Paul and the Sabbath

Practices or principle?

Does Paul formally condemn the five ascetic-cultic practices ("eating, drinking, festival, new moon and sabbath") promoted by the false teachers in Colossae? In view of the fact that these practices were undermining the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption, we would indeed expect Paul to condemn them outrightly. But is this what the Apostle does?

Let us first consider the verb he uses: "me ouk tis umas krineto–let no one continue to judge you." The verb is neutral and it does not mean "to condemn" but "to judge" whether approvingly or disapprovingly. (47) Paul uses the same verb repeatedly in Romans when dealing with a similar problem: "let not him who abstains pass judgment (me krineto) on him who eats" (14:3). "One man esteems (krinei ) one day as better than another, while another man esteems (krinei) all days alike" (14:5). The meaning of the verb "krino" according to its common usage is not "to condemn," but rather "to express an opinion, to resolve, to pass judgment." Note then that the verb used indicates that Paul is considerably tolerant on this question. He does not condemn the specified practices, but simply insists that no one should be compelled to observe them. As stated by Charles R. Erdman, Paul "leaves the decision to every Christian." (48) A. Lukyn Williams calls attention to this important fact, saying:

"Observe that St. Paul takes a far wider view than that of forbidding the observance of dietary laws and of festival seasons. He leaves the matter free for the individual person. What he says is that the observance (or, by implication, nonobservance) is not to form a basis for anyone to sit in judgment on the Colossians." (49)

We conclude then that in verse 16 the warning is not against the Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but rather against those who promote these practices as indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as needed protection from "the elements of the world," thus denying the all-sufficiency of Christ. (50) That Paul had no intention to declare these observances worthless is further indicated in verse 17: "These are a shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ." By acknowledging the holy days of the Old Testament as "a shadow of what is to come–skia ton mellonton," Paul could hardly have "abolished the Sabbath by name and called it a bygone shadow." (51) E. F. Scott aptly remarks that

"Himself a Jew, Paul cannot admit that the most sacred ordinances of Judaism are worthless shadows. His thought is rather that of the writer to the Hebrews, who finds a value in all the ancient ceremonies in so far as they point forward, in a sort of picture-language, to the great consummation (e.g. the Sabbath typifies the perfect rest of God. Hebrews 4:11)." (52)

Several commentators, however, unable to see how Paul could view Old Testament holy days and ascetic practices of syncretistic nature, as "shadows" having prophetic meaning and function, have attempted to solve the dilemma by adding arbitrarily the word "only" or "at best" after "shadow," thus making the latter pejorative. (53) Furthermore, the verb "are (estin) a shadow" is interpreted or translated as "were (en) a shadow," thus implying that their function had absolutely ceased with Christ’s coming. (54) To justify this interpretation some argue that Paul could not have viewed dietary laws of dubious origin as "shadows of what is to come." Instead, they were a shadow of the Christian religion, but they are no longer so. (55) This interpretation implies that they could serve a legitimate function only prior to but not after Christ’s coming, which of course is not true. How could superstitious dietary taboos be accepted by God at one time and then rejected later?

The most plausible conclusion is that Paul is not disputing about the origin, form or legitimacy of these observances, but rather that he acknowledges their value, apparently because he recognized them to be expressions of noble and sincere—though misguided—spiritual aspirations. What the Apostle does, however, is to place these observances in their proper perspective with Christ, by means of the contrast "shadow—body." (56) In this perspective Paul sees that not only the observance of holy days, but that even dietary scruples can serve as a shadow, preparing Christians for the realities of the world to come. (57) Old Testament festivals have a message for Christians. The Passover (which today we call Easter) commemorates Christ’s atoning sacrifice and proclaims His coming (Mark 14:25; 1Corinthians 11:26); the Unleavened Bread typifies "sincerity and truth" (1Corinthians 5:8); Pentecost, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4); the Sabbath, as we have seen, the blessings of salvation, which are a foretaste of the eternal rest of God’s people. (58) However, Paul warns that shadows must not become a substitute for the reality which is Christ, the "Body" (verse 17) and the "Head" (verse 19). William Barclay aptly expresses Paul’s thought, when he writes:

"He [Paul] says that ... a religion which is founded on eating and drinking certain kinds of food and drink, and on abstaining from others, a religion which is founded on Sabbath observance and the like, is only a shadow of real religion; for real religion is fellowship with Christ." (59)

We frown upon this perverted sense of priorities, yet this problem has constantly afflicted Christianity. All too often religion has been made into rituals and rules to obey. "These," Paul explains, "have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh" (2:23). Any plan of legal piety can only make a Christian into a prisoner of the ‘‘flesh,’’ ‘‘puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind" (2:18). The solution which the Apostle offers to ascetic and cultic legalism is:

"Seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God." (Colossians 3:13)

We conclude therefore that Paul in Colossians 2:16 is not condemning abstinence from food and drink or the use of sacred days such as the Sabbath, but the wrong motive involved in their observance. What Paul attacks is the promotion of these practices as auxiliary aids to salvation, and as means to gain protection from the ‘‘elements of the universe."

The Sabbath in Colossians 2:16

The sacred times prescribed by the false teachers are referred to as "a festival or a new moon or a sabbath– eortes he neomenia he sabbaton" (Colossians 2:16). The unanimous consensus of commentators is that these three words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly and weekly) as well as an exhaustive enumeration of the sacred times. This view is validated by the occurrence of these terms, in similar or reverse sequence, five times in the Septuagint and several times in other literature. (60) There is, however, an exceptional occurrence in Isaiah 1:13-14 where the "new moon" is found at the beginning of the enumeration rather than in the middle, but an exception does not invalidate a common usage.

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary interprets the "sabbaton–sabbath days" as a reference to the annual ceremonial sabbaths and not to the weekly Sabbath (Leviticus 23-6-8, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38). It is a fact that both the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement in Hebrew are designated by the compound expression shabbath shabbathon, meaning "a sabbath of solemn rest" (Exodus 31:15; 35:2; Leviticus 23:3,32; 16:31). But this phrase is rendered in the Septuagint by the compound Greek expression "sabbata sabbaton" which is different from the simple "sabbaton" found in Colossians 2:16. It is therefore linguistically impossible to interpret the latter as a reference to the Day of Atonement or to any other ceremonial sabbaths, since these are never designated simply as "sabbata."

The cited commentary rests its interpretation, however, not on the grammatical and linguistic use of the word "sabbaton" but rather on a theological interpretation of the Sabbath as related to ‘‘shadow" in Colossians 2:17. It is argued that

"the weekly Sabbath is a memorial of an event at the beginning of earth’s history... hence the "sabbath days" Paul declares to be shadows pointing to Christ cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath.., but must indicate the ceremonial rest days that reach their realization in Christ and His Kingdom." (61)

To determine the meaning of a word exclusively by theological assumptions, rather than by linguistic or contextual evidences, is against the canons of Biblical hermeneutics. Moreover even the theological interpretation which the Adventist commentary gives to the Sabbath is hard to justify, since we have seen that the Sabbath can legitimately be regarded as the "shadow" or fitting symbol of the present and future blessing of salvation. (62) Furthermore we have noticed that the term "shadow" is used not in a pejorative sense, as a label for worthless observances which have ceased their function, but to qualify their role in relationship to the "body of Christ." Another significant indication pointing against annual ceremonial sabbaths is the fact that these are already included in the word "eortes–festival" and if "sabbaton" meant the same thing there would be a needless repetition. These indications compellingly show that the word "sabbaton" as used in Colossians 2:16 cannot refer to any of the annual ceremonial sabbaths.

Does the plural form "sabbata" refer exclusively to the seventh-day Sabbath? The fact that the plural has three meanings, namely (1) several Sabbaths (LXX Ezekiel 46:3; Isaiah 1:13; Acts 17:2), (2) one Sabbath (in spite of the plural—LXX Exodus 20:11; Mark 1:21; 2:23-24; 3:2-4), and (3) the whole week (cf. the titles of Psalms in the LXX, Psalm 23:1; 47;1; 93:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7), has led some to believe that in Colossians the term refers not exclusively to the seventh-day Sabbath but also to "week-days." (63) This view deserves consideration since the enumeration does suggest yearly, monthly and weekly festivities. Moreover the fact that in Galatians 4:10 (cf. Romans 14:5), where Paul opposes a strikingly similar false teaching which insisted on the observance of "days, and months, and seasons, and years," the list begins with "days–hemeras" (plural), gives us reasons to believe that the "sabbaths" in Colossians include other days besides the Sabbath. In this case Paul is warning against the observance of yearly, monthly and weekly holy days in general (including the Sabbath). Support for this interpretation is provided also by the juxtaposition in which "eating and drinking" and the observance of sacred times are placed. The same correlation between eating—not—eating and the observance of days is suggested in Romans 14:2, 5. It is therefore altogether possible that the "days" of Romans and Galatians, and the "sabbaths" of Colossians, are interrelated, including besides the Sabbath other week days characterized by fasting or dietary taboos.

It is well known that not only the Jews but even the early Christians fasted on fixed days. (64) In sectarian Judaism fasting was made even more rigorous. Observe that in the Zadokite Document the observance of fasts is enjoined together with that of holy days: "Keep the sabbath in its every detail, and the festivals and fasts in accordance with the practice laid down originally by the men who entered the new covenant in ‘the land of Damascus’" (CD 6:18). We know however that fasting was not allowed on the Sabbath, among both Jews and primitive Christians. (65) This would mean that if, as some believe, the abstention from food spoken of in Colossians and in Romans can be legitimately correlated with the "days" and "sabbaths," (66) then the latter could not be referring ‘directly to the seventh-day Sabbath but rather to certain fasting days of the week.

Assuming for the sake of enquiry that the "sabbaths" in Colossians do refer to or include the Sabbath day, the question to be considered is: What kind of Sabbath observance did the false teachers advocate? The data provided by the Letter to the Colossians are too meager to answer this question conclusively. Yet the nature of the heresy allows us to draw some basic conclusions. The rigoristic emphasis on the observance of dietary rules would undoubtedly be carried over to Sabbath keeping as well. The veneration of "the elements of the universe" would also affect the observance of the Sabbath and of sacred times, since it was commonly believed that the astral powers, which direct the stars, control both the calendar and human lives. Gunther Bornkamm comments in this regard:

"Paul mentions New Moon and Sabbath (Colossians 2:16), days, months, seasons, and years (Galatians 4:10), i.e. in each case days and seasons that do not stand under the sign of the history of salvation, but under the sign of the periodic cycles of nature, i.e. corresponding to the movement of the stars. Thus the stoicheia tou kosmou [elements of the universe] provide their content and meaning." (67)

In the context of the Colossian heresy it appears then that the Sabbath was observed not as the sign of creation, election or redemption but, as Eduard Lohse points out, "for the sake of ‘the elements of the universe,’ who direct the course of the stars and thus also prescribe minutely the order of the calendar." (68) Note that this astrological superstition did not prevail only in Hellenistic circles but also in Judaism. The Qumran community, for instance, speculated on the relationship between angels, the power of the stars, and the strict observance of sacred times. (69) The Jewish-Christian sect of the Elchasaites (ca. A.D. 100) provides another example of how the veneration of astral powers affected their observance of the Sabbath. Hippolytus reports:

"Elchasai speaks thus: "There exist wicked stars of impiety... Beware of the power of the days, of the sovereignty of these stars and engage not in the commencement of any undertaking during the ruling days of these. And baptize not man or woman during the days of the power of these stars, when the moon (emerging) from among them, courses the sky, and travels along with them... But, moreover, honour the day of the Sabbath, since that day is one of those during which prevails (the power) of these stars." (70)

In later Christian polemic against the Jews we find additional evidence of astral influence on the observance of sacred days like the Sabbath. In the Epistle to Diognetus, for instance, we read these scathing rebukes:

"But as to their [i.e. the Jews] scrupulosity concerning meats and their superstition as respects the Sabbaths, and their boasting about circumcision, and their fancies about fasting and new moons, which are utterly ridiculous and unworthy of notice,—I do not think that you require to learn anything from me." (71)

The fragment of the Preaching of Peter contains this blunt warning:

"Neither worship ye him as do the Jews, for they, who suppose that they alone know God, do not know him, serving angels and archangels, the month and the moon: and if no moon be seen, they do not celebrate what is called the first sabbath, nor keep the new moon, nor the days of unleavened bread, nor the feast (of tabernacles?), nor the great day (of atonement)." (72)

In the pagan world, as we have already noticed, (73) Saturday was regarded as an unlucky day because of its association with the planet Saturn. In view of the prevailing astral superstitions which influenced the observance of days among both Jews and pagans, it seems plausible to assume that any Sabbath observance advocated by the Colossians’ ascetic teachers—known for their promotion of the worship of the elements of the universe—could only have been of a rigorous and superstitious type. A warning against such a type of Sabbath keeping by the Apostle would have been not only appropriate but also desirable. But in this case Paul would be attacking not the principle of Sabbath keeping but its perversion. Observe, however, that the Apostle is not admonishing against the form of these observances, but against their perverted function. The manner in which a Christian eats, drinks, of observes days and seasons is (as well stated in Romans 14:5) a matter of personal conviction to be respected, but the motivation for observing them is not a matter of personal viewpoint. These observances are and must remain a shadow pointing to the substance which belongs to Christ and must never become the substitute for the reality. It is not therefore the form or manner of observance of sacred times that Paul opposes but their perverted function and motivations, which adulterated the ground of salvation. The information provided by the other two similar passages (Romans 14:5-6; Galatians 4:8-11), which we shall now consider, corroborates this conclusion.

The Sabbath in Romans and Galatians

In Rome a fanatical (heretical) ascetic group, strikingly similar to that of Colossae, advocated strict vegetarianism, abstention from wine and the observance of days (Romans 14:110,21). We suggested earlier that probably Paul is correlating (as in Colossians 2:16) the eating-not-eating, with the observance of days. If this interpretation is correct, then the "days" mentioned in Romans 14:5-6 can hardly include the Sabbath, since we know that the latter was regarded as a day of feasting and not of fasting. (74)

The problem in Rome was apparently milder than in Colossae or in Galatia. The ascetic teachers there were probably a less influential minority and were not "propagandists for a ceremonialism that was aimed at the heart of the cross." (75) This is indicated by the tolerant and restrained language of the Apostle:

"One esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God." (Romans 14:5-6)

The principle of acting according to one’s convictions and of respecting a different viewpoint (Romans 14:3, 10, 13-16, 19-21) on the matter of diet and days, stands out in Romans in obvious contrast to the principle of justification by faith. On the latter Paul adamantly refuses to compromise, on the former he acknowledges the individual’s conscience as the ultimate authority. What accounts for this obvious difference? The answer is to be found in Paul’s understanding of what is essential and what is unessential to salvation. That faith in Jesus Christ is the ground of salvation, is for Paul an unquestionable and essential principle (cf. Romans 3:22, 26, 27, 28, 31; 4:3, 13, 22-25; 5:1). But since faith is experienced and expressed differently in each individual, the way in which faith is practiced is unessential. "Let everyone," Paul says, "be fully convinced in his own mind" (14:6). The basic principle repeatedly laid down by the Apostle to determine the legitimacy of the observance of days or of dietary rules, is to be sure to be motivated by a conscientious desire to honor the Lord ("observe to the Lord–kurio fronei"–14:6,7,18; cf. 1Corinthians 16:31).

On the basis of this principle, we may ask, could Paul have advocated the abandonment of Sabbath observance? It is hard to believe that he would regard such a practice as a hindrance to honoring the Lord, when he himself "customarily" (Acts 17:2) met with "Jews and Greeks" on the Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 18:4). W. Rordorf argues that Paul assumes a twofold position. With regard to the "weak" Jewish Christians he grants them freedom to observe the law including the Sabbath. On the other hand, to the "strong" Gentile Christians he grants absolute "freedom from any observance of the law," particularly from the Sabbath. (76) Can this conclusion be legitimately drawn from Romans 14? Observe that the conflict between the "weak" and the "strong" over diet and days is only remotely related (if at all) to the Mosaic law. The "weak man" who "eats only vegetables" (14:2). drinks no wine, (14:21) and "esteems one day as better [apparently for fasting] than another" (14:5) can claim no support for such convictions from the Old Testament. Nowhere does the Mosaic law prescribe strict vegetarianism, total abstinence from wine and a preference for fasting days. (77) Similarly the "strong man" who "believes he may eat anything" (14:2) and who "esteems all days alike" is not asserting his freedom from the Mosaic law but from ascetic beliefs apparently derived from sectarian Judaism. (78) The whole discussion then is not about freedom to observe the law versus freedom from its observance, but concerns "unessential" scruples of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human conventions and superstitions. Since these differing convictions and practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect in this matter.

The situation in Galatians is radically different. Here Paul strongly reprimands those Gentile Christians who had themselves circumcised (Galatians 6:12; 5:2) and who had begun to "observe days, and months, and seasons, and years" (4:10). He defines their adoption of these practices as a return to the slavery of the "elemental spirits" (stoikeia–4:8-9)—cosmic powers credited with controlling the fate of mankind. In many respects the polemic in Galatians 4:8-11 is strikingly similar to that of Colossians 2:8-23. In both places the superstitious observance of sacred times is described as slavery to the "elements." In Galatians, however, the denunciation of the "false teachers" is stronger. They are regarded as "accursed" (1:8, 9) because they were teaching a "different gospel." Their teaching that the observance of days and seasons was necessary to justification and salvation, perverted the very heart of the Gospel (5:4).

Whether or not the Sabbath is alluded to in Galatians depends upon the interpretation of "days–hemerai" (4:10). Some critics argue on the basis of the parallel passage of Colossians 2:16, where "sabbaths" are explicitly mentioned, that "the ‘days’ certainly indicate even the sabbaths." (79) We do not deny this possibility, but we have shown earlier that the plural "sabbaths" used in Colossians, was the common designation not only for the Sabbath day but also for the whole week. Thus the plural "days" of Galatians could well indicate that the Colossians’ "sabbaths" are "week-days" and not vice versa.

Assuming that the Sabbath is part of the "days" observed by the Galatians (80) the questions to be considered are: What motivated the observance of the Sabbath and of festivities? Is Paul opposing the Biblical precept which enjoins the observance of the Sabbath and of festivals, or is he denouncing the perverted use made of these religious practices?

It is generally agreed that the Galatians’ observance of Jewish festivals was motivated by superstitious beliefs in astral influences. This is suggested by Paul’s charge that their adoption of these practices was tantamount to a return to their former pagan subjection to elemental spirits and demons (4:8-9). Apparently, on account of their pagan background, the Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, "could discern in the particular attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces." (81) The fact that in the pagan world, as we already noticed, Jewish Sabbath observance was often attributed to the evil influence of the planet Saturn, may well have contributed to the development of this misconception. It would appear, then, that any Sabbath keeping practiced by the Galatians would be motivated by a superstitious misconception of the Biblical precept.

Paul’s concern, however, is not to expose the superstitious ideas attached to these observances, but rather to challenge the whole system of salvation which the Galatians’ false teachers had devised. By conditioning justification and acceptance with God to things such as circumcision and the observance of days and seasons, the Galatians were making salvation dependent upon human achievement. This for Paul is a betrayal of the Gospel: "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4).

It is within this context that Paul’s denouncement of the observance of days and seasons must be understood. If the motivations for these observances would not have undermined the vital principle of justification by faith in Jesus Christ, Paul would only have recommended tolerance and respect (as he does in Romans 14), even if some ideas were foreign to Old Testament teaching. Since however the motivations for these practices adulterated the very ground of salvation by dogmatic confidence, the Apostle does not hesitate to reject them. In Galatians as in Colossians, then, it is not the principle of Sabbath keeping that Paul opposes, but rather the perverted use of cultic observances which were designed to promote salvation not by divine grace but rather by human achievements.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the three Pauline texts generally adduced as proof of Paul’s repudiation of the Sabbath as an Old Testament ceremonial shadow, has shown that this interpretation is unwarranted on several counts.

In the first place, in all the three texts Paul does not discuss whether or not the Sabbath commandment is still binding in the Christian dispensation, but rather he opposes complex ascetic and cultic practices, which (particularly in Colossians and Galatians) were undermining the vital principle of justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the fact that a superstitious form of Sabbath keeping may have been part of heretical teachings denounced by Paul, does not invalidate the binding nature of the precept since it is a perversion and not a precept that is condemned. The reproof of the misuse of a Biblical precept cannot be legitimately interpreted as the abrogation of the precept itself.

Thirdly, the fact that Paul recommends tolerance and respect even with regard to differences in diet and days (Romans 14:3-6) stemming from human conventions, indicates that on the question of "days" he was too liberal to promote the repudiation of the Sabbath commandment and the adoption of Sunday observance instead. If he had done so, he would have encountered opposition and endless disputes with Sabbath advocators. The absence of any trace of such a polemic is perhaps the most telling evidence of Paul’s respect for the institution of the Sabbath.

In the final analysis then, Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath must be determined not on the basis of his denunciation of heretical and superstitious observances which possibly included Sabbath keeping, but rather on the basis of his overall attitude toward the law. The failure to distinguish between Paul’s concept of the law as a body of instruction which he regards as "holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12; cf. 3:31; 7:14,22) and of the law as a system of salvation apart from Christ which he strongly rejects, is apparently the cause of much misunderstanding of Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath. There is no question that the Apostle respected those Old Testament institutions which still had value for Christians. We noticed, for example, that he worshiped on the Sabbath with "Jews and Greeks" (Acts 18:4,19; 17:1,10,17), he spent the "days of Unleavened Bread" at Philippi (Acts 20:16), he "was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost" (Acts 20:16), he assumed a Nazarite vow on his own initiative at Cenchreae (Acts 18:18), he purified himself at the temple to prove that he "lived in observance of the law" (Acts 21:24), and he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). On the other hand, whenever any of these or similar practices were promoted as the ground of salvation, he denounced in no uncertain terms their perverted function. We might say, therefore, that Paul rejected the Sabbath as a means of salvation but accepted it as a shadow pointing to the substance which belongs to Christ.