Does Colossian 2:16, 17 Abolish the Sabbath?

[CGMedley]

Colossians 2:16, 17 is one of the harder New Testament passages to interpret. It is also the passage most frequently used against Sabbath observance. Bible scholars Kim Papaioannou and Michael Mxolisi Sokupa take a fresh look at a difficult text. Read more.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2012-1506&page=14

[phkrause]

Great article, makes sense

[Ron Amnsn]

I wouldn't take this article very seriously. The authors tamper with the meaning of the verse by inserting "that were" into the phrase "These are a shadow of the things to come;"

Paul wrote that God's feast days were an outline (shadow) of things that were still future when Paul wrote Colossians. The authors of the article changed what Paul wrote to make it sound like God's feast days only pertained to events that were in the past.

[Gerr]

It seems to me that we are unnecessarily making a plain statement complicated. The "shadow" spoken of points to "things to come." The 7th day Sabbath is a memorial to something that has occurred at creation.

[phkrause]

It seems to me that we are unnecessarily making a plain statement complicated. The "shadow" spoken of points to "things to come." The 7th day Sabbath is a memorial to something that has occurred at creation.

Absolutely Gerry, I couldn't agree more

[doug yowell]

It seems to me that we are unnecessarily making a plain statement complicated. The "shadow" spoken of points to "things to come." The 7th day Sabbath is a memorial to something that has occurred at creation.

True Gerry but the text also includes "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon...which ARE (explained to me by a Greek student as being in the present tense)a shadow of things to come..." I know my take on this is somewhat unSDAorthodox,but it seems to indicate that these things were being practiced by the early Christian church and the issue is not whether or not to continue them but rather how to continue them (continuing to eat or drink??) for there is nothing inherently anti-gospel in their practice as opposed to continuing to offer animal sacrifices. The Sabbath as a creation memorial was also later expanded to serve as a re-creation {from the slavery of sin)memorial in Deut.5:15 and later it was referred to as something that "remained" for the people of God.The actual Sabbath (and New Moon holiday)does stand as a present experience of a future complete release from sin (Is.66:22,23)Unlike the Proclamationites view that Christ is the Sabbath the verse teaches that faith in Christ is the substance of true Sabbath keeping. What thinkest thou?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

It seems to me that we are unnecessarily making a plain statement complicated. The "shadow" spoken of points to "things to come." The 7th day Sabbath is a memorial to something that has occurred at creation.

True Gerry but the text also includes "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon...which ARE (explained to me by a Greek student as being in the present tense)a shadow of things to come..." I know my take on this is somewhat unSDAorthodox,but it seems to indicate that these things were being practiced by the early Christian church and the issue is not whether or not to continue them but rather how to continue them (continuing to eat or drink??) for there is nothing inherently anti-gospel in their practice as opposed to continuing to offer animal sacrifices. The Sabbath as a creation memorial was also later expanded to serve as a re-creation {from the slavery of sin)memorial in Deut.5:15 and later it was referred to as something that "remained" for the people of God.The actual Sabbath (and New Moon holiday)does stand as a present experience of a future complete release from sin (Is.66:22,23)Unlike the Proclamationites view that Christ is the Sabbath the verse teaches that faith in Christ is the substance of true Sabbath keeping. What thinkest thou?

[doug yowell]

I wouldn't take this article very seriously. The authors tamper with the meaning of the verse by inserting "that were" into the phrase "These are a shadow of the things to come;"

Paul wrote that God's feast days were an outline (shadow) of things that were still future when Paul wrote Colossians. The authors of the article changed what Paul wrote to make it sound like God's feast days only pertained to events that were in the past.

I agree,Ron. Besides, how can you trust a guy with a middle name (Mxolisi) that you can't even pronounce?

[Gerr]

The anti-Sabbatharians are just grasping at straws to justify their rejection of the 4th commandment.

[doug yowell]

The anti-Sabbatharians are just grasping at straws to justify their rejection of the 4th commandment.

Totally agreed.

[phkrause]

The anti-Sabbatharians are just grasping at straws to justify their rejection of the 4th commandment.

[doug yowell]

If Col.2 abolishes the Sabbath and our history/calender continues to be based on BC/AD, why do we retain a 7 day week? Why not change it to a 6 day calender? Since the 7 day cycle started at creation with the declaration that the 7th day was part of the week yet unique and holy, why not just skip the day altogether since it's no longer unique and holy? As long as there is a 7th day there will be a reminder of it's Holiness.

[phkrause]

If Col.2 abolishes the Sabbath and our history/calender continues to be based on BC/AD, why do we retain a 7 day week? Why not change it to a 6 day calender? Since the 7 day cycle started at creation with the declaration that the 7th day was part of the week yet unique and holy, why not just skip the day altogether since it's no longer unique and holy? As long as there is a 7th day there will be a reminder of it's Holiness.

[olger]

Like²