Your ShelfYour Projects

COLOSSIANS 2 : 16

17%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 21, 1879

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 54, No. 9.

Read the full edition

COLOSSIANS 2 : 16.

By John M. Hopkins

THOSE who teach that the Sabbath of the decalogue is not binding upon God's people in this dispensation, refer to Col. 2:16 with much confidence, as if Paul's term “sabbath days” must refer to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and was one of the ordinances which Christ took “out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Verse 14. But we believe that a brief examination and application of statements preceding and succeeding the term “sabbath days,” will convince the candid reader that Paul intended no reference whatever to the fourth commandment, or any part of the law of God.
In verse 14 Paul says, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us,” etc. Now, we would ask, Is the Sabbath “contrary to” or “against us?” If so, how came it to be so? Jesus said it “was made for man.” Mark 2:27. If it was made, there was a time when it was made, some one made it at that time, and some necessary acts were performed by the maker in making it. By turning to Gen. 2:2, 3, we learn that the day succeeding the one on which God completed the great work of creation was observed by him as a rest day. This was the first act necessary in order to the making of the Sabbath, and it was performed upon the seventh day. Did that act render the seventh day “contrary to” or “against” the Christian? After God had rested upon the seventh day, he blessed it. This was the second act necessary to make it a Sabbath. Christian, did God's blessing render the seventh day “contrary to” or “against” you? Thirdly, God sanctified the seventh day, that is, he set it apart for a sacred use. Surely that did not make it “contrary to” or “against” the child of God.
But further, the day could not have been sanctified without commanding some one to observe it sacredly. As only Adam and Eve were then in existence, and they yet holy and in favor with God, we would ask, Did God require them to observe that which was “contrary to” or “against” them? Surely it would be a terrible sin to thus charge God. And yet we are driven to accept all these absurdities if we accept the abolition theory.
But we read in verse 17, “Which are a shadow of things to come,” etc. Here Paul refers to his preceding mention of “sabbath days.” Again we ask, Did God institute in the garden of Eden, before sin was in the world, while as yet Adam was pure and holy, a “shadow,” pointing forward to a Redeemer? No Redeemer was yet needed or promised; and did the infinitely wise Creator thus make provision for sin? Profound absurdity. And if the Sabbath was not then “contrary to” or “against” a holy man, should or can it be now? We say, No, unless his mind is in that unholy condition of which Paul speaks in Rom. 8:6, 7.
In Col. 2:16, Paul evidently refers to those holy days and sabbaths which are enumerated in Lev. 23, which occurred upon certain days of the month, and thus came annually. And in verse 38, Moses expressly states that they are “besides the sabbaths of the Lord,” thus forever closing the mouths of those who would make it appear that there was but one law, and that all went by the board together. JOHN M. HOPKINS.