Focused discussion--Are the Sabbaths of Col 2 weekly or yearly?

[BobRyan]

Actually it is not convincing that you quote someone who believes in Sunday Sabbath because

a. he still has an interest in upholding the Sabbath, just as transferred to another day.

b. he does not see that the Sabbath was clearly not Sunday, which means he is certainly not without flaws in his conclusions.

Now if a great scholar concludes that Sunday is to be observed, will you agree with him on the basis that he is a great scholar?

Indeed many of these great Bible teachers did see a need to in some way try to preserve God's 4th commandment.

In any case - I would still prefer to quote pro-Sunday scholars when making my case beyond my initial Bible arguments. I rather enjoy that.

I could also bring up the case of D.L. Moody and others. but you get the point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But while we are mentioning scholars on the other side of the argument, you might be surprised at some of the Adventist scholars who do not agree with you.

Ron Du Preez, an Adventist scholar, in his book "Putting the Sabbath to Rest" states that at least 15 Seventh-day Adventist scholars since 1985 have taken the view that the weekly Sabbath is in view based on the progression from yearly to weekly. 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. He also mentioned Desmond Ford, who is no longer officially an Adventist but is still a strong sabbatarian.

Agreed there are some Sabbath keeping scholars in your camp as well -- (they are wrong of course. )

Still - aside from Bacchiochhi -- it would be nice to see a quote from "the others".

In Bacchiochi's case - he argues that nothing in Col 2 is being "done away with" by insisting on the "judge not that you be not judged" principle which corrects an abuse "of judging" regarding those worship practices. (An abuse already condemned pre-cross as we saw in Matt 7 -- when all agree they were in full force)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[sentipente]

An assumption supported by other statements by the same author, such as in Galatians 4.

Treating pastoral letters as if they were theological treatises can lead to strange conclusions.

 

[BobRyan]

It could be all sabbaths, but the most likely is the weekly as the others were taken in by feast and the progression is from yearly to weekly.
​

...An assumption supported by other statements by the same author, such as in Galatians 4.

" A yearly to weekly argument" in Gal 4??? How so?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The fact that this point is so clear that even a pro-Sunday Bible scholar ALSO agrees with me that Col 2 is a reference to feasts and annual Sabbaths -- is not as much a problem for my view as it is for yours, if you think about it.

I continue to wonder why Colossians 2 cannot be a reference to both weekly and annual sabbaths.

You wrote, "in Lev 23 we see both annual feast days that are not Sabbaths (days of holy convocation) and those that are Sabbaths." Just to make sure we are on the same page, I note that there are three sabbaths listed in Leviticus 23. One is weekly and the other two are yearly. Clearly, the old testament lists more than one sabbath. Therefore, where is the evidence that Colossians 2 refers only to annual sabbaths? Are you merely relying on scholars' opinions?

You claim that the sabbaths in Colossians 2 must point forward. Is it your claim that Jesus Christ is not the source of rest? Is it your claim that Jesus Christ did not fulfill the sacrificial elements that were directly associated with Biblical sabbath observance? Is it your claim that the sabbath was not--in part--a memorial of the exodus from Egypt and/or that Jesus Christ is not the source of our exodus from slavery?

BFA

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

The fact that this point is so clear that even a pro-Sunday Bible scholar ALSO agrees with me that Col 2 is a reference to feasts and annual Sabbaths -- is not as much a problem for my view as it is for yours, if you think about it.
​

I continue to wonder why Colossians 2 cannot be a reference to both weekly and annual sabbaths.

Some people think it does.

As I noted at the start - the command Paul gives is the same one Christ gives pre-cross "Judge not that you be not judged" -- I have argued the points about the 7th day Sabbath not being in that list -- but I still don't think people are to judge others based on either their Passover keeping or their Sabbath keeping. God is the one who judges when it comes to worship. (Which was my opening argument).

As Tall73 points out - Sam Bacchiocchi also argues that the list includes the 7th-day Sabbath - and he does so because he claims that "correcting the abuse of service or worship practice does not delete the practice".

Which is of course a good point about the fact that Col 2 is not deleting anything but "judging".

You wrote, "in Lev 23 we see both annual feast days that are not Sabbaths (days of holy convocation) and those that are Sabbaths." Just to make sure we are on the same page, I note that there are three sabbaths listed in Leviticus 23. One is weekly and the other two are yearly. Clearly, the old testament lists more than one sabbath.

That is true. In Lev 23 we see that "these are my appointed times" in vs 2 -- and in some cases they call for "Holy Convocation" and in other cases they do not. In some cases we have "Feasts" and in some cases we do not.

BFA
Therefore, where is the evidence that Colossians 2 refers only to annual sabbaths? Are you merely relying on scholars' opinions?

No. In my earlier arguments I pointed to the fact that the 7th day Sabbath is a memorial of creation "when given" and was not based on "animal sacrifice" as given in Gen 2:1-3 and as referenced and summarized in Ex 20:8-11.

But the annual "appointed times" are all based on animal sacrifice and so are all pointing "forward" to Christ.

The 7th day Sabbath is a prescriptive law (as are the rest of the Ten commandments) hence we see it continue for eternity in Isaiah 66.

The annual appointed times -- even the annual "Shaddow Sabbaths" are predictive laws --- pointing to Christ and based in animal sacrifice "when given".

You claim that the sabbaths in Colossians 2 must point forward. Is it your claim that Jesus Christ is not the source of rest?

It is my claim that "context is everyting". The Shaddow Sabbaths "when first given" were based on animal sacrifice pointing to Christ.

No question that Christ the Creator was working in Gen 1-2:3 just as John says in John 1:1-4. I agree completely that the memorial of HIS work at creation is a form of worship that is centered on Christ the Creator. All is Christ. But not all are "Shaddows".

Is it your claim that Jesus Christ did not fulfill the sacrificial elements that were directly associated with Biblical sabbath observance?

Actually it IS my point that those Sabbaths that when "made holy" are defined as centered in animal sacrifice -- are indeed shaddows.

But I would also argue that in Col 2 Paul is not arguing for the "end of something" he is only arguing that people should not "judge others" regarding worship practices -- as Christ also argued pre-cross "Judge not that you be not judged".

Is it your claim that the sabbath was not--in part--a memorial of the exodus from Egypt and/or that Jesus Christ is not the source of our exodus from slavery?

No - I have argued repeatedly that this is an application that Moses adds 40 years after the Exodos 20 version of the 4th commandment was "written in stone" and over 2500 years after God MADE the Sabbath a "Holy Day" --- "MADE for mankind". So no question that this deliverance from Egypt was an added argument for why Israel should remember to honor Christ our Creator's work in making mankind. But I have yet to hear of anything IN the 7th day obervance of Jews that included a weekly reference to Egypt the way the Passover celebration repeatedly referred to Egypt. It is also true that nothing in Egypt was tied to a 7 day cycle -- as in -- they were not "delivered in 7 days" rather Moses' argument is that God's deliverance of that nation - made that nation even MORE obligated to remember HIS Holy Day.

As Isaiah 58 says it is to be considered as "the Holy Day of the Lord"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tall73]

Treating pastoral letters as if they were theological treatises can lead to strange conclusions.

Pastoral letters addressing theological issues are to be looked at for theology.

 

[tall73]

" A yearly to weekly argument" in Gal 4??? How so?

in Christ,

Bob

Actually it is not a yearly to weekly but a description of times kept that list the timeframe:

 

[tall73]

Agreed there are some Sabbath keeping scholars in your camp as well -- (they are wrong of course. )

Still - aside from Bacchiochhi -- it would be nice to see a quote.

in Christ,

Bob

Unfortunately at the moment my copy is in storage. I had recorded that tidbit as part of my book review of Du Preez work. So I don't have any references right now. You could check Du Preez book yourself I suppose.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Which is of course a good point about the fact that Col 2 is not deleting anything but "judging".

Colossians 2 also establishes that sabbaths are a shadow and that Christ is the reality.

BFA

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by tall73

It could be all sabbaths, but the most likely is the weekly as the others were taken in by feast and the progression is from yearly to weekly.
​

...An assumption supported by other statements by the same author, such as in Galatians 4.
​

" A yearly to weekly argument" in Gal 4??? How so?

Actually it is not a yearly to weekly but a description of times kept that list the timeframe:

Gal 4 references pagan practices related to Emperor worship and argues that the gentiles that are seeking to incorporate them into Christian worship are returning "once again" to a pagan worship -- negating Christian faith entirely.

By contrast to Col 2 -- we have Paul in Gal where he IS judging and IS condemning those who engage in those pagan worship practices. In Col 2 - he forbids judging others regarding the observance of Bible shaddow Sabbaths with their sacrifices pointing forward to Christ.

In Romans 14 "by contrast to Gal 4" Paul says that the Christians were free to observe any one or ALL of the Lev 23 annual holy days of scripture without fear of judgment by others.

The two chapters make for a good contrast.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[tall73]

" A yearly to weekly argument" in Gal 4??? How so?

Gal 4 references pagan practices related to Emperor worship and argues that the gentiles that are seeking to incorporate them into Christian worship are returning "once again" to a pagan worship -- negating Christian faith entirely.

It references return to legalistic groveling in order to buy salvation, merit or mercy.

First of all notice that the whole book has been about the Judaizers and the gentiles being caught up in such legalism, thinking that their salvation was tied to these rites, after first having started with the Spirit.

The immediate context is also in favor of it referring to elements of the law:

Gal 4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything,
Gal 4:2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.
Gal 4:3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.


Paul is referring to the child who later inherits the estate but who is like a servant before receiving the inheritance. He notes that WE (including Paul) were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. Now we are sons, not servants. God sent His son, who was under the law, to redeem them that were under the law that we might receive adoption.

We are therefore no more servants.

This is the backdrop of his statement about the Galatians being servants previously to "those who were not gods" or idols,emperors, etc.

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements (elements of the world), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

When the Galatians did not know God they were slaves, following the elementary principles of the world also just as Paul had under the law.

Now they have simply substituted their old slavery for a new one, placing themselves under the law, which Paul had before been under as a slave.

Paul goes on to address this very point, again discussing not pagan emperor worship, but putting themselves under the law, and those who are urging them to do so. He relates that those under the law are in slavery--backing up the point above, that they had substituted one slavery for another.

Gal 4:12 Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong.
Gal 4:13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first,
Gal 4:14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
Gal 4:15 What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me.
Gal 4:16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Gal 4:17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them.
Gal 4:18 It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you,
Gal 4:19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!
Gal 4:20 I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."
Gal 4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
Gal 4:30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
Gal 4:31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

By contrast to Col 2 -- we have Paul in Gal where he IS judging and IS condemning those who engage in those pagan worship practices. In Col 2 - he forbids judging others regarding the observance of Bible shaddow Sabbaths with their sacrifices pointing forward to Christ.

Here we have Paul saying that those who circumcise should go the whole way and emasculate themselves, and that if they let themselves be circumcised Christ will be of no effect for them.

Paul's tone is different because the situation is different. There is nothing wrong with keeping the feasts if done not in legalism. But the Galatians had clearly made this a salvation issue.

They were slaves again.

In Romans 14 "by contrast to Gal 4" Paul says that the Christians were free to observe any one or ALL of the Lev 23 annual holy days of scripture without fear of judgment by others.

The two chapters make for a good contrast.

in Christ,

Bob

And yet you have not shown that it is speaking of the Lev. 23 holy day, or days of fasting, or the sabbath. It could be any of them in Romans 14 because they all share something in common--they are elective.

 

[sentipente]

All this confusion because we fail to see that Paul was not writing theological treatises. The NT was written to attract and strengthen new members of the fledgling group.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

" A yearly to weekly argument" in Gal 4??? How so?

Gal 4 references pagan practices related to Emperor worship and argues that the gentiles that are seeking to incorporate them into Christian worship are returning "once again" to a pagan worship -- negating Christian faith entirely.
​

[/quote]
​

In fact it is clear that in BOTH Col 2 AND Romans 14 Paul flatly condemns anyone who would judge NT saints over their worship practices of "observing one day above the others" in Lev 23 or of "observing EVERY day" (regarding every day as a day for observance).

In the same way in Col 2 "let no one judge you regarding a feast or a Sabbath day ... shaddows of things to come".

The theme is clear -- NO judging those who participate in those observances.

But in Gal 4 we have former pagans RETURNING again to pagan practices of emperor worship -- and for that practice -- the mere PRACTICE of it -- is to be condemned and in fact Paul argues that engaging in those observances forfeits Christianity!!

The contrast to Col 2 and Rom 14 could not BE greater!!



Gal 4:1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything,
Gal 4:2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.
Gal 4:3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Here Paul places both jews and gentiles in the same condition as being lost - and "enslaved to the elementary principles of this world" before salvation.

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Here Paul is now specifically speaking of the salvation of thse former pagans -- these gentiles who USED to worship idols -- that are now Chrisitans. AND YET...

Gal 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

Paul is very specific about these false gods that they USED to worship. These where are "by nature no gods at all"

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements (elements of the world), whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Clearly Paul is charging these former pagans with RETURNING "again" to their former practices! Things that they were ONCE in bondage to -- and now seek to RETURN to bondage to them!!

Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times (seasons), and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Notice here that the MERE OBSERVANCE of these pagan days months seasons and YEARS is enough to wipe out all of Christianity. Instead of Paul arguing "LET no one judge you regarding your decision to return AGAIN to those former things and begin observing those DAYs, weeks, months, seasons and years" -- Paul here argues that IF you DO observe them - you ARE to be condemned AND not anyone who might judge you because of your practice in observing them.

How true this was of the ancient cult of emperor worship so common at the time!

How distinct and clear "by contrast" to the "LET NO ONE JUDGE YOU" regarding a "feast day or a Sabbath day" argument of Col 2.

The "return again" to those pagan days in Gal 4 is flatly condemned. There is no discussion of the form "go ahead and observe those days IF you do it with the right attitude" in Gal 4. There is only "condemend if you observe them".

Impossible to miss.

Admittedly not all of Gal 4 is about this ONE topic - Paul's letters are "multi-topic" letters as it turns out.

Given the inroads of paganism into the Christian days observed today - it would be hard to argue that there was no problem with pagan observances creeping into the church over time.

It is "instructive" that the worship of "seasons" is condemend in both Gal 4 and in Lev.

Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (seasons) (KJV).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

Hi Everyone,
Fairly great discussion about the Sabbath considering past threads on this subject. Really appreciate Tall73’s input. I do have some observation comments and ideas.

Fist is Col 2:16 referring to the weekly Sabbath? My answer is an emphatic yes. The word “Sabbaton” is used in every reference (59 times) to the weekly Sabbath in the NT. In this verse Sabbath is in a list and is not used in a qualifying sense as an adjective. There is one time the word “prosabbaton” is used in which the word “Sabbath” is used in a translation phrase being MK 15:42. The translators did not speak or think in Jewish terms and therefore did not use a word “preparation day” or day of preparation.” So I agree with Tall73’s presentation on this.

Number two. I think that the word “rest” especially in reference to “God’s rest” to be badly misunderstood and abused by most. Gen 2:2 the word “rested” is “shabath” meaning to desist in the legal sense of a cease and desist order, commonly understood to mean quit named behavior and do not do again. The word “Shabbat” (notice the double b) means to pause. For one to think that Jesus meant in Matt 11:28 that if you came to Him you would not have to labor to sustain life is a gross misunderstanding. If one looks at what people who worship on Sunday (not Sunday worshipers) actually do, you will clearly understand that they have not transferred Sabbath regulations to Sunday. This is supported by history from the cross forward.

Number three. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” to mean all mankind is equally wrong. First it was only given to the nation of Israel, Deut 5 states who the Sabbath was given and not given to. The fact that there were ex-Egyptians and maybe others present does not by any means indicate that the covenant was to the world. All those present at Sinai were (Ex 19:3; 20:22) considered the children of Israel. You will find statements and evidence that others are excluded as well.

Number four. Concerning the Sabbath. It has been done away with. Please see the list of things God did away with or that will cease in Hosea 2:11. Then consider Jer 31:31 and 32. This is concerning the “new covenant.” The word “new” here means something different than anything else as in brand new never before existed new. It most definitely does not mean “renew.” You will find verse 32 to verify this. There are no descriptions of what this new covenant will contain or who may be included. Jesus said “ …this is the new testament” (covenant) Matt 26:28. Paul states “hath made us able ministers of the new testament” (covenant) “not of the letter, but of the spirit…” Thus I find nothing in the OT currently in force. There are similarities though, just as with any new contract. Also there is nothing indicating an amended testament/covenant/contract. The “new” covenant is not a conditional Suzerain, but an unconditional Royal Grant. In the new covenant there is no Jew or Gentile, therefore no spiritual Israel. The Jew must be graft in just like a Gentile to the Olive Tree. Jesus said I am the way truth and life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” Jn 14:16 One also might consider John 10.


Number five. I have real problems with Bob’s indication that Moses added to what God said in Deut to be an indication that he believes it to be not inspired by The Same.

Bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

1. In Mark 2:27 we have "The Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind for the the Sabbath" speaking of the making of BOTH.

In the same way "It is appointed unto MANKIND once to die and then comes the judgment" in Heb 9.

In the same way we see it in Matt 4 "For MANKIND shall not live by bread alone"

replacing any of these with "JEWS shall not live by bread alone" or "It is appointed unto Jews once to die and them comes the judgment" or "the Sabbath was made for Jews not Jews MADE for the Sabbath" as if "Jews were MADE" is to completely turn the text from it's natural and intended (and incredibly obvious) meaning.

2. The Sabbath in Col 2 is specifically those "Shaddow sabbaths" centered in animal sacrifices that pointed FORWARD to some event - forshaddowed a FUTURE event through Sacrifice. Predictive laws. The Sabbath was "made holy" in Gen 2:3 as has already been noted BOTH in Gen 2:3 AND in Ex 20:11. Again - impossible to ignore.

This point is soooo clear that even Sunday Keeping Bible scholars such as Adam Clarke and Jamieson, Faucet, Brown all get the point clearly.

By Contrast Paul says in 1Cor 5 "Christ our Passover has been slain" pointing out the fact that those annual Shadow Sabbaths are pointing to Christ.

3. Historic FACTs: Exo 20:8-11 was "written in stone" -- Deut 5 was "an added summarized version" given FORTY years AFTER Sinai. It provides ADDED meaning for Israel to what God Himself thundered from Sinai - but does not "chisle new stone".

I realize these factts may simply be "so much inconvenient detail to be ignored" for a position that is bent on a revisionist approach to Ex 20 using Deut 5 as the basis of revision - but the "ADDED content model" for the Deut 5 summary given 40 years later is the most historically and Biblically accurate view - as a point of fact that all readers will easily grasp. It embraces the "both and" solution for Israel will presevering the ALL MANKIND scope for Sabbath and avoids the either/or fallacy.

Those who hang all their hopes and wishes on a Deut 5 revison of Gen 2:3 and Ex 20 seem to rely a great deal on a solution of the form "same it sincerely and hope the reader will not notice". Probably does work from the pulpit at times - but when readers are carefully comparing the texts - it does not hold water to try that revisionist method with Deut 5 going back to Ex 20 and Gen 2:3.

4. God makes it clear in Is 66:22 that the intended SCOPE for Sabbath is "ALL MANKIND" for He says of the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

Truly these points are impossible for the reader to miss.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[bugkiller]

Hi Bob,

Yes it certainly reads “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Let’s examine the scripture a little closer. I believe that you use Gen 2:2 to say Sabbath for all mankind. I ask how so? Seeing it is recorded God fellowshipped with Adam “in the cool of the day,” not on a day. There is no mention even by implication of the Sabbath in Genesis. In Exodus we see only the Israelites being required to keep the Sabbath. There is no requirement for anyone outside of Israel except by protocol to so observe and that is temporary as Tall73 indicated. I think he also pointed out this was a sign of the covenant. If the whole world was required to so observe, how would it be significant or a special meaning to Israel? After all everyone else is doing it.

Now back to who the Sabbath was made for. First it was given only to Israel. This limits it to the covenant made between them and God. Therefore when the word “man” is used in Mk 2:27 it has specific limited meaning. Jesus was clearly speaking to Jews not the world. Who does Jesus say He is sent to? Matt 15:24 says “…I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
If scholars that worship on Sunday are not keeping the Sabbath do they mean to say what you say they understand? I think not, else they would be observing the Sabbath not Sunday.

I am asking you specifically a direct question - is Deuteronomy inspired - yes or no? You must accept or reject it as inspired. There is no middle ground.
Have you noticed Is 66:23 says “from one Sabbath to another” not each Sabbath or on the Sabbath? “From one Sabbath to another” indicates between not on.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Bob please let me add a little more.

I notice you did not comment on the Hosea 2:11 reference. It does list in exact order as in Col 2:16.

bugkiller

 

[djconklin]

All this confusion because we fail to see that Paul was not writing theological treatises. The NT was written to attract and strengthen new members of the fledgling group.

In the case of Colossians it was written to stengthen the believers at Colossae because they were being judged by ascetics who believed (among other things) that one should be fasting on the yearly feasts in order to have a higher experience with God. So, the theme of the book is the all sufficiency of Christ and then Paul shifts over to specific issues being raised by these critics.

If you study how the phrase "feasts, new moons, and sabbaths" (more usually the reverse order) is used in the OT and specifically what is covered by the word "feasts" you find that two ceremonial sabbaths (the Day of Atonement and the blowing of trumpets) are never counted as "feasts." So, the short-hand way of listing all the ceremonial days of the year is to say "feasts, new moons and sabbaths." For more details see the study at http://www.666man.net//Colossians_2_16-17_By_David_Conklin/colintro.html

De Lacey, D. R. "The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law in the Pauline Corpus," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Edited by D. A. Carson (Zondervan, 1982): 160-95; page 182 - "The most natural way of taking the rest of the passage is not that he [the ascetic judge] also imposes a ritual of feast days, but rather that he objects to certain elements of such observation."

 

[djconklin]

I notice you did not comment on the Hosea 2:11 reference. It does list in exact order as in Col 2:16.

Some sources incorrectly claim that the following OT texts exhibit the same, or exact, or identical, progression of terms: 1 Chron. 23:31; 2 Chron. 2:4, 8:13, 31:3; Neh. 10:33; Ezek. 45:17 and Hos. 2:11. In fact, it is only the last two have the same sequence of terms.