The Law In Colossians

The Law In Colossians

Text of Address by Sidney L. Davis, Jr Proclaiming The Sabbath More Fully Sabbath Conference - Pentecost May 31, 1998 Lake Region Conference of Seventh-day Adventist Campground Camp Wagner, Cassopolis, Michigan This study on Colossians grew out of a correspondence I had with a Mr. Petty. Following is my original letter to him. In it I elucidate some of my concerns for my Church's future.

Letter addressed to Mr. Petty:

I was very much intrigued with your study paper on the Sabbath where the Sabbatarian, Sunday-Sabbath Keepers, and Non-Sabbatarian positions were contrasted.

I suppose what drew me to your paper was my searching on the internet for the works of Robert Brinsmead (a former Seventh-day Adventist minister) on his position on Colossians 2:14-17 and his understanding of the Law in general. As a Seventh-day Adventist I was particularly interested in his theology that led him to give up Sabbath observance.

I am presently writing an essay that advocates the keeping of the all of God's holy days as well as the Sabbath. For if the Sabbath is still binding in the face of Colossians 2:14 -17, then what ever is said of the Sabbath must be said of the holy days as well.

Either we as Sabbatarians are misinterpreting Colossians or Robert Brinsmead and the majority of Christian theology and doctrine on this point is valid; that is - the Sabbath and the Holy days and new moons constitute bygone ceremonial regulations as commonly understood in the highly misunderstood and difficult phrase "a shadow of things to come" and thus having no continuing relevance in the new covenant worship.

Mr. Joseph W. Tkach, Pastor General of Worldwide Churches of God (WCG) has adopted the position as articulated by Mr. Brinsmead in his periodical THE VERDICT. As one who is intimately familiar with his radical theological repositioning of the WCG, I was hoping perhaps you might aid me in understanding the basic premise of the WCG hence Brinsmead's position on this Colossians text with respect to the Law of God.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in my view is headed toward a similar dilemma because we will have to come face to face with a sort of theological schizophrenia over applicability of the Mosaic law. The difficulty of this was noted early in our church history when over the question of the use of clean vs unclean animals Uriah Smith editor of the official church organ The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald noted late in the 19th century, We believe there is better ground on which to rest [the prohibition on pork] than the ceremonial law of the former dispensation, for if we take the position that law is still binding, we must accept it all, and then we shall have more on our hands than we can easily dispose of.

In the discussion of the law Christians in general, and we Seventh-day Adventists in particular, have taken to classifying the decalogue apart from the remainder of the O.T. law, variously describing the relationship between the two as (1) the decalogue was given by God but the remainder of the O.T. law was given by Moses, or (2) both sets of laws were given by God, but the decalogue was intended for all humanity while the remainder of the O.T. law was given only to the Israelites and to them only so long as they were governed under a theocracy.

Christians who do not keep Sabbath must also repudiate the Decalogue, but SDAs are able to at least salvage that part of the law intact. Evidently, we have developed the two competing theories listed above because, while we can generally accept the Decalogue as applicable today, we cannot deal with the remainder of the O.T. law. We cannot accept the fact that the O.T. Bible itself plainly describes the entire O.T. law as having come directly from God, the Decalogue written by the Lord's own finger, and the remainder having been dictated by God to Moses as they spoke face to face, with Moses then dutifully writing it down word for word.

Furthermore, the Bible repeatedly states that the entire O.T. law, and not just the Decalogue, is to remain in effect perpetually, that is, forever.

Therefore, we are coming face to face with the same vexing dilemma that faced Mr. Brinsmead and Mr. Tkach when we seek to reconcile our own doctrines on Biblical law with the internal claims of the O.T. This dilemma is all the more troublesome when we further claim that the veracity of the N.T. is established by its demonstrable consistency with O.T. revelation. Simple logic tells us we cannot (1) establish doctrines that are inconsistent with the O.T., and (2) simultaneously claim that the validity of those doctrines rests on their consistency with the O.T., yet we as Christians have done so, more or less successfully, for well over 19 centuries and SDAs for the past 100 years or so.

It is as though we have put blinders on our eyes and fetters on our powers of reasoning so that all the customary rules of deduction are not permitted to operate whenever we are dealing with Biblical texts that do not conform to our narrow theological viewpoint

It is my hope that as these issues are addressed in my essay, it will help to guide us through the shaking that the agitation of this subject is sure to bring. Hope to hear from you soon.

Blessings,

Sidney Davis

Mr. Petty evidently forwarded my letter to a Mr.Gary Black who sent to me his review of an article by Troy Martin, But Let Everyone Discern the Body of Christ which appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 114, No.2, Summer 1995 which argues against the majority interpretation of what is becoming largely regarded as a mistranslated phrase, but the body is of Christ. I found the review by Mr. Black very helpful.

LET'S EXAMINE THE SCRIPTURES OURSELVES..........

Colossians 2

14. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Early on, Ellen White had a vision that's recorded in "A Word to the Little Flock", -PR- 04-PG- 18

And I saw that if God had changed the Sabbath, from the seventh to the first day, He would have changed the writing of the Sabbath commandment, written on the tables of stone, which are now in the ark, in the Most Holy Place of the Temple in heaven;[<SI J <EI REV. 11: 19.] and it would read thus: the first
day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. But I saw that it read the same as when written on the tables of stone by the finger of God, and delivered to Moses in Sinai, "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."[<SI K <EI EX. 20: 10.] I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question, to unite the hearts of God's dear waiting saints. And if one believed, and kept the Sabbath, and received the blessing attending it, and then gave it up, and broke the holy commandment, they would shut the gates of the Holy City against themselves, as sure as there was a God that rules in heaven above.

I saw that God had children, who do not see and keep the Sabbath. They had not rejected the light on it. And at the commencement of the time of trouble, we were filled with the Holy Ghost as we went forth[<SI L <EI HO. 6: 2,3.] and proclaimed the Sabbath more fully. This enraged the church, and nominal Adventists, as they could not refute the Sabbath truth.

What does it mean; to Proclaim the Sabbath More Fully? This could mean a lot of things. Of all the possible meanings, could it mean that we would have an understanding of what the Sabbath means in the Bible? In other words:

Would you think that the meaning of "Proclaim the Sabbath More Fully" would include an understanding of every text in the Bible where the Sabbath is mentioned?

Can we truly Proclaim the Sabbath More Fully if we neglect any part of Scripture in which the Sabbath is mentioned or if we misinterpret any Scripture having to do with the Sabbath?

So then, in the proclamation of the Sabbath more fully, more light and new light from the Scripture about the Sabbath truth will enable us to have a deeper and more profound meaning of the Sabbath so that we might be able to Proclaim It More Fully.

We are going to examine the Colossians text, because it is from the interpretation of this particular text that the majority of Christians believe that the Sabbath is done away with or is nailed to the cross. This text is THE proof text for the abrogation of the law of which the Sabbath is a part. In the examination of this Colossians text it has been long understood that the phrase handwriting of ordinances is a reference to the law of Moses. It is this understanding of the phrase that has resulted in the dominant teaching of the Christian church that the law has been abrogated or done away with because it was nailed to the cross.

If this is true, then what follows in verse 16 with regard to the holyday, new moon or the Sabbath days means that these holy days and festivals are no longer to be observed by Christians because as a part of the handwriting of ordinances they are nailed to the cross just like the rest of the law.

What must be noticed in verse 16 in the phrase when it says, or in respect of an holyday, or of a new moon, or of the Sabbath days ---the holyday the new moon and the Sabbath days are linked together. So that what is said of one is said of all. What is said with respect to Sabbath days applies as well to the holyday and the new moon. These terms are connected together and they cannot be separated. This should be clear.

It is at this point that Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology makes a departure from the rest of popular Christian theology or the theology of evangelical Christians (which is just a nice way of saying Sunday keepers). The majority of our Christian brethren interpret Sabbath days to mean the seventh-day Sabbath while we as SDAs interpret Sabbath days to mean the ceremonial sabbaths. This interpretation is mainly on the strength of the plural Sabbath days which indicates or represents the plurality of the many festival sabbaths outlined in the Mosaic system as brought to view in Leviticus chapter 23.

QUESTIONS WE MUST FAIRLY ASK OURSELVES
IN THIS ANALYSIS

Can the interpretation that the Sabbath days mean the ceremonial sabbaths or the feast days be substantiated from the Bible?

Does the term Sabbath days have a reference to the seventh-day creation Sabbath as alleged by our Christian brethren?

Let us see from the evidence presented from Scripture itself if the term Sabbath days is a reference to the seventh-day Sabbath as alleged by evangelical Christians OR if it is a reference to the festival sabbaths as alleged by the Seventh-day Adventist Bible commentary.

The SDA Bible Commentary states that the term Sabbath days

...cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath designated by the fourth commandment but must indicate the ceremonial rest days...
SDA Bible Commentary 7:205, 206

Let us look at the Bible evidences and make a comparative analysis to see how this term Sabbath days is used.

Below is EVERY text in the New Testament in which
the term Sabbath days appears

Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

Mt 12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

Mt 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.

Mr 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

Lu 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath days.

Lu 6:2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath days?

Lu 6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?

Ac 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

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

In the Apostolic writings or what the KJV translators called the "New Testament", we see that there are nine references that use this term Sabbath days. In EACH and every case the same phrase is translated from the Greek word Sabbaton meaning Sabbath. It means the seventh-day Sabbath.

This is the first point to be established. It should be clear to everyone that in every case, not almost every case, but in every case without exception, the term Sabbath days refers to the seventh-day Sabbath in the Greek Testament.

The second point that should be noted is in the Colossian text, you will note that in the term Sabbath days the word days is in italics. Which means it was added or supplied by the translators. If we take out that italicized word, the text would read:

"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."

This reading removes the ambiguity as to whether or not it is the Sabbath itself or the festivals that are meant. Furthermore, as if this were not already enough, the third and final point to be observed here is that as stated earlier the Greek word translated Sabbath days in the Colossian text is sabbaton.

This word "sabbaton" is used 68 times in the Greek Testament and NOT ONCE does it have a reference to "festivals". The evidence would suggest then based upon what we find in Scripture, THE TERM "SABBATH DAYS" DOES IN FACT MEAN THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH. We must then concede to our evangelical Christian brethren on this point.

To examine all 68 times

Now if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then brethren it must be a DUCK! This word in the Colossian text is translated exactly the same in all the texts that we have read. In all these texts it comes from the same word in Greek and in every case it is understood to mean the seventh-day Sabbath. So then it is reasonable to conclude regardless of one's IQ that it must mean the same thing in the Colossian text.

This is the conclusion of every major Bible commentary with the exception of the SDA Bible Commentary. It is also the conclusion of the majority of Bible scholars with the exception of the theological gate keepers of Bible interpretation at the SDA Biblical Research Institute.

In EVERY case in the New Testament the Greek word used for the term Sabbath days is "sabbaton" (see Strongs Greek Concordance under <4521>)..

Lexicon for Strong's Number 4521!

4521 sabbaton {sab'-bat-on}

of Hebrew origin 07676; TDNT - 7:1,989; n n

AV - sabbath day 37, sabbath 22, week 9; 68

1) the seventh day of each week which was a sacred festival on
which the Israelites were required to abstain from all work
1a) the institution of the sabbath, the law for keeping holy
every seventh day of the week
1b) a single sabbath, sabbath day
2) seven days, a week

The Hebrew word from which "sabbaton" originates is <07676>
"shabbath" and is translated in the OT as:
Sabbath 107
another 1
and is similarly defined:

To examine all 108 uses

Lexicon for Strong's Number 07676!

07676 shabbath {shab-bawth'}

intensive from 07673; TWOT - 2323b; n f/m

AV - sabbath 107, another 1; 108

1) Sabbath
1a) sabbath

1b) day of atonement
1c) sabbath year
1d) week
1e) produce (in sabbath year)

In each case the word "sabbaton" or "shabbath" is NEVER used alone to define a "ceremonial" Sabbath, either in the Old or New Testament. How is it that Colossians 2:16 becomes the single exception in Scripture that the term "Sabbath days" has a reference to "ceremonial" sabbaths?

Without the supplied word days Colossians 2:16 would read:

" 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.

Clearly here the sense is preserved and the meaning clear that the Sabbath days in the text refers to the seventh day Sabbath of the decalogue and not the so-called ceremonial sabbaths. Textually and contextually Paul is seen here speaking of three categories of sabbaths. The Holy days (yearly sabbaths), new moons (monthly sabbaths) and Sabbath days (weekly Sabbaths). This sequential grouping is seen elsewhere in Scripture where the holy days are listed categorically. Paul is following the Scriptural listing that gives an orderly reference to the holy days in a logical and progressive sequence as well as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times. This is validated in the following Scriptural references:

	Yearly	Monthly	Weekly
1 Chronicles 23:31	fixed festivals	new moons	sabbaths
2 Chronicles 31:3	fixed festivals	new moons	sabbaths
2 Chronicles 8:13	annual feasts	new moons	sabbaths
2 Chronicles 2:4	appointed feasts	new moons	sabbaths
Nehemiah 10:33	appointed times	new moon	sabbaths
Ezekiel 45:17	appointed feasts	new moons	sabbaths
Hosea 2:11	festal assemblies	new moons	sabbaths
Colossians 2:16	festival	new moon	Sabbath days

That Paul is referring to weekly Sabbath or the seventh-day Sabbath is a fact that is admitted by the majority of commentaries as well as by New Testament and Greek scholars. It is a fact that was brought out clearly in Samuele Bacchiocchis book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY and which is now coming into accepted use by many SDA theologians:

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary interprets the Sabbaton - Sabbath days as a reference to the annual ceremonial sabbaths and not to the weekly Sabbath... It is linguistically impossible to interpret [sabbaton]...as a reference...to any other ceremonial sabbaths....The cited commentary rests its interpretation, however, not on the grammatical and linguistic use of the word sabbaton but rather on a theological interpretation of the Sabbath as related to shadow in Colossians 2:17...the theological interpretation which the Adventist commentary gives to the Sabbath is hard to justify..."
FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY", p. 359

Note also what Dr. William Richardson, chair of the Department of Religion, Andrews University says about the Colossians text:

"The implication is that the Sabbath being described is the WEEKLY SABBATH...when Paul here refers to sabbaths, if he meant the ceremonial sabbaths, he was needlessly repeating himself. In that case he would be saying 'Let no one pass judgment on you in regard to a feast day/ceremonial Sabbath, or in regard to a new moon, or in regard to a ceremonial Sabbath,' a statement neither logical nor likely.
MINISTRY/MAY 1997, p.15.

Now we can see, despite evidences to the contrary, that even some SDA theologians know a duck when they see one. The truth in this case is as clear as the noon day sun if it's brightness doesn't blind you.

But we can’t do THIS! How can it be possible that this could mean the Sabbath? That would mean that according to the majority teaching of Christians that the Sabbath along with the rest of the law is done away with. This cannot be right. There must be a way to save the Sabbath from being done away with.

Do you see the dilemma?!

WHAT THEN WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS?

PART 2 continued

HOME