Objection:
Colossians 2:14–17 is frequently used to argue that the seventh-day Sabbath, along with the annual feast days, was abolished at the cross. But an objection has been raised from the opposite direction.
The objection argues that the “handwriting of ordinances” in verse 14 is not the law of Moses at all, but the written record of our sins; that the Greek word sabbaton in verse 16 includes the weekly Sabbath; that the annual feasts remain God’s appointed times; and that verse 17 should be understood essentially as, “Let no man therefore judge you … but the body of Christ.”
It is further argued that the usual Adventist distinction between “moral” and “ceremonial” law depends upon terminology developed by Thomas Aquinas and therefore imports a Roman Catholic framework into the interpretation of Colossians 2.
Several parts of this objection deserve serious consideration. Some traditional explanations of Colossians 2 have indeed been stated too broadly. But none of these points proves either that the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished or that Christians remain obligated to observe the annual feast calendar.
Answer:
Short Answer
Colossians 2 does not say that the fourth commandment was abolished.
It also does not command Christians to continue observing the annual feast days.
There is strong reason to understand the “handwriting” of verse 14 as something connected with the sinner’s indebtedness rather than simply identifying it with “the ceremonial law.” There is also substantial reason to acknowledge that the “sabbaths” of verse 16 may include the weekly Sabbath.
Neither concession proves that the seventh-day Sabbath was nailed to the cross.
The crucial distinction is this:
The weekly Sabbath may be included among the sacred times mentioned in Colossians 2:16 without requiring the conclusion that the creation Sabbath itself was abolished.
Scripture shows that Sabbaths, new moons, and annual festivals all became associated with sacrificial and typological observances. Scripture also shows that a divinely appointed institution may carry typological significance without every aspect of that institution ceasing.
Likewise, the annual feasts unquestionably contain types pointing to Christ. But continuing prophetic meaning does not automatically establish continuing covenantal obligation.
The answer must therefore come from the whole testimony of Scripture.
Biblical Answer
1. Begin With the Immediate Context: Forgiveness of Sin
Paul begins immediately before the disputed statement:
“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”
— Colossians 2:13
The subject is clearly forgiveness.
Then Paul continues:
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”
— Colossians 2:14
Whatever precisely the “handwriting” is, it is something that stood against us, and its removal is connected directly with the forgiveness of “all trespasses.”
That context must control the interpretation.
The Greek word translated “handwriting,” cheirographon, can refer to a written acknowledgment of indebtedness. That fits Paul’s argument naturally: sin has left man guilty before God, and through Christ what stood against the sinner has been cancelled.
We therefore do not need to insist that the word itself simply means “the ceremonial law.”
But neither should we press the word beyond what it establishes. The lexical evidence supports the idea of indebtedness or an adverse written obligation; it does not by itself prove every detail of a literal heavenly ledger containing an itemized list of sins.
The important point is that Paul is describing what Christ has done for sinners.
But even if verse 14 refers entirely to our indebtedness rather than to Mosaic legislation, another question still remains:
What is Paul saying about food, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths in verses 16–17?
Verse 14 cannot answer that question by itself.
2. The Absence of the Word “Law” Does Not Decide the Passage
It is true that the Greek word nomos, “law,” does not occur in Colossians.
But Paul plainly discusses religious practices:
“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.”
— Colossians 2:16
The question cannot therefore be settled merely by observing that Paul never uses the word “law.”
We still have to determine what these practices are and why Paul mentions them.
3. Does “Sabbath” Include the Weekly Sabbath?
It very well may.
Paul says:
“in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath”
— Colossians 2:16
This resembles a recurring Old Testament pattern involving annual festivals, monthly new moons, and weekly Sabbaths.
For example:
“Behold, I build an house to the name of the LORD my God … for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the LORD our God.”
— 2 Chronicles 2:4
Again:
“Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts…”
— 2 Chronicles 8:13
And:
“For the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts.”
— 2 Chronicles 31:3
The order varies, but the categories are recognizable:
weekly, monthly, annual.
Numbers 28–29 gives the same sacred calendar in detail.
For that reason, we do not need to defend the seventh-day Sabbath by insisting that sabbaton in Colossians 2:16 can only mean annual ceremonial sabbaths.
The weekly Sabbath may indeed be included.
But that leads to the next question.
4. Mentioning the Weekly Sabbath Is Not the Same Thing as Abolishing It
Paul does not say:
The Sabbath has been abolished.
He says:
“Let no man therefore judge you…”
— Colossians 2:16
Those are not the same statement.
Even if “Sabbath” means the seventh day, the text still does not say that the fourth commandment was cancelled.
The usual argument then moves to verse 17:
“Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
— Colossians 2:17
But we must still ask:
Does the word “shadow” automatically mean that every aspect of the institution mentioned has ceased?
Scripture does not allow us simply to assume that.
5. The Sabbath Begins at Creation, Not as a Predictive Ritual
Go back to the first Sabbath:
“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day…
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.”
— Genesis 2:2–3
Nothing in Genesis 2 presents the seventh day as a ritual prophecy of Christ’s future death.
Its stated foundation is creation.
The fourth commandment gives the same reason:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.”
— Exodus 20:11
The Sabbath therefore begins as a memorial of something already accomplished.
Deuteronomy later adds another historical meaning:
“And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence… therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.”
— Deuteronomy 5:15
This does not mean that the Sabbath can have no spiritual or typological significance.
Hebrews itself uses Sabbath and rest language in a broader theological way.
But that is different from saying that the seventh day was instituted at creation as a temporary predictive ritual whose obligation would expire when Christ came.
Scripture never says that.
6. Scripture Can Give the Sabbath Typological Meaning Without Erasing Its Creation Foundation
Hebrews says:
“For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.”
— Hebrews 4:4
Then later:
“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.”
— Hebrews 4:9
Whatever questions may surround the precise application of Hebrews 4, one principle is clear:
A creation institution can carry a larger spiritual or eschatological significance without thereby ceasing to be a creation institution.
Therefore even if the weekly Sabbath participates in Paul’s shadow-language in Colossians 2, that fact by itself does not prove that the Sabbath commandment has been abolished.
Typological significance and abolition are not identical.
7. Numbers 28–29 Explains Why the Weekly Sabbath Appears Naturally in This Sacred Calendar
Special sacrifices were commanded on the weekly Sabbath:
“And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot…”
— Numbers 28:9
Special offerings were also commanded on new moons:
“And in the beginnings of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD…”
— Numbers 28:11
Then Numbers 28–29 continues through the annual festivals.
Thus the same three calendrical categories associated in Colossians 2—Sabbaths, new moons, and annual festivals—were also associated with sacrificial worship.
This does not prove that Paul means only the sacrifices when he calls these things a shadow.
We should not claim more than Scripture gives us.
But it does show why the weekly Sabbath could naturally appear in a discussion of shadowy, typological worship without requiring us to conclude that Genesis 2 itself had become obsolete.
8. Hebrews Shows Us What Biblical “Shadow” Language Means
Hebrews uses strikingly similar terminology:
“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…”
— Hebrews 10:1
What does Hebrews immediately identify as the subject?
“those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually”
— Hebrews 10:1
Then:
“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
— Hebrews 10:4
And finally:
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
— Hebrews 10:10
Scripture therefore establishes the basic relationship:
shadow → reality in Christ.
The shadow was not false.
It was not evil.
It was divinely instituted.
Its purpose was to point beyond itself.
9. “Things to Come” Does Not Mean Every Ritual Must Continue Until the Second Advent
Paul says:
“Which are a shadow of things to come…”
— Colossians 2:17
It is sometimes argued that because some aspects of redemption remain future, the feast rituals must therefore continue.
But Hebrews uses almost identical language:
“a shadow of good things to come”
— Hebrews 10:1
Yet Hebrews emphatically teaches that repeated animal sacrifices do not continue.
Christ:
“offered one sacrifice for sins for ever”
— Hebrews 10:12
Therefore “things to come” cannot mean:
Every ritual shadow remains covenantally binding until every prophetic implication has reached final fulfillment.
If that were true, animal sacrifice would still be required.
Scripture says otherwise.
10. Continuing Prophetic Meaning Does Not Equal Continuing Ritual Obligation
The Day of Atonement demonstrates this principle clearly.
Leviticus 16 contains profound prophetic meaning involving:
- a high priest,
- sacrificial blood,
- entrance within the veil,
- cleansing,
- and the final removal of sin.
Hebrews uses that very imagery in relation to Christ:
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come…”
— Hebrews 9:11
Yet Christians do not continue sacrificing goats.
Why?
Because:
“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place…”
— Hebrews 9:12
The type continues to teach.
The ritual form does not therefore continue to bind.
That distinction comes from Scripture itself.
So even if an annual feast contains lessons extending into the future, that fact alone does not prove that Christians remain obligated to perform the Mosaic form of that feast.
11. The New Testament Explicitly Identifies Feast Types With Christ
Paul says:
“For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.”
— 1 Corinthians 5:7
And:
“But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:20
The New Testament itself therefore identifies Passover and firstfruits typologically with Christ.
No medieval theologian is necessary to establish that point.
Scripture itself makes the connection.
12. What About “Let Us Keep the Feast”?
The next verse says:
“Therefore let us keep the feast…”
— 1 Corinthians 5:8
At first glance, that can sound like a command to continue literal Passover observance.
But Paul immediately explains his language:
“not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
— 1 Corinthians 5:8
The entire chapter concerns serious sexual immorality tolerated within the church:
“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you…”
— 1 Corinthians 5:1
Paul’s own explanation identifies the imagery.
The “leaven” is moral corruption.
The “unleavened bread” is sincerity and truth.
The congregation must purge the corrupting influence from its midst.
Paul does not give instructions here concerning a calendar date, travel to Jerusalem, an annual holy convocation, or the Mosaic Passover ritual.
The passage establishes the continuing spiritual meaning of Passover imagery.
It does not by itself establish continuing obligation to observe the annual feast.
13. Calling Them “My Feasts” Establishes Divine Origin—but Does Not by Itself Establish Their New-Covenant Status
God says:
“These are my feasts.”
— Leviticus 23:2
That settles their origin.
They were God’s appointments.
They were not pagan inventions.
But the inference:
God instituted something, therefore its precise covenantal form can never change
does not follow from Scripture.
The priesthood came from God.
Yet:
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
— Hebrews 7:12
The sacrifices came from God.
Yet Christ:
“offered one sacrifice for sins for ever”
— Hebrews 10:12
The earthly sanctuary came from God.
Yet Hebrews points to:
“a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands”
— Hebrews 9:11
Therefore the question cannot simply be:
Did God institute the feasts?
Of course He did.
The real question is:
What does God Himself reveal concerning their purpose and their relationship to Christ and the New Covenant?
That larger question must be answered from the whole Bible.
14. Leviticus 23 Both Includes the Sabbath and Distinguishes It
It is true that the weekly Sabbath appears at the beginning of Leviticus 23:
“Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest…”
— Leviticus 23:3
Then verse 4 says:
“These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.”
— Leviticus 23:4
The annual festival calendar follows.
And near the end of the chapter we read:
“These are the feasts of the LORD…”
“Beside the sabbaths of the LORD…”
— Leviticus 23:37–38
So Scripture does two things.
It places the Sabbath within the larger discussion of God’s sacred appointments.
But it also distinguishes the annual feast observances from “the sabbaths of the LORD.”
We should therefore avoid both extremes.
We should not claim that the Sabbath has no relationship at all to the sacred calendar of Leviticus 23.
But neither should we erase the distinctions Scripture itself preserves.
15. “Let No Man Judge You … but the Body of Christ” Is Not the Natural Reading
The objection proposes reading verses 16–17 essentially as:
Let no man judge you concerning these things, except the body of Christ.
The argument depends partly upon noting that the word is in the KJV is supplied by the translators.
But removing a supplied English word does not automatically establish an alternative grammatical construction.
The sentence itself gives us the contrast:
“Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”
— Colossians 2:17
The contrast is:
shadow
and
body.
In Greek, skia means “shadow,” while sōma literally means “body” and in this contrast naturally represents the substantial reality casting the shadow.
Greek can omit a form of the verb “to be” where English requires one.
The proposed interpretation requires us to move past the immediate shadow/body contrast and carry the verb “judge” from the preceding verse across the intervening relative clause so that “the body of Christ” becomes its new subject.
That is not the natural flow of Paul’s sentence.
The simpler reading is:
these things are shadow; the reality belongs to Christ.
16. First Corinthians 5 Does Teach Church Judgment—but About Something Else
Paul says:
“Do not ye judge them that are within?”
— 1 Corinthians 5:12
The church unquestionably has a responsibility to exercise discipline concerning open sin.
But that does not prove that “the body” in Colossians 2:17 should be detached from “shadow” and made the subject of the earlier verb “judge.”
First Corinthians 5 concerns church discipline.
Colossians 2 contrasts shadow and reality.
Each passage should be interpreted according to its own grammar and context.
17. The Rest of Colossians 2 Confirms the Nature of the Problem
Paul continues:
“Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels…”
— Colossians 2:18
Then:
“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?”
— Colossians 2:20–22
The Colossian controversy therefore involved more than a calendar.
Paul is resisting a religious system involving:
- judgment,
- ascetic restrictions,
- false humility,
- angel worship,
- human commandments,
- and bodily regulations.
His answer is not another system of human control.
His answer is Christ.
That context must govern verse 16.
Key Distinctions
Mention Is Not Abolition
Even if sabbaton includes the weekly Sabbath, Paul never says the fourth commandment was abolished.
Shadow Is Not Automatically a Repeal Formula
Something can function typologically without the word shadow itself meaning, “This command has now been abolished.”
Continuing Meaning Is Not Continuing Ritual Obligation
Hebrews demonstrates that types can continue to teach after their former ritual expression no longer binds.
Divine Origin Does Not Mean Unchanged Covenantal Administration
The priesthood, sacrifices, and sanctuary all came from God, yet Scripture explicitly describes changes connected with Christ’s ministry.
Colossians 2 Should Not Be Made to Say More Than It Says
The passage does not explicitly say:
“The seventh-day Sabbath was abolished.”
Nor does it explicitly say:
“Christians must continue observing the annual feasts.”
Both conclusions require additional biblical argument.
What About Thomas Aquinas?
The objection also argues that the distinction between “moral” and “ceremonial” law originated with the thirteenth-century Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas and was later adopted by Adventists.
That historical claim should be answered, but history cannot determine the meaning of Scripture.
Even if Aquinas had coined the terminology, the real question would still be:
Does Scripture itself distinguish between enduring divine requirements and symbolic institutions that pointed forward to Christ?
As we have already seen, it does.
Scripture distinguishes the creation Sabbath from later sacrificial regulations; repeated sacrifices from Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice; the Levitical priesthood from Christ’s priesthood; the earthly sanctuary from the greater heavenly ministry of Christ; and shadow from reality.
Those distinctions exist in Scripture before any later theological terminology is applied to them.
But the historical claim itself is also too broad.
Aquinas certainly developed a systematic threefold classification of Old Testament precepts as moral, ceremonial, and judicial.
However, he did not originate the underlying distinction between moral commands and symbolic or typological ordinances.
Centuries before Aquinas, Augustine distinguished between moral precepts and symbolic observances. In discussing Old Testament institutions, Augustine specifically treated such observances as circumcision, sacrifices, Sabbaths, and feast days as symbolic or typical and appealed to Colossians 2:16–17 in explaining their relationship to fulfillment in Christ.
Aquinas himself later acknowledged this earlier distinction, citing Augustine’s division between “precepts concerning the life we have to lead” and those concerning “the life that is foreshadowed.” He then developed his more systematic categories of moral, ceremonial, and judicial precepts.
So the historical sequence is not accurately represented as:
Thomas Aquinas invented the distinction → Adventists borrowed it from Roman Catholicism → therefore the Adventist interpretation of Colossians 2 is invalid.
The distinction existed in Christian theological discussion long before Aquinas.
More importantly, however, the biblical case does not stand or fall with Augustine, Aquinas, or Adventist terminology.
If every later theological label disappeared, we would still have to explain why Scripture says:
“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
— Hebrews 7:12
and:
“For the law having a shadow of good things to come…”
— Hebrews 10:1
and:
“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
— Hebrews 10:10
The biblical distinction exists before the terminology used to describe it.
A fuller examination of Aquinas, earlier Christian writers, and the history of the moral/ceremonial distinction will follow separately.
Common Misunderstandings
“If Sabbaton Means the Weekly Sabbath, the Adventist Position Fails”
No.
A particular argument sometimes used by Adventists becomes less persuasive.
That is not the same thing as the Sabbath itself becoming less biblical.
If the weekly Sabbath is included in Colossians 2:16, the question still remains whether Paul is abolishing the creation Sabbath or speaking about sacred times in relation to their shadow-character and the religious judgment being imposed upon believers.
The text must decide the question.
“If Cheirographon Means Our Indebtedness, the Feasts Must Continue”
That does not follow.
Verse 14 may concern the cancellation of the sinner’s indebtedness.
That still does not determine the covenantal status of every observance mentioned in verses 16–17.
Those are separate exegetical questions.
“If the Feasts Still Point to Future Events, They Must Still Be Observed”
Hebrews 10 prevents that conclusion.
Animal sacrifices were a “shadow of good things to come,” yet the coming of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice means those offerings are no longer repeated.
Future prophetic meaning does not automatically equal continuing ritual obligation.
“If We Say the Feasts Are No Longer Mandatory, We Are Calling God’s Feasts Bad”
Not at all.
The sanctuary was good.
The sacrifices were good.
The Levitical priesthood was good.
They were established by God.
Fulfillment does not make a divinely instituted type evil.
It explains why God instituted it.
Summary
Colossians 2 should be allowed to say exactly what it says.
Christ has forgiven our trespasses and removed what stood against us.
Paul then says:
“Let no man therefore judge you…”
— Colossians 2:16
He mentions food, drink, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths and says that these stand in a shadow-to-reality relationship with Christ.
The weekly Sabbath may well be included in that annual-monthly-weekly sequence. We do not need to deny it.
But inclusion is not abolition.
The Sabbath begins at creation, where Scripture presents the seventh day as blessed and sanctified because God rested from His work. Later, sacrificial and typological observances became associated with the Sabbath, and Scripture can even use Sabbath/rest language in a larger spiritual sense without erasing its creation foundation.
Likewise, the annual feasts unquestionably contain divinely given types pointing to Christ. Some of their lessons reach even into the final completion of redemption. But Hebrews demonstrates that continuing prophetic significance does not automatically require continuing Mosaic ritual observance.
Nor does the case depend upon terminology later associated with Thomas Aquinas. The historical claim that he originated every distinction between enduring moral precepts and symbolic ordinances is too broad, but even more importantly, Scripture itself must establish the distinction before history is consulted.
Therefore Colossians 2 does not settle the entire feast-day question by itself.
That question must be answered from the whole testimony of Scripture concerning the law, the covenants, Israel, the priesthood, the sanctuary, type and antitype, and the work of Christ.
The remaining questions will therefore be addressed separately:
Part 2 — Did Thomas Aquinas Invent the Moral and Ceremonial Law Distinction?
Part 3 — Is the Law of Moses the Same as the Ten Commandments?
Part 4 — Are the Feasts Still Binding Under the New Covenant?
