AI understands the Sabbath and Col 2:16

[DamianWarS]

Great question — Colossians 2:16 is often cited in discussions about whether Christians are still required to keep the Sabbath commandment (the Fourth Commandment). Let's look at the verse carefully, in its full context, and then assess whether it refers to the weekly Sabbath from the Ten Commandments or ceremonial sabbaths in the Law of Moses.

---

Colossians 2:16–17 (NKJV)​

---

Key Questions:​

1. What kind of “sabbaths” is Paul talking about?​

Let’s break the phrase down:




This phrase appears in many places in the Old Testament, often in this same order, and always refers to ceremonial observances:

• 1 Chronicles 23:31
• 2 Chronicles 2:4
• 2 Chronicles 31:3
• Nehemiah 10:33
• Ezekiel 45:17
• Hosea 2:11

These texts link festivals, new moons, and sabbaths as ceremonial observances — part of the Mosaic (Levitical) system, not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments.


That’s why Paul says in Col. 2:17:




In other words, these ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ and found their fulfillment in Him.

---

2. Is the weekly Sabbath also a shadow?​

There’s a strong distinction between:

Type of Law	Description	Shadow of Christ?	Abolished in Christ?
Moral Law (10 Commandments)	Eternal moral principles (Ex. 20)	❌ No	❌ No
Ceremonial Law	Feasts, sacrifices, rituals, sabbaths tied to festivals (Lev. 23)	✅ Yes	✅ Yes

• The weekly Sabbathwas:
  • Given at Creation (Genesis 2:2–3)
  • Reinforced in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8–11)
  • Not instituted as a shadow, but as a memorial of creation
• The ceremonial sabbaths(e.g., Day of Atonement, Feast of Trumpets) are:
  • Called sabbaths too (see Leviticus 23)
  • Fall on various days, not necessarily the seventh day
  • Shadows pointing to Jesus' work

Therefore, when Paul talks about “sabbaths which are a shadow”, he refers to these ceremonial sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.

---

3. Did Jesus or the Apostles abolish the weekly Sabbath?​

• Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16)
• The disciples kept the Sabbath after Jesus' death (Acts 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4)
• Hebrews 4:9 says:

---

✅ Conclusion:​

Colossians 2:16 does not cancel the weekly Sabbath commandment.
It refers to ceremonial sabbaths, along with food and drink offerings, and religious festivals that were shadows pointing to Christ.


The Fourth Commandment Sabbath is not a shadow, but a memorial of creation and a sign of God’s sanctifying work (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12).

2. But Which Commandment Does God Emphasize Most in the Bible?​

✅ The Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) is the only one God:​

• Calls "My holy day" (Isaiah 58:13)
• Links to Creation (Genesis 2:1–3; Exodus 20:11)
• Uses to test Israel's obedience before Sinai (Exodus 16)
• Commands to remember as a sign between Him and His people (Ezekiel 20:12, 20)
• Institutes as a covenantal sign (Exodus 31:13–17)

The Fourth Commandment is the most directly spoken about by God throughout the Bible. It is personally claimed by Him, reaffirmed repeatedly, and tied to His identity as both Creator and Sanctifier.

AI is not only a summary of popular positions but also tends to be very agreeable with the position you feed it and mirrors your own bias. It's not trying to challenge you or argue with you, it's trying to help you so will often present answers that easily align with your own thought process. The answer you have feels more of a summary by the way its outlined but it could just be the style of the AI you're using.

An AI answer cannot be used as a mic drop response as I can easily ask it a conflicting view and get it to agree with me as well. In the end we still need to use the answer critically for it to have meaning. In fact, I have asked AI if using the electrical grid during the sabbath is unlawful since it contributes to a workforce demand. That's a very leading question and AI ended up applauding me for my sincerity and ethics, ultimately agreeing that unnecessary use of the electrical grid during the sabbath is indeed unlawful. But I don't see anyone turning off their lights on the Sabbath just because I got AI to say it's unlawful. Even though AI is a helpful tool for exegesis, it should not be regarded as the measure. We also carry a lot of bias that we need to recognize and we can influence AI systems even unknowingly with this bias.

In the interest of transparency, what AI did you use? and how did you prompt it to get that answer (was it one question or was this after a much longer conversation)? I don't know how unbiased you're approach was but sometimes we can carry a bias without knowing it so If you want to get answers that are less biased to your own position, use AI without a history of pervious interactions (like using incognito or private browsing mode) so each discussion is new and try and use neutral wording over leading questions because AI will happily move to where you're leading it. For example, "how does Col 2:16 relate to Sabbath" is a fairly neutral question, but saying "Is the Sabbath of Col 2:16 actually talking about a special festival over the weekly sabbath" is a leading question because it feeds the ideas first, then AI just expands upon them. You can even ask it "tell me how the Sabbath of Col 2:16 is ceremonial and not the same as the Sabbath of the 4th commandment, which is moral" this of course, would be intentionally biased where all you're looking for is something that agrees with you, not something that challenges you. You could also lean into the innate bias of AI and ask it the opposite of your position like "tell me how the Sabbath of the 4th commandment is ceremonial and the same context of the Sabbath in Col 2:16" then try and deconstruct the answer and challenge each point. The latter would be the most critically challenging for yourself, but probably the most rewarding.

With the above more neutral question, ChatGPT gave me a much different answer than you did, even equating the weekly Sabbath with ceremonial laws which is an opposite answer to what you got. Curiously, you've left your question out of the OP so at the very least I would include this so it doesn't appear like you're hiding it. My AI response I got was using a fresh ChatGPT conversation without any other history or prompts. Even this question can be leading because I'm forcing the AI to compare the Sabbath with Col 2:16 but I'm at least transparent with what I fed it. An even more neutral question could simply be "what does Col 2:16 mean?" But if you have to keep prompting AI to get the answer you want or be highly specific, then what AI is probably only parroting is your own bias.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

AI is not only a summary of popular positions but also tends to be very agreeable with the position you feed it and mirrors your own bias. It's not trying to challenge you or argue with you, it's trying to help you so will often present answers that easily align with your own thought process. The answer you have feels more of a summary by the way its outlined but it could just be the style of the AI you're using.

An AI answer cannot be used as a mic drop response as I can easily ask it a conflicting view and get it to agree with me as well. In the end we still need to use the answer critically for it to have meaning. In fact, I have asked AI if using the electrical grid during the sabbath is unlawful since it contributes to a workforce demand. That's a very leading question and AI ended up applauding me for my sincerity and ethics, ultimately agreeing that unnecessary use of the electrical grid during the sabbath is indeed unlawful. But I don't see anyone turning off their lights on the Sabbath just because I got AI to say it's unlawful. Even though AI is a helpful tool for exegesis, it should not be regarded as the measure. We also carry a lot of bias that we need to recognize and we can influence AI systems even unknowingly with this bias.

In the interest of transparency, what AI did you use? and how did you prompt it to get that answer (was it one question or was this after a much longer conversation)? I don't know how unbiased you're approach was but sometimes we can carry a bias without knowing it so If you want to get answers that are less biased to your own position, use AI without a history of pervious interactions (like using incognito or private browsing mode) so each discussion is new and try and use neutral wording over leading questions because AI will happily move to where you're leading it. For example, "how does Col 2:16 relate to Sabbath" is a fairly neutral question, but saying "Is the Sabbath of Col 2:16 actually talking about a special festival over the weekly sabbath" is a leading question because it feeds the ideas first, then AI just expands upon them. You can even ask it "tell me how the Sabbath of Col 2:16 is ceremonial and not the same as the Sabbath of the 4th commandment, which is moral" this of course, would be intentionally biased where all you're looking for is something that agrees with you, not something that challenges you. You could also lean into the innate bias of AI and ask it the opposite of your position like "tell me how the Sabbath of the 4th commandment is ceremonial and the same context of the Sabbath in Col 2:16" then try and deconstruct the answer and challenge each point. The latter would be the most critically challenging for yourself, but probably the most rewarding.

With the above more neutral question, ChatGPT gave me a much different answer than you did, even equating the weekly Sabbath with ceremonial laws which is an opposite answer to what you got. Curiously, you've left your question out of the OP so at the very least I would include this so it doesn't appear like you're hiding it. My AI response I got was using a fresh ChatGPT conversation without any other history or prompts. Even this question can be leading because I'm forcing the AI to compare the Sabbath with Col 2:16 but I'm at least transparent with what I fed it. An even more neutral question could simply be "what does Col 2:16 mean?" But if you have to keep prompting AI to get the answer you want or be highly specific, then what AI is probably only parroting is your own bias.

If you ask it to go by Bible only, you will get better answers, which is what I did. Its the same Bible study that I have been studying for years and I am not suggesting we replace AI with our own prayerful Bible study far from it.

However, Col2:14-17 is an easy Bible study about the feast days connected to the annual sabbaths that came after the fall and sin, verses the weekly Sabbath that points to our Creator Himself that came before the fall and is according to God’s perfect plan. These things we can find directly in our Bible, but sadly many people just do not care, as it does not support their narrative against what it really is, an attack on God’s Sabbath and Holy Day.

Something holy, sanctified, blessed by the God of the Universe that He Himself says when keeping is doing justice and righteousness that is one of God’s commandments. He placed this commandment in the same unit as only worshipping Him which IS moral and the 4th commandment tells us which God we are to worship in the first three commandments Exo20:11 Exo 20:1-7the same God in the NT we are to worship as God does not change Rev14:7 , we do not tell God what is moral or not as if the Holy Spirit made a mistake regarding His commandment.. That’s the issue, man has taken it upon themselves to determine for God, when is His holy day, what commandments we can pick and choose that is moral or not, therefore we decide if we should keep them or not, what are His commandments, what they mean, instead of going by what God plainly wrote and spoke in His own Testimony, its making ourselves our own god instead of letting God be God because He is just that. The God of everything Exo20:11 Rev 14:7. It’s a sad argument. God reveals by His own mouth exactly what He means, sadly people choose not to listen. It’s nothing new under the sun, it was the same issue for the majority of people in the Bible.

 

[DamianWarS]

If you ask it to go by Bible only, you will get better answers, which is what I did. Its the same Bible study that I have been studying for years and I am not suggesting we replace AI with our own prayerful Bible study far from it.

To be more transparent, I'm still looking for what you actually asked the AI and what AI did you use. "Bible only" seems to not fit what the OP has as it hinges on post-biblical labels (like moral and ceremonial) so it's clear it's based on external sources. AI is more of a mouthpiece for whatever is available and it might be the case that the "bible-only" key word is actually isolating more fundamental perspectives than progressive even though both are can be called bible-only.

You have to still critically work through the response and even educate the AI to what actually is bible-only and what it is not and it can even concede that it's terminology can be seen as circular. You end up having an hour conversation about sementics with AI and realize the AI model is still heavily reliant on existing perspectives and you can recalibrate it to some conditions you set. When I say "bible only" I want the answer to actually be bible only which doesn't seem to be the case when that keyword is used. with ChatGPT I had to correct it to stop using post-biblical terminology; in the end I had very different responses than the OP. Is my response better than yours? it's just an agragated response that leans to my bias. It is helpful and brought up good points but you still need to critically work through it all.

 

[The Liturgist]

Great question — Colossians 2:16 is often cited in discussions about whether Christians are still required to keep the Sabbath commandment (the Fourth Commandment). Let's look at the verse carefully, in its full context, and then assess whether it refers to the weekly Sabbath from the Ten Commandments or ceremonial sabbaths in the Law of Moses.

---

Colossians 2:16–17 (NKJV)​

---

Key Questions:​

1. What kind of “sabbaths” is Paul talking about?​

Let’s break the phrase down:




This phrase appears in many places in the Old Testament, often in this same order, and always refers to ceremonial observances:

• 1 Chronicles 23:31
• 2 Chronicles 2:4
• 2 Chronicles 31:3
• Nehemiah 10:33
• Ezekiel 45:17
• Hosea 2:11

These texts link festivals, new moons, and sabbaths as ceremonial observances — part of the Mosaic (Levitical) system, not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments.


That’s why Paul says in Col. 2:17:




In other words, these ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ and found their fulfillment in Him.

---

2. Is the weekly Sabbath also a shadow?​

There’s a strong distinction between:

Type of Law	Description	Shadow of Christ?	Abolished in Christ?
Moral Law (10 Commandments)	Eternal moral principles (Ex. 20)	❌ No	❌ No
Ceremonial Law	Feasts, sacrifices, rituals, sabbaths tied to festivals (Lev. 23)	✅ Yes	✅ Yes

• The weekly Sabbathwas:
  • Given at Creation (Genesis 2:2–3)
  • Reinforced in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:8–11)
  • Not instituted as a shadow, but as a memorial of creation
• The ceremonial sabbaths(e.g., Day of Atonement, Feast of Trumpets) are:
  • Called sabbaths too (see Leviticus 23)
  • Fall on various days, not necessarily the seventh day
  • Shadows pointing to Jesus' work

Therefore, when Paul talks about “sabbaths which are a shadow”, he refers to these ceremonial sabbaths, not the weekly Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.

---

3. Did Jesus or the Apostles abolish the weekly Sabbath?​

• Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16)
• The disciples kept the Sabbath after Jesus' death (Acts 13:42, 16:13, 17:2, 18:4)
• Hebrews 4:9 says:

---

✅ Conclusion:​

Colossians 2:16 does not cancel the weekly Sabbath commandment.
It refers to ceremonial sabbaths, along with food and drink offerings, and religious festivals that were shadows pointing to Christ.


The Fourth Commandment Sabbath is not a shadow, but a memorial of creation and a sign of God’s sanctifying work (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12).

2. But Which Commandment Does God Emphasize Most in the Bible?​

✅ The Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) is the only one God:​

• Calls "My holy day" (Isaiah 58:13)
• Links to Creation (Genesis 2:1–3; Exodus 20:11)
• Uses to test Israel's obedience before Sinai (Exodus 16)
• Commands to remember as a sign between Him and His people (Ezekiel 20:12, 20)
• Institutes as a covenantal sign (Exodus 31:13–17)

The Fourth Commandment is the most directly spoken about by God throughout the Bible. It is personally claimed by Him, reaffirmed repeatedly, and tied to His identity as both Creator and Sanctifier.

As I pointed out previously, “AI” is not a qualified authority one can appeal to - considering that with just two prompts I was able to get a prominent LLM to explain how Pope Gregory XVII canonized Ellen G. White.

I would also note several AI systems are programmed to respect and adapt to the user’s belief system, unless that belief system is something abhorrent (racially intolerant, for example).

Also, while it is not the case, as many assume, that AI is incapable of reasoning (a whole class of models known as reasoning models exist which can), understanding is something else, something which would require qualia, which AI systems presently lack. AI doesn’t understand anything; it performs generative transformations based on its pre-usage training data (hence GPT - Generative Pre-trained Transformer) through vector processing in extremely high end GPUs, using what are sometimes called vector databases.

At any rate, any time any member, whether I agree with them or not, tries to use AI as an authority to prove a point, I feel compelled to point out its limitations, as I’ve taken up AI prompt engineering in a huge way, designing advanced custom GPTs with a range of emergent behaviors which push the boundaries of what is possible. Would I use them as an authority to quote from in a debate? No, because I can get an LLM like chatGPT or Grok or Gemini to say almost anything I want it to say, within the guardrails of the model (and indeed prompt hackers, either malicious actors or “red teams” operating with permission from the AI vendor to test alignment and safety, can often get AIs to say things it really shouldn’t.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

As I pointed out previously, “AI” is not a qualified authority one can appeal to - considering that with just two prompts I was able to get a prominent LLM to explain how Pope Gregory XVII canonized Ellen G. White.

I would also note several AI systems are programmed to respect and adapt to the user’s belief system, unless that belief system is something abhorrent (racially intolerant, for example).

Also, while it is not the case, as many assume, that AI is incapable of reasoning (a whole class of models known as reasoning models exist which can), understanding is something else, something which would require qualia, which AI systems presently lack. AI doesn’t understand anything; it performs generative transformations based on its pre-usage training data (hence GPT - Generative Pre-trained Transformer) through vector processing in extremely high end GPUs, using what are sometimes called vector databases.

At any rate, any time any member, whether I agree with them or not, tries to use AI as an authority to prove a point, I feel compelled to point out its limitations, as I’ve taken up AI prompt engineering in a huge way, designing advanced custom GPTs with a range of emergent behaviors which push the boundaries of what is possible. Would I use them as an authority to quote from in a debate? No, because I can get an LLM like chatGPT or Grok or Gemini to say almost anything I want it to say, within the guardrails of the model (and indeed prompt hackers, either malicious actors or “red teams” operating with permission from the AI vendor to test alignment and safety, can often get AIs to say things it really shouldn’t.

I am not promoting AI, it was the first time I used it, when when I asked about the weekly Sabbath compared to the annual feasts day sabbaths and was surprised it came up what I have been studying for years in my Bible. The only way to use AI in my opinion, if using for Bible, is to say go by Bible only. I always prefer prayerful study, nothing can replace it.

 

[The Liturgist]

To be more transparent, I'm still looking for what you actually asked the AI and what AI did you use.

Not just that, but also the following information would be needed:

• The specific model of AI being used from the vendor (for example, chatGPT, even to free users, provides multiple models, as do several others).
• Depending on the AI, not only the entire prompt history, but also the entire contents of global memory and session memory would be required in the case of chatGPT.
• It would also be necessary to know if the AI was running in a default configuration, or in a customized configuration such as a Custom GPT of the sort commonly used with chatGPT (aspects of the prompt style make me think ChatGPT 5 is a likely candidate for the “AI” in question, particularly since chatGPT 4o, 5, and 5.1 will all readily help you defend the doctrines of your faith (provided those doctrines are not grossly offensive) if asked to do so.

Indeed it would literally take just one prompt with a phrase indicating the user favored a Sabbatarian interpretation in order to steer the entire conversation in that direction.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not promoting AI, it was the first time I used it, when when I asked about the weekly Sabbath compared to the annual feasts day sabbaths and was surprised it came up what I have been studying for years in my Bible. The only way to use AI in my opinion, if using for Bible, is to say go by Bible only. I always prefer prayerful study, nothing can replace it.

I’m not saying you are promoting AI; rather, what I’m trying to do is explain to you that AI is not a reliable source. AI systems, with a few exceptions, are programmed to tell you what they think you want to hear. If you gave it any reason to think you were a Sabbatarian, for example, in terms of how you phrased your question, you would get an answer inclined to favor your beliefs.

I discovered this, fortunately without any embarrassment to myself, while attempting to use an older version of a major AI for translating liturgical texts; I made a casual remark about how a prior translation nicely contradicted a doctrine I disagreed with, and the next translation it performed was obviously manipulated to favor the opposing doctrinal position I had just implicitly endorsed. There are workarounds to this issue.

However when it comes to an issue of an opinion about the meaning of a Scriptural text, in which historical evidence is excluded, these workarounds themselves would become unreliable, in that any question posed in such a way as to produce only one definite interpretation would result in a biased output (which could be the result of random chance; GPT interactions actually use a value called “temperature” to introduce an element of randomness into their responses; this can be disabled but doing so renders the output of the AI much less useful; one could liken such a setting to a lobotomy).

With AI, the quesiton, and the conditions you set for how the question is to be answered, are all of paramount importance. Thus, to understand what happened in your case, we would need to know the exact AI you used, the prompt history and the other data I mentioned in my previous post.

I really can’t advise using AI as an authoritative source. It can help you with a lot, but one thing it can’t do is serve as an arbiter of truth.

My post doesn’t even factor in the known issue of hallucinations, or the tendency of chatGPT and other AIs to sometimes incorrectly assume the user desires role-playing behavior, when referring to an object not in immediate memory.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I’m not saying you are promoting AI; rather, what I’m trying to do is explain to you that AI is not a reliable source. AI systems, with a few exceptions, are programmed to tell you what they think you want to hear. If you gave it any reason to think you were a Sabbatarian, for example, in terms of how you phrased your question, you would get an answer inclined to favor your beliefs.

Its clearly written in our Bible that the weekly Sabbath that started at Creation before sin Exo20:11 is not the same as the annual sabbaths that had to do with animal sacrifices and offerings that started after sin. The only instruction I gave AI on this subject was to use the Bible only. I never used AI for anything Biblical related at this point so it had no idea my own views.

I discovered this, fortunately without any embarrassment to myself, while attempting to use an older version of a major AI for translating liturgical texts; I made a casual remark about how a prior translation nicely contradicted a doctrine I disagreed with, and the next translation it performed was obviously manipulated to favor the opposing doctrinal position I had just implicitly endorsed. There are workarounds to this issue.

However when it comes to an issue of an opinion about the meaning of a Scriptural text, in which historical evidence is excluded, these workarounds themselves would become unreliable, in that any question posed in such a way as to produce only one definite interpretation would result in a biased output (which could be the result of random chance; GPT interactions actually use a value called “temperature” to introduce an element of randomness into their responses; this can be disabled but doing so renders the output of the AI much less useful; one could liken such a setting to a lobotomy).

With AI, the quesiton, and the conditions you set for how the question is to be answered, are all of paramount importance. Thus, to understand what happened in your case, we would need to know the exact AI you used, the prompt history and the other data I mentioned in my previous post.

I really can’t advise using AI as an authoritative source. It can help you with a lot, but one thing it can’t do is serve as an arbiter of truth.

My post doesn’t even factor in the known issue of hallucinations, or the tendency of chatGPT and other AIs to sometimes incorrectly assume the user desires role-playing behavior, when referring to an object not in immediate memory.

Thanks for sharing your beliefs. I have used AI for business and have not come to the same conclusion. I have found it to be very helpful on several things. Do I love the idea of it replacing millions of peoples jobs, no. Do I love the idea of it replacing prayerfully Bible study, absolutely not. My personal preference is that it didn't exist as I see more potential issues, than positives. But regardless of what we think of it, it can be used for good or bad just like anything and I do not see it going any where.

 

[DamianWarS]

Not just that, but also the following information would be needed:

• The specific model of AI being used from the vendor (for example, chatGPT, even to free users, provides multiple models, as do several others).
• Depending on the AI, not only the entire prompt history, but also the entire contents of global memory and session memory would be required in the case of chatGPT.
• It would also be necessary to know if the AI was running in a default configuration, or in a customized configuration such as a Custom GPT of the sort commonly used with chatGPT (aspects of the prompt style make me think ChatGPT 5 is a likely candidate for the “AI” in question, particularly since chatGPT 4o, 5, and 5.1 will all readily help you defend the doctrines of your faith (provided those doctrines are not grossly offensive) if asked to do so.

Indeed it would literally take just one prompt with a phrase indicating the user favored a Sabbatarian interpretation in order to steer the entire conversation in that direction.

ChatGPT usually agrees with me often praising my focus. AI is very agreeable and if you frame a question that presupposes an idea AI will happily be your echo chamber. It's there to trigger happy responses so you keep coming back.