Let No Man Therefore Judge You Kevin L. Morgan

June 28, 2014

Doesn’t Paul indicate in Colossians that the Sabbath is no longer of value for Christians?

The passage that you have in mind says: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink [margin: for eating and drinking], or in respect [margin: part] of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ” (Colossians 2:16, 17, KJV). A careful consideration of this statement within the context of the heresy that Paul described does not indicate that he intended to announce the nullification of the seventh-day Sabbath.

Though we do not have the details of the false teachings in Colossae as Paul would have learned them from Epaphras during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (Acts 28:30, 31; Colossians 1:7, 8), we can discern in the epistle that the Colossian heresy had two parts: (1) Jewish ceremonialism, exceeding the practices that God gave Israel, and (2) angel worship. Paul talks about the superiority of Jesus to “principalities and powers” (Colossians 1:16; compare 2:10, 15). These are angelic “principalities and powers,” as we learn from Lamsa’s rendering of Colossians 2:10 from the Aramaic and from Colossians 2:18. Paul’s concern was to protect the Gentile believers of Colossae from a deception that would rob them of their full reconciliation with God and their integration in the body of Christ. Notice the two parts of the heresy:

2

Beware lest any man spoil you [literally “lead you off as a captive”] through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Let no man beguile you [literally “judge against you”] of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. (Colossians 2:18)

The “philosophy” introduced by the false teacher stands in sharp contrast with Paul’s principle theme—reconciliation of all things in Christ (1:20-21). In these verses, “voluntary humility” correlates with “the tradition of men” and “worshipping of angels” correlates with subjection to “the rudiments of the world.” The RSV translates “voluntary humility” as “rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body” and “the rudiments of the world” as “the elemental spirits of the universe.” Guided by his own mystical knowledge of the unseen, the troubler of the Colossians rejected the reconciliation of the cross and taught that “principalities and powers,” which presided over times, months, and days, deserved their worship through “voluntary humility” drawn from the traditions of men (Colossians 2:18). To put it in a more colorful way, the troubler of the Colossians was “serving up” a “helping” of Jewish ceremonialism “rolled” in self-deprivation and “deep-fat fried” in the mystical worship of angels. In defending the tender faith of the Colossians against the supposed

3

“superior knowledge” of the heretical false teacher, Paul refuted the teacher’s false philosophical assumptions by repeating applicable facts of faith.

Addressing Jewish ceremonialism, Colossians 2:11, 13 says that, though the Colossians were uncircumcised Gentiles (1:27), they have been washed by Christ’s blood, brought to life in Him, and forgiven all their trespasses. This meant that they could brush off any “put down” of the false teacher that they were not real believers without the rite of circumcision. Colossians 2:14 says that Gentiles have been reconciled to God—and to the body of Christ (Colossians 3:15)—now that the “handwriting” (the binding contract written by the hand of Moses, Deuteronomy 31:24-26; 2 Chronicles 34:14) “of ordinances” has been “blotted out” (literally “wiped out” or “removed”). Hebrews 7:18 and 10:9 has “disannulling” and “taketh away,” and Ephesians 2:15 has “having abolished” or “made void.” In Romans 3:31, Paul would seem to say just the opposite—that faith does not “make void” the law of God. Thus, that which was “made void” was not the precepts of God’s moral law but the “law of commandments [contained] in ordinances,” “imposed … until the time of reformation” (Ephesians 2:15; Hebrews 9:10). Jewish ceremonialism, which divided Jew and Gentile—and all “ordinances” (Colossians 2:20) “after the commandments and doctrines of men” (Colossians 2:22)—could not be used as a test of reconciliation with God (see Acts 13:39). Placed by Moses beside the ark of the covenant as a contractual witness “against” God’s people (2 Chronicles 35:12; Deuteronomy 31:24-26), that binding

4

and “contrary” handwritten agreement was taken “out of the way” and nailed to the cross, thereby breaking down “the middle wall” (Ephesians 2:15). As Christ’s body was nailed to the cross, the shadows reached their substance (Hebrews 10:1), that, is the promises reached reality, the symbolic services of the law were fulfilled (Matthew 5:17), and the curse of the law was transferred to the substitute (1 Peter 2:24; Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23; Joshua 8:34). The veil of the temple, a symbol of Jesus’ flesh (Hebrews 10:20), was supernaturally torn down the middle, signaling that Christ’s sacrifice had superseded the “law of commandments with regard to ordinances.” Addressing angel worship, Colossians 2:15 says that, at the cross, the principalities and powers, which had ruled the Colossians’ lives, were unmasked. The Colossian believers were no longer subject to these powers or to any human ordinance under their control.

Because of this, Paul insisted that the Colossians let “no man” judge them “in eating or drinking” (margin). They were not to be “subject to ordinances” such as the non-biblical “touch not; taste not; handle not” (Colossians 2:20 and 21). Paul also insisted that they not let anyone judge them “in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” based on mere speculation (Colossians 2:18). The marginal reading of the King James Version and Thayer’s lexicon point out that the basic meaning of the word translated “in respect of” (meros) is “a part” or “particulars.” Murdock’s translation renders the equivalent Aramaic as “about the distinctions.” Thus, Paul has in mind, the particulars of

5

these celebrations that are a “shadow of things to come.” Similar phrasing in Hebrews 10:1, 8:5, and 9:9 indicates that “shadows” are symbols in the earthly sanctuary and its services that pointed to heavenly realities.

Several pieces of evidence indicate that the early Christians did not see Paul’s warning as invalidating the Sabbath. For one, though Paul did declare Christ to be “our Passover” (1 Corinthians 5:7), he never declared Christ to be the believers’ “Sabbath.” For another, the Jews never accused Paul of violating the Sabbath, and both Jewish and Gentile believers continued observing the Sabbath. Most relevant to the topic at hand, early church fathers did not use Paul’s statement in Colossians to invalidate the Sabbath. Though Irenaeus used Colossians to speak against “feasts and fasts” that were “displeasing to the Lord,” his concern was the tainted spirit in which the memorial of Christ’s death was kept. Similar to Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 5:17, 18, he wrote: “We keep the feast but in the leaven of malice and wickedness, cutting in pieces the Church of God” (Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 575).

Had Paul’s statement in Colossians been the announcement of the termination of the seventh-day Sabbath, he would have employed a most curious method to break such important news: (1) His supposed announcement was in an epistle to the “least important church” he ever addressed (Lightfoot, The Epistle to the Colossians, p. 16). (2) He warned believers to resist being judged in particulars (meros) of “festivals, new moons, or sabbaths”; he did not tell them to cease from observing them. (3) He identified the Colossian heresy as

6

a blend of angel worship and “severity to the body.” (4) He said nothing else about sabbaths in Colossians or in any other epistle—including Ephesians, Colossians’ companion epistle—while himself observing the Sabbath with Jews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. To have announced the invalidation of the Sabbath in such an indirect way would be like reporting the overturning of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in the small print of the “Help Wanted” section of the daily news. Not a very effective way to make such an important announcement!