Paul and the Sabbath

In the Sabbath-Sunday debate three Pauline texts have been traditionally cited (Colossians 2:14-17; Galatians 4:8-11; Romans 14:5-6) to prove that Paul regarded the Old Testament Sabbath as no longer binding, especially for Gentile Christians. Of the three references, Colossians 2:14-17 has been quoted far more extensively than the other two inasmuch as the passage explicitly speaks of Christ’s nailing something to the cross (2:14) and warns against paying heed to regulations (dogmata) with regard to several things, such as "a Sabbath" (2:16). In view of the importance attributed to these statements we shall conduct our enquiry into Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath, by focusing our investigation primarily on Colossians 2:14-17, without neglecting the information provided by Galatians 4:8-11 and Romans 14:5-6.

The Traditional Interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17, KJV)

A brief historical survey of the interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17 may serve to make us aware that the passage has been quite consistently explained to mean that the Sabbath is a Jewish institution, abolished by Christ on the cross. In a fragment attributed to Irenaeus, Colossians 2:16 is quoted to discourage Christians from observing "feasts and fasts" which "are displeasing to the Lord." (1) Tertullian uses this passage to argue against Marcion that the Law does not derive from another God, but is the shadow belonging to the body, Christ. He asks Marcion:

"Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of the apostle’s language, when he says, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy ‘day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ?" [Colossians 2:16]. We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance—that is, from figurative types to reality, which is Christ." (2)

Augustine continues this tradition, applying Colossians 2:16-17 more specifically to the Sabbath. He quotes the passage to show that Christ was not guilty when he broke the Sabbath, because "He was removing the shadows." (3)

Luther took up this tradition saying of Colossians 2:16-17 "Here Paul abolished the Sabbath by name and called it a bygone shadow because the body, which is Christ himself, has come." (4)

Calvin similarly understood Colossians 2:16 to mean that "Christ has by his death abolished ... the observance of rites." (5) He explains that "the reason why he frees Christians from the observance of them is, that they were shadows at a time when Christ was still, in a manner, absent." (6) Calvin holds that the distinction between days "was suitable for the Jews, that they might celebrate strictly the days that were appointed, by separating them from others. Among Christians, however, such a division has ceased." (7)

This interpretation which views the Sabbath in the Colossians passage as a bygone ceremonial shadow of the Jewish dispensation, abolished by Christ on the cross, has come down to our time as the most predominant interpretation. The mention of a few significant scholars will suffice to establish this fact.

J. Daniélou, for instance, declares:

"St. Paul proclaimed the end of the Sabbath (Romans 14:6) If the Sabbath was to die little by little, this was because it was only a provisional institution and a figure of the world to come. Now this world has come: the figure need only disappear: "Let no one, then, call you to account for what you eat or drink, or in regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ" (Colossians 2:16)." (8)

W. Robertson Nicoll similarly maintains that "the unmistakable teaching" of Colossians is that "the obligation of the Jewish Sabbath has passed away as much as sacrifices and circumcision." (9) Paul K. Jewett likewise comments that "Paul’s statement [Colossians 2:16] comes as near to a demonstration, as anything could, that he taught his converts they had no obligation to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old Testament." (10) C. S. Mosna concludes in a similar vein saying that "according to this text [Colossians 2:16-17] . . . the Colossians are in danger of losing their liberty by accepting the Sabbath precept.... Among the prescriptions of the Law, even the sabbath rest was to be abolished." (11)

The interpretation of W. Rordorf is essentially the same. On the basis of Galatians and Colossians, he defines Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath in the following terms:

"With regard to Gentile Christians he [Paul] absolutely refuses to countenance any longing eyes cast at the Old Testament law: they are free from any observance of the law. ... In particular there is never any question of them observing the Jewish sabbath." (12)

These samplings of testimonies exemplify that Colossians 2:16-17 throughout Christian history has been interpreted quite consistently to mean that Paul regarded the Sabbath as an Old Testament typological institution fulfilled by Christ and therefore no longer binding on Christians. Since this interpretation has been "hallowed" by history, to submit the Colossians and related passages to a new critical scrutiny may appear as a pretentious undertaking. Yet this is a service that needs to be rendered to test the validity of any inherited interpretation.

To ascertain Paul’s understanding of the Sabbath (as well as of the Jewish festivities in general) particularly in the light of the crucial passage of Colossians 2:14-17, several questions need to be considered. Inasmuch as the warning regarding the observance of sacred days is only one aspect of the "Colossian heresy" that the Apostle is refuting, we need to ascertain first of all what was the basic nature of the false teaching that unsuspectingly risked to "disqualify" (2:18) the Colossian believers? Did the false teachers advocate exclusively a rigorous observance of the ordinances of the Mosaic law? Are these to be identified with "the written document — cheirographon" which God through Christ "wiped out... removed, [and] nailed to the cross" (2:14)? Can one legitimately infer from the passage that the observance of holy days such as the Sabbath is viewed by Paul as Mosaic ordinances "nailed to the cross"? Is the Apostle advocating that Christians are released from all obligation to observe holy days? We shall endeavor to answer these questions by briefly considering first, the nature of the "Colossian heresy," secondly, what was nailed to the cross and lastly Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath and holy days.

The Colossian Heresy

To establish the religious-historical background of the Colossian heresy is not an easy task, inasmuch as the cryptic allusions to such concepts as "tradition–paradosis" (Colossians 2:8), "fulness–pleroma" (1:2:9,10), "philosophy– philosophia" (2:8), "eating and drinking–brosei, posei" (2:16), "principalities and powers–archai, exousiai" (2:15), and "elements of the world– stoicheia tou kosmou" (2:8, 20), find correspondence both in "gnostic Judaism" and in "Hellenistic syncretism." (13) Both of these are in fact equally used by commentators to define the derivation of the gnosis of Colossae. For the purpose of our study, however, we need not enter into the debate regarding the ideological provenance of the Colossian "philosophy" (2:8). It will suffice to reconstruct the main outline of its teachings on the basis of the short quotations and catchwords cited by Paul in chapter 2 in the context of his admonition to the believers.

The false teaching which Paul refutes in Colossians is characterized by a theological and a practical error. Theologically, the Colossian "philosophy" (2:8) was competing with Christ for man’s allegiance. Its source of authority, according to Paul, was man-made "tradition–paradosis" (2:8) and its object was to impart true "wisdom–sophia" (2:3,23), "knowledge–gnosis" (2:2,3; 3:10), and "understanding–sunesis" (1:9; 2:2). To attain such knowledge Christians were urged to do homage to cosmic principalities (2:10, 15) and to "the elements of the universe–ta stoicheia tou kosmou" (2:8,18,20).

What precisely Paul meant by the latter phrase is still much debated. Some interpret "the elements—stoicheia" as the "elementary teachings about God belonging to this world" which were present in rudimentary form both in Judaism and paganism. (14) Others view them as "the basic elements of this world" particularly the earth, water, air and fire, from which it was thought all things derived. (15) Most modern exegetes, however, have adopted a personified interpretation of the stoicheia (especially on the basis of the parallel passage in Galatians 4:3,9; cf. 3:19), identifying them with angelic mediators of the law (Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2) and with pagan astral gods who were credited with control of the destiny of mankind. (16) To gain protection from these cosmic powers and principalities, the Colossian "philosophers" were urging Christians to offer cultic adoration to angelic powers (2:15,18,19,23) and to follow ritualistic and ascetic practices (2:11,14,16,17,21,22). By that process one was assured of access to and participation in the divine "fulness–pleroma" (2:9,10, cf. 1:19). The theological error then basically consisted in interposing inferior angelic mediators in place of the Head Himself (2:9,10,18,19).

The practical outcome of these theological speculations was the insistence on strict asceticism and ritualism. These consisted in "putting off the body of flesh" (2:11) (apparently meaning withdrawal from the world); (17) rigorous treatment of the body (2:23); prohibition to either taste or touch certain kinds of foods and beverages (2:16,21), and careful observance of sacred days and seasons—festival, new moon, Sabbath (2:16). Christians presumably were led to believe that by submitting to these ascetic practices, they were not surrendering their faith in Christ, but rather they were receiving added protection and were assured of full access to the divine fulness. This may be inferred both from Paul’s distinction between living "according to the elements of the universe" and "according to Christ" (2:8) and from the Apostle’s insistence on the supremacy of the incarnate Christ. "In him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" (2:9), therefore Christian attain "the fulness–pleroma" of life not through the elements of the universe, but through Christ, "who is the head of all rule and authority" (2:10; cf. 1:15-20; 3:3).

On the basis of this bare outline, we can already establish that the Sabbath is mentioned in the passage not in the context of a direct discussion on the obligation of the law, but rather in the context of syncretistic beliefs and practices (which incorporated elements from the Old Testament, undoubtedly to provide a justification for their ascetic principles) (18) advocated by the Colossian "philosophers." We are not informed what type of Sabbath observance these teachers promoted, nevertheless on the basis of their emphasis on scrupulous adherence to "regulations," it is apparent that the day was to be observed in a most rigorous and superstitious manner. It is possible, in fact, as we shall discuss later, that astrological beliefs attached to the day of Saturn made the observance of the day all the more superstitious.

If then, as is generally recognized, Paul in Colossians is refuting not the usual brand of Jewish or Jewish-Christian legalism, but rather a syncretistic "philosophy" which incorporated among others Jewish elements, (19) is it legitimate to use this passage to define Paul’s basic attitude toward the Sabbath? Does Paul’s condemnation of a perverted use of a religious observance constitute a valid ground to conclude that the Apostle releases all Christians from its obligation? More important still, does Colossians 2:16-17 actually imply that Paul thought and taught that Christians were no longer under obligation to observe any holy day? Before considering these questions, we need to establish what role the law plays in Paul’s refutation of the Colossian heresy. Is the Apostle for instance referring to the moral and/or ceremonial law when he speaks of the "written document – cheirographon" which God "set aside, nailing it to the cross" (2:14)? This clarification will help us establish whether in Paul’s mind the Sabbath is part of what was nailed on the cross.

What Was Nailed To The Cross?

To understand the legal language of Colossians 2:14 it is necessary, first of all, to grasp the arguments advanced by Paul in the preceding verses to combat the Colossian "philosophy." We noticed that false teachers were "beguiling" (2:4) Christians to believe that the observance of "regulations– dogmata" was needed in order to court the protection of those cosmic beings who allegedly could help them to participate in the completeness and perfection of the divinity. To oppose this teaching, Paul emphasizes two vital truths. First he reminds the Colossians that in Christ, and in Him alone, "the whole fulness of the deity dwells bodily" (2:9) and therefore all other forms of authority that exist are subordinate to Him, "who is the head of all rule and authority"  (2:10). Secondly the Apostle reaffirms that it is only in and through Christ that the believer can "come to the fulness of life" (2:10), because Christ not only possess the "fulness of deity" (2:9) but also provides the fulness of "redemption" and "forgiveness of sins" (1:14; 2:10-15; 3:1-5).

In order to explain how Christ extends "perfection" (1:28; 4:12) and "fulness" (1:19; 2:9) to the believer, Paul, as Herold Weiss has persuasively shown, "does not make recourse to the law but to baptism." (20) This represents a significant variation, since the explanation of the significance of the law is always an integral part of Paul’s presentation of the Gospel. The fact then that in the whole of Colossians 2 the "term ‘law’ (nomos) is absent . . . from the controversy," (21) corroborates what we said earlier, namely that the Colossian heresy was not based upon the usual Jewish legalism but rather on an unusual (syncretistic) type of ascetic and cultic regulations (dogmata), which undermined the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemption.

To combat these false teachings Paul chose to extol the centrality of the crucified, resurrected and exalted Christ, explaining how Christian perfection is the work of God who extends to the Christian the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism (2:11-13) The benefits of baptism are concretely presented as the forgiveness of "all our trespasses" (2:13; 1:14; 3:13) which results in being "made alive" in Christ (2:13). The reaffirmation of the fulness of God’s forgiveness, accomplished by Christ on the cross and extended through baptism to the Christian, constitutes indeed Paul’s basic answer to those trying to attain to perfection by submitting to "regulations." To emphasize the certainty and fulness of divine forgiveness (already stated in 2:13), the Apostle utilizes in 2:14 a legal metaphor, namely that of God as a judge who "wiped out, ... removed [and] nailed to the cross . . . the written document–cheirographon."

What did Paul mean by the cheirographon (a term used in antiquity in the sense of a "written agreement" or a "certificate of debt")? (22) Was he referring to the Mosaic Law with its ordinances (tois dogmasin ), thus declaring that God nailed it to the cross? If one adopts this interpretation, there exists a legitimate possibility that the Sabbath could be included among the ordinances nailed to the cross. There are indeed certain authors who hold this view. (23) Besides the grammatical difficulties, (24) "it hardly seems Pauline," writes J. Huby, "to represent God as crucifying the ‘holy’ (Romans 7:6) thing that was the Mosaic Law." (25) Moreover this view would not add to but detract from Paul’s argument designed to prove the fulness of God’s forgiveness. Would the wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law provide to Christians the assurance of divine forgiveness? Hardly so. It would only leave mankind without moral principles. Guilt is not removed by destroying law codes.

Most commentators interpret the cheirographon either as the "certificate of indebtedness" resulting from our transgressions or a "book containing the record of sin" used for the, condemnation of mankind. (26) Both renderings, which are substantially similar, can be supported from rabbinic and apocalyptic literature. "In Judaism," as stated by E. Lohse, "the relationship between man and God was often described as that between a debtor and his creditor." (27) For example a Rabbi said: "When a man sins, God writes down the debt of death. If the man repents, the debt is cancelled (i.e. declared invalid). If he does not repent, what is recorded remains genuine (valid)." (28) In the Apocalypse of Elijah is found the description of an angel holding a book, explicitly called a cheirographon, in which the sins of the seer are recorded. (29) On the basis of these and similar examples, it is quite obvious that the cheirographon is either a "certificate of sin-indebtedness" or the "record book of sins" but not the law of Moses, since the latter, as Weiss points out, "is not a book of records." (30)

What Paul then is saying by this daring metaphor is that God has "wiped out," "removed," and "nailed to the cross" through the body of Christ (which in a sense represents mankind’s guilt), the cheirographon, the instrument for the remembrance of sin. The legal basis of this instrument was the "binding statutes–tois dogmasin" (2:14), but what God destroyed on the cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins. (31) By destroying the record of sins, God removed the possibility of a charge ever being made again against those who have been forgiven. (32)

This view is supported also by the clause "and this he has removed out of the middle–kai auto erken ek tou mesou" (2:14). It has been shown that "the middle" was the position occupied at the center of the court or assembly by the accusing witness. (33) In the context of Colossians, the accusing witness is the cheirographon which God in Christ has erased and removed out of the court. One cannot fail to sense how through this forceful metaphor, Paul is reaffirming the completeness of God’s forgiveness provided through Christ on the cross. By destroying the evidence of our sins, God has also "disarmed the principalities and powers" (2:15), since it is no longer possible for them to function as the accusers of the brethren (Revelation 12:10). There is no need therefore for Christians to feel incomplete and to seek to participate in the fulness of the divinity (Pleroma) through the "regulations–dogmata." Those who through baptism have died and have been made alive with Christ, can live now in the certainty of their redemption and forgiveness. Therefore, the powers and principalities need no longer concern them.

We have seen that in this whole argument the Law, as stated by Weiss, "plays no role at all." (34) Any attempt therefore to read into the cheirographon a reference to the Sabbath or to any other Old Testament ordinance is altogether unwarranted. The document that was nailed to the cross contained not moral or ceremonial laws, but rather the record of our sins. Is it not true even today that the memory of sin can create in us a sense of incompleteness? The solution to this sense of inadequacy, according to Paul, is to be found not by submitting to a system of "regulations–dogmata," but by accepting the fact that on the cross God has blotted out our sins and granted us full forgiveness. We can conclude then by saying that Colossians 2:14 reaffirms the essence of the Gospel—the Good News that God has nailed on the cross the record and the guilt of our sins—but it has nothing to say about the law and the Sabbath.

Paul’s Attitude Toward The Sabbath

Having refuted the intellectual speculations of the Colossian "philosophy" by reaffirming the supremacy of Christ and the fulness of His redemption (verses 8-15), Paul now turns to their practical consequences, dealing explicitly with certain features of their religious practices.

"Therefore, let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.

"These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17)

Since in this admonition the Sabbath is singled out as one of the religious practices which "are a shadow of what is to come," it has been generally concluded that "here Paul abolished the Sabbath by name and called it a bygone shadow because the body, which is Christ himself, has come." (35) To test the validity of this traditional interpretation, several questions need to be considered. Are the practices (including the Sabbath?) advocated by this fastidious clique to be regarded as strictly Mosaic prescriptions, or as exaggerated puritanical teachings deriving from a syncretistic ideology? Is the Apostle condemning abstinence from food and drink as well as the use of sacred days and seasons as such, or is he warning against the wrong use made of these? What kind of Sabbath observance did the false teachers advocate? What was Paul’s basic attitude toward the Sabbath and Jewish festivals in general?

Nature of regulations

Do the regulations with regard to "eating, drinking, festival, new moon and sabbath" belong exclusively to the Mosaic Law? While the reference to the observances of "festival, new moon and sabbath" plainly shows that the false teachers derived some of their teachings from the Old Testament, the restrictions regarding "eating and drinking" can hardly be traced to the same source. The terms "brosis" and "posis" describe not (as often inexactly translated) "food–broma" and "poma" but the act of "eating and drinking." (36) Therefore it is not a question, as R.C. H. Lenski points out, "about proper and improper food and drink, some being clean, others unclean, but rules about when to eat and to drink and to fast." (37) Such dietary restrictions can hardly be traced back to the Levitical law since this does not contemplate an ascetic program but only ‘distinguishes between clean and unclean food. Moreover, the Mosaic law is silent on the subject of drink, except in the case of the Nazarites and Rechabites, who abstained from intoxicants on account of a special vow. (38) These exceptions however entailed a discipline of their own, well distinct from the general provision of the law.

That the dietary prescriptions mentioned in Colossians 2:16 do not belong to the Mosaic law is further indicated in verse 21 by the prohibition (regarding apparently the consumption of food) imposed by the proponents of the "philosophy": "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch." Such ascetic restrictions designed to promote "rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body" (2:23) were foreign to normative Jewish teachings. Usually such asceticism arises from a dualistic concept of life which despises the material part of the world and the human body in order to attain to a higher sanctity. No traces of this dualistic view can be found in the Hebrew concept of man, which is altogether holistic.

There are indications that in Paul’s time this form of asceticism was developing within the Church. In Romans 14 the Apostle deals with a dissension caused by an ascetic party which (similar to that of Colossae) insisted on vegetarianism and abstention from wine (14:2,21) as well as on the observance of days (14:5-6). A similar party possibly existed at Ephesus, since Paul warns Timothy against those "who forbid marriage and enjoin the abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving" (1Timothy 4:3).

Was this ascetic teaching influenced primarily by sectarian Judaism or by pagan asceticism? It is difficult to answer this question conclusively since we are informed that a vegetarian regime was promoted by (1) Jewish sects such as the Therapeutae and probably the Essenes; (2) Gnostic sects such as the Encratites, Ebionites and Marcionites; and (3) pagan schools such as the Orphic mysteries, the Pythagoreans and the Neo-platonists. (39) Philostratus (ca. A D. 220) reports, for example, that Apollonius of Tyana (d. ca. A.D. 98), a Neo-Pythagorean philosopher, "declined to live upon a meat diet, on the ground that it was unclean, and that it made the mind gross; he partook only of dried fruits and vegetables, for he said that all the fruits of the earth are clean." (40) (It is noteworthy that even James, the Lord’s brother, according to Hegesippus "was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh"). (41)

The pagan reasons for practicing asceticism and fasting were many. It was believed, for instance, that fasting prepared a person to receive a divine revelation. (42) The belief in the transmigration of souls apparently motivated abstinence from animal meat, since eating it was regarded as a form of ‘cannibalism.’ Others were led to asceticism by their dualistic view of the world. (43) In the case of the "philosophy" of Colossians, the dietary taboos and the observance of sacred times were apparently regarded as an expression of subjection to and worship of the "elements of the universe" (2:20,18).

Some scholars regard the Colossian false teachings as a offshoot of the teaching of the Qumran community. They point out that the emphasis on dietary rules, festal calendar and the veneration of the angels, tallies completely with the practices of the Qumran sect. (44) The Colossian "philosophy" however, as E. Lohse rightly points out, "does not reveal any signs of the kind of radical understanding of the law that is advocated by the Qumran community. The term ‘law’ (nomos) is absent anyway from the controversy in which Colossians is engaged." (45) The most plausible conclusion held by most scholars is that the false teachings and practices at Colossae were of a syncretistic nature, containing both pagan and Jewish elements. The Old Testament was apparently invoked to provide a justification for their syncretistic beliefs and practices. (46)

If this conclusion is correct (which to us seems hardly disputable), then Paul’s reference to the Sabbath and festivities must be understood in the context of the heretic, ascetic and syncretistic practices which he opposes. In this case, whatever is said about the perverted use of an institution like the Sabbath, cannot be legitimately used to challenge the validity of the commandment per se. A precept is not nullified by the condemnation of its abuse. But before focusing more directly on Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath, we need to ascertain what is actually condemned in Cobssians 2:16-17: practices or principle?