Brief Comments by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 12, 1882

Brief Comments.

By Editor

COL. 2:16. It has not only often been asserted, but is continually being reiterated that Paul taught the abrogation of the weekly Sabbath of the Old Testament, the seventh-day Sabbath, in Col. 2:16. The text reads: "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."

The whole connection shows the nature of the sabbaths under consideration. They were those connected with the ceremonies of the Levitical law; not those connected with the moral law on the tables of stone. But it is objected that these ceremonial or annual sabbaths are called "holy days" in the text, leaving the term sabbaths to specify the weekly Sabbath. This is a mistake; and for calling it a mistake we have good and sufficient reasons to offer.

1. The holy days, the original in every other instance in the New Testament being rendered feast, were more in number than the sabbaths with which they were connected. Thus in Lev. 23:34-36, of the feast of tabernacles it is said: "On the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord; on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you." The sabbaths and feast days together embraced eight days, only two of which were sabbaths. Therefore the term feast or feast day (holy day) does not necessarily refer to an annual sabbath, as here were six feast days which were not sabbaths. Both are included in Col. 2:16, each class under its own title.

2. Verse 17 is the complement of verse 16, fully explaining that which might to some seem obscure. It reads: "Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." This verse commencing with the relative, "which," defines the subjects of verse 16 to be "shadows of things to come," which the weekly Sabbath is not. It is only commemorative; it looks altogether to the past—to creation—not at all to the future, or to redemption. Why did God bless and hallow the Sabbath day? Because that in it he had rested from all his work which he created and made. All the annual sabbaths were connected with types of the work of redemption, as the passover, day of atonement, etc. "The body" of these shadows "is of Christ." But a word in the Scriptures concerning the seventh day or weekly Sabbath refers it forward to the work of Christ.

While this chapter does not exclude the seventh day Sabbath as a day of observance, it does exclude the first day. It condemns "voluntary humility," or offering as service to God that which he has not required, "Intruding into those things which he hath not seen." Who has seen, in the word of God, that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath? "Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship." There is indeed a show of piety in such observances, such voluntary humility and will worship; walking "after the commandments and doctrines of men," is a sure method of building up a popular religion, but will never add to the spirituality of those who observe them. Dress them up as you will, they remain but "the rudiments of the world," destitute of that sanctifying power which is found in God's word of truth. John 17:17. Language could not more clearly point out such an institution as the Sunday-Sabbath than it is pointed out and described in Col. 2:18-23.

Heb. 7:12. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Singularity enough, some have argued from this a change, substituting another law for the decalogue, or at least a change of the Sabbath. But a reason for this application of the text has never been offered. It cannot possibly be shown that a change of the priesthood makes a change of the Sabbath necessary. But was a law which stood directly in the way of the change of the priesthood. See Num. 3:10: "And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." The same in other texts. This order excluded all who were not descended from Aaron, even though they were Levites, for Korah, who was slain for aspiring to the priest's office, was a descendant of Levi. Dathan and Abiram, who perished with him for the same cause, were of the tribe of Reuben. Of this law Paul spoke in Heb. 7. See verses 12, 13:—

"For he of whom these things are spoken [that is, Christ], pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."

Uzziah, king of Judah, was smitten with leprosy for his presumption in essaying to offer incense before the Lord in the temple. Azariah the priest withstood him, saying: "It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed." 2 Chron. 26:16-18.

It was this law, restricting the office of priesthood to Aaron and his sons, which, if remaining, would forbid Christ, of the tribe of Judah, acting as priest. This, and this only, is the law spoken of by Paul in Heb. 7. The Sabbath, or any other precept of the decalogue, had nothing to do with it. The moral law of God was not in question in this argument.