Should Christians Keep the Seventh-Day Sabbath? A Theological Examination through Hermeneutical Exegesis

One of the more intriguing theological debates in contemporary Christianity arises from the strong conviction Seventh-day Adventists express regarding the continued observance of the Seventh-Day Sabbath. In and of itself, I really admire the prophet-level zeal they have in defending this position as well as the priority they give to attending corporate worship.

From the perspective of Churches that gather Sunday mornings, the Sabbath question may appear secondary in light of more pressing doctrinal challenges facing the Church and world alike. However, from the Adventist’s framework, not observing the Sabbath sundown Friday to sundown Saturday would amount to a sin of omission – even if a believer met on Sunday mornings. Thus, in an Adventist’s mind, once one was given “light” or understanding of this divine ordinance and chose not to observe it, then such willful neglect would throw into question one’s very faith and if it was really genuine. 

Baptists, among other Christian groups, often offer a reasoned rebuttal to seventh-day Sabbath observance by interpreting key biblical passages in a way that affirms Christian liberty in this matter. Indeed, many opt to meet Sunday mornings, in part, as a reminder of the resurrection day. This counter-perspective often frames those who still promote the 7th Day Sabbath as legalists, especially if they insist in their position to the extent that many Adventists do. Thus, the landscape of the Sabbath debate typically boils down to either labeling strict adherers as legalistic or labeling non-observers as committing a serious sin of omission - depending on one’s point of view. 

Since this topic has been discussed exhaustively, one may doubt if my contribution will impact this debate as there may not be anything new to add from what has already been said by so many. However, I believe I’m in a unique position to consolidate the most compelling arguments as I’ve read most of the major treatises on this topic, as well as having discussed it with one of the world’s leading Greek scholars and I’m certain that there are a few points that the general audience to this debate hasn’t considered at all, nor have I naturally encountered some of these points in a sermon before, which makes it all the more worthwhile to mention. Therefore, without further ado, I will explain from a Baptist’s perspective what I will call the mainline argument, (which concerns Colossians 2:16), the counter argument found in Colossians 2:14– (which is usually the added rebuttal by the Adventist if and when their view of the mainline argument isn’t received completely), and lastly, I will list a few honorable mention arguments that add to the case that Christian’s have liberty in this matter.

The Mainline Argument

Colossians 2:16 declares:

“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.”

At the heart of the Sabbath debate stands this critical verse, wherein the Apostle Paul—writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—affirms that certain time-bound worship observances are no longer binding upon the believer. The term “sabbath days,” in particular, features prominently among the worship laws he identifies as obsolete in the New Covenant era. A closer examination of the three key terms in this passage helps clarify Paul’s intent:

1. Holyday: This refers to the seven annual Feasts of the Lord instituted in the Mosaic Law, as first outlined in Leviticus 23. These included events such as Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles.

2. New Moons: These were monthly observances tied to the beginning of each lunar month according to the Hebrew calendar, often involving sacrificial rites and special gatherings (e.g., Numbers 10:10; Isaiah 1:13).

3. Sabbath Days: This phrase is understood by many scholars and theologians to encompass not only the seventh-day weekly Sabbath but also the sabbatical year (every seventh year) and the Year of Jubilee (every fiftieth year), all of which were integral to Israel’s covenantal life under the Law of Moses.

Seventh-day Adventists, however, generally argue that the “sabbath days” referenced here does not include the weekly seventh-day Sabbath at all. They make this case through both a local defense (based on immediate context and wording) and a broader theological framework. Since the broader defense will be addressed in the counter-argument section, I will focus here solely on their localized interpretation.

This localized interpretive framework, employed by many Seventh-day Adventists, categorizes the three phrases in Colossians 2:16 as follows. They typically understand the term "holyday" to encompass only six of the seven annual Feasts of the Lord listed in Leviticus 23—excluding the Day of Atonement. They do not contest the reference to "new moon," but place significant emphasis on the claim that the phrase "sabbath days" is an indirect reference to the Day of Atonement alone.

Notably, most Adventist theologians do not categorize the Sabbatical Year or the Year of Jubilee under the umbrella of "sabbath days" in this passage, even though those observances are also called “sabbaths” in other parts of Scripture. Instead, they use other scripture to arrive at the same conclusion. Thus, according to this interpretation, Paul’s use of "sabbath days" in Colossians 2:16 is taken to serve primarily as a reference to the Day of Atonement.

However, this reading introduces a potential tension. The Day of Atonement is already identified in Leviticus 23 as one of the Feasts of the Lord, which are formally referred to as "holydays." Therefore, in order to sustain their interpretation, Adventists must take up one of two approaches—either of which presents certain exegetical challenges:

1. Admission of Redundancy: They must concede that the Day of Atonement is referenced twice in the same verse—once as a "holyday" and again as a "sabbath days". While possible, this explanation appears structurally redundant and may strain the internal logic of the verse. Thus, this defense must downplay the interpretive significance of a redundancy. While this approach is less tidy from a literary standpoint, some Adventists are comfortable acknowledging and defending this position.

2. Exclusion of the Day of Atonement from “Holyday”: They must argue that in this particular instance, "holyday" does not refer to the Day of Atonement, thereby preserving the distinctiveness of the "sabbath days" phrase. This is the most commonly adopted Adventist position, although it requires a narrowing of the term "holyday" that diverges from broader biblical usage. 

It should also be noted that an Adventist interpreter might appeal to both positions simultaneously, adopting a dual-layered defense to provide greater flexibility in the event that one of the two viewpoints receives lopsided scrutiny over the other. However, such an approach raises concerns about consistency and transparency. While it may offer strategic versatility, it risks appearing ad hoc or theologically evasive.

Getting to the explanation of their primary viewpoint - #2, their rationale behind categorizing the Day of Atonement under “sabbath days” rather than “holyday” rests on a technical distinction: namely, that the Day of Atonement was, in at least one respect, a fast rather than a feast. This view draws partial support from Acts 27:9, where Luke indirectly refers to the Day of Atonement as “the fast”:

“Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them.”

The argument follows that if Luke chose to describe this “Feast of the Lord” using the term fast, rather than its formal designation (i.e., holyday or Day of Atonement), then it would be consistent for Paul to have used an indirect term—“sabbath days”—to reference it in Colossians 2:16, even though “holyday” also appears in the same verse.

However, this interpretive strategy introduces a critical difficulty. If Paul’s audience already understood the term holyday to include the Day of Atonement, then referencing it again under sabbath days would create a redundancy within the verse. On the other hand, if sabbath days does not include the Day of Atonement, it raises the question of what, precisely, Paul meant by that phrase. It cannot be an empty or meaningless term, as that would be inconsistent with the careful language of inspired Scripture. Thus, this interpretation places the phrase “sabbath days” in an awkward position—either strangely redundant or puzzlingly ambiguous. (That is - if one forbids the 7th Day Sabbath from being a referent by it).

Given the theological significance of properly interpreting Colossians 2:16, it is crucial to exercise due diligence by examining where and when any major ancient source distinguishes the Day of Atonement from the other holydays listed in Leviticus 23 in the way Adventist’s suggest Colossians 2:16 does. One particularly valuable resource in this regard is the Septuagint (LXX)—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced around the 3rd century B.C. by approximately seventy Jewish scholars.

Because the New Testament, including Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, was also written in Greek in the 1st century A.D., the Septuagint offers a unique opportunity for linguistic and theological comparison. Specifically, we may investigate if the Greek term used by Paul in Colossians 2:16 for “holydays” matches with the word the Greek Septuagint translators used to summarize what encompasses the Feasts of the Lord when they translated Leviticus chapter 23. The word we are looking for is (heorte) / ἑορταί.

Greek New Testament, Colossians 2:16 Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων· 

The Septuagint, LXX, Leviticus 23:1 Καὶ εἶπεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων 2 Λάλησον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς Αἱ ἑορταὶ Κυρίου ἃς καλέσετε αὐτὰς κλητὰς ἁγίας, αὗταί εἰσιν ἑορταί μου.  

In the instance of Leviticus, the word ἑορτή is indeed used to denote all seven summarized, appointed feasts, thereby indicating continuity in terminology between the Old and New Testaments. The logical inference, then, is that Paul’s audience in Colossae—familiar with the Septuagint’s translation imbedded in their culture and speech for more than 300 years by the time of Paul’s letter —would have understood the term “heorte” in Colossians 2:16 to include all seven of the Feasts of the Lord, including the Day of Atonement.

Therefore, from a linguistic and historical perspective, there appears to be no compelling reason to exclude the Day of Atonement from the category of holydays as referenced by Paul. The consistency of Greek terminology across both Testaments strongly supports the conclusion that Paul intended the term to encompass the full Levitical feast cycle.

At this stage of the discussion, many Christians are firmly persuaded that Colossians 2:16 affirms Christian liberty with regard to seventh-day Sabbath observance. However, Seventh-day Adventists raise a critical counterpoint at this late stage. They contend a technicality that only the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament constitute the inspired Word of God, and therefore, the non-inspired Septuagint (LXX), as a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, should not be regarded as authoritative in doctrinal matters. They argue that the LXX contains notable translational inaccuracies, especially in passages such as Leviticus 23, and thus cannot be reliably used to settle theological disputes.

To reinforce this position, Adventists often highlight the Septuagint’s flawed translation of the Book of Daniel, which was later replaced by the version of Theodotion—a correction that underscores the LXX’s limitations. As a result, the discussion often reaches an impasse at this juncture, with Adventists anchoring their defense in the primacy and reliability of the Masoretic Text (which includes the inspired, Hebrew rendering of Leviticus), while simultaneously dismissing the Septuagint as non-inspired and textually compromised.

Conversely, Baptists tend to view the Septuagint’s summarizing use of ἑορτή (heortē) - wherein the Day of Atonement is clearly among the other “Feasts of the Lord” in Leviticus 23 - as a significant indicator of how Paul likely intended the term holyday in Colossians 2:16. This, in their view, reinforces the conclusion that the seventh-day Sabbath naturally falls under the subsequent phrase “sabbath days”—since the Day of Atonement is already accounted for under holyday.

Furthermore, standard biblical reference works and theological dictionaries frequently define “sabbath days” as encompassing the weekly Sabbath, which presents another interpretive challenge for the Adventist view.

Now, earlier in this discussion, I alluded to mentioning a contribution to the Sabbath debate that may be unfamiliar to many. For this, I must credit a particularly enlightening exchange I had with a Greek scholar. Several years ago, while exploring an academic tutoring platform focused on Greek language instruction, I decided to filter the listings for the tutor with the most distinguished credentials and accolades in Biblical Greek. After introducing myself, we agreed upon a unique arrangement: I would submit to him a brief but heavily opinionated exegetical interpretation of a Greek New Testament passage, and he, in turn, was free to critique or challenge wherever he found deficiencies.

His name is Frank, and over the years, we have engaged in a number of thought-provoking conversations. On one occasion, I chose to adopt and articulate the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Colossians 2:16 —not because I personally held it, but to test the scholarly resilience of this viewpoint in the hands of someone well-versed in the original language. I closed my argument by highly stressing the common Adventist rebuttal: namely, that the Septuagint (LXX) is not a divinely inspired translation and therefore should not carry decisive weight or authority in doctrinal disputes, even if it does pose a challenge in this instance. This line of reasoning, as I’ve already discussed, often marks a rhetorical stalemate in the debate.

Frank's response to this was both insightful and unexpected:

_________________________________________

When it comes to the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, in point of fact, most of the quotations are from the LXX.  For instance, in Matt. 12:21, Matthew quotes Isaiah 42:4.  The rendering in Greek is listed below, followed by the translation in English:  

καὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν 

“And in His Name gentiles will trust” 

However, when we look at Isaiah 42:4 in the Hebrew, we see a completely different rendering:  ולְתוָֹרָתוֹ אִיִים יְיַחֵילּוּ 

“And the islands shall wait for His law” 

The contrast between the two is stark.  If Matthew was quoting directly from the Hebrew Old Testament, one wonders how he got “in His Name” instead of “islands.”  The answer is easily solved when looking at the LXX’s version of Isaiah 42:4: 

καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν 

Aside from the preposition ἐπὶ the second word, the quotations are identical.  This usage of the LXX as the source of the quote for the NT writers is not an anomaly; it is more the norm than the exception.  Therefore, when one contests the validity and authority of the Septuagint, one must inquire as to why the NT writers chose it as their source instead of the MT.  

One could rebut that Paul uses secular poets in Acts 17 and that Jude quotes from the book of Enoch, which are both certainly not inspired, but this would be a category mistake because they are not the same in the least.  With regards to the former, these authors are using secular sources in isolated incidents and neither affirms their authority.  In the latter, nearly all the NT writers use the LXX when they could have used the MT, meaning they chose the LXX as their preferable source.   

The interlocutor can claim that the LXX is not inspired, but then a simple question back as to why a non-inspired version was chosen over an inspired version seems a difficult, near impossible, question to answer to say the least.  

_________________________________________

Seventh-day Adventists are often taken by surprise when presented with the evidence discussed above. On one hand, they are compelled to minimize the influence of the Septuagint in order to sustain their interpretation of Colossians 2:16. On the other hand, a categorical dismissal of the LXX risks fostering an ahistorical portrayal of how the Septuagint was regarded and employed during the New Testament period. This tension presents a significant challenge for the Adventist interpretive framework. If the historical context and widespread usage of the LXX in the apostolic era are downplayed to the extent required for their argument to hold, the result is a hermeneutical model that lacks comprehensiveness and historical coherence.

The Counter-Argument

While the mainline argument has now been fully presented, it is important to note that Seventh-day Adventists rarely advance their local interpretation of Colossians 2:16 in isolation. Ideally, they prefer to precede it with a broader series of scriptural studies that establish foundational theological premises. Chief among these is the assertion that the Ten Commandments—of which the Sabbath command is a part—are moral in nature and therefore eternal in scope. From this perspective, each command carries a unique, immutable status that cannot be annulled or abrogated under the New Covenant.

To support this framework, Adventist theologians often distinguish between various categories of Old Testament law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. They argue that while ceremonial laws were temporary and typological, the moral law—exemplified in the Ten Commandments—remains perpetually binding. As part of this argument, they point to the differing placement of these laws in the Old Testament record. According to this view, the ceremonial laws were written by Moses in a separate book and placed beside the Ark of the Covenant, whereas the Ten Commandments were written directly by God on stone tablets and placed inside the Ark. The Ark’s contents—namely, the tablets of the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s rod, and the golden urn of manna—are often cited to underscore the special, enduring authority of the Decalogue in contrast to the “outside”, auxiliary nature of the ceremonial law book.

Once this foundational concept is understood—that the moral law, identified with the Ten Commandments, holds a distinct and eternal status—interpreting Colossians 2:16 becomes, from the Adventist perspective, significantly more straightforward. If the Sabbath commandment is assumed to be part of this enduring moral law, then the interpretive range of the phrase “sabbath days” in Colossians 2:16 becomes far narrower. Therefore, in this framework, the seventh-day Sabbath would be categorically excluded from any temporal or ceremonial observances that may have been abrogated.

A key text supporting this distinction is found earlier in the same passage—Colossians 2:14—which reads:

“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.”

Adventist interpreters emphasize that verse 14 is essential to the contextual understanding of verse 16. They typically draw out the following observations surrounding it:

1. The Eternal Nature of the Ten Commandments: To summarize again, Adventists assert that the Ten Commandments are moral and therefore eternal in nature. Within this framework, the fourth commandment—“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy”—is understood to possess a unique status. As a moral imperative, it is viewed as transcending ceremonial classifications and thus should not be included under the phrase “sabbath days” in Colossians 2:16. This argument appeals to a broader theological framework rather than limiting the interpretation solely to the local context of the verse.

2. Contextual Clarification from Colossians 2:14: The phrase “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances” is interpreted as referring specifically to the ceremonial law book. As such, they argue that the entire scope of Paul’s statement in verse 16 pertains only to ordinances of a ceremonial nature, excluding moral law—and by extension, the seventh-day Sabbath—from what was “nailed to the cross.”

3. Finger Writing vs. Handwriting: A further distinction drawn by Adventists from this verse centers on the mode of inscription and not just a law-category distinction. They highlight that God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger, whereas Moses wrote the ceremonial law by his hand. Therefore, the “handwriting that was against us” in Colossians 2:14, they argue, must refer to Moses' handwritten ceremonial law book (that was displayed outside the Ark of the Covenant) rather than to God’s “finger-writing” of the moral commandments on stone tablets, which further protects the 7th Day Sabbath from entering the discussion of annulment. 

4. Nails can’t pierce stone: Finally, Adventists point out an even more specific nuance that Paul’s metaphor—“nailing it to the cross”—logically applies to scrolls or parchment, not to stone - which is what the 10 Commandments were inscribed on. They argue that it would be physically nonsensical to drive a nail through stone tablets, but entirely consistent to nail a written scroll, such as the book of the ceremonial law. Therefore, in yet another respect, the metaphor used in verse 14 doesn’t refer to the 10 Commandments, which the Sabbath command is a part.

Having considered these additional counterpoints, I decided to present them to Frank—the Greek scholar from our earlier Sabbath discussion—as a kind of second installment in our theological exchange. After articulating the Adventist perspective on these counterpoint issues, I awaited his response. This was his reply:

_________________________________________

An Exposition of Colossians 2:14-16 

Question #1: 

“A further distinction drawn by Adventists from this verse centers on the mode of inscription and not just a law-category distinction. They highlight that God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger, whereas Moses wrote the ceremonial law by his hand. Therefore, the “handwriting that was against us” in Colossians 2:14, they argue, must refer to Moses' handwritten ceremonial law book (that was displayed outside the Ark of the Covenant Deut 31:26) rather than to God’s “finger-writing” of the moral commandments on stone tablets, which further protects the 7th Day Sabbath from entering the discussion of annulment.”

Response:  

This argument seems to draw a difference between handwriting and finger writing, a distinction which I am not sure can be made.  For instance, in this modern age, we often sign documents on a computer screen with our fingers (e.g., DocuSign).  When doing so, if for instance we were called to a court of law and were asked if that was our handwriting, no court on earth would accept the answer, “No, that’s my finger writing.”  When discussing the 10 Commandments, they most certainly were written by God’s own hand – this must be established.  To draw a distinction between Moses writing the Torah with his hand and God writing the 10 Commandments with His finger would be one that would not hold water.  

Secondly, and this is important, there were actually two sets of tablets.  If we remember, the first set was destroyed by Moses when he came down the mountain and saw the children of Israel caught up in idolatry.  Seeing this act of sedition, he smashed the tablets into pieces.  He then went back up the mountain to receive a second set of tablets from the Lord and we are given vital information about this new set:  

At that time the Lord said to me (Moses), “Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain and make yourself an ark of wood. And I [God] will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke; and you shall put them in the ark.” So I [Moses] made an ark of acacia wood, hewed two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain, having the two tablets in my hand. And He (God) wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me (Deuteronomy 10:1-4, emp. and parenthetical items added). 

Clearly, we are told that God wrote on them, but nothing is mentioned of His finger for the second set.  Therefore, when Colossians references the “handwriting” against us, not only would the first set of tablets fit this bill, but even more so the second set.  

However, all of this moot and not part of the argument because Moses, when writing the Torah, also wrote the 10 commandments as a part of it.  It doesn’t matter if a portion of it – the 10 Commandments – was written by the finger of God in stone because all of it was handwritten by Moses which is known as the Torah.  Thayer, among many other scholars, clearly identifies this handwriting as having been conducted by Moses by writing the following:  

“χειρόγραφον is “a handwriting; what one has written with his own hand … specifically, a note of hand, or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at an appointed time … metaphorically, applied in Col. 2:14 to the Mosaic law, which shews men to be chargeable with offences for which they must pay the penalty.”  

Finally, the great scholar, F.F. Bruce, examined the Greek syntax and grammar and noticed that there was more to the issue than simply handwriting. He looked at the dative construction that followed it and was able conclude that this must be referencing the whole Law: 

One must also take account of the dative τοῖς δόγμασιν attached to χειρόγραφον. This writer has translated this as a dative of accompaniment: “the bond, ordinances and all.” … This takes τοῖς δόγμασιν in the same sense as the parallel ἐν δόγμασιν in Ephesians 2:15. But if the words are rendered “ordinances and all” or “consisting of ordinances,” is this not equating the bond with the Law itself? Yes. There is no doubt a natural reluctance to think of the Law itself as being blotted out by God.  

To summarize, God did write the first and second set of tablets – whether by finger for the first time or hand by the second time – equating them with being handwritten by God.  However, this does not matter, because Moses wrote all of the Law down on to paper – the civil, ceremonial, and the moral.  When Colossians 2 speaks of the handwriting that was against us, this would refer to the Law, all of it, as written by Moses as a record of what God dictated to him on Mount Sinai.  

_________________________________________

As the scholar observes, this counterargument framework appears to have several flaws. Regrettably, it is unclear whether this framework can be meaningfully revised or defended from the aforementioned analysis. If the distinction between finger writing and handwriting proves to be logically unsound, then the Adventist appeal to this distinction becomes a moot point— which weakens their interpretive credibility.

Moreover, the argument concerning the physical impossibility of nailing stone tablets to the cross falters under closer examination. The metaphor in Colossians 2:14 is not constrained by literal physics; rather, it conveys a theological truth: that the penalty of the law—both moral and ceremonial—was borne by Christ on the cross. In this sense, it is not the physical tablets or scrolls that were nailed, but the consequences and condemnations arising from transgressing the law. Thus, the Adventist’s added side point—that verse 14 cannot apply to the Ten Commandments because of the metaphor’s physical limits—proves to be unpersuasive.

So, where does that leave the debate? I can’t dogmatically prove it, but I would conclude that a careful, fair, and balanced hermeneutical analysis of the most relevant points would lead one to view that the Apostle Paul gave Christians liberty over the 7th Day Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 even though 7th Day Adventists hold deep framework that attempts to make this conclusion a non-possibility. 

Bonus Questions:

In my opinion, only the mainline argument and counterargument sections of this article are necessary to get to the bottom of the Sabbath debate. However, I also found a few other points interesting.

Q: If Seventh-day Adventists reject the authority of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of Leviticus 23 in favor of the inspired Hebrew text, why does this preference matter—especially if the Greek term heortē has only one Hebrew equivalent? On what specific grounds then can Adventists claim a translational shortcoming?

A: Adventists prefer the Hebrew Masoretic Text over the Septuagint in this context because the Hebrew presents another opportunity to introduce indirect ambiguity to the term “sabbath days” in Colossians 2. This point is a little more abstract to articulate, yet it begins by noting that the Hebrew of Leviticus 23 employs two terms to describe the "Feasts of the Lord": mo’ed (מוֹעֵד) and chag (חַג). Mo’ed is used in the beginning (verse 4) and end (verse 37 and 44) of the chapter to summarize the Feasts and chag is used three times within the same chapter to refer to each of the three pilgrimage Feasts.

There is little controversy surrounding mo’ed, as Adventist interpreters typically acknowledge that it corresponds closely with the Greek word heortē, translated as “holyday” in Colossians 2:16. The term mo’ed broadly denotes appointed times and regularly includes all seven Levitical feasts—among them the Day of Atonement—which Adventists accept.

The interpretive tension arises with the second term, chag. Adventists view chag as having a more limited semantic range. In several Old Testament contexts, chag is used to refer specifically to the three pilgrimage feasts: Passover, Weeks (Pentecost), and Tabernacles—festivals requiring physical travel and communal celebration in Jerusalem. Based on this distinction, some Adventists argue that if Paul had been speaking Hebrew rather than Greek, he may have chosen to employ chag instead of mo’ed, thereby alluding only to those three pilgrimage feasts and not all seven. This would, in theory, achieve something akin to their previous two viewpoints that attempt to exclude the Day of Atonement from the scope of heortē in Colossians 2:16 (or at least downplay a confusing redundancy) but this time the “sabbath days” phrase serves as a catchall term for the remaining feasts not covered by chag. 

However, it is worth noting that this proposal constitutes at least the third distinct Adventist suggestion regarding what “sabbath days” might reference. At some point, the continual introduction of alternative interpretations raises a broader methodological concern. One must ask whether a hermeneutical approach that shifts its referents—offering different definitions depending on the exegetical pressure—reflects the interpretive clarity and doctrinal consistency expected in sound biblical theology. While it is entirely appropriate to explore multiple angles in the process of interpretation, the accumulation of mutually exclusive defenses may appear more like a tactic of evasion than a coherent theological stance.

Nonetheless, this argument encounters difficulty when weighed against the broader lexical evidence. Concordance studies reveal that chag is used with greater semantic breadth than this Adventist interpretation inclusively allows, as it is not uniformly limited to the pilgrimage feasts. This flexibility weakens its viability as a tool for restricting the meaning of heortē in Paul’s usage - (or if you follow the argument -the assumption on how the Hebrew of Colossians 2:16 would hypothetically be rendered as).

Moreover, since Paul wrote in Greek and chose the term heortē—a word consistently used in the Septuagint to encompass all seven Levitical feasts—the burden falls on the Adventist interpreter to demonstrate that he intended a narrower meaning.

As it happened, I did briefly raise this side point with the scholar mentioned earlier. Together, we examined a concordance-based study of the word chag to assess whether there was any legitimate linguistic basis for the Adventist claim that it could refer exclusively to three of the seven feasts, or at least provide plausible ambiguity. What follows are the scholar’s notes and conclusions from that study:

_________________________________________

As I look at the two Hebrew words you mentioned in Leviticus 23, I see a vast range of meanings especially for chag ַחַג. The word is first used in Exodus 12:14 and there it clearly means “sacrifice.” Other uses for the word include festival, gathering, and festival sacrifice. For a full listing of the semantical range, see the excerpt from Brown, Driver, and Briggs lexicon.  

It is my conclusion then, that ַחַגּ can most certainly refer to Yom Kippur/ The Day of Atonement, as it was/is a festival that includes a sacrifice, thus making this High Holy Day a festival-sacrifice. Either word can act as a referent for the feasts/festivals and so I see no problem with the Greek using ἑορτή as a reference to either Hebrew word.  

_________________________________________

Q: How should one assess the Seventh-day Adventist claim that the seventh-day Sabbath was first instituted in the Garden of Eden for Adam—especially in light of the fact that Orthodox Judaism teaches its formal institution occurred at Sinai?

A: At first glance, one has to really wonder what possible advantage Adventists could gain for going out on a limb to promote an entirely different timeline of the origin of the Sabbath. One would think that the two Sabbath-observing traditions—Orthodox Judaism and Seventh-day Adventism—would align on such a fundamental point. Yet here, they sharply diverge concerning the origin of the Sabbath, even though both concur with each other about the timeframe of the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).

However, for Seventh-day Adventists, relocating the institution of the Sabbath to the time of Adam endeavors to serve an important theological function and advantage. If the Sabbath were to be hypothetically established at creation rather than at Sinai, it would reinforce the claim that the Sabbath command is moral, universal, and rooted in the created order—rather than a ceremonial ordinance introduced under the Mosaic Covenant. By anchoring the Sabbath in Eden, Adventists aim to further insulate it from the possibility of abrogation, particularly since the ceremonial laws instituted under Moses are widely recognized as having been fulfilled in Christ. 

In this view, the creation-based origin of the Sabbath gives it a status more enduring than that of temporary ritual law. Consequently, if Adventists are successful in establishing this earlier origin, their broader argument for the perpetual moral authority of the Ten Commandments—especially the fourth—gains considerable strength. It provides not only a covenantal distinction between moral and ceremonial law but also a cosmological foundation for Sabbath observance that precedes Israel entirely.

Yet this claim encounters a significant historical and theological hurdle: it does not align with the understanding held by the Jewish tradition from which the Sabbath emerged. Orthodox Judaism, with its deep reverence for Torah scholarship, holds that the Sabbath was formally instituted at Sinai. Rabbinic scholars, many of whom have memorized the Torah and are known for their dedication to preserving and interpreting the sacred texts, consistently affirm this view.

Given this, it is instructive to consult a rabbi directly on the matter. When asked, “When was the Sabbath first commanded to humanity?” the expected—and confirmed—answer from rabbinic tradition is clear: the Sabbath was instituted at Sinai, as recorded in Exodus 16–20. I reached out to a rabbi myself to confirm this understanding, and his response affirmed the standard Orthodox Jewish position: while the concept of rest may be acknowledged in the creation narrative, the formal command to observe the Sabbath was not given until the time of Moses:

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for your inquiry and please accept my apologies for the delayed response.

Indeed when the Manna began falling is when the laws of Shabbos were given to the Jews. See Rashi at the following link: chabad.org/9876&showrashi=true#v25

When our sages note that the forefather fulfilled Torah even before it was given it means that it was on a spiritual plane and not in the same way that we are obligated to do so after the Sinai event.

When the Manna fell there were some aspects of Shabbat that were already being practiced. At the revelation at Sinai, all the laws of Shabbos became binding, as did the rest of the Torah laws.

To learn more about what the revelation at Sinai changed see the following link: chabad.org/110124

Best regards,

-Rabbi Elchonon Kazen

Despite the considerable challenges Seventh-day Adventists face in establishing an Edenic origin for the Sabbath—particularly without corroboration from Jewish scholarship—they continue to uphold this sub-doctrine. Their primary support comes from passages such as Genesis 2:2–3, Mark 2:27–28, and Exodus 16:5, 22, all of which seem to suggest that the Sabbath was known prior to the formal giving of the law at Sinai.

For those interested in a detailed counterpoint to this claim, Peter Heylyn’s 1636 historical treatise, The History of the Sabbath, provides a comprehensive examination. In it, Heylyn surveys the behavior of the patriarchs throughout Genesis and Exodus, highlighting multiple instances where—if the seventh-day Sabbath had already been instituted—one might reasonably expect its observance. Yet these moments pass without reference to Sabbath observance, which significantly weakens the Adventist claim. Heylyn’s cumulative argument, grounded in historical observation and scriptural silence, presents a persuasive challenge to the notion of a pre-Sinaitic Sabbath.

Q: Matthew 5:19 declares, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Given this, and the fact that you are not observing the seventh-day Sabbath—an eternal command according to Seventh-day Adventists—and have even written a blog post persuading others not to observe it, does this not mean you will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, while Seventh-day Adventists will be rewarded for their faithfulness?

A: This is a valid question and one worthy of careful theological reflection. It is undeniable that the fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” holds a prominent place in the Old Covenant law. However, like many Old Testament institutions, the Sabbath command finds its fulfillment in Christ under the New Covenant. As Paul writes in Colossians 2:16, the Sabbath—alongside festivals and new moons—is part of a broader category of ceremonial observances that were shadows of things to come, whose substance is found in Christ. In this framework, the Sabbath functions typologically. Its anti-type, or spiritual counterpart, is now expressed in not forsaking the gathering of believers (cf. Hebrews 10:25), the rest believers have in Christ (cf. Hebrews 4), and the freedom we have in worship.

Accordingly, the requirement to observe a specific calendar day (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) is no longer binding upon the church. The phrase “sabbath days” in Colossians 2:16, as argued throughout this article, logically encompasses the seventh-day Sabbath. Therefore, advocating that its observance is still required in the same legal sense is not consistent with the totality of New Testament teaching.

From a hermeneutical standpoint, my interpretation is both textually sound and theologically consistent with the broader teachings of the New Testament. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 14:33 reminds us that “God is not the author of confusion.” Unfortunately, some aspects of the Adventist framework—particularly those involving shifting definitions, faulty logic, or multiple fallback positions—can give the impression of seeking ambiguity rather than clarity, which are not traits I value. Such methods can risk hindering honest theological inquiry in favor of preserving a fixed doctrinal opinion.

Ultimately, the goal in this discussion is not to diminish anyone's sincere efforts to honor God, but to uphold Scripture’s own clarity and consistency as the final authority in matters of doctrine. Many 7th Day Adventists are running the Christian race very well and mean well to raise this point. However, with respect to Matthew 5:19, one might more reasonably question whether the continued emphasis on Old Testament ritual observances—divorced from their New Covenant fulfillment—substantiates the theological expectation of heightened standing in the Kingdom as firmly as some Adventists suggest.