Sabbatarian arguments 2: Col. 2:16’s sabbath is not the seventh-day, weekly sabbath

I believe that Paul is talking about the weekly sabbath in Col. 2:16 for the main reason that he used the same language that the other old testament writers used.

In the old testament, whenever the old covenant convocations are mentioned, it is either listed in ascending or descending order. Such as:

days
months
seasons

or

seasons
months
days

Here are some of the examples:

“for the offerings on the Sabbaths , New Moon festivals and appointed feasts; for the holy offerings; for sin offerings to make atonement for Israel; and for all the duties of the house of our God.” Neh. 10:33 (ascending)

“I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts” Hosea 2:11 (descending)

“It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel…” Eze 45:17

There’re about 13 other occurances like this. It’s just too many to mention.

Notice the similarity of Col. 2:16.

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” (descending)

I have all the reason to believe that Paul used the same language that the old testament writers used, therefore, Col. 2:16 pertains to the weekly Sabbath contrary to Adventist claims that it isn’t.

(by Arnold Gamboa, 08-02-2005)

  • Pingback: credit consolidation()

  • http://www.i-creativewerkz.com Jeruel

    Hi Arnold,

    I read all your references here and would like to add my own comment whether the “Sabbaths” that Paul mentioned is a weekly Sabbath or not.

    You see, when you read the passage in Col. 2:17 what directly tells you that the sabbath is not the weekly sabbath is by the use of Paul of the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” — this being pointing to the ceremonial sabbaths.

    Another thing, when you read the Greek word for this and reference to all the Old Testament Shabbath, they are either the genuine plural or the Gr. sabbaton or a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbata, a singular form. Hence, sabbata, though grammatically plural in form, may and often does not represent a singular [Matt. 28:1]

    So, was Paul referring to the ceremonial or memorial sabbath?

    Since the weekly sabbath is a memorial of God’s creation it would tell us by the many passages in the bible that only the sabbath that are “shadows of the things to come” [coming of Jesus] reached their realization.

    Col. 2:17 is the key to understand 2:16. None of the Moral Law could be spoken of as “shadows of the things to come.”

  • http://www.i-creativewerkz.com Jeruel

    Hi Arnold,

    I read all your references here and would like to add my own comment whether the “Sabbaths” that Paul mentioned is a weekly Sabbath or not.

    You see, when you read the passage in Col. 2:17 what directly tells you that the sabbath is not the weekly sabbath is by the use of Paul of the phrase “which are a shadow of things to come” — this being pointing to the ceremonial sabbaths.

    Another thing, when you read the Greek word for this and reference to all the Old Testament Shabbath, they are either the genuine plural or the Gr. sabbaton or a transliteration of the Aramaic shabbata, a singular form. Hence, sabbata, though grammatically plural in form, may and often does not represent a singular [Matt. 28:1]

    So, was Paul referring to the ceremonial or memorial sabbath?

    Since the weekly sabbath is a memorial of God’s creation it would tell us by the many passages in the bible that only the sabbath that are “shadows of the things to come” [coming of Jesus] reached their realization.

    Col. 2:17 is the key to understand 2:16. None of the Moral Law could be spoken of as “shadows of the things to come.”

  • SDA

    @187ce748669362228ba0b234156035e9:disqus Thank you so much for explaining this! This talks about the ceremonial “rest-days” (now, I believe, considered “holidays”).