"Do not let anyone judge you in eating and in drinking, (either in part of a feast, or  new moon, or sabbaths), which are a shadow of things to come"

 

1.  This text supports Sabbath observance, because it mentions in the parenthetical clause when certain heretics were judging the covenant faithful.   They were judging their feasting on feast days, new moons, and sabbaths.

 

2.   The scribes of the Byzantine Text changed a key word in the text to cover up the fact that the Sabbath was being kept in Colossae.  They changed the word και = and to η = or to break up the structure of the verse.  This caused the text to read "in eating or in drinking, or in part of a feast, or new moons, or sabbaths".  Nestle-Aland, 27th edition has the text corrected to the more ancient Greek.  For MSS affected by the scribal alteration see the apparatus of NA-27th.

 

3. The Scribal change is a virtual smoking gun as it changes the theology of this text 180 degrees.  Before the change, the text supported Sabbath observance, and only condemned heretics for judging eating and drinking.   After the change, it is now the sabbath keepers who judge sabbath breaking that become the heretics.

 

4. The use of this text by Sunday Christians is thereby proven entirely illegitimate and deceitful.  The MSS evidence blows a hole a mile wide in their argument, and in fact reverses it so that it comes back to bite them.

 

5. What is being judged is eating on holy days instead of fasting.  The heretics wanted the Colossian Sabbath and festival observers to fast on the sabbaths.  This is what the Church of Rome commanded be done to the Sabbath.  They commanded that their followers should fast on the Sabbath.  The Eastern Orthodox Church, which held a higher view of the Sabbath rejected this fasting commandment because it desecrated the Sabbath.

 

6. The reason Rome wanted fasting on the Sabbath was to make it into a day of mourning and self denial, so that the people would not delight in it.

 

7.  The SDA interpretation of "sabbaths" in this text is that it means "ceremonial sabbaths".   This interpretation is not legitimate, because it suggests that God abolished his festival sabbaths.

 

8. The SDA Church has unnecessarily weakened its argument by the above position, because it seeks to avoid responsibility for the Torah as God gave it to Israel.   It is therefore, at a sort of half way position between apostate Sunday Christianity and the orthodox covenant faith of the Scriptures.

 

9.  There are many SDA members who have embraced the feast days, in spite of errant  denominational teaching, still existing in the ranks of the Church, because they listen to God first, and denominational leaders second.

 

10.  The solution to the SDA "problem" is not apostasy, for Church members to abandon the Sabbath but to reform, not to become Jews, but to realize they are members of the house of Israel joined with the believing Jews in covenant.

 

11. either... or...or: BDAG, 3rd edition,  "η ...  η ... η" = "either...or...or".  The first conjunction subordinates the whole phrase, making it only an explanation of when eating and drinking was likely to be illegitimately judged.

 

 

eating and in drinking: βρωσει και εν ποσει. The best texts read "eating and in drinking" as the subject of the verse.  The heretics were judging the Colossian believers in Yeshua for making the holy days a time for the best food and drink.   The heretics preferred to be ascetics and fast or abstain (cf. vs. 21).   This heresy may be reflected in Luke 18:12 where some Jews would say, "I fast twice the Sabbath" νηστευω δις του σαββατου, a practice opposed by most Jews, but taught by some minority sects such as the Essenes, and other obscure parties.  Voluntary fasting days are also an issue in Romans 14:1-6, but these would not be on any of the holy days.   Later the Church of Rome made the Sabbath into a fasting day, a practice opposed by the Eastern Church, so it is clear that even in Paul's day the elements of a conflict over fasting on the Sabbath were in place.

 

either... or...or: BDAG, 3rd edition,  "η ...  η ... η" = "either...or...or".  The first conjunction subordinates the whole phrase, making it only an explanation of when eating and drinking was likely to be illegitimately judged. (DLC: torahtimes.org)

Daniel's Literal Translation and Commentary: (http://www.torahtimes.org/translation/col0216.html)