Subject: Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping |
Bible Note: Greetings Nolan! I think that Joe is refering to the last paragraph. It says, "There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he 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. If he had used the word in the singular number—“THE Sabbath,” it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to teach that that commandment had ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that 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 obligation." I got the same impression myself when I first read it, but in light of your other posts on this issue, I just let it slide. However, Barnes does seem to be saying: 1) That the plural number indicates that the Sabbath is not the subject of discussion. 2) That one of the 10 commandments could not be invalid now, since it is a moral law, not a cermonial law. 3) That one of the 10 commandments could not be described as a "shadow of things to come." 4) That the command to keep the Sabbath is a universal and perpetual obligation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |