Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | seeking wisdom | 25489 | ||
You stated (more than once) that, "THIS VERSE DOES NOT CONDEMN SABBATH-KEEPING AS IS COMMONLY CLAIMED. IT ISN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBTH IN THE FIRST PLACE." I agree, this verse states that "no one is to act as your judge in regard.... to a Sabbath day"--which kind of leaves the concept of condemnation out of any individual's hands. But my question to you is...if it isn't talking about the seventh-day sabbath, then *what* sabbath is it refering to?? |
||||||
2 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 25544 | ||
Greetings Seekingwisdom! I have written on this verse in a different context in the past. Here is what I wrote before, I hope it may answer some of your questions! ********************************************** You said in your post that there was no verse in the Bible that validates Sunday as the Day of the Lord, but there is a verse in the Bible that invalidates Sabbath keeping - Col. 2:16. Col. 2:13-17 says, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 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. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." The clear teaching of this passage is that the Law is fulfilled in Christ (Rom. 8:2) and no longer has authority over Christians (Gal. 3:25 and Heb. 7:12). As such, we can no longer be judged about Sabbath keeping. From past experience, I know that you will probably reply that the Sabbath in Col. 2:16 is plural and therefore does not apply to the weekly Sabbath. However, there are two reasons why this argument will not work: 1) The Greek word for Sabbath ('Sabbaton') is used interchangebly in both the singular and the plural. The word is used 68 times in the New Testament, and only once does it refer to more than one Sabbath (Acts 17:2). There we know it refers to more than one Sabbath because there is a numeral in the text telling us that it does. There are even several verses where the plural Sabbath is used with the singular day (Luke 4:16, Acts 13:14, and 16:13) This is conclusive proof that the Sabbath referred to in Col. 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath. 2) The second proof that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in Col. 2:16 is the fact that this list is taken from Num. 28 and 29. In these two chapters, we find the exact same issues dealt with as Paul deals with in Col. 2 - Yearly festivals, monthly feasts, and weekly Sabbaths. So, here we have one clear Bible passage that specifically says that we can no longer be judged based upon Sabbath keeping. It doesn't say that someone can't worship on the Sabbath if they choose to do so. It just says that no one can be judged for not doing it. ************************************************ My understanding is that Col. 2:16 refers to all feasts, fasts, sabbaths (weekly or special), or any other requirement of the Law. We are not saved by doing these things, nor are we to be judged concerning them. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | what sabbath does it refer to? | Col 2:16 | djconklin | 25556 | ||
Tim, My thanks to you for a Biblical answer. However, there are a number of flaws in your argument. ") The Greek word for Sabbath ('Sabbaton') is used interchangebly in both the singular and the plural. The word is used 68 times in the New Testament, and only once does it refer to more than one Sabbath (Acts 17:2)." Hey, you actually got the count right! There's a number fo sources that don't. What you should have also looked at is how the word "sabbaton" is also used in the NT to refer to the first day of the week (i.e., just because the same word is used x number of times that doesn't mean that it only means one thing. It can refer to other things. As such therefore, your conclusion: "This is conclusive proof that the Sabbath referred to in Col. 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath." is very premature. Let's look at all of the available evidence first. Another flaw here is that you only looked at the NT; try looking at this word and the other related words (In this case "heorte") in the LXX. As you can see in my study (http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/216c.html and http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/216d.html) I really wrestled with what is going on here. "2) The second proof that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in Col. 2:16 is the fact that this list is taken from Num. 28 and 29. In these two chapters, we find the exact same issues dealt with as Paul deals with in Col. 2 - Yearly festivals, monthly feasts, and weekly Sabbaths." I'm going to cheat here and simply cut-and-paste a paragraph frommy study: " A thought occurred to me as I progressed in this study that perhaps it is our "Greek," or Western, minds which see this phrase "an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" as "denoting a time-progression."6 But, what if it isn't a "time-progression" per se but is rather a listing of ceremonial days? As Dunn has observed: "the three terms together, "sabbaths, new moons, and feasts" was in fact a regular way of speaking of the main festivals of Jewish religion."7 Bacchiocchi suggests that it is both a time sequence and a listing of festivals.8 Then when the two points above are tied together then what we have in vs. 16 is a listing: the feasts, the new moon and the sabbatical days of the feast of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement. To me this is the only option that answers all the objections given above and below." Also the clincher that Paul isn't refrring directly to the days themselves (they are a sub-clause that he could have left out): for more details see http://biblestudy.iwarp.com/colossians/216b.html |
||||||