- Sep 23, 2005
- 32,779
- 6,157
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Book Review!
Putting the Sabbath to Rest: A Scriptural Study of Colossians 2:16 by Ron Du Preez (Member of the Biblical Research Institute).
Intro:
I just had the chance to read over this short book last night when I woke up at an odd hour. While the name may sound like something debunking the Sabbath, it is not.
It actually takes up the rather hotly debated topic of what Sabbath is meant in Colossians 2:16. It defends the traditional Adventist view.
A little background on the subject. Col. 2:16 is a text that many believe refutes the Sabbath. Here is the text:
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
The traditional Adventist view of the text states that the Sabbath mentioned is a reference to the ceremonial Sabbaths, and that what is being referenced is the ceremonial system which is fulfilled in Christ, and which points to events in salvation history.
An alternative view within Adventism in recent years holds that it is referring to the weekly Sabbath, but the key argument is not to judge people based on man-made requirements that were not Scriptural.
The newer, alternative view, DuPreez notes, has been argued by at least 15 Adventist scholars since 1985. Here are the ones I found to be most notable on that list: Rodriguez of the Biblical Research Institute, Bacchiocchi, Gerhard Hasel, Herbert E. Douglas, Alden Thompson, Erwin Gane, Wiliam Richardson, and Desmond Ford.
I admit that is more than I would have thought, and I was particularly suprirsed by the names Hasel and Douglas.
So that you know where I am coming from on the topic, I started reading the book at least tentatively in the camp of the newer alternative view, agreeing with Rodriguez, etc. I came to this view about a year ago as a result of a debate in GT in which a Sabbatarian (but not Adventist) pointed out to me the logical order in the text from yearly to monthly, to weekly.
Now, having read the book, I would say I am at least 60 percent in the traditional camp. It made some good arguments. It is somewhat rare to read a book that changes your view on an important text. So I definitely recommend the read, even if you are skeptical.
(I also plan to read again some of DJConklin's views which parallel Du Preez's).
Alright, now to the arguments. For the sake of brevity I will assume some familiarity with the issues in this section. If you don't understand it then...buy the book!
Arguments:
1. This book focuses heavily on linguistic study, as this has been somewhat ignored. It therefore looks at each term in the "triad" to see its usage throughout the NT, the Greek Septuagint (OT), and the Hebrew equivalent of the terms in the Masoretic text.
As a starting point he examines all the uses of σαββατον and σαββατα, in the Greek NT, and the Hebrew counterparts to see if there are any linguistic keys to determining whether the weekly Sabbath is indicated or some other meaning. Other meanings would include ceremonial Sabbaths associated with the day of atonement and day of trumpets, as well as Sabbath Jubilee years, etc. He indeed finds markers in 100 percent of the cases when referencing the weekly Sabbath. (though one or two I am not completely convinced on). He also finds distinct markers for other uses. Of course context also plays a role nearly all of them.
2. Next he examines the use of compound phrases. The use in Colossians is a simple construction, just σαββατων. Critics alledge that when referring to ceremonial Sabbaths a compound phrase is employed in the LXX (Septuagint). He notes that this is not always the case. In particular, the Day of Atonement is expressed with the same simple construction as in Colossians. The feast of trumpets is likewise designated with a simple σαββατον in some manuscripts, and σαββατα in others.
3. He also looks at the NT usage. It again shows linguistic markers. It is noted that, apart from the passage in question, there is no definite example of σαββατον indicating a ceremonial Sabbath. On the other hand, the term is flexible beyond just representing the weekly Sabbath ,as it also is translated "week" because of contextual factors 9 times.
4. The passage in Colossians has none of the characteristic linguistic markers associated with the weekly Sabbath, or the translation "week". It does fit the pattern used in the Septuagint for the day of atonement, and in some manuscripts the day of trumpets.
5. The term rendered festival in Colossians, and its corresponding term in the Hebrew are studied, and yields the fact that the term was only applied to the three pilgramage "feasts" and not to the more somber day of atonement and day of trumpets. This is important because it means that Paul was not necessarily repeating himself (feasts...new moon...more feasts). This is likely his strongest argument.
6. The triad order that is often referred to as a succession from yearly to weekly was compared to its old testament counterparts to see if any formed the basis of an allusion. I thought this part was fairly weak. But I do think that he is right in saying that the passage in Hosea is the most likely allusion. I won't go into the reasons. They are long, and you should buy the book if you want to know
7. In Hosea we have precedence for inverted parallelism which would fit the structure if the traditional view is accepted.
In simple terms it looks like
a. man
b. woman
c. back to man
In Colossians then the structure would be
festivals (3 pilgramage feasts), new moons, sabbaths (day of atonement and trumpets).
So it would be essentially yearly, monthly, yearly. But the second series of yearly is a distinct class.
This seems more foreign to us than the Yearly, monthly, weekly paradigm that the alternative view presents, but we are talking near eastern thought here.
He then notes that research is still needed to settle question of context, what the greater heresy was at the church in Colossai, etc.
Strong points:
A. It makes sense with the Acts Council which basically only puts a few requirements on the Gentiles and does not hold them accountable to the rest of the law of Moses.
B. It makes sense with the immediate context of ceremonial elements (food, drink, etc.) though there were obvious pagan corruptions as well.
C. It could also point to a conclusion for Romans 14. Romans 14 address days considered holy, and Paul leaves it up to conscience. Here again, in regard to the ceremonial days Paul leaves it up to conscience. Since they "shadows of the things to come" but the body is "of Christ."
Weak points:
As he notes, the book doesn’t go in-depth on context or the situation that Paul was addressing, especially the nature of the heresies.
I found that the he placed a little too much emphasis on the linguistic markers, as these are not in my book definitive. However, usage is an important argument. And it at the least leaves it a possibility, and given what I perceive the context, makes sense of a number of other passages (Acts 15, Romans 14, etc.)
The cover is quite hideous! And the title almost makes it sound like he is getting rid of the Sabbath. But those are minor quibblies.
Conclusion:
The book is short and to the point. He bills it as popular reading, but I don’t know as I would go that far. He references some terms without defining them amply. But most readers could follow along. You will want to check out his extensive charts that track usage. Looking up each reference would be helpful, though the first read I just skimmed through all but those that I suspected would be problematic.
I would recommend the book. It speaks on a neglected aspect (linguistics) of an important Sabbatarian text.
Putting the Sabbath to Rest: A Scriptural Study of Colossians 2:16 by Ron Du Preez (Member of the Biblical Research Institute).
Intro:
I just had the chance to read over this short book last night when I woke up at an odd hour. While the name may sound like something debunking the Sabbath, it is not.
It actually takes up the rather hotly debated topic of what Sabbath is meant in Colossians 2:16. It defends the traditional Adventist view.
A little background on the subject. Col. 2:16 is a text that many believe refutes the Sabbath. Here is the text:
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
The traditional Adventist view of the text states that the Sabbath mentioned is a reference to the ceremonial Sabbaths, and that what is being referenced is the ceremonial system which is fulfilled in Christ, and which points to events in salvation history.
An alternative view within Adventism in recent years holds that it is referring to the weekly Sabbath, but the key argument is not to judge people based on man-made requirements that were not Scriptural.
The newer, alternative view, DuPreez notes, has been argued by at least 15 Adventist scholars since 1985. Here are the ones I found to be most notable on that list: Rodriguez of the Biblical Research Institute, Bacchiocchi, Gerhard Hasel, Herbert E. Douglas, Alden Thompson, Erwin Gane, Wiliam Richardson, and Desmond Ford.
I admit that is more than I would have thought, and I was particularly suprirsed by the names Hasel and Douglas.
So that you know where I am coming from on the topic, I started reading the book at least tentatively in the camp of the newer alternative view, agreeing with Rodriguez, etc. I came to this view about a year ago as a result of a debate in GT in which a Sabbatarian (but not Adventist) pointed out to me the logical order in the text from yearly to monthly, to weekly.
Now, having read the book, I would say I am at least 60 percent in the traditional camp. It made some good arguments. It is somewhat rare to read a book that changes your view on an important text. So I definitely recommend the read, even if you are skeptical.
(I also plan to read again some of DJConklin's views which parallel Du Preez's).
Alright, now to the arguments. For the sake of brevity I will assume some familiarity with the issues in this section. If you don't understand it then...buy the book!
Arguments:
1. This book focuses heavily on linguistic study, as this has been somewhat ignored. It therefore looks at each term in the "triad" to see its usage throughout the NT, the Greek Septuagint (OT), and the Hebrew equivalent of the terms in the Masoretic text.
As a starting point he examines all the uses of σαββατον and σαββατα, in the Greek NT, and the Hebrew counterparts to see if there are any linguistic keys to determining whether the weekly Sabbath is indicated or some other meaning. Other meanings would include ceremonial Sabbaths associated with the day of atonement and day of trumpets, as well as Sabbath Jubilee years, etc. He indeed finds markers in 100 percent of the cases when referencing the weekly Sabbath. (though one or two I am not completely convinced on). He also finds distinct markers for other uses. Of course context also plays a role nearly all of them.
2. Next he examines the use of compound phrases. The use in Colossians is a simple construction, just σαββατων. Critics alledge that when referring to ceremonial Sabbaths a compound phrase is employed in the LXX (Septuagint). He notes that this is not always the case. In particular, the Day of Atonement is expressed with the same simple construction as in Colossians. The feast of trumpets is likewise designated with a simple σαββατον in some manuscripts, and σαββατα in others.
3. He also looks at the NT usage. It again shows linguistic markers. It is noted that, apart from the passage in question, there is no definite example of σαββατον indicating a ceremonial Sabbath. On the other hand, the term is flexible beyond just representing the weekly Sabbath ,as it also is translated "week" because of contextual factors 9 times.
4. The passage in Colossians has none of the characteristic linguistic markers associated with the weekly Sabbath, or the translation "week". It does fit the pattern used in the Septuagint for the day of atonement, and in some manuscripts the day of trumpets.
5. The term rendered festival in Colossians, and its corresponding term in the Hebrew are studied, and yields the fact that the term was only applied to the three pilgramage "feasts" and not to the more somber day of atonement and day of trumpets. This is important because it means that Paul was not necessarily repeating himself (feasts...new moon...more feasts). This is likely his strongest argument.
6. The triad order that is often referred to as a succession from yearly to weekly was compared to its old testament counterparts to see if any formed the basis of an allusion. I thought this part was fairly weak. But I do think that he is right in saying that the passage in Hosea is the most likely allusion. I won't go into the reasons. They are long, and you should buy the book if you want to know
7. In Hosea we have precedence for inverted parallelism which would fit the structure if the traditional view is accepted.
In simple terms it looks like
a. man
b. woman
c. back to man
In Colossians then the structure would be
festivals (3 pilgramage feasts), new moons, sabbaths (day of atonement and trumpets).
So it would be essentially yearly, monthly, yearly. But the second series of yearly is a distinct class.
This seems more foreign to us than the Yearly, monthly, weekly paradigm that the alternative view presents, but we are talking near eastern thought here.
He then notes that research is still needed to settle question of context, what the greater heresy was at the church in Colossai, etc.
Strong points:
A. It makes sense with the Acts Council which basically only puts a few requirements on the Gentiles and does not hold them accountable to the rest of the law of Moses.
B. It makes sense with the immediate context of ceremonial elements (food, drink, etc.) though there were obvious pagan corruptions as well.
C. It could also point to a conclusion for Romans 14. Romans 14 address days considered holy, and Paul leaves it up to conscience. Here again, in regard to the ceremonial days Paul leaves it up to conscience. Since they "shadows of the things to come" but the body is "of Christ."
Weak points:
As he notes, the book doesn’t go in-depth on context or the situation that Paul was addressing, especially the nature of the heresies.
I found that the he placed a little too much emphasis on the linguistic markers, as these are not in my book definitive. However, usage is an important argument. And it at the least leaves it a possibility, and given what I perceive the context, makes sense of a number of other passages (Acts 15, Romans 14, etc.)
The cover is quite hideous! And the title almost makes it sound like he is getting rid of the Sabbath. But those are minor quibblies.
Conclusion:
The book is short and to the point. He bills it as popular reading, but I don’t know as I would go that far. He references some terms without defining them amply. But most readers could follow along. You will want to check out his extensive charts that track usage. Looking up each reference would be helpful, though the first read I just skimmed through all but those that I suspected would be problematic.
I would recommend the book. It speaks on a neglected aspect (linguistics) of an important Sabbatarian text.
(and quite shocked you are much younger than I pictured an 'oldsage'...
