Let No Man Therefore Judge You

Kevin L. Morgan
J une 28, 2014
Doesnt Paul indicate in Colossians that the Sabbath
is no longer of value for Christians?
The passage that you have in mind says: Let no man
therefore judge you in meat, or in drink [margin: for eating
and drinking], or in respect [margin: part] 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 careful consideration of this
statement within the context of the heresy that Paul
described does not indicate that he intended to announce
the nullification of the seventh-day Sabbath.
Though we do not have the details of the false
teachings in Colossae as Paul would have learned them
from Epaphras during Pauls imprisonment in Rome
(Acts 28:30, 31; Colossians 1:7, 8), we can discern in the
epistle that the Colossian heresy had two parts: (1)
J ewish ceremonialism, exceeding the practices that God
gave Israel, and (2) angel worship. Paul talks about the
superiority of J esus to principalities and powers
(Colossians 1:16; compare 2:10, 15). These are angelic
principalities and powers, as we learn from Lamsas
rendering of Colossians 2:10 from the Aramaic and from
Colossians 2:18. Pauls concern was to protect the
Gentile believers of Colossae from a deception that
would rob them of their full reconciliation with God and
their integration in the body of Christ. Notice the two
parts of the heresy:
2

Beware lest any man spoil you [literally lead
you off as a captive] through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Colossians 2:8)
Let no man beguile you [literally judge against
you] of your reward in a voluntary humility and
worshipping of angels, intruding into those things
which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind. (Colossians 2:18)
The philosophy introduced by the false teacher
stands in sharp contrast with Pauls principle theme
reconciliation of all things in Christ (1:20-21). In these
verses, voluntary humility correlates with the tradition
of men and worshipping of angels correlates with
subjection to the rudiments of the world. The RSV
translates voluntary humility as rigor of devotion and
self-abasement and severity to the body and the
rudiments of the world as the elemental spirits of the
universe. Guided by his own mystical knowledge of the
unseen, the troubler of the Colossians rejected the
reconciliation of the cross and taught that principalities
and powers, which presided over times, months, and
days, deserved their worship through voluntary
humility drawn from the traditions of men (Colossians
2:18). To put it in a more colorful way, the troubler of the
Colossians was serving up a helping of Jewish
ceremonialism rolled in self-deprivation and deep-fat
fried in the mystical worship of angels. In defending the
tender faith of the Colossians against the supposed
3

superior knowledge of the heretical false teacher, Paul
refuted the teachers false philosophical assumptions by
repeating applicable facts of faith.
Addressing J ewish ceremonialism, Colossians 2:11,
13 says that, though the Colossians were uncircumcised
Gentiles (1:27), they have been washed by Christs
blood, brought to life in Him, and forgiven all their
trespasses. This meant that they could brush off any put
down of the false teacher that they were not real
believers without the rite of circumcision. Colossians
2:14 says that Gentiles have been reconciled to God
and to the body of Christ (Colossians 3:15)now that
the handwriting (the binding contract written by the
hand of Moses, Deuteronomy 31:24-26; 2 Chronicles
34:14) of ordinances has been blotted out (literally
wiped out or removed). Hebrews 7:18 and 10:9 has
disannulling and taketh away, and Ephesians 2:15
has having abolished or made void. In Romans 3:31,
Paul would seem to say just the oppositethat faith does
not make void the law of God. Thus, that which was
made void was not the precepts of Gods moral law but
the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances,
imposed until the time of reformation (Ephesians
2:15; Hebrews 9:10). J ewish ceremonialism, which
divided J ew and Gentileand all ordinances
(Colossians 2:20) after the commandments and
doctrines of men (Colossians 2:22)could not be used
as a test of reconciliation with God (see Acts 13:39).
Placed by Moses beside the ark of the covenant as a
contractual witness against Gods people (2
Chronicles 35:12; Deuteronomy 31:24-26), that binding
4

and contrary handwritten agreement was taken out of
the way and nailed to the cross, thereby breaking down
the middle wall (Ephesians 2:15). As Christs body
was nailed to the cross, the shadows reached their
substance (Hebrews 10:1), that, is the promises reached
reality, the symbolic services of the law were fulfilled
(Matthew 5:17), and the curse of the law was transferred
to the substitute (1 Peter 2:24; Galatians 3:13;
Deuteronomy 21:23; J oshua 8:34). The veil of the
temple, a symbol of J esus flesh (Hebrews 10:20), was
supernaturally torn down the middle, signaling that
Christs sacrifice had superseded the law of
commandments with regard to ordinances. Addressing
angel worship, Colossians 2:15 says that, at the cross, the
principalities and powers, which had ruled the
Colossians lives, were unmasked. The Colossian
believers were no longer subject to these powers or to
any human ordinance under their control.
Because of this, Paul insisted that the Colossians let
no man judge them in eating or drinking (margin).
They were not to be subject to ordinances such as the
non-biblical touch not; taste not; handle not
(Colossians 2:20 and 21). Paul also insisted that they not
let anyone judge them in respect of an holyday, or of
the new moon, or of the sabbath days based on mere
speculation (Colossians 2:18). The marginal reading of
the King J ames Version and Thayers lexicon point out
that the basic meaning of the word translated in respect
of (meros) is a part or particulars. Murdocks
translation renders the equivalent Aramaic as about the
distinctions. Thus, Paul has in mind, the particulars of
5

these celebrations that are a shadow of things to come.
Similar phrasing in Hebrews 10:1, 8:5, and 9:9 indicates
that shadows are symbols in the earthly sanctuary and
its services that pointed to heavenly realities.
Several pieces of evidence indicate that the early
Christians did not see Pauls warning as invalidating the
Sabbath. For one, though Paul did declare Christ to be
our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7), he never declared
Christ to be the believers Sabbath. For another, the
J ews never accused Paul of violating the Sabbath, and
both J ewish and Gentile believers continued observing
the Sabbath. Most relevant to the topic at hand, early
church fathers did not use Pauls statement in Colossians
to invalidate the Sabbath. Though Irenaeus used
Colossians to speak against feasts and fasts that were
displeasing to the Lord, his concern was the tainted
spirit in which the memorial of Christs death was kept.
Similar to Pauls admonition in 1 Corinthians 5:17, 18,
he wrote: We keep the feast but in the leaven of malice
and wickedness, cutting in pieces the Church of God
(Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 575).
Had Pauls statement in Colossians been the
announcement of the termination of the seventh-day
Sabbath, he would have employed a most curious method
to break such important news: (1) His supposed
announcement was in an epistle to the least important
church he ever addressed (Lightfoot, The Epistle to the
Colossians, p. 16). (2) He warned believers to resist
being judged in particulars (meros) of festivals, new
moons, or sabbaths; he did not tell them to cease from
observing them. (3) He identified the Colossian heresy as
6

a blend of angel worship and severity to the body. (4)
He said nothing else about sabbaths in Colossians or in
any other epistleincluding Ephesians, Colossians
companion epistlewhile himself observing the Sabbath
with J ews and Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. To
have announced the invalidation of the Sabbath in such
an indirect way would be like reporting the overturning
of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in the
small print of the Help Wanted section of the daily
news. Not a very effective way to make such an
important announcement!