcus 23.

An lnLeresLlng alLernaLlve undersLandlng whlch some scholars have argued for ls LhaL ln verse 16 & 17 aul ls argulng LhaL Lhe
holy days are a shadow of Lhe age Lo come, LhaL ls, Lhese are celebraLlon days LhaL help prepare us for llfe ln Lhe comlng
klngdom of Cod.

Accordlng Lo 'A Pebrew and Chaldee Lexlcon Lo Lhe Cld 1esLamenL' by !ullus luersL (1871), Col 2:16-17 should readlng parL:
ln respecL of a fesLlval or new moon or SabbaLhs-whlch are a shadow l8CM Lhlngs Lo come-lC8 Lhe 8ody of Messlah."

8egardless of wheLher Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls belng referred Lo ln Col 2:16 or noL, l hope l have already shown LhaL lL's
observance ls noL belng quesLloned ln any way, shape or form here. l wlll expand on Lhls furLher on.
1o conclude Lhls secLlon, here ls a brlef encyclopedla summary lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe Colosslans 2 ls:
llke some of bls otbet eplstles (e.q., tbose to cotlotb), tbls seems to bove beeo wtltteo lo coosepoeoce of lofotmotloo wblcb boJ
beeo cooveyeJ to blm of tbe lotetool stote of tbe cbotcb tbete by popbtos(1.4-8). lts object wos to coootetoct folse teocbloq. A
lotqe pott of lt ls JltecteJ oqolost cettolo specolotlsts wbo ottempteJ to combloe tbe Jocttloes of osteto mystlclsm ooJ
oscetlclsm wltb cbtlstloolty, tbeteby ptomlsloq bellevets eojoymeot of o blqbet spltltool llfe ooJ o Jeepet loslqbt loto tbe wotlJ
of spltlts. lool otqoes oqolost socb teocbloq, sbowloq tbot lo cbtlst tbey boJ oll tbloqs. ne sets fottb tbe mojesty of bls
teJemptloo. 1be meotloo of tbe "oew mooo" ooJ "sobbotb Joys" (2.16) sbows tbot Coostlc oscetlcs wete joJqloq tbe boJy of
cbtlst fot "eotloq ooJ Jtlokloq" ooJ obsetvloq tbe "feosts, New Mooos, ooJ 5obbotbs." lo tespoose, lool commooJs tbe solots
to "let oo ooe joJqe yoo...bot tbe boJy of cbtlst," l.e. *+" L+$05+ )*."#67 (+)5+ (-. '/."08)31 *+"." /)/#)5-# +'#& !-&. (Mott.
5.17-19, kom. J.J1). lool focoses mocb of bls eplstle to tbe colossloos lo combotloq tbe teocbloqs of tbe eotly Coostlc sects,
pottlcolotly oscetlcs (see col. 2.4-2J). lrom hLLp://www.sLaLemasLer.com/encyclopedla/LplsLle-Lo-Lhe-
Colosslans#ConLenL_of_Lhe_leLLer
1he current s|tuat|on:

lL ls a facL of hlsLory Lhe malnsLream ChrlsLlanlLy celebraLes Lhe 'SabbaLh', Lhe 7
Lh
day, on Lhe Sunday. When and why dld Lhls
change occur. Was lL, aL leasL ln parL, because of Lhe AposLle aul's eplsLle Lo Lhe Colosslans?

1o repeaL, Lmll Schurer ln referrlng Lo Cod-fearlng genLlles sLaLes LhaL SabbaLh observance was sLlll common even laLe ln Lhe
2nd cenLury:
Now lf we osk ootselves wbot tbose polots of tbe cetemoolol low wete wblcb tbese Ceotlles obsetveJ, we wlll floJ tbem plololy
eoooqb loJlcoteJ lo tbe possoqes olteoJy pooteJ ftom Iosepbos, Ioveool, ooJ 1ettollloo (see ootes 271 ooJ 289). H## *+0""
-10"" )3 *+).7 *+-* )* (-. *+" I"().+ '/."08-35" '6 *+" J-//-*+ -3! *+" ,0".50),*)'3. ()*+ 0"1-0! *' 2"-*. *+-* ("0" )3 2'.*
1"3"0-# 6-8'$0 ()*+)3 *+" 5)05#". )3 D$".*)'34 Schurer ln A PlS1C8? of 1PL !LWlSP LCLL ln 1PL 1lML Cl !LSuS CP8lS1
(1890).
Pe also makes Lhe polnL LhaL Lhe maln reason for SabbaLh (SaLurday) aLLendance aL Lhe synagogue was for lnsLrucLlons:
5ocb oo lostltotloo wos cteoteJ by post-exllloo IoJolsm lo tbe costom of tbe teoJloq of 5ctlptote oo tbe 5obbotb Joy lo tbe
syooqoqoe. lot lt ls oecessoty fltst of oll to temotk, tbot tbe molo object of tbese 5obbotb Joy ossembloqes lo tbe syooqoqoe
wos oot pobllc wotsblp lo lts sttlctet seose, l.e. oot Jevotloo7 /$* 0"#)1)'$. )3.*0$5*)'3, ooJ tbls fot oo lstoellte wos obove oll
losttoctloo lo tbe low.... Iosepbos tlqbtly vlews tbe mottet lo tbls llqbt. Not ooce ot twlce ot mote ftepoeotly JlJ oot lowqlvet
commooJ os to beot tbe low, bot to come toqetbet weekly, wltb tbe cessotloo of otbet wotk, to beot tbe low ooJ to leoto lt
occototely. Not wos lbllo lo tbe wtooq, wbeo be colleJ tbe syooqoqoes booses of losttoctloo, lo wblcb tbe ootlve
pbllosopby15 wos stoJleJ ooJ evety kloJ of vlttoe tooqbt.
1he SabbaLh was obvlously observed by ?eshua and aul. 1here are many clear passages LhaL LesLlfy Lo Lhls. lL ls also Lrue
Lhough Lhe aul speaks of meeLlng afLer Lhe SabbaLh was over, and Lherefore on Lhe flrsL day of Lhe week (buL acLually on
SaLurday nlghL) Lo commemoraLe Lhe resurrecLlon. lor example, ln AcLs 20:7 we see LhaL slnce aul was an observanL harlsee,
celebraLlng ShabbaL, followed by Pavdalah
16
would have been qulLe normal, and even forLulLous because lL allowed hlm Lo

13
?ou may have noLed LhaL hllo (and !osephus) refer Lo Lhe pracLlse of !udalsm as 'naLlve phllosophy'. noLe also Lhough LhaL Lhese men were boLh PellenlsLs.
See my earller quoLe LhaL no 1almudlc llLeraLure uses Lhls Lerm.
16
Pavdalah ls a !ewlsh rellglous ceremony LhaL marks Lhe symbollc end of ShabbaL and holldays, and ushers ln Lhe new week. ln !udalsm, ShabbaL ends-and
Lhe new week beglns-aL nlghLfall on SaLurday.

)+
lncorporaLe Lhe resurrecLlon evenLs. As each Pavdalah polnLs Lo a new beglnnlng wlLh reference Lo salvaLlon (lsa.12:1-3) lL
would have been a wonderful opporLunlLy Lo speak abouL Lhe 8lsen Cne. !esus was Lhe reason for Lhls gaLherlng aL Lhe sLarL of
Lhe flrsL day, nC1 Lhe abollLlon of Lhe SabbaLh.
8e[ecLlon of SabbaLh, and lLs replacemenL by Sunday worshlp, was a re[ecLlon of lsrael
17
(whlch dldn'L occur unLll afLer 70 Au
and more llkely closer Lo 113 Au (accordlng Lo lgnaLlus - see 'Cur laLher Abraham' by Marvln Wllson p113).
aul's leLLer Lo Lhe Colosslans was wrlLLen 10 Lo even 33 years earller - Lhus lL can noL have been argulng for a chance Lo
Sunday worshlp - lf lL had been, Lhls change would surely have occurred much sooner.
Also Lhe use of Lhe Lerm 'Lord's uay' for Lhe Sunday (as used ln 1he uldache (120 Au) ls a mlsLaken undersLandlng of whaL Lhe
'Lord's uay' (ln 8evelaLlon) acLually means!
1here ls a !ewlsh saylng Mote tboo lstoel kept tbe 5obbotb, tbe 5obbotb kept lstoel. 1hus, Lhe SabbaLh ls much more Lhan a
!ewlsh marker. Marvln Wllson says "IoJolsm tteots tbe 5obbotb os o poeeo ot btlJe, lts bolloess ls o temloJet of tbe wotlJ to
come. IoJolsm ttles to fostet tbe vlsloo of llfe os o pllqtlmoqe to tbe seveotb Joy, tbe looqloq fot tbe 5obbotb oll tbe Joys of tbe
week" (quoLlng Abraham Peschel).
ln facL, Lhere ls some evldence LhaL Lhe SabbaLh was observed before lsrael. lor example, even rof urlver of
8rown/urlver/8rlggs fame, belleves Lhe SabbaLh was of 8abylonlan orlgln (l.e. pre-Moses).
1here ls even some argumenL LhaL Lhe 10 Words were pracLlced by some prlor Lo Moses:
1bls otqomeot of tbe cotbeoos coolJ bove beeo boseJ oo tbe vlew cotteot omooq tbe Iews (1be 8ook of Iobllees), tbot tbe
lottlotcbs olteoJy obsetveJ tbe 1otob befote evet lt wos qlveo ot 5lool. 1belt (tbe cotbeoos') ossettloo coocetoloq tbe temple
tbot tbey boJ bollt ot Cetlzlm potpotts to ottest tbe ootlpolty of tbelt wotsblp, tbot lt wos pte-Mosolc.. 1bls wos o wlJespteoJ
bellef omooq tbe 5omotltoos ot tbls petloJ, os we leoto ftom opolemos, wbo tells os tbot Abtobom wos tecelveJ by
MelcblzeJek ot tbe temple of Cetlzlm..... 1be foct tbot tbey coll tbelt qoJ tbe ooooymoos Jelty ls to be exploloeJ by tbe Iewlsb
ptoctlce oot to ptoooooce tbe loeffoble Nome bot ooly lts sobstltote (cf. k0pto lo tbe 5eptooqlot). 1bls osoqe wos olso cotteot
omooq tbe 5omotltoos" from !ews. !udalsm and Lhe Classlcal World: SLudles ln !ewlsh PlsLory ln Lhe 1lmes of Lhe Second
1emple and 1almud" by Cedalyahu Alon. 1ranslaLed from Lhe Pebrew by lsrael Abrahams (!erusalem 1977).
So lf none of Lhe new 1esLamenL wrlLers proposed Lhe re[ecLlon of SabbaLh observance, and lf Lhe change Lo Sunday dld noL
occur unLll 70 CL aL Lhe earllesL of more llkely around 100 CL, whaL broughL abouL Lhls change.

1he mosL obvlous answer ls Lhe rlse of anLl-semlLlsm and Lhe PellenlsLlc lnfluence on a communlLy (Lhe Church) LhaL was
lncreaslngly CenLlle ln lLs makeup.

lL would appear LhaL a very slmllar lnfluence LhaL lnLroduced Lhe 1rlnlLy was aL play here. ln Lhe same way LhaL Lhe new
1esLaLmenL ls sllenL on Lhe 1rlnlLy, lL ls even more sllenL of Lhe abollLlon of Lhe SabbaLh and Lhe lnauguraLlon of Sunday
worshlp. l hlghly recommend a serles of podcasLs by 8on uarL on Lhls lssue (avallable from
hLLp://www.bornLowln.neL/newslLe/) .

WhaL makes Lhls even more deflnlLlve ls LhaL Lhe weekly SabbaLh had always been creaLed for man's beneflL, for man Lo have
domlnlon over lL, LhaL ls Lo galn llfe from lL, noL Lo be some form of bondage or legallsm!

llusser sLaLes lnLeresLlngly, (!esus, 2001) Oo tbot occosloo, Iesos solJ, omooq otbet tbloqs, "1be 5obbotb wos cteoteJ fot moo,
oot moo fot tbe 5obbotb. 5o, moo ls lotJ eveo of tbe 5obbotb" (Motk 2.27-28). lltetolly, "tbe soo of moo." nete lt meoos slmply
"moo." 1bls wos olteoJy tecoqolzeJ lo tbe seveoteeotb ceototy by tbe fomoos uotcb scbolot, noqo Ctotlos lo bls commeototy
oo Mott. 12.8.

So llusser ls saylng LhaL all men, noL [usL our Messlah have domlnlon over Lhe SabbaLh - why Lhen would we remove or move
lL!!

Some scholars have argued LhaL Lhls change ls recorded ln Lhe n1 and have quoLed AcLs 10 and Cal 2, and posslbly 8omans

17 lrank Selch's book '8eplacemenL 1heology' glves greaL deLall as Lo Lhls anLl-SemlLlc change ln Lhe church

))
14:3 as evldence.

?eL, Lhere ls absoluLely no expllclL menLlon of Lhe weekly SabbaLh ln elLher AcLs 10 or Cal 2.

Some also argue LhaL for a CenLlle converL Lo keep Lhe SabbaLh would be Lo become parLake of someLhlng was was a naLlonal
ldenLlLy marker raLher Lhan belng a 'new man ln ChrlsL'.

ln Lhe Llmes LhaL Lhe AposLle aul was wrlLlng Lhough, Lhe greaL ma[orlLy of CenLlles converLs were already 'Cod-fearers' and
so would have been observlng Lhe SabbaLh (Lo Lhe accepLed degree aL leasL of aLLendlng Lhe synagogue, eLc). 1hus, Lhls
quesLlon or perspecLlve would have been lrrelevanL Lo Lhem.

1he facL LhaL Lhls quesLlon ls even asked Loday only proves how far we have moved from a 8lbllcal sLandpolnL, ln Lhe same way
LhaL a person comlng Lo Messlah Loday ls naLurally expecLed Lo accepL Lhe 1rlnlLy, even Lhough Lhls ls noL an expresslon of Lhe
falLh of ?eshua elLher.

ln summary regardlng Col 2:16 and Lhe weekly SabbaLh, Lhere ls Lherefore no real evldence for a re[ecLlon of Lhe SabbaLh. Lven
lf lL were belng ldenLlfled ln Col 2:16, lL ls noL belng re[ecLed, buL aul ls encouraglng hls Colosslans readers noL Lo fear Lhe
[udgmenL of Lhe PellenlsLs and lnsLead en[oy Lhe parLlclpaLlon ln Lhe Poly uays.

1he Sabbath:

1he weekly SabbaLh, as parL of Lhe 1en CommandmenLs, Lhe 10 Words, ls a unlversal law LhaL ls lmmuLable. Pow Lhen mlghL
we besL llve so as noL Lo flghL Lhe wlll of Cod?

LeL us embrace lL as a [oy glven for us Lo have domlnlon over, leL us, wlLh all Lhe freedom we have from legallsm, from Lhe
LradlLlons of men, seek Lo honour Lhls creaLlon of Cod whlle as 'sLrong' (8om 14:3) bellevers help oLhers Lo embrace Lhe
SabbaLh as besL Lhey can desplLe Lhe challenge of our modern WesLern socleLy.

lrank Selch ln hls bookleL 'WhaL abouL Lhe SabbaLh' (p 22) sums Lhls up very well:
1be Apostle lool mokes lt vety cleot tbtooqboot bls wtltloqs tbot oo omooot of low keeploq coo moke ooyooe tlqbt befote C-J.
locloJeJ lo tbls ote of cootse obsetvooces of noly uoys ooJ 5obbotbs! At tbe some tlme, lool mokes lt polte cleot tbot we ote
oot to joJqe ooe oootbet by wbot ooe obsetves ot oot obsetves, eots ot Joes oot eot (komoos 14.1-10). uoes tbot oot tell os
tbot lf o btotbet feels tbot be woots to boooot C-J by obsetvloq tbe 5obbotb, otbets sboolJ oot stooJ lo joJqmeot ovet blm, lo
tbe some woy be sboolJ oot joJqe tbose wbo woot to obsetve o Jlffeteot Joy, oo wblcb tbey woot to wotsblp C-J mote
loteosely.

8eotloq tbls lo mloJ, l belleve tbot l bove o polot lo soyloq tbot lf ooe wete to cboose o Joy, oo wblcb cbtlstloos sboolJ boooot
C-J cotpototely, wby oot select tbe Joy tbe Almlqbty boJ cboseo fot nlmself lo tbe fltst ploce? AoJ coolJ we oot soy tbe some
fot otbet ttoJltloool cbtlstloo ooo-blbllcol celebtotloos os well, ot ot leost petmlt tbose wbo see (ooo-solvlflc) metlt lo
commemototloq 8lbllcol eveots, to follow tbe qolJloq of tbelt beotts?!

1be 8lble mokes oboot 112 tefeteoces to tbe 5obbotb lo tbe 1eookb, ooJ 76 lo tbe New coveooot wtltloqs. lot lostooce, lool
JlJ MO51 of bls teocbloq oo tbe 5obbotb, ooJ oot ooce ls be tecotJeJ os soyloq tbot tbe 5obbotb wos sopetseJeJ by wotsblp oo
tbe lltst uoy of tbe week. 1btooqboot tbe blstoty of tbe cbotcb tbete ls omple qlobol evlJeoce tbot cbtlstloos felt tbot tbey
sboolJ boooot tbe blbllcol 5obbotb.

Also knowlng LhaL when we fall Lo fully appreclaLe how Lo acL ln harmony wlLh Cod's moral code, we are noL condemned
because our salvaLlon was and never wlll be dependanL upon our obedlence. Cur obedlence ls Lhe resulL of our salvaLlon noL
Lhe reason for lL. 1he reason, Lhe source, ls always our Messlah and hls and aul's call Lo us Lo have hls falLh, Lo LrusL our Cod
as he dld.

Colosslan 2 ls Lhe CnL? place ln Lhe whole n1 where Lhe phrase 'fesLlvals, new moons and sabbaLhs' ls used (Some would
argue for Cal 4:10 as well buL l belleve Lhls ls lncorrecL
18
).

18 Cerhard klLLel ln hls 1heologlcal ulcLlonary of Lhe new 1esLamenL concludes LhaL Lhe mlddle volce of Lhe Creek verb paraLereo ("observe") "seems Lo have
Lhe sense of 'anxlous, scrupulous, well-lnformed observance ln one's own lnLeresL, whlch does noL flL Lhe LradlLlonal celebraLlon of Lhe SabbaLh or oLher
!ewlsh leasLs buL does flL regard for polnLs or spans of Llme whlch are evaluaLed poslLlvely or negaLlvely from Lhe sLandpolnL of Lhe calendar or asLrology
(1heologlcal ulcLlonary of Lhe new 1esLamenL, page 464). klLLel also concludes LhaL Lhls passage condemns elLher "apocryphal !ewlsh speculaLlons abouL

)"
8ecause lL ls Lhe only place Lhls phrase ls used ln Lhe n1 we need Lo be very careful abouL arrlvlng aL a 'new' (l.e. dlfferenL from
C1) revelaLlon from lL.
lnsLead Lake lL aL face value and leave lL grouped and whaL we should see (based on Lhe !ewlsh perspecLlve of Lhe wrlLer) LhaL
lL ls a sLaLemenL LhaL Lhere ls noLhlng 'wrong' wlLh observlng (or noL) Lhese fesLlvals.
WlLh Lhls approach, Lhe more promlnenL sLaLus of Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls really lefL unLouched by Lhls Col 2 commenLary. ln
oLher words, we should nC1 use Col 2 ln an argumenL elLher for or agalnsL Lhe weekly SabbaLh aL all!
WhaL Lhen are Lhe clear facLs regardlng Lhe SabbaLh as a parL of Lhe 1en CommandmenLs, Lhe core of Lhe 1orah?
1) !esus and aul, and '!esus ln aul' kepL Lhe 1orah. 1here ls abundanL evldence for Lhls. ln facL, Lhe evldence ls falrly
concluslve LhaL noL only dld Lhey observe Lhe 10 Words
19
, buL LhaL Lhey also observed Lhe ceremonlal laws and much of Lhe
Cral 1orah as well. 1hus Lhey boLh observed Lhe SabbaLh.

2) 1here ls however also abundanL evldence LhaL aul ln reachlng ouL Lo Lhe CenLlles, Lold Lhem LhaL Lhey dld noL need Lo geL
physlcally clrcumclsed,

3) lL ls also a facL LhaL '!esus ln aul' goL 1lmoLhy clrcumclsed, buL lL would appear Lhls was because of hls !ewlsh herlLage
(moLher's slde).
20

4) lL ls a facL LhaL Lhe LevlLlcal prlesLhood whlch was always a sacrlflclal sysLem, ended wlLh Lhe ulLlmaLe sacrlflce. 1hus Lhere
was some change ln Lhe ordlnances of Cod (Peb 7:12)

3) lL ls a facL LhaL !esus dld noL speak agalnsL Lhe SabbaLh aL all, buL he dld speak ouL agalnsL Lhe legallsLlc lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe
8lbllcal demands concernlng Lhe SabbaLh. !esus sLaLed LhaL Lhe 'son of man' ls Lord of Lhe SabbaLh. ?ou can'L be Lord or
MasLer ('ln charge of') someLhlng LhaL doesn'L exlsL or whlch has been made redundanL. Why would a lovlng laLher Lake
away someLhlng whlch was 'made for man' l.e glven for our beneflL.
21

6) lL ls a facL LhaL before Lhe Messlah walked Lhls earLh a CenLlle needed Lo become a proselyLlzed !ew Lo become a son or
daughLer of Cod. 1he C1 made provlslon for CenLlles Lo converL Lo !udalsm such as 8ahab, 8uLh, and male forelgners who
were clrcumclsed as a prerequlslLe for celebraLlng Lhe assover (Lxod. 12:48). ln Lhe n1 Lhough Lhe AposLle aul makes lL
very clear ln a number of places LhaL CenLlle bellevers ln !esus do noL need Lo be physlcally clrcumclsed. ln facL, we see ln 1
Cor 7:18, LhaL he sald, noL only should CenLlles refraln from clrcumclslon buL LhaL !ews should noL Lry Lo undo Lhelr
clrcumclslon (by eplpasm).
22

7) lL ls a facL LhaL Lhe !erusalem Councll made lL very clear LhaL CenLlles dld noL need Lo Lake on Lhe enLlre yoke of all 613
!ewlsh rules and regulaLlons. (AL leasL noL lnlLlally - some argue LhaL Lhls declslon was Lemporary). lL ls also clear from Lhe
conLexL LhaL Lhe reasons behlnd Lhe llsL of four prohlblLlons were reasons of fellowshlp and ouLreach. lL should also be clear
LhaL where rlLual/ceremonlal maLLers are dlscussed, CenLlle bellevers are glven Lhe freedom of cholce (l Cor. 10, 27-30,
8om. 14:1-6, 10-14, Col. 2:16).
l

8) lL ls also lnsLrucLlve Lo sLudy boLh why Cod lncluded Lhe weekly SabbaLh ln Lhe 10 Words and whaL lL means Lo obey Lhls
'Word'. Whlle, Lhls ls a lssue worLhy of conslderable exposlLlon, l Lhlnk lL helpful Lo menLlon a couple of polnLs here. We

lucky or unlucky days and seasons whose supersLlLlous observance expresses lnner bondage" or "!ewlsh feasLs. regarded and celebraLed supersLlLlously."
Some oLher commenLaLors flnd Lhls calendrlcal serles Lo be pure|y pagan ln naLure or suggesL LhaL lL may be a blendlng of pagan naLure worshlp wlLh Lhe
!ewlsh cycle of holy days and feasLs. See 1roy MarLln, "agan and !udeo-ChrlsLlan 1lme-keeplng Schemes ln Cal 4.10 and Col 2.16," new 1esLamenL
SLudles, 1996 page 112.
19 1he core of Lhe 1orah (dlvlne lnsLrucLlons) ls Lhe 1en CommandmenLs, Lhe10 Words.
20 aul clrcumclsed 1lmoLhy (AcLs 16:13), Look Lhe nazarlLe vow (AcLs 18:18, 21:1726), LaughL and observed Lhe !ewlsh holy days such as: - assover
(AcLs 20:6, 1Cor. 3:68,11:1734) - ShavuoL (enLecosL) (AcLs 20:16, 1Cor. 16:8) - fasLlng on Lhe uay of ALonemenL ?om klppur (AcLs 27:9) - and even
performed anlmal sacrlflces ln Lhe 1emple (AcLs 21:1726/num. 6:1321, AcLs 24:1718). Among hls more noLable sLaLemenLs on Lhe sub[ecL are:
- "nelLher agalnsL Lhe !ewlsh 1orah, nor agalnsL Lhe 1emple, nor agalnsL Caesar have l offended ln anyLhlng aL all." (AcLs 23:8)
- "l have done noLhlng agalnsL our people or Lhe cusLoms of our faLhers." (AcLs 28:17)
- "...Lhe 1orah ls holy and Lhe commandmenL ls holy and [usL and good." (8om. 7:12)
- "uo we Lhen nulllfy Lhe 1orah Lhrough falLh? May lL never be! Cn Lhe conLrary, we malnLaln Lhe 1orah." (8om. 3:31).
21 Mark 2:27-28 And he sald Lo Lhem, 1he SabbaLh was made for man, noL man for Lhe SabbaLh. So Lhe Son of Man ls lord even of Lhe SabbaLh. See also Lhe
lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhls verse by Lhe laLe rof. llusser.
22 1 Cor 7:18 Was anyone aL Lhe Llme of hls call already clrcumclsed? LeL hlm noL seek Lo remove Lhe marks of clrcumclslon. Was anyone aL Lhe Llme of hls call
unclrcumclsed? LeL hlm noL seek clrcumclslon.

)#
read ln Cen 2:2-3 LhaL Cod 'sancLlfled' Lhe SabbaLh. 1he 8lbllcal Pebrew word used here Lhough ls l'kadesh and lLs Lrue
meanlng ls 'Lo be connecLed wlLh Cod'.
23
1he SabbaLh gave Lhe !ewlsh people a 'connecLlon' wlLh Cod. lL does Lhls for all
who honour lL. ln Lxodus we read Lhe command Lo 'remember' Lhe SabbaLh and ln ueuL 3 Lhe command Lo 'guard' (noL
keep -see 'Lxodus' by ?oulus 2006 p63) Lhe SabbaLh. 1he !ews were Lo remember Lhe weekly SabbaLh, noL because of Lhe
creaLlon evenL buL now because Lhey were saved ouL of slavery. 1he 6
Lh
day double porLlon of manna also helped Lhem
remember LhaL Lhey were Lo depend on Cod for Lhelr dally exlsLence. 1o guard lmplles boLh a relaLlonshlp wlLh Cod and
wlLh each oLher. We see LhaL even down Lo Loday, Lhe !ewlsh people Lo a large measure have 'guarded' Lhe SabbaLh (lL has
keep Lhem unlLed as a people group, more Lhan many oLher eLhnlc or culLural dlsLlncLlve, 1he 'badge' of !udalsm Lhough ls
really clrcumclslon noL Lhe SabbaLh).

9) lL ls a facL LhaL !esus spoke very sLrongly on Lhe lssue of obedlence ln Lhe Sermon on Lhe MounL and LhaL we Lherefore need
Lo Lake Lhe greaLesL care as Leachers ln how we presenL Lhese lssues:

MaLL 3 18-20:
uo oot tblok tbot l bove come to obollsb tbe low ot tbe ltopbets, l bove oot come to obollsb tbem bot to folflll tbem.
lot ttoly, l soy to yoo, ootll beoveo ooJ eottb poss owoy, oot oo loto, oot o Jot, wlll poss ftom tbe low ootll oll ls
occompllsbeJ.
1betefote wboevet teloxes ooe of tbe leost of tbese commooJmeots ooJ teocbes otbets to Jo tbe some wlll be colleJ leost lo
tbe kloqJom of beoveo, bot wboevet Joes tbem ooJ teocbes tbem wlll be colleJ qteot lo tbe kloqJom of beoveo.
lot l tell yoo, ooless yoot tlqbteoosoess exceeJs tbot of tbe sctlbes ooJ lbotlsees, yoo wlll oevet eotet tbe kloqJom of
beoveo.

1he SabbaLh Lhen ls noL only parL of Lhe moral code, Lhe moral unA of Lhe unlverse, lL ls also a greaL glfL Lo manklnd,
someLhlng LhaL Lhe Pebrew's appreclaLed and valued very hlghly.
lL would Lherefore seem LoLally forelgn Lo Lhe mlndseL of ?eshua or aul Lo suggesL Lhls day be lgnored or changed Lo anoLher
day. lL seems exLremely clear from all Lhe hlsLorlcal evldence we have LhaL Lhe change by Lhe church Lo Sunday worshlp was a
dellberaLe change Lo re[ecL lsrael. lL was noL a change Lo enable CenLlle bellevers Lo galn some form of freedom from Moses, lL
was noL a change Lo place ?eshua's resurrecLlon on Lhe flrsL day aL Lhe plnnacle of everyLhlng - nelLher ?eshua nor aul called
for Lhls. ?eshua never Lrled Lo elevaLe Lhe worshlp of hlm and hls acLlons as Lhe cenLre of our devoLlon - he always polnLed Lo
Cod. !oel Pemphlll does a greaL [ob of explalnlng Lhls ln '1o Cod be Lhe Clory'.
1hus Lo change Lhe day of resL, Lhe day of [oy, Lhe day of worshlpplng Cod Lo Lhe Sunday makes no sense from a blbllcal and
Pebralc perspecLlve and furLher, Lhere ls nC clear, unequlvocal expllclL evldence anywhere ln Lhe n1 for such a dramaLlc and
dlscordanL change.
lL appears LhaL !udalsm undersLands so much beLLer Lhan ChrlsLlanlLy Lhe cenLrallLy of famlly, of communlLy, of Lhe group
Laklng precedence over Lhe lndlvldual - Lo lnsLlLuLe a break ln Lhe SabbaLh resL so LhaL bellevlng !ews worshlp on Lhe SabbaLh
and bellevlng CenLlles on Lhe Sunday can only be seen as dlvlslve noL freelng, as anLl-semlLlc noL Cod-honourlng.
1o furLher Lhen expecL bellevlng !ews Lo re[ecL Lhe SabbaLh for Sunday was Lo ask Lhem Lo surely re[ecL far Loo much? lL would
seem almosL as hard as asklng Lhem Lo accepL Lhe ldolaLrous pracLlce of Lhe 1rlnlLy.
1o repeaL, Lhe slmple, Lhe sLralghL forward readlng of Col 2:16 sLaLemenL LhaL you 'leL no-one [udge you regardlng Lhe feasLs
and Lhe sabbaLh' (regardless of whlch sabbaLh), has aul saylng Lo hls readers, LhaL Lhey can en[oy and celebraLe Lhese days
even Lhough Lhey are CenLlles.
lf Lhe culLure surroundlng Lhese 'Cod-fearlng genLlles' was as derlslve Lo !ewlsh ways as Lhe hlsLorlcal evldence lndlcaLes, Lhen l
do Lhlnk aul's call Lo 'leL no-one [udge you', ls lndeed an encouragemenL Lo malnLaln Lhelr pracLlces of synagogue aLLendance
eLc.
Why the great d|fferences of op|n|on of th|s verse:

l flnd lL lnLeresLlng (and lL may be Lhe resulL of my less Lhan exhausLlve research), LhaL lL appears LhaL almosL all !ewlsh scholars

23 Lxodus by 8abbl ?aakov ?oulus 2006 (p 60)

)%
and PebralsLs see Col 2 as speaklng agalnsL Pellenlsm or paganlsm whereas Lhe malnsLream CalvlnlsLlc and Plgher CrlLlclsm
Lype (l.e. PellenlsLlc ln my oplnlon) scholars see lL as speaklng agalnsL !udalzers or a syncreLlc PellenlsLlc/!udalc vlew.

So whaL moLlves and mlsconcepLlons may be aL work here?

MalnsLream ChrlsLlanlLy has an awful loL Lo lose lf Lhelr lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhls chapLer ls wrong (ln Lhe same way LhaL Lhey have
a loL Lo lose ln conslderlng Lhe re[ecLlon of Lhelr 1rlnlLarlan docLrlne).

1hose who argue for Lhe poslLlon l have been presenLlng here lnsLead have a loL less aL sLake, because lf Lhls verse ls removed
from conslderaLlon, Lhe blbllcal supporL for Lhe removal of Lhe SabbaLh ls vlrLually non-exlsLenL. 1herefore, lL should be
abundanLly clear LhaL Lhls verse has been glven Loo much credence and Lhls by malnsLream, PellenlsLlc ChrlsLlanlLy.

lor a sLarL, Lhe Pebralc perspecLlve on who ls 'saved' ls pracLlcal noL creedal. 1haL ls, wheLher someone acknowledged a
parLlcular docLrlne lnLellecLually or noL ls noL as lmporLanL as how Lhey llved. As ChrlsLlans, as genLlle bellevers, Lhen, we know
LhaL our falLh ls secure Lhrough our acknowledgmenL of our Messlah and our obedlence Lo hlm, eLc.

1hus, Lhe SabbaLh lssue, regardless of Lhe 'correcL' undersLandlng ls noL golng Lo condemn us. l belleve each of us musL work
ouL our falLh wlLh fear and Lrembllng and ll we do come Lo a polnL ln our [ourney where we see Lhe SabbaLh as lmporLanL Lhen
we need Lo Lake Lhe approprlaLe sLeps ln how we llve.

l have come Lo Lhls polnL.

Marvln Wllson ln 'Cur laLher Abraham' ls mosL emphaLlc and clear, wlLh exLenslve supporL, LhaL asceLlclsm ls noL aL Lhe hearL
of !udalsm or Lhe Pebrew 8lble, LhaL ls, lL ls noL blbllcal. Also he argues LhaL Col 2:21 (uo noL LasLe.") ls asceLlc and Lherefore
noL ln anyway !udalc. ln conLexL Lhen Col 2:16 ls noL a sLaLemenL agalnsL !udalsm and Lhe feasLs buL an encouragemenL Lo
en[oy Lhem!
When a challenglng lssue ls addressed wlLh very clear pre-supposlLlons Lhen Lhere ls a Lendency Lo read Lhe preconcelved
concluslon lnLo Lhe exegesls. 1haL ls Lo lndulge ln clrcular reasonlng or 'afflrmlng Lhe consequenL'. 1hus, you can noL use Lhe
facL LhaL Col 2:16 (Lhe concluslon - lndlcaLed by Lhe word 'So' aL Lhe sLarL of Lhe phrase) ls clearly referrlng Lo Lhe 8lbllcal
leasLs Lo argue LhaL Lherefore Lhe heresy addressed LhroughouL Lhe chapLer musL be a !udalc one, and LhaL Lhose belng
challenged are !udalzers.

lf aul ln Colosslans 2 was addresslng a heresy LhaL lnvolved !ews, Lhen Lhey were very much PellenlsLlc !ews and as such Lhey
would noL have been pushlng food laws, Lhe fesLlvals & sabbaLhs. 1he conLrasL aul makes beLween Lhese 'phllosophles' and
Lhe Messlah ls beLween he who ls Lhe plnnacle of 1orah, Lhe perfecL expresslon of lL, and Lhe world's ways, Lhe LradlLlons of
men wherever Lhey orlglnaLe from. ?eshua embodled and llved all LhaL PaShem had declared ln Lhe 1anak, and Lhls lncluded
Lhe fesLlvals and Lhe SabbaLh, eLc.
A qulck look aL Lhe hlsLory of ChrlsLlanlLy shows as LhaL Lhe ChrlsLlan asceLlcs are also more Creek Lhan Pebrew. erhaps lL
needs Lo be re-sLaLed buL groups /secLs whlch were CnosLlc ln much of Lhelr ouLlook can noL have been !udalzers, LhaL ls, Lhey
would noL have been argulng for clrcumclslon, Lhe food laws, for keeplng Lhe feasLs and ceremonlal law, eLc.
As Lhe AposLle Lo Lhe CenLlles, aul's argumenLs were flrsL and foremosL Lo lnform of Lhe Messlah and Lhe klngdom agalnsL Lhe
paganlsm LhaL surrounded hlm ln Lhe CenLlle world. CerLalnly, he also spoke ouL agalnsL Lhose who would force followers of
?eshua Lo become !ews by accepLlng all Lhe !ewlsh markers such as clrcumclslon, buL Lhe focus of hls mlnlsLry was Lo Lhe Creek
world noL Lo Lhe !ewlsh world.
So Lhe conLexL of Colosslans ls very much conslsLenL wlLh aul's mlnlsLry - he was exLolllng Lhe vlrLues of ?eshua and 1orah Lo a
Creek communlLy where Lhe PellenlsLlc lnfluences were Lrylng Lo dlverL Lhe Cod-fearers from embraclng and en[oylng blbllcal
fesLlvals, eLc.
Clven Lhe lncredlble welghL of evldence from Lhe resL of Lhe n1 LhaL Lhe SabbaLh and Lhe fesLlvals were sLlll observed by
?eshua, by aul
24
, by all Lhe followers of ?eshua ln all Lhe lands, l Lhlnk LhaL Col 2:16 ls clearly Loo equlvocal Lo base such a

24
Some scrlpLures LhaL hlghllghL aul's clear observance of Lhe 8lbllcal fesLlvals:
AcLs 20:3-6 1bese weot oo obeoJ ooJ wete woltloq fot os ot 1toos, bot we solleJ owoy ftom lblllppl oftet tbe Joys of uoleoveoeJ 8teoJ, ooJ lo flve Joys we

)'
dramaLlc docLrlnal change upon lL, especlally when v16 sLarLs wlLh "1herefore |et no-one pass [udgment on you ...".
1haL ls, Lhls lssue ls noL 'llfe and deaLh', lL ls noL a salvaLlon lssue whlchever perspecLlve you come from. 1herefore, Lo use lL Lo
remove Lhe 4Lh commandmenL ls, aL Lhe very leasL, mosL quesLlonable.
AnoLher popular argumenL ls LhaL Lhe sabbaLh(s) belng referred Lo ln Col 2:16 ls Lhe weekly SabbaLh, ls based on C1 precedenL
and Lhe apparenL 'Lrlo' or 'Lrlad'. 1haL ls, LhaL ls 'ot wltb teqotJ to o festlvol ot o oew mooo ot o sobbotb' Lhe 'festlvol' refers Lo
yearly evenLs, Lhe 'oew mooo' Lo monLhly and Lherefore Lhe 'sobbotb(s) Lo weekly. lf Lhls paLLern was lnLended Lhen lL would
appear Lhe Lerm SabbaLh(s) was referrlng Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh.

Whlle Lhls seems plauslble from our Creek mlndseL, conslder Lhese few scrlpLures:
1be coottlbotloo of tbe kloq ftom bls owo possessloos wos fot tbe /$03* '66"0)31.. tbe botot offetloqs of motoloq ooJ eveoloq,
ooJ tbe botot offetloqs fot tbe .-//-*+.7 *+" 3"( 2''3.7 -3! *+" -,,')3*"! 6"-.*., os lt ls wtltteo lo tbe low of tbe lotJ 2
cbtoo J1.J (5v)

we olso toke oo ootselves tbe obllqotloo to qlve yeotly o tbltJ pott of o sbekel fot tbe setvlce of tbe boose of oot CoJ. fot tbe
sbowbteoJ, tbe teqolot qtolo offetloq, tbe teqolot /$03* '66"0)31, *+" .-//-*+.7 *+" 3"( 2''3.7 *+" -,,')3*"! 6"-.*., tbe boly
tbloqs, ooJ tbe slo offetloqs to moke otooemeot fot lstoel, ooJ fot oll tbe wotk of tbe boose of oot CoJ. Neb 10.J2-JJ (5v)

AoJ tbey wete to stooJ evety motoloq, tbookloq ooJ ptolsloq tbe lotJ, ooJ llkewlse ot eveoloq, ooJ wbeoevet /$03* '66"0)31.
wete offeteJ to tbe lotJ oo .-//-*+.7 3"( 2''3. -3! 6"-.* !-&., occotJloq to tbe oombet tepolteJ of tbem, teqolotly befote
tbe lotJ 1 cbtoo 2J.J0-J1 (5v)

noLlce Lhe assoclaLlon of Lhe burnL offerlngs wlLh Lhe sabbaLhs, new moons and feasLs. 1he burnL offerlngs were only
performed aL Lhe 1emple. 1hus Lhe sabbaLhs belng referred Lo here are Lhose LhaL parL of Lhe feasLs and noL Lhe weekly
SabbaLh. 1he Lrladlc formula ls [usL Lyplcal chlasLlc parallellsm.
noLe also: 8tloq oo mote volo offetloqs, loceose ls oo obomlootloo to me. New mooo ooJ sobbotb ooJ tbe collloq of
coovocotloos- l coooot eoJote lolpolty ooJ solemo ossembly. oot oew mooos ooJ yoot oppoloteJ feosts my sool botes,
lsolob 1.1J-14 (5v)
And l wlll olso coose oll bet mlttb to ceose, bet feosts, bet oew mooos, ooJ bet sobbotbs, ooJ oll bet solemo ossemblles.
noseo 2.11 (A5v)
We see here ln lsalah 1 LhaL Cod ls clearly mosL dlspleased wlLh Lhe legallsLlc approach be Laken Lo Lhe lesLlvals. 1he SabbaLh
belng referenced here ls clearly Lhose LhaL are parL of Lhe feasLs. As Cod's weekly SabbaLh ls eLernal Pe can noL posslbly be
calllng for Lhe weekly SabbaLh Lo end. Slmllarly wlLh Posea, Cod clearly can'L be referrlng Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh as Lhe
sevenLh day remalns.
1hus, Lhe 'Lrladlc formula' ln Col 2:16 ls clearly nC1 referrlng Lo Lhe weekly SabbaLh aL all.
1he mosL lmporLanL parL of verse 16 Lhough ls Lhe flrsL few words LhaL say '#"* 3'G'3" ,-.. C$!12"3* '3 &'$K and Lherefore
wheLher Lhe weekly SabbaLh ls lncluded here or noL ls noL Lo my mlnd Lhe mosL lmporLanL aspecL of Lhls scrlpLure.

Some also argue LhaL Lhe 4Lh CommandmenL was abollshed based somehow on Cen 17 (Abraham belng clrcumclsed). 1he
argumenL belng LhaL Lhe weekly SabbaLh, Lhe food laws and holy days are all lumped LogeLher as pracLlces LhaL are no longer
Lo be observed. Agaln Lhls seems Lo be an example of Lhe loglc fallacy, 'afflrmlng Lhe consequenL', where a false use of Col 2:16
ls read back lnLo Cenesls 17.

erhaps Cenesls 17 could be used Lo argue LhaL we musL geL clrcumclsed lf we were under Lhe same covenanL as Abraham.
Powever, nowhere does scrlpLure lndlcaLe LhaL all 613 mlLzvoL or ordlnances (or 618 for some secLs of !udalsm), musL be

come to tbem ot 1toos, wbete we stoyeJ fot seveo Joys.
AcLs 20:16: lot lool boJ JeclJeJ to soll post pbesos, so tbot be mlqbt oot bove to speoJ tlme lo Aslo, fot be wos bosteoloq to be ot Ietosolem, lf posslble, oo
tbe Joy of leotecost.
AcLs 23:8 wblle be oosweteJ fot blmself, Neltbet oqolost tbe low of tbe Iews, oeltbet oqolost tbe temple, oot yet oqolost csot, bove l commltteJ ooy offeoce.
AcLs 28:17 (Lhls was ln 8ome aL Lhe end of hls mlnlsLry) AoJ lt come to poss, tbot oftet tbtee Joys lool colleJ tbe cblef of tbe Iews toqetbet. ooJ wbeo tbey
wete come toqetbet, be solJ ooto tbem, Meo ooJ btetbteo, tbooqb : +-8" 5'22)**"! 3'*+)31 -1-)3.* *+" ,"',#"7 '0 5$.*'2. '6 '$0 6-*+"0., yet wos l
JellveteJ ptlsooet ftom Ietosolem loto tbe booJs of tbe komoos.

)$
lumped LogeLher.

1haL ls, when aul and Lhe wrlLer of Pebrews clearly sLaLe LhaL Lhe ceremonlal laws relaLlng Lo sacrlflce and clrcumclslon (aL
leasL for CenLlles), are no longer valld, Lhey are noL by lnference also removlng Lhe weekly SabbaLh.

l Lhlnk lL also vlLal Lo appreclaLe LhaL Abraham was 'saved' (made rlghL wlLh Cod), before he was clrcumclsed. 1he clrcumclslon
was [usL an ouLward slgn of an lnward falLhfulness.

We need Lo Lake care noL Lo assume LhaL Lhe four prohlblLlons of Lhe !erusalem Councll are ALL LhaL CenLlle followers of !esus
are Lo adhere Lo. lf Lhls were so Lhen lL places 'avoldlng food offered Lo ldols' as more lmporLance Lhan all Lhe 10 Words, of
more lmporLance Lhan Lhe prohlblLlon agalnsL murder for example.

Some also Lalk of Lhe fear of golng back under Lhe 'shadow'. Whlle lL may be posslble, lL seems very clear LhaL all who have Lhe
falLh of !esus, who demonsLraLe hls falLhfulness, can have noLhlng Lo fear from !ewlsh ordlnances. knowlng LhaL none of Lhese
regulaLlons can brlng salvaLlon because we already have lL, we can choose wlLh Lhe greaLesL freedom, Lo en[oy all Lhe our
laLher has glven us, from Lhe weekly SabbaLh Lo Lhe [oy of shouLlng pralses Lo ?ahweh on ?om 1eruah (1he uay of ShouLlng)
and Lhe [oy of danclng around Lhe Synagogue holdlng a 1orah Scroll on SlmChaL 1orah (Lhe elghLh and lasL day of Lhe leasL of
1abernacles).

lL may also help Lo reflecL a llLLle more on whaL Lhe concepL of 'shadow' may enLall. lor example, conslder marrlage as a
shadow:
lot lo tbe tesottectloo tbey oeltbet motty, oot ote qlveo lo mottloqe, bot ote os ooqels lo beoveo Mott 22.J0 (A5v)

AoJ Iesos solJ ooto tbem, 1be soos of tbls wotlJ motty, ooJ ote qlveo lo mottloqe. bot tbey tbot ote occoooteJ wottby to ottolo
to tbot wotlJ, ooJ tbe tesottectloo ftom tbe JeoJ, oeltbet motty, oot ote qlveo lo mottloqe. fot oeltbet coo tbey Jle ooy mote.
fot tbey ote epool ooto tbe ooqels, ooJ ote soos of CoJ, beloq soos of tbe tesottectloo. loke 20.J4-J6 (A5v)

let os tejolce ooJ be exceeJloq qloJ, ooJ let os qlve tbe qloty ooto blm. fot tbe mottloqe of tbe lomb ls come, ooJ bls wlfe botb
moJe betself teoJy kev 19.7 (A5v)

"1betefote o moo sboll leove bls fotbet ooJ motbet ooJ bolJ fost to bls wlfe, ooJ tbe two sboll become ooe flesb." J2 1bls
mystety ls ptofoooJ, ooJ l om soyloq tbot lt tefets to cbtlst ooJ tbe cbotcb. pb 5.J1-J2 (5v)

1hese LexLs show LhaL Lhe marrlage of a man and women ln Lhls age ls passlng and ls Lo be replaced or subsumed lnLo Lhe
Marrlage of Lhe Lamb wlLh hls brlde. 1hus Lhe subsLance agaln ls Messlah and by lnference Lhe shadow ls Lhe currenL pracLlce
of marrlage. May l suggesL LhaL parL of Lhe mysLery referred Lo ln Lpheslans ls how Lhe 'shadow' polnLs Lo Lhe subsLance.
So marrlage ls a good analogy wlLh respecL Lo Lhe 'shadows' of Lhe Poly uays ln Col 2:16. lL ls a shadow, someLhlng sLlll real and
relevanL, buL wlLhouL Lhe more physlcal reallLy of Lhe Lhlng lL polnLs Lo.
lncldenLally 'shadow' can mean error buL l would suggesL Lhe meanlng ln Col 2:17 could be as per !udges 9:13 where lL means
more 'proLecLlon' (as ln Lhe shade/shadow proLecLs us from Lhe sun).
Pow do we know Lhls may be Lhe correcL meanlng, raLher Lhan 'error'?
8ecause Lhe phrase ls a 'shadow of Lhlngs Lo come'. 8eadlng Lhls as 'an error of Lhlngs Lo come' suggesLs LhaL Lhere ls ln some
way error ln Lhe klngdom. 1aklng Lhe conLexL lnsLead LhaL Lhe feasLs, eLc., help us Lo focus on our Messlah and on all Lhe greaL
Lhlngs LhaL Cod has revealed, we can see how Lhe proLecLlon, Lhe comforL of Lhese fesLlvals polnLs Lo a greaLer celebraLlon Lo
come aL Lhe Marrlage Supper of Lhe Lamb and ln Lhe comlng klngdom of Cod.
1hese Poly uays are also a Llme of resL and re[olclng - how ls Lhls ln any way blndlng when we use Lhls Llme Lo focus on Lhe
reLurn of our Messlah - for example many, boLh ln !udalsm and ChrlsLlanlLy belleve Lhe Messlah wlll come/reLurn aL Lhe leasL
of 1rumpeLs
23
.
Why do Lhls lf such days are noL a blesslng? Cod has glven no clear reason why we should celebraLe Lhe flrsL day of Lhe sevenLh
monLh. lf Lhe Messlah reLurns Lhen, won'L lL become Lhe greaLesL day of celebraLlon? lL may prove a blL hard Lo sLomach for all

23
See my arLlcle on ?om 1eruah avallable from www.charlsmacompuLers.com.au

)&
Lhose bellevers who re[ecLed Lhe leasLs, when ln Lhe klngdom Lhey wlll be called Lo celebraLe Lhls leasL (along wlLh Lhe clear
lnsLrucLlons ln Zecharlah 14 Lo celebraLe Lhe leasL of 1abernacles, eLc).
Some scholars also refer Lo 1 Cor 9 as supporLlng Lhe argumenL LhaL observlng Lhe SabbaLh ls ln some way 'weak'. 8uL Lhe
SabbaLh ls noL menLloned here. 1here ls no proof LhaL Lhe SabbaLh ls noL parL of Lhe 'law of ChrlsL' and lL ls cerLalnly noL
'ouLslde Lhe law of Moses'.
26

Some also argue LhaL . oskloq someooe to keep tbe weekly 5obbotb meoos qoloq bock to tbe stote of )22-*$0)*& $3!"0 *+"
#-(.

Why ls en[oylng a Cod glven beneflL, a day whlch even Cod Plmself so ordalned as Lo ln some sense 'resL' (from creaLlve work)
on LhaL day, a form of lmmaLurlLy?

ls Lhe church more maLure Loday because lL re[ecLed Lhe SabbaLh and embraced Sunday lnsLead? l see no evldence for Lhls!

MaLurlLy ls a resulL of wlsdom. Wlsdom ls a resulL of knowledge belng galned and applled.

?es, !esus broughL a greaL fulflllmenL of knowledge, 1he Cld 1esLamenL was lncompleLe wlLhouL hlm. So Lhere may be a sense
ln whlch ln applylng LhaL fuller knowledge we can be more maLure Lhan some. 8uL Lhere ls no way, desplLe puLLlng on Lhe
'mlnd of ChrlsL', LhaL wlll l ever be more maLure Lhan Moses, Lhe mosL maLure and humble of men who saw and Lalked dlrecLly
wlLh Cod! Lven ln Lhe resurrecLlon when we slL down wlLh Moses, Lll[ah, klng uavld, eLc. l am sure my maLurlLy, my wlsdom
wlll noL approach Lhelrs.

An acL of maLurlLy would surely be LhaL, where Lhere ls even Lhe sllghLesL doubL, we should observe !esus and aul and do
whaL Lhey sald and dld. AfLer all, ?eshua sald '1hose who do Lhe wlll of my laLher are my broLhers and my slsLers'. Pe even sald
'do whaL Lhe harlsees say'!
27

!esus even looked upon Lhe man who had observed mosL of Lhe commandmenLs and 'loved hlm' (Mark 10:21). 1hls man,
admlLLedly !ewlsh, would have observed Lhe SabbaLh.

When CenLlle bellevers also remember and guard Lhe SabbaLh, we can also remember our exodus from slavery Lhanks Lo our
Messlah's aLonlng sacrlflce and we Loo can guard each oLher Lhrough Lhe shared fellowshlp of Lhls day.

1he malnsLream vlew on Colosslan 2 appears Lo resulL from Lhe followlng errors:

1) 1he mlsundersLandlng LhaL Col 2:16 ls blndlng ln some way, raLher Lhan an exhorLaLlon for a slmple freedom of
cholce and freedom from [udgmenL,

2) 1he mlsLake of seelng all Lhe 613 ordlnances and regulaLlons as rlslng and falllng LogeLher, 1haL ls, a fallure Lo see Lhe
clear separaLlon beLween Lhe lnsLrucLlons glven ln Cod's own hand and Lhose glven Lo a speclflc people group, Lhe
!ews and even Lo speclflc peoples wlLhln LhaL group such as Lhe prlesLs or woman
28
,

3) A fallure Lo appreclaLe LhaL !ewlsh and CenLlles (even ln Messlah !esus) have dlfferenL expecLaLlons placed on Lhem by
Cod. Whlle Lhey are 'one ln Messlah' lL ls a unlLy of purpose noL sameness, ln Lhe same way LhaL male and female
bellevers remaln dlsLlncLly dlfferenL,

4) A mlsLaken undersLandlng LhaL ln 'fulfllllng' Lhe 1orah, !esus 'abollshed' lL. 1hls lncludes a mlsLaken concepL of whaL lL
means Lo be 'obedlenL Lo !esus' (Peb 3:9). lor example some argue LhaL ?eshua ls Lhe fulflllmenL of all Lhe Law".

26 1 cot 9. 20- 22 1o tbe Iews l become os o Iew, lo otJet to wlo Iews. 1o tbose ooJet tbe low l become os ooe ooJet tbe low (tbooqb oot beloq myself ooJet
tbe low) tbot l mlqbt wlo tbose ooJet tbe low. 1o tbose ootslJe tbe low l become os ooe ootslJe tbe low (oot beloq ootslJe tbe low of CoJ bot ooJet tbe low of
cbtlst) tbot l mlqbt wlo tbose ootslJe tbe low. 1o tbe weok l become weok, tbot l mlqbt wlo tbe weok. l bove become oll tbloqs to oll people, tbot by oll meoos l
mlqbt sove some.
27 Mott 2J.1-J. 1beo Iesos spoke to tbe moltltoJes ooJ to nls Jlsclples, soyloq. "1be sctlbes ooJ tbe lbotlsees slt lo Moses' seot. 1betefote wbotevet tbey tell
yoo to obsetve, tbot obsetve ooJ Jo, bot Jo oot Jo occotJloq to tbelt wotks, fot tbey soy, ooJ Jo oot Jo.
28
Many of Lhe 613 mlLzvoL cannoL be observed followlng Lhe desLrucLlon of Lhe Second 1emple, Lhough Lhey sLlll reLaln rellglous slgnlflcance. Accordlng Lo one
sLandard reckonlng, [3] Lhere are 77 negaLlve and 194 poslLlve commandmenLs LhaL can be observed Loday. 1here are 26 commands LhaL apply only wlLhln Lhe
Land of lsrael.[4] lurLhermore, Lhere are some Llme-based commandmenLs from whlch women are exempL (examples lnclude shofar, sukkah, lulav, LzlLzlL and
Leflllln).[3] Some depend on Lhe speclal sLaLus of a person ln !udalsm (such as kohenlm), whlle oLhers apply only Lo men and oLhers only Lo women.

)(
1hls ls Lo mlsundersLand boLh Lhe Lerm 'fulflllmenL' and Lhe 'Law'.

1here ls clear evldence as Lo whaL a harlsee or a man wlLh a harlsalc mlndseL
29
, llke ?eshua meanL when he made
Lhls sLaLemenL LhaL he dld noL come Lo desLroy '1orah' buL Lo fulflll lL. llusser explalns ln hls semlnal book '!esus' LhaL
Lo 'fulflll Lhe 1orah' was Lo correcLly lnLerpreL and enacL lL and Lo 'desLroy Lhe 1orah' was Lo lnLerpreL ln lncorrecLly.
1hus ls was apparenLly qulLe common for harlsees ln argumenLs wlLh each oLher Lo shouL '?ou are desLroylng Lhe
1orah!' or 'l am fulfllllng 1orah!'

1wo examples LhaL l Lhlnk lllusLraLe Lhls well are Cal 6:2 and 8omans 13:10. 1ry readlng Lhese passages and replaclng
'fulflll' wlLh 'correcLly lnLerpreL and enacL' and hopefully you wlll see whaL l mean:
Cal 6:2 8eot ooe oootbet's botJeos, ooJ so folflll tbe low of cbtlst.
8omans 13:10 love Joes oo wtooq to o oelqbbot, tbetefote love ls tbe folflllloq of tbe low.

1hls conLexL ls of course perfecLly ln harmony wlLh Cod's pronouncemenL Lo Moses LhaL he would send a ropheL who
would perfecLly declare Lhe 1orah (LhaL ls, who would 'fulflll' lL).

ln concluslon Lhen, whaL does aul, Lhe observanL !ew say Lo CenLlles regardlng Lhe Poly uays (we cannoL be sure lf aul was
lncludlng Lhe weekly SabbaLh here):

Ooe moo esteems ooe Joy os mote lmpottoot. Aootbet esteems evety Joy ollke. let eocb moo be folly ossoteJ lo bls owo mloJ.
ne wbo obsetves tbe Joy, obsetves lt to tbe lotJ, ooJ be wbo Joes oot obsetve tbe Joy, to tbe lotJ be Joes oot obsetve lt. ne
wbo eots, eots to tbe lotJ, fot be qlves CoJ tbooks. ne wbo Joesot eot, to tbe lotJ be Joesot eot, ooJ qlves CoJ tbooks. (8om
14:3-6)

1o agaln relLeraLe, wlLh respecL Lo Col 2:16, Lhe cruclal phrase ls surely 'leL no-one [udge you'.

lL ls well esLabllshed LhaL for Lhe flrsL 10-13 years afLer Lhe ascenslon of ?eshua, hls followers were all !ewlsh (Lhls may have
lncluded some proselyLes who were already parL of Lhe !ewlsh communlLy aL Lhe Llme. Luke for example may flL Lhls crlLerla).

Clearly Lhough Lhe recelvlng of Lhe power of Poly SplrlL by CenLlles (Cornellus ln 30-33 CL) forced Lhe dlsclples Lo re-assess Lhe
scope of Lhe new move of Cod Lhrough ?eshua and Lo accepL CenLlles lnLo Lhe fellowshlp.

1hls ln Lurn led Lo Lhe need Lo formulaLe some plan, as we see wlLh Lhe !erusalem Councll edlcLs (Lhese were only mlnlmal
sLandards, accordlng Lo rof. llusser ln !udalsm and Lhe Crlglns of ChrlsLlanlLy"), so LhaL Lhese CenLlles could be lncluded ln
Lhe fellowshlp wlLhouL needlng Lo become !ewlsh proselyLes.

lL should also be obvlous LhaL Lhe aposLles needed Lo defend Lhe new falLh, Lhe followers of Messlah ?eshua, agalnsL Lwo
opposlng exLremes (and nuances of Lhese of course), Lhe !udalzers and Lhe Creek agans/PellenlsLs.

1he AposLle aul's dramaLlc change when he was shown LhaL ?eshua was Lhe Messlah, Lhe Son of Cod, led hlm Lo be seen as
an enemy by Lhe PellenlsLlc !ews.
Acts 9. 28-29 5o be weot lo ooJ oot omooq tbem ot Ietosolem, pteocbloq bolJly lo tbe oome of tbe lotJ. AoJ be spoke ooJ
JlspoteJ oqolost tbe @"##"3).*.. 8ot tbey wete seekloq to klll blm.

?eL aL Lhe end of hls mlnlsLry ln hls lasL days ln 8ome, he sLaLed mosL emphaLlcally LhaL he had noL re[ecLed Lhe WrlLLen 1orah
or even Lhe Cral 1orah (Lhe cusLoms of Lhe faLhers).

Acts 28.17 Aftet tbtee Joys be colleJ toqetbet tbe locol leoJets of tbe Iews, ooJ wbeo tbey boJ qotbeteJ, be solJ to tbem,
8totbets, tbooqb : +-! !'3" 3'*+)31 -1-)3.* '$0 ,"',#" '0 *+" 5$.*'2. '6 '$0 6-*+"0.7 yet l wos JellveteJ os o ptlsooet ftom
Ietosolem loto tbe booJs of tbe komoos.
Acts 28.2J wbeo tbey boJ oppoloteJ o Joy fot blm, tbey come to blm ot bls loJqloq lo qteotet oombets. ltom motoloq tlll
eveoloq be expoooJeJ to tbem, testlfyloq to tbe kloqJom of CoJ ooJ ttyloq to coovloce tbem oboot Iesos botb ftom tbe low of
Moses ooJ ftom tbe ltopbets.

So we see here LhaL Lhe AposLle aul had noL re[ecLed hls herlLage, he had noL abrogaLed Lhe Law and yeL he had clearly

29
rof. uavld llusser ln !esus" (2001) p36 sLaLes: lo tbe lbotlsees, Iesos sow tbe cootempototy belts of Moses, ooJ solJ tbot meo sboolJ moJel tbelt llves
opoo tbelt teocbloq. 1bls mokes seose, fot oltbooqb Iesos wos oppoteotly loJltectly lofloeoceJ by sseolsm, be wos boslcolly tooteJ lo oolvetsol ooo-sectotloo
IoJolsm. 1be pbllosopby ooJ ptoctlce of tbls IoJolsm wos tbot of tbe lbotlsees. lt woolJ oot be wtooq to Jesctlbe Iesos os o lbotlsee lo tbe btooJ seose.

)*
spoken ouL agalnsL !udalzers. 1hls should noL seem ln any way conLradlcLory when we remember LhaL Lhe !udalzers were Lhose
who argued LhaL Lhe CenLlle followers of ?eshua needed Lo be clrcumclsed Lo be fully adopLed lnLo Lhe commonwealLh of
lsrael. Whlle aul re[ecLed Lhelr legallsLlc argumenL, he dld noL re[ecL Lhe 1orah, Lhe Law of Moses, he dld noL re[ecL Lhe
celebraLlon of Lhe Poly uays and Lhe weekly SabbaLh, he dld noL re[ecL Lhe 8lbllcal expecLaLlons placed on hls !ewlsh broLhers.

WlLh Lhls clarlLy wlLh respecL Lo aul's creedal pracLlce and wlLh Lhe appreclaLlon LhaL lL was no dlfferenL Lo ?eshua's, we
should be able Lo now see Lhe freedom and grace dlsplayed when aul effecLlvely sald Lo Lhe Colosslans:

'My CenLlle broLhers and slsLers ln ?eshua Lhe Messlah, do noL succumb Lo Lhe pressure of Lhe pagan socleLy you llve ln and
re[ecL Lhe 8lbllcal pracLlces you have embraced on becomlng boLh 'Cod-fearers' and dlsclples of ?eshua. 1he 8lbllcal Poly uays,
Lhese greaL feasLs LhaL boLh polnL back Lo our freedom from slavery, buL mosL lmporLanLly polnL forward Lo Lhe Messlah's
reLurn and Lhe comlng klngdom, are days LhaL you can freely embrace lf you deslre. 1he feasLs wlll glve you a sense of Lhe
reallLy LhaL wlll be yours wlLh Messlah ln Lhe klngdom. Avold Lhe false rules and regulaLlons of Lhe PellenlsLs LhaL surround you
buL make Lhe Messlah Lhe Pead of your llfe. Pe has ralsed you Lo llfe eLernal. Pold fasL as Lhrough Messlah ?eshua you grow ln
Cod."

aul Perrlng
!anuary 2010
www.charlsmacompuLers..com.au

Append|x:

Plghly recommended books:

'1he 1orah: Mosalc Law or ulvlne lnsLrucLlons', '8eplacemenL 1heology' & 'WhaL abouL Lhe SabbaLh' all by lrank Selch
'!esus' by uavld llusser
'Cur laLher Abraham' by Marvln Wllson

Some oLher helpful webslLes: hLLp://www.colosslans-2-16.com/lndex.hLml bttp.//www.messloboj.otq/Ceocoovett-ut.btm

Col 2 and The Sabbath

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Col 2 and The Sabbath

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Co|oss|an 2:16, the Ieasts of Israe| and the Week|y Sabbath:

A cbolleoqe omooqst btotbets

Potrebbero piacerti anche