Objection 29: Paul specifically declares, in Colossians 2:14-17, that the Sabbath is abolished.
The passage reads as follows:
“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; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
Under objection 2 we learned that there are two laws, one moral, the other ceremonial, and that it was only the latter that was abolished by Christ. Under objection 11 we learned that Paul, in Colossians 2:14-17, is speaking of the ceremonial law. Under objection 26 we learned that the ceremonial law had certain annual Sabbaths. Hence we may properly conclude that Paul, in the passage before us, is not referring to the seventh-day Sabbath.
If Paul here was referring to the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, then the only conclusion to reach would be that in the Christian Era there is no weekly holy day of rest. Does Christendom, in general, believe that? No. The severely enforced Sunday laws of the various Christian lands of generations past provide proof—embarrassing proof, given today’s disregard of a weekly day of rest—that the general belief within Christendom was that a weekly Sabbath day was proper, right, and Scriptural.
Often, Sunday advocates have employed as first proof in defense of Sunday sacredness, the fact that the Fourth Commandment directs a weekly holy day. That they have substituted the first day of the week for the seventh day, and plugged that into the Fourth Commandment, only proves more eloquently that they believe that the obligation to keep a weekly sabbath is clearly found within the Ten Commandments.
Though Seventh day-Adventists have consistently denounced Sunday laws as an infringement of conscience, they have conceded that those who enacted Sunday laws generally acted in good faith, in harmony with what they thought the Bible commanded.
But the person who raises an objection based upon Colossians—unless he claims the true meaning of Paul’s words eluded all his Sunday-keeping forebears—must charge those forebears with flying in the face of Scripture, because Paul says, “Let no man therefore judge you ... in respect of an holy day, . . . or of the Sabbath days.” Do not Sunday laws judge men in respect of a holy day, a Sabbath day, and with a vengeance? Yes, they do judge men with respect to the Sabbath day.
Which goes to show that Christendom, in general, has never believed that Paul's declaration wiped out the weekly Sabbath, such that a person may, with complete spiritual immunity, refrain from considering any Sabbath day or weekly holy day.
True, some theologians, as certain Bible commentaries reveal, have thought they found in Paul's words the justification for turning their back on the seventh-day Sabbath, although they always hasten to add that in the Christian Era we have a new Sabbath—Sunday. But that is playing fast and loose with Paul's words. Paul does not even intimate that a new holy day is to be substituted. He speaks only of how we are not to let anyone judge us about any such day. Hence, if in fact we are obligated to keep a holy day in the Christian Era, that obligation must be found in a law that is above and beyond the range of Paul's declaration. And that law is clearly and obviously the Ten Commandments, which Paul was not discussing in this passage in Colossians.
That Paul was not discussing the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments is freely admitted by some of the best Bible commentators, and with their comments we will close this discussion.
Says the Methodist, Adam Clarke, in comment on Colossians 2:16:
"There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was superseded, by the introduction of Christianity."
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their comment on this text, note first that the annual Sabbaths “have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged.” Then they add immediately:
“The weekly Sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days.”
Albert Barnes, eminent Presbyterian Bible commentator, observes:
“There is no evidence from this passage [Col. 2:16] that [Paul] would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. ... He had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the Ten Commandments. No part of the moral law—no one of the Ten Commandments—could be spoken of as 'a shadow of good things to come.' These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal application.”