Colossians 2:16 – Has the Lord’s Sabbath and Feast Days Been Abolished?

Did Paul tell the Colossians that they should not let themselves be judged for keeping God's
commandments or for not keeping God's commandments (Lord's Sabbath & Feast Days)?

There is a difference. We require context to know.

Were the Colossians being compelled by false teachers to not keep the Lord's Sabbath and Feast days or
compelling the Colossians to keep them?

If we answer that, then we can answer the first question. We require context to know.

Were the Colossians being taught commandments of men and ways of the world or God's commandments?

And that is the context we require to answer all questions.

All of these questions are designed to force a reader to answer what is called context. What is the context
surrounding this verse?

Col2:16-17 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious
festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

If we cite just one verse, such as Colossians 2:16, isolated from its surrounding context then we can not
even answer the first question:

Did Paul tell the Colossians that they should not let themselves be judged for keeping God's
commandments or not keeping God's commandments (Lord's Sabbath & Feast Days)?

That is the question we need to answer, and to answer such a question we need to understand if the context
is “commandments of men” or “commandments of God.” Again, there is a difference. Men are not God.
Men have their own commandments and ways and God has His own commandments and ways (i.e. Mark
7:1-13). We need to know exactly what the false teachers were teaching to understand exactly what Paul is
correcting. To know exactly what the false teachers were teaching we need to read, understand, and apply
the context and also know the doctrine of the false teachers. Doesn't that make sense? It should.

Colossians is obviously a letter, with a beginning and end, serving a specific focus, and full of context.
Remember, the Colossians know full well the context and the debate at hand. They are living in it. We have
to pull in clues to construct the context and the debate at hand, and certainly refrain from inserting context
of our own bias. We do not want to make the common error of verse plucking scripture out of context and
forcing a paradigm on it. We have to work on understanding this letter slightly more than those receiving
it.

Chapter 1
Chapter 1 sets the context. Paul basically spends the first part of the chapter explaining the simplicity of the
gospel, rescuing the Colossians (and us) from our alienation from God through faith. Paul is interested in
the Colossians better understanding God’s will and wisdom which will yield good works, patience,
knowledge, etc. He also focuses on the redemptive power of Christ’s blood (verse 14). That becomes
important later.

The fact that Paul builds the foundation of his letter on the simplicity of the gospel and the wisdom of God
to yield good works is important to note.

1) It appears that the false teachers that have engaged the Colossians make the gospel more complicated
than reality ("secret knowledge").

2) It appears that the false teachers have also changed God's wisdom and will (from God) which of course
would yield different works and knowledge (from men). It should be noted that God's law is the beginning
of all wisdom:

Psalm 119:9-10 He has commanded His covenant forever: Holy and awesome is His name. The fear of the
LORD is the beginning of wisdom, a good understanding have all those who do His commandments.

Thus the false teachers are changing God's law and commandments to their own commandments to suit
their own doctrine and theology.

3) It also appears that the false teachers struggle with the redemptive power of the Messiah's blood (verse
14).

He is doing all of this for a foundational reason, which is revealed in detail in Chapter 2.

Chapter 2
In Chapter 2, verse 8, Paul begins to issue his warnings to the Colossians. Paul advises to stay in Him
(Christ, which is the living example of God’s Word). He gives clear and adamant warning against the
principles of the world and worldly traditions, which can take us captive (enslave us). He is simply stating
to stay in the example of the Word (Word made flesh = Jesus/Yeshua) and stay out of the world’s example.

This is the focus of debate. Paul is against principles of the world and worldly traditions. This is very
important to note as Paul is stating this for a reason, and we will come back to that.

In verse 13-15, Paul expands into more detail about those who had influence in the first century that forced
their traditions and regulations on people. The Gnostics sect had theirs, so did the Pharisees sect
(Talmud/oral law), as well as other many sects of Judaism. It is always important to understand which false
sect of Judaism Paul is battling against so we can then understand the debate and context at hand, and then
apply it. We will use the clues offered to us to discover which Jewish sect is causing the doctrinal
misguidance.

When Y'shua (Jesus) came, the majority of His ministry was in opposition to these man made traditions
that opposed God’s laws (ie: Mark 7:8-9). Paul, like Y'shua (Jesus), is simply teaching the same. Paul, as in
all of his letters, is protecting his converts from the teachings and doctrines of men that pollute the gospel
and God’s law. There are several common sects of Judaism that often set the context and debate at hand in
Paul's writings. We are going to use the scripture to answer which ones we are dealing with in the letter to
the Colossians. The reason we need to do this should be simple to understand. We can not understand the
context unless we understand the debate. It is difficult to understand the debate if we do not know the
denominational sects and doctrines involved.

Y'shua (Jesus) walked and modeled before us the perfect interpretation of God’s law. Y'shua (Jesus) proved
that He was of God and through our faith we have stated to believe, commit, and trust in His ways and
teaching. Paul is simply stating that there is no reason why we should allow anyone to compel or teach us
do anything different than what Y'shua (Jesus) taught and practiced.

In verse 13 Paul expands on the process of salvation by stating that we are "dead in our sin" and our "sin
has been forgiven." This is important because it sets the context for the very next verse which is often
misunderstood.

On the cross, Y'shua (Jesus) took the “handwriting of ordinances” (verse 14) that were against us, and
erased them. In Paul’s day, “the handwriting of ordinances” was the list of offences one made against the
law, it is obviously not the law itself. When the debt to the law is paid, the handwriting of ordinances
against the offender is ripped up and destroyed. Obviously, the law is not against man, but man by nature is
against the law of God (sin).
The curse of the law (Deut. 11:26-29) is what is against us, which is the "law of sin and death." That is
what Y'shua (Jesus) took to the cross. Y'shua (Jesus) paid our debt to God’s law in full. Paul explains much
of this in detail in Romans (Romans 6-8) and what it means to be "under the law of sin and death." The
"law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2) was the record of offences (sin) we have made against God's law
which of course leads to the curse (second death). It is this record against us that is abolished. As Paul
details in Romans, there is a difference between the "law of God" and the "law of sin and death." The "law
of God" is for us when we obey it (blessings) and the "law of sin and death" (curse) is against us when we
break the "law of God." This should be quite simple.

The same concept applies today in our own domestic laws. If the President pardons a criminal (sinner), he
pardons the offence, not the law. He cancels what was against him, the charges written against him
(handwriting of ordinances). The charges state that the criminal deserves to be punished.

Likewise, once we are pardoned through Christ, we are no longer under (the curse/sin/death) of the law
(Galatians 3:10-13), but under grace (Romans 6:14). We are freed from this curse (law of sin and
death)(Romans 8:1-2). However, this does not mean that because of our faith affording us the gift of grace,
that the law is canceled-just the punishment for breaking it (Romans 3:31). But just because our
punishment is taken away, does that mean we should ignore the law and continue sinning so grace
abounds? No, not at all (Romans 6:1). Paul made himself very clear for those willing to understand him.
However, for those ignorant and unstable in God’s Word (which was the Old Testament in the first
century) then Paul is very difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul can even be so misunderstood that
one might conclude that God’s law has been abolished in whole or in part, thus making the error of lawless
men (2 Peter 3:17).

Many teach that the “handwritings of ordinances that were against us” was actually God’s law. Obviously
that interpretation does not even compute on many levels. We will review the top three:

1) For one, scripture clearly states that Jesus took care of our sin on the cross, not the means to define sin
(law)(1 John 3:4). That is failure number one.

2) Two, the law was never against us, but called freedom, perfect, truth, light, the way, and the life in the
OT and the NT (see appendix 1). Instead, it is man’s sinful nature is against the law of God (Romans 7:22-
23), not the other way around. It is the "law of sin and death" that was against us (Romans 8:2). It is the
"curse of the law" (Deut. 11:26-29) that is removed, not the law of God (Gal. 3:10-13). That is failure
number 2.

3) And lastly, the law was never “in our way.” Man’s sin and false doctrines were in the way (Mark 7).
Simply reading Psalm 119 is a testimony of what the law should mean to a believer that is filled with God's
wisdom and knowledge. That is failure number 3.

So what was the problem? Verses 5 & 22 sets the context and problems f Colossians 2 to be directly related
to errors of the commandments of men, not the perfect, just, holy, freedom giving, commandments of God
(same issue in Eph. 2:15).

Where does it state that the problem was the law and the solution was to erase it?

Nowhere does it state that the "law of God" was a problem anywhere in the totality of scripture. We
invented the idea that the law was a problem, we then take verses out of context (preferably Paul-2 Peter
3:15-17), decide to write books about it, confuse everyone and then actually celebrate God abolishing His
law.

The whole point of the new covenant is for God to write His law on our heart (Jer. 31:31-33), not to abolish
it. The whole problem was with us (our heart) in relation to God's law.

In Romans 7:12,14, 22 Paul discusses the two natures again, it is written:

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandments holy, and just and good ... For we know that the law is
spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin ... For I delight in the law of God after the inward man."

What we needed was the Spirit and a heart transplant.

In Ezekiel 11:19-20 it is written:

"And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of
their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine
ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God."

Also, in Ezk 36:26-27 it is written:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart
out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

So if God’s law is not the problem, then what was the problem? Ezekiel implies that the problem is with us
and our stony heart. The writer of Hebrews agrees:

Hb 8:8 For finding fault with them (fault with them, not the "law of God"), he saith, Behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah:

So what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant?

1. The Holy Spirit is a witness that the Newer Covenant = Law written upon our heart (Jeremiah 31:31, 33,
Hebrews 10:15-16)

2. The Holy Spirit was sent into the earth to teach us the TRUTH of God
(John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, John 16:13)

3. What is the TRUTH? God's Law/Word of God IS TRUTH. (not WAS truth)
(Psalm 119:142, John 17:17)

4. God wanted to write His law (all, not some) upon our heart and teach us His law which is called
"TRUTH" (Psalm 119:142) through His Holy Spirit who is called "THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH" (John 14:16-
17,26, 15:26, 16:13)

5. We need God's Spirit within us for the following reasons:

a) Have the power to overcome the sin nature inherited by Adam

b) To bear spiritual fruit in our lives (Galatians 5:22-25)
c) To understand, grow, and have a revelation of God's Torah/Word

The law was already perfect (i.e. Ps 19:7). God is not in the business of fixing what is not broken. We
shouldn’t be in that business either, lest we be accused of adding to or subtracting from God’s Word (Deut.
4:2)

In verse 15, Paul mentions another central purpose Y'shua (Jesus) accomplished, which was making a
public spectacle of the dominant leadership of the day. He proved their falsehood (their manmade
traditions, commandments of men, and principles of the world) and triumphed over them
(Pharisees/Sadducees/etc)(Mark 7; Matthew 23). That was the whole point of His ministry, to fully preach
and explain God’s already existing law, not destroy it or put and end to it (Matthew 5:17-19).
If the handwritings of ordinances are God's law and nailed to the cross then we have at least three serious
problems that we can not scripturally explain.

1) It would force God's law to be against us and contrary to us. The reality is actually the opposite. Our man
made doctrines, teachings, and fleshy ways are against God's law. God offered His law as freedom
(i.e.Psalm 119:45) and as a means to blessings (Deut. 11:26-29). It is difficult to conclude how freedom and
blessings are against us. If freedom and blessings are not against us then Paul must have meant something
else in reference to the "handwritings of ordinances."

It is our record of sin (breaking God’s law) that is against us and results in the curse (Deut. 11:28-29). Did
Y’shua take away or our sin on the cross or the means to define sin (1 John 3:4)(Law of God)? If Y’shua
abolished God’s law then defining sin is impossible since sin is defined as breaking God’s law.

2) Jesus made a public spectacle of these ordinances and triumphed over them. Since when does God have
to triumph and make a public spectacle of His own law and does that even make sense? Is God going to
give His people His perfect, holy, just, freedom giving law and then intentionally make a public mockery of
it? I am fairly certain God does not offer us instructions, call them perfect, and then publically mock them
as He nails them to the cross. According to Mark 7, the commandments and traditions of men that are
contrary to what was written by Moses ("law of God") is sin. Since the "commandments of men (not God)"
are root cause of the doctrinal issues of the Colossians Paul chooses to mention that Y'shua (Jesus)
abolished all of these things on the cross by proving them false. Paul was in the habit of testing everything
to scripture and taught others the same. How many have considered that the only scripture they had to test
against was the Old Testament. That puts things into a whole new perspective doesn’t it?

3) The context of Colossians 2 is focuses on problems rooted in "commandments of men (22)" and
"traditions and rudiments of the world (5)." If it is the commandments and traditions of men that Paul is
clearly stating as the problem then why would Paul teach us that Y’shua (Jesus) took away the "law of
God" as a solution? That is very awkward as it does not even logically follow.

Clearly the context is retained and this theme continues through the end of the chapter.

This leads us to some other verses often struggled with, verses 16-17.

Col2:16-17 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious
festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the
substance is of Christ.

Paul states that the Colossians should not let themselves be judged for their observation of the Feast days or
Sabbath day in respect to "food and drink." Food and drink? What does food and drink have to do with
anything? We will discuss that in a moment.

Why should we conclude that Paul is teaching that they should continue keeping God’s commandments?

One reason that Paul gives is because all of these have prophetic teaching value (17). God ordained these
days for a specific reason, which was to help us understand God and His ways better, what He did and what
is to come. Paul states that the Sabbath (Hebrews 4) and Feast days (Fall feasts) are still a shadow of things
to come (17). The Spring Feasts help us remember what He did on the cross, and the Fall Feasts remind us
that He is coming back. This is just one valuable component of God's law Paul notes so that we do not
abolish God's Sabbath and Feast Days. We are to keep the Lord's feast days as both Paul and Y'shua (Jesus)
did as our examples (1 Cor. 11:1).

So let’s do some detective work.

What group of false teachers were telling the Colossians to not keep the Lord's Sabbath and Feast days?

Remember, the context of these false teachings is the traditions of men, the influence of false religious
practices, and the principles of the world. Verse 18 gives it away:

Col.2:18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels,
intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

The Gnostic Judaism sect believed in the worshipping of angels. They were a massive problem in the first
century. They believed they had special knowledge which granted them salvation (“things he has not
seen.”) They had false humility and would boast about converting others to their doctrine. And lastly, as it
relates to Paul’s letter, they did not believe that Y'shua (Jesus) came in the flesh, which cancels His
redemptive power of His blood. This is why John even calls them antichrists. This is why Paul focused so
much on the gospel in chapter 1, and even His redemptive blood (Col 1:14) to set his foundation for his
arguments in chapter 2. In fact, in verse 1:14 he stresses the importance of the redemptive power of Christ
for this reason.

Now, about the “food and drink.”

Why does Paul specifically mention "food and drink" in relations to God's Holy days?

The known doctrine of the Jewish Gnostics mocked the feasts, as they spiritualized nearly every physical
part of the law away because they were against "food and drink." Absurd right? Who would be against
food and drink? Well, they were against marriage as well and Paul even speaks of them in 1 Timothy 4.
As stated earlier, this group was a big problem in their first century? Their supposed “secret knowledge”
appealed to the pride of men. The Gnostics were judging the Colossians for keeping the Sabbaths and
Feast Days in respect to matters of food and drink (verse 16).

This why Paul states the Sabbath and Feast days still have prophetic value. This is why in chapter 1 Paul
focuses on wisdom for good works (God's commandments, not commandments of men). Nowhere in
Scripture does God speak negatively about food or drink (unclean animals are not considered food-broma)

Paul also makes a point to mention that God is the head of all creation, as the Gnostics raise angels above
God. In verse 2:18, we learn that the group that is corrupting the Colossians worships angels, another dead
giveaway that the problem at hand is Gnostic doctrine. There are several other clues, but those are the most
blatant ones that most credible scholar's point out.

Many make the error here that the Pharisees are coming in, forcing the Colossians to keep the feasts, and
Paul is refuting them. There are several significant problems with this:

Since when did the Pharisees deny Y'shua (Jesus) came in the flesh? They didn't.

When did the Pharisees start worshipping angels? They didn't.

So how then can we state that these are Pharisees compelling the Colossians to keep the Lord's Sabbath
and Feast days? We can't. Wrong doctrine. Wrong Jewish sect.

This is precisely why the questions were asked that forced a reader to examine the context and groups
involved in the debate the Colossians were facing. If that is not settled and determined up front, then one
has license to inject their own debate and thus their own conclusion.

Why does Paul speak to the significance and value of the Feasts and how they all relate to Christ after he
stated to not let ourselves be judged? Good question right? Perhaps it is because Paul is building a case for
keeping the feast by appealing to their ongoing prophetic value. The reason Paul states that they still have
prophetic value and are types of Christ is because the fall feasts (Trumpets, Atonement, & Tabernacles) are
yet to be fulfilled as foreshadowed. Paul is explaining, to those who will listen, that the feasts are there to
teach us in the way that God asked us to practice them.

Shouldn’t Paul have said the feasts are of no value anymore? Or perhaps, God is done with those, so we
should not observe them anymore? Why in the world would he state that they are still a shadow of things to
come and that Christ is the reality of them if we are to no longer be practicing them? Appealing to the
current value of them is the last thing Paul should be doing. Yet that is what mainstream Biblical
commentary must be proposing.

For many reasons we know that the false teachers were the Jewish sect of the Gnostics, not Jewish
Pharisees.

The popular NIV Life Application Study Bible even agrees in its commentary that this is the Gnostic sect
that is the root cause of doctrinal problems to the Colossians. So this understanding is nothing that is not
already well understood and taught by some Biblical scholars.

Why is this important?

The Gnostic doctrine is full of “principles of the world,” and “commandments and teachings of men.” The
Gnostics would not be commanding the Colossians to keep God's feasts by any stretch. They would be
teaching them not to, that they are just "spiritual", and have no value. Sound familiar as any doctrine today?
Because the feasts and Sabbath involve “food and drink” the Gnostics would consider God’s Feasts and
Sabbath as actually evil. This is why the Gnostics considered the God of the Old Testament (as though God
could change) as evil and the God of the New Testament as not evil (again, sound familiar?) What most do
not consider is that there is a spiritual and physical application for every one of God’s commandments, and
one does not override or trump the other. The physical teaches the spiritual. The inward produces the
outward. Y’shua (Jesus) taught us that in His first parable.

So that is WHY Paul said YES, the Feasts still have value, and they ARE prophetic foreshadowing of what
is TO COME (verse 17).

In other words, don’t listen to the corrupted Gnostics and throw the Lord's Feasts and Sabbaths out the
window. They (the Gnostics) do not know that they are in serious error and certainly do not let them judge
you with their supposed “special knowledge” of “things not seen.” Therefore, keep the Feasts and do not let
anyone judge you for keeping them.

See how context defines the verse for us?

Col 2:20-23 - Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though
living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not
handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and
doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false
humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Paul again makes it clear that in Christ we died against the “principles of the world” and “human
regulations.” So far, Paul has said nothing against the "law of God."

In fact, THE WORD LAW IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE WHOLE BOOK OF COLOSSIANS.

Consider reading that again.

Amazing but true, yet teachers will try to convince you at every opportunity that the letter to the Colossians
is all about abolishing God’s law instead of about abolishing commandments and doctrines from men.
Many mainstream teachers place “God’s law” as the subject of Colossians 2 and the word law is not even
mentioned once. You would expect it to be in there somewhere, but embarrassingly enough it is not. That is
because Paul is teaching against false doctrines and commandments of the world/men, not teaching that any
component of the "law of God" has been made void. In fact, if Paul was doing this, he would be
contradicting himself and Y'shua (Ro. 3:31;7:22-23;Mat. 5:17-19)

According to the obvious context, the Gnostics came in and started polluting the doctrine of the Colossians.
The Gnostics directed the Colossians away from what Paul originally taught and practiced (Law of God -
Bible things in Bible ways). They even began imposing Gnostic ascetic beliefs and manmade commands
that had to do with bodily sensory pleasures, neglecting the body, etc. (Do not handle, touch, etc.,) The
Lord's Feast days are a big problem for the Gnostics because these days are all about eating. That is why
they are called feasts.

The bottom line is this; Paul was railing the whole time against the Gnostics and their traditions. These
traditions were clearly contrary to God’s law and to what Christ did on the cross in nearly every possible
way. Paul even states that these are commandments and doctrines originating from men, not God. That is a
dead give away that this is not about God’s law, but men’s ridiculous religious traditions.

If we are to believe what mainstream Christianity teaches, we have to conclude several things:

1) God’s laws are “principles of the world” and “human traditions” instead of spiritual (Check Romans
7:14). This is certainly and error that we do not want to make.

2) God’s laws are “commandments and doctrines of men” instead of from God (Check Roman’s 7:22).
Men are not God. There happens to be a difference between commandments of men and commandments of
God. We need to apply that difference in our study.

3) We would have to conclude that the Gnostics were compelling the Colossians to keep the feasts of God.
We would also have to believe that even though Paul stated that even though the Feasts have prophetic
value and God commanded us to keep them FOREVER, we should still not do them. Even though Paul, as
written in Acts, kept the Feasts, such as Passover, Unleavened Bread, and the Day of Atonement, as well as
keeping the Sabbaths. He also stated that he kept and taught the Law of Moses and proved it (Acts 21). If
we were to believe the Gnostics were compelling the Colossians to keep God’s feast this would contrary to
everything we know about the Gnostics. If Paul was telling the Colossians to not keep God’s feasts then
Paul would also be teaching against what he stated he believes, teaches, and practices.

4) Paul states that we should keep the Feasts (Check 1 Cor. 5:8), yet here Paul is supposedly abolishing
them.

Obviously, 1-4 are not even remotely possible once one realizes that Paul was providing evidence against
the Gnostics and their worldly traditions. Once again, the context (instead of verse plucking) provides us
with the meaning and valid interpretations.

Even mainstream Christian scholars teach that Paul is teaching against JEWISH GNOSTICS in Colossians
2. For example the Zondervan NIV Study Bible teaches this very thing and outlines the evidence nearly
exactly like the above. (Zondervan on Colossians)

So if scholar's already know that Paul is teaching against Jewish Gnostics, why do they not apply that
understanding in their interpretation? Perhaps because it would destroy their theological paradigm. They
refuse to connect that dot. They leave what Paul said and their understanding of Gnostic doctrine
completely and intentionally disconnected. In their study they recognize that it is the Gnostics in the
context and the source of the doctrinal confusion for the Colossians. However, when the subject becomes a
matter of the "law of God" and Col. 2:14-16 are cited to support a law abolishing theological paradigm,
suddenly the Jewish sect conveniently changes from Gnostics doctrine to Pharisee doctrine. How
comfortable should we be with such an interpretive approach. It violates nearly ever hermeneutical
principle that scripture scholar’s claim to uphold.

The question must be asked however, what is the greater tragedy, destroying a faulty theological paradigm
or destroying God's Holy Word? It might be more politically and socially convenient now to abolish God’s
law, but in the end, that might not be the most brilliant idea.

Additional clarification on the Gnostics:

Let’s dive even deeper and really examine what the Jewish Gnostics believed according to those who study
their doctrine.

Here is what the Gnostics believe according to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE).

The following may be regarded as the chief points in the Gnostic systems:

(1) a claim on the part of the initiated to a special knowledge of the truth; a tendency to regard knowledge
as superior to faith and as the special possession of the more enlightened, for ordinary Christians did not
possess this secret and higher doctrine; (Paul referred to this in his letter)

(2) the essential separation of matter and spirit, matter being intrinsically evil and the source from which all
evil has arisen; (Paul referred to “do not taste, handle, etc” “matters of food and drink”

(3) an attempt to solve the problems of creation and the origin of evil by postulating a demiurge, i.e., a
creator or artificer of the world distinct from the deity, and emanations extending between God and the
visible universe (the demiurge for the Gnostics being the God of the OT, an inferior being infinitely
remote from the Supreme Being who can have nothing to do with anything material); (Thus the Gnostics
were against the Feasts of the “God of the OT”_

(4) a denial of the true humanity of Christ; a docetic Christology which considered the earthly life of Christ
and especially His sufferings on the cross to be unreal; (this is why John called them antichrists and Paul
focused on the redemptive characteristics of Christ’s blood)

(5) the denial of the personality of the Supreme God, and also the denial of the free will of mankind;
(Calvinistic doctrine is nothing new)

(6) the teaching, on the one hand, of asceticism as the means of attaining spiritual communion with God,
and, on the other hand, of an indifference that led directly to licentiousness; (Thus no food or drink, taste,
handle, touch, etc.)

(7) a syncretistic tendency that combined certain more or less misunderstood Christian doctrines and
various elements from oriental, Jewish, Greek, and other sources;

(8) ascription of the OT to the demiurge or inferior creator of the world.

Some of these ideas are more obvious in one and some of them in another of the Gnostic systems. (pp. 486-
487, vol. 2, "Gnosticism")

Knowing the above Gnostic doctrine is necessary so we know what Paul is opposing in his letter and why.
The above doctrine is the same doctrine Paul is fighting against in Colossians 2.

Do we honestly think that the Gnostics, who considered everything physical as evil (2), and promoted
asceticism (6) kept God’s feasts, which were all about food and drink?

Do we honestly think that the Gnostics, who considered the "God of the OT" evil wanted to keep His "feast
days?"

Really?

Here are the points that need to be scripturally reconciled if someone is teaching that Paul teaches in
Colossians 2 that God’s feasts, Sabbaths, and dietary instructions have been abolished.

1) (2:8) Since when are God’s commandments considered to be “vain and empty deceit?” What scripture
can be cited to support that understanding?
2) (2:8) Since when are God’s commandments from “human tradition?” What scripture can be cited to
support that understanding?

3) (2:8) Since when are God’s commandments from “elemental spirits of the universe, and not of Christ”
(Who is God)? What scripture can be cited to support that understanding?

(Ex16, 20; Lev 23; Deu16)

4) (2:13-14) If verses 13-14 speak of God nailing God’s commandments to the cross and doing away with
them then why does Paul precede verse 13 with the context of us being forgiven from our sin? What does
“nailing the handwriting of ordinances that were against us” have to do with our sin being forgiven if it is
taking “God’s commandments” out of the way, or blotting them out? Are we suggesting that verse 13 had
nothing to do with the context of verse 14?

5) Where in scripture is it stated that God’s commandments are “against us”, instead of being called
perfect, holy, just, fair, liberty, light to our path, truth, the way, and freedom? Is it not the opposite that is
true, that man’s nature is against God’s law and not the other way around? What scripture can we cite to
support that God’s law was against man and therefore needed to be removed? Where do we find support for
the idea in Scripture that God's commandments are against us?

6) How is nailing God’s law to the cross “disarming principalities and powers?” How does God disarm His
own power? What scripture can we cite to support this?

7) Why would Jesus make a “public spectacle” of God’s own law, and through that, how does He triumph
over them ?

8) (2:13) If verse 13 really describes God’s commandments being nailed to the cross, how do we reconcile
that with Romans 8:1-3 that states we are free from (6:14 - no longer under) the "law of sin and death"
because of what Jesus did on the cross instead of being free from God’s commandments?

9) It is clear that the group Paul was opposing (Gnostics) involved teaching strict ascetic regulations (2:21-
23). This is the OPPOSITE of feasting. You don't promote asceticism by encouraging the observance of
feast days. Instead, you elevate asceticism by criticizing the way someone is keeping a feast, or by
condemning the fact that they are celebrating a feast at all. How do we reconcile this contradiction when
the Feast days and Sabbaths were all about eating and drinking (Deut. 14:23-26, Neh. 8:10,12)?

10) The Gnostics considered everything that is physical as being evil, which is why they spiritualized away
all physical commandments, including the observances of feast days. Why would the Gnostics be
compelling the Colossians to be keeping the Feast days when it was against everything they believed in?
How do we make that work?

11) Why does Paul appeal to the value of the Feasts if he is arguing against keeping the feasts?

12) (2:18-19) Why does verses 18-19 distinguish between the worship of angels, and knowledge of things
not seen verses not holding to the things from God? Are the Feast days, dietary instructions, and Sabbaths
not from God? Are they knowledge of things not seen? Are they not written in scripture to be seen? Are
they not practiced in plain sight by Paul himself in scripture?

13) (2:20) Since when are God’s commandments “elementary principles from the world” and what
Scripture can be cited to support this?

14) (2:20) Why would observing God’s commandments be acting like one “still belonged to the world?” If
keeping the Sabbaths and Feast days was “acting” like one still belonged to the world, why are there
numerous instances in which Paul kept the Sabbaths and Feast days? Scripture clearly states that it is the
Sabbath and Feast days that set us apart from the world. In addition, if Paul kept the feasts and was also
acting like he still "belonged to the world," why would he criticize the Colossians for observing them as
well?

15) (2:20) Since when are God’s commandments "regulations of the world" and what Scripture can be cited
to support this?

16) (2:21) How is keeping God’s Feasts the same as “do not handle, do not taste, and do not touch" in
matters of food and drink? The Feast days were all about handling, tasting, and eating food and drink. Why
does Paul even mention this? (Perhaps it is because this is exactly what Gnostic doctrine taught)

17) (2:22) Since when are God’s commandments “human precepts and regulations” and what scripture can
be cited to support this? Did humans create the "law of God" or did God create the "law of God?"

18) (2:23) Since when are God’s commandments “lacking wisdom”, and what scripture can be cited to
support this? What do we do with all of the Scripture that states that the "law of God" is the beginning of all
wisdom?

19) (2:23) Since when are God’s commandments “self made religion”, and what scripture can be cited to
support this?

20) (2:23) Since when are God’s commandments “self abasement” and “severity to the body”, and what
scripture can be cited to support this?

21) (2:23) If the opposing group is arguing for the Colossians to keep the feasts, how is that consistent with
“self abasement,” “severity to the body,” and “avoiding fleshy indulgences,” such as perhaps…feasting and
drinking on Feast days and Sabbaths?

22) The Gnostics considered the "God of the OT" as evil and so they worshipped angels. The Gnostics did
not keep Sabbaths and Feast days of a God they considered evil, thus they would have been telling the
Colossians to not keep the Sabbaths and Feast days.

All of the above is easily reconciled and Scripture makes complete sense when one realizes that the
Gnostics would never subscribe to Feasts comprised of excess eating and drinking. Paul was stating to keep
the feasts and avoid the ascetic practices of the Gnostics. The Gnostics practices as much abstinence from
anything physical as they could, as anything physical and for the flesh was evil. They believed the more
things for the flesh that was avoided that the closer to God you became. The keeping of the Feasts was the
exact opposite of their beliefs!

The Colossians were not being judged by the Gnostics for not keeping God’s Feasts.

The Gnostics were judging the Colossians for their obedience in keeping of God’s Feasts.

We should be careful not to add or subtract from God’s commandments, and certainly be careful not to
accuse Paul, and especially God of doing so (Deut. 12:32).

How can we conclude that Paul is teaching against the "law of God" in the midst of so much contrary
evidence?

The Error of the Lawless Men

Scripture does not contradict itself. We want to ensure we do not fall in the trap of being part of the
error of the lawless that Peter warned us about in his letter:

2 Ptr 3:15-17
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot
and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation— as also our beloved brother
Paul , according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them
of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to
their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this
beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the
lawless;

Hopefully Peter’s warning resonates as a wakeup call.

What did Peter mean, unstable?

Who are the unstable? Well simply put, according to a dictionary, unstable means being in an unsolid
position, going back and forth. Here is what an unstable person does with Paul:

We have Paul telling us to keep the feast here, supposedly annulling it there, and sailing to Jerusalem for
Pentecost after celebrating church on Sunday only after leaving Unleavened Bread to honor several
Sabbaths. We have him fulfilling Nazarite vows with others to prove he follows the law of Moses, and we
have him supposedly stating that all unclean animals are now clean food. Then we have Paul abolishing the
whole law, just because we are under grace. We have Paul making offerings and alms in one place, and in
another place Paul being critical of his converts of any law they observed. Instead of just unstable, feel free
to use that as a definition of pure and utter insanity if you would like. It certainly fits.

What did Peter mean, as untaught?

Peter very clearly states that Paul’s letters are very difficult to understand, and that if you are not taught
correctly, his writings can be twisted leading one to destruction. In scripture, the only thing that causes
destruction is sin. It is also interesting to note that if we are not taught correctly, it will be easy to
misinterpret Paul’s writings. In Peter’s day, before there was a New Testament, all teaching derived from
the Old Testament. Consider this, when Paul commended the Bereans for testing Paul’s teachings to
scripture, the only scripture that existed was the Old Testament itself! So what does it mean to be taught
correctly? You must understand the Old Testament! In other words, don’t start in the middle of the Book as
some teach, but as the book of John implies, start in the beginning. As anyone knows, if you start in the
middle of a book, it is slightly difficult to figure out exactly what is going on in the story. And even worse,
if you still ignore the beginning, you are forced to use assumptions to build the story, or just as bad, rely
solely on others to tell you what to believe. Is that not error prone methodology or what? Yet that is what
we often instruct our new converts to do.

Did the Bereans (Acts 17:11) conclude that Paul was stating that God’s Sabbath and Feast days had been
abolished? That is very doubtful since the Bereans would have read the Old Testament in both the Greek
and Hebrew and quickly seen that God said the Sabbath and Feast days were to be observed FOREVER
and that they were to be LASTING. So the Bereans would not have misunderstood Paul like we apparently
have. Perhaps that is why they were commended by Paul, as often as the guy was misunderstood.

The Bereans would have known and understood that if there is no prophecy from God stating such then it
was not going to happen, that God was to do no such thing. How do you suppose they were equipped to
insulate themselves against false teachings and false teachers?

Amos 3:7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

This scriptural truth ensures that there is at least 2-3 witnesses in scripture to protect us against false
prophets and teachers, yet many teach that Paul, which of course, embarrassingly enough would be just one
witness, taught that God discarded many of His laws. Paul himself even taught this scriptural concept.

2Cor13:1 “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

Sadly, from mainstream doctrine’s point of view, there are no such statements from the Lord stating that He
was going to discard any of His laws relating the Feast days and Sabbath, etc. Where did God reveal that
such things were ever going to be abolished? He didn’t. In fact, as already mentioned, He stated they were
to be observed FOREVER, FOR ALL GENERATIONS, AND PERPETUAL. So if Paul teaches that God’s
law was to be abolished, and we want to test Paul’s teachings to scripture. Paul would FAIL THE TEST.
But this is only if we misunderstand Paul. If one is careful in his reading and study, one finds that Paul was
likely the best law teacher in all of scripture.

If we really want to discard what FOREVER actually means, perhaps we should consider what impact that
might have on how long we expect to be in our eternal destination. If FOREVER means NOT FOREVER
then eternity might be somewhat disappointing when it comes to an end as well. Or perhaps since the
Sabbath is an eternal representation on Earth what eternity with our Lord will be like, and since most have
no interest in keeping the Sabbath, perhaps it might be desired that eternity comes to an end. If we don’t
like the Sabbath here on Earth, we certainly will not like it for all eternity.

So when Peter states that we can misunderstand Paul’s writings, what would that look like?

What Peter is obviously saying here is that the misapplication of Paul’s letters would indeed generate the
abolishing of laws and commandments, and as a result, if you thought they were abolished, by default, you
would certainly no longer be obedient to them. You would be led away, as he states, by the “error of the
LAWLESS or WICKED”, because you would be operating under less laws or even worse, no law.

As fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I urge you to take all of the above seriously, since these things are
relating to our awesome God YHWH, who deserves every bit of our attention and our sincere desire to
understand His Word and His ways.

Test everything I have said to scripture. Never take a man’s word for Truth, but test it to the only
established Truth we have, God’s Word. This is what we are accountable to at the end of the race. Show
yourself approved, and study the scriptures. Contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Seek out His
ways and His path. Test your heart and ensure that it desires God’s ways and not the ways of the world,
doctrines of men, or traditions of our fathers. As Jesus stated, we can do many things in God’s name, but if
we were not doing it out of pure love and obedience to Him, then it matters not. In fact, our heart can still
be so far from Him, that He could state, "Depart from me. I never knew you, you who works lawlessness".

It is our faith in Jesus that matters, but if there is no evidence of faith in your life that is demonstrated by a
sincere interest in the keeping of God’s commandments, then begin asking yourself why you do not trust
God’s ways, but instead rely on man’s ways and your ways. We need to humble ourselves and see Truth in
the place where Truth is written. We can not pretend to invent Truth, but only have it delivered to us
through His Word.

I pray that this study has blessed you. I also pray that as you test the above to scripture, that you bring to
my attention any part that might be in error as defined by scripture. Do not allow me to reside in any
understanding that could be false, but reach out to me in love and discuss God’s Holy Word with me, and I
will make every attempt to do the same with you. In the end, only the Truth matters. In the end, only Truth
can end the division in His body and restore unity.

True worshippers worship in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:23)

Ask yourself the hard questions. Ask others. Ask the Word. Test your faith. Challenge yourself. Test
everything.

119 Ministries
www.TestEverything.net
Appendix 1

How does scripture describe God’s law?

1. The Law blesses (obey) and curses (disobey).

(Deut 11:26-27)(Ps 112:1)(Ps 119:1-2)(Ps 128:1)(Prov 8:32)(Is 56:2)(Mat 5:6)(Mat 5:10)(Luke
11:28)(Jam 1:25)(1 Pe 3:14)(Rev 22:14)

2. The Law defines sin.

(Jer 44:23)(Ez 18:21)(Dan 9:11)(Ro 3:20)(Ro 7:7)(1 Jo 3:4)

3. The Law is perfect.

(Ps 19:7)(Jam 1:25)

4. The Law is liberty.

(Ps 119:45)(Jam 1:25, 2:12)

5. The Law is the way.

(Ex 18:20)(Deut 10:12)(Josh 22:5)(1 King 2:3)(Ps 119:1)(Prov 6:23)(Is 2:3)(Mal 2:8)(Mark 12:14)(Ac
24:14)

6. The Law is the truth.

(Ps 119:142)(Mal 2:6)(Ro 2:20)(Gal 5:7)(Ps 43:2-4)(Jo 8:31-32)

7. The Law is life.

(Job 33:30)(Ps 36:9)(Prov 6:23)(Rev 22:14)

8. The Law is light.

(Job 24:13)(Job 29:3)(Ps 36:9)(Ps 43:2-4)(Ps 119:105)(Prov 6:23)(Is 2:5) (Is 8:20)(Is 51:4)(2 Cor 6:14)(1
John 1:7)

9. The Law is Jesus, the Word made flesh.

(PERFECT-LIBERTY-WAY-TRUTH-LIFE-LIGHT).
(Ps 27:1)(Jo 1:1-14)(Jo 14:5-11)(1 Jo 1:7)

10. The Law is also for the Gentiles (foreigner/alien) who are grafted in.
(Ex 12:19) (Ex 12:38) (Ex 12:49) (Lev 19:34) (Lev 24:22) (Num 9:14) (Num 15:15-16) (Num 15:29) (ie:
Ruth) (Is 42:6) (Is 60:3) (Mat 5:14) (Eph 2:10-13) (Ac 13:47) (Ro 11:16-27) (Jer31:31-34) (Ez 37) (1 Jo
2:10) (1 Jo 1:7)
11. The Law is God’s instructions on how to love God, how to love others, and how to not love yourself.
(Ex 20:6)(Deut 5:10)(Deut 7:10)(Deut 11:13)(Deut 11:22)(Deut 30:16)(Deut 6:5)(Lev 19:18)(Neh
1:5)(Dan 9:4)(Mat 22:35-37)(Matthew 10:39)(Mat 16:25)(Jo 14:15)(Jo 14:21)(Ro 13:9)(1 Jo 5:2-3)(2 Jo
1:6)

Pro 28:9 "He who turns away his ear from hearing the Law, Even his prayer is an abomination."