The following commentary statements on Colossians 2:16-17 are representative of those scholars who believe that Paul never intended this passage as an abolishment of the Sabbath God Himself instituted at creation.
Colossae Christians should not be intimidated by those who judge them for observing the Sabbath.
Troy Martin of Xavier University in Chicago points out that "the Colossian author warns his readers not to permit anyone to criticize or judge them in regard to eating or drinking or in respect to a festival, a new moon, or Sabbaths" (italics added). He further notes that "the critics may condemn the Colossian Christians for engaging, not engaging, or engaging incorrectly in these practices. The function is ambiguous." In other words, it is possible that the Colossian Christians were observing these holy days with Paul's approval, and that Paul was admonishing them not to be deterred by those who were criticizing them for doing so. Indeed, Martin concludes that "the Pauline community at Colossae, not the opponents, practices the temporal scheme outlined by Col 2.16. ... The Colossian Christians, not their critics, participate in a religious calendar that includes festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths." (Troy Martin, "Pagan and Judeo-
Christian Time-Keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 21:16," New Testament Studies, vol. 42:1 [January, 1996], 107ff.)
Paul warns against observing sacred days with a legalistic motivation.
"Paul is not condemning the use of sacred days and seasons. ... What moves him here is the wrong motive involved when the observance of holy festivals is made a badge of separation and an attempted means of securing salvation out of fear and superstition. It is bad religion that Paul attacks." (Ralph P. Martin, Colossians: The Church's Lord and the Christian's Liberty [Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1972], 90.)
"Paul's objection is not to religious celebration per se, and probably not even to a congregation's public expression of worship that borrows from the traditions of Judaism. Rather, Paul's primary concern here is any observance that does not concentrate the celebrants' attention upon Christ's importance for salvation." (Robert W. Wall, The InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary on Colossians & Philemon [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993], 122.)
Thurston likewise concludes that Paul is contending with judgmentalism and legalism, rather than with observance of religious days. "As a good Jew, Paul would not object in principle to sacred days and seasons....The problem is not with religious holidays per se. The problem arises when one is judged on the basis of observing or ignoring those days, which, in any case, are 'shadow' and not 'reality' (2:17). For Paul, the Christian religion is not a matter of legalisms with regard to practices of any sort." (Bonnie Thurston, Reading Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary [New York: Crossroad, 1995], 41.)
Don't judge others based on their outward observances.
Trentham contends that in Colossians 2:16 Paul first condemns judging others based on outward observance of any kind, and secondly warns against all outward observances (both Jewish and Christian, which would include our modern observance of Christmas and Easter), no matter how good in themselves, that usurp the place of Christ, the reality they were intended to represent. "Only in Christ is there the substance of religion. The outward ceremonies and regulations are but shadows." (Charles A. Trentham, The Shepherd of the Stars [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1962], 120.)
The Sabbath(s) of Colossians 2:16-17 is/are ceremonial while the Sabbath of Creation is permanent.
"The Sabbath is something infinitely greater than a merely Jewish institution, for it was made 'for man' and dates from creation. There is scarcely anything more significant than the fact that just as the Jewish institution was being brought to an end Christ called himself 'the Lord of the Sabbath.' Thus Christ's canceling of the bond set aside the Sabbath as Jewish, but at the same time because we are 'under the law to Christ,' we have the Sabbath, or Lord's Day, as a divine institution dating from the beginning and intended for permanent observance." (W.H. Griffith Thomas, Christ Pre Eminent: Studies in the Epistle to the Colossians [Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1923], 83.)
"Shadow ... reality. The ceremonial laws of the OT are here referred to as shadows (cf. Heb 8:5; 10:1) because they symbolically depicted the coming of Christ; so any insistence on the observance of such ceremonies is a failure to recognize that their fulfillment has already taken place." (Scholarly note on Colossians 2:17, The NIV Study Bible: New International Version [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985], 1815.)
"The Sabbath--Omit 'The,' which is not in the Greek. ... 'Sabbaths' (not 'the Sabbaths') of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Leviticus 23:32,37-39). The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Leviticus 23:38 expressly distinguishes 'the sabbath of the Lord' from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. ... Even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed, and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Romans 13:8-10)." (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, vol. 2 [Hartford: The S. S. Scranton Company, n.d.], 378.)
"'Or of the Sabbath days.' Greek, 'of the Sabbaths.' The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, as the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. ... The use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not to the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law--no one of the ten commandments could be spoken of as 'a shadow of good things to come.' These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation." (Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistles of Paul to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians [New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1873], 252-253.)
The following extended statement by Gordon Clark has in mind several of the above-stated themes: "The context [of Col. 2:16-17] speaks of food and drink, feasts, and new moons. All this is ceremonial. Then are not the Sabbaths, here condemned, ceremonial Sabbaths, and not the creation ordinance? ... Given the Jewish milieu and Paul's training, he could have written these words on the reasonable assumption that no one would ever have thought of an attack on the Ten Commandments. ...
"What needs emphasis, however, in our contemporary unfamiliarity with ancient Jewish customs, is their celebration of Sabbaths on various days of the week. That these special celebrations were now prohibited, but that the weekly Sabbath is still required, the following argument aims to show.
"First, the Sabbath is a creation ordinance: it is not a Mosaic innovation. God not only rested from his work of creation, he blessed the day and sanctified it (Gen. 2:3). This is such an obvious and tremendous consideration that the reduction of the Sabbath to nothing more than a Mosaic ceremony is incredible. What can anti-sabbaterians make of Genesis 2:3?
"It is often said that there is no mention of the Sabbath before the Exodus from Egypt. Note, however, that before the time of Abraham the account is sparse on all points. For example, the law of monogamous marriage is not mentioned, though Christ referred to it as imposed at creation. Also, there is no mention of sacrifices from the time of Abel to Noah, nor from Genesis 47:1 till after the Exodus, a period of four hundred years. There is no mention of the Sabbath from Joshua to 1 Kings inclusive; and yet this was a post-Mosaic period. Even Psalms and Proverbs do not mention the Sabbath with any frequency. Hence sparcity, with reference to sacrifice, marriage, and the Sabbath, does not prove their non-existence.
"Sparcity, furthermore, is not silence. There are passages in Genesis which can be explained only on the basis of a previous Sabbath law. The word itself may not be used, but note the seven-day divisions in Genesis 7:4,10 and 8:10,12 ... 17:12 and 21:4 ... 29:27-28. ...
"Incidentally the division of time into weeks and so observed by the heathen nations, must be, since it cannot be justified astronomically, a reminiscence of creation.
"That the weekly Sabbath was not first instituted by the Ten Commandments, Moses himself makes clear. Exodus 16--the Decalogue comes in Exodus 20--without any mention of inaugurating a new custom, but rather giving the impression of something already known, indicates that the Sabbath is a day of rest....Had it been a new law, the wording would have had to be different. Furthermore, the Mosaic law itself, the Ten Commandments, indeed the Fourth Commandment, says, 'Remember.' During the slavery in Egypt, the people had probably been forced to work every day. It is not likely that the Egyptians were Sabbatarians. Over the centuries the Israelites had perhaps half forgotten the Law. Now, on Mt. Sinai, God says, 'Remember.'
"The opponents no doubt reply, 'God at Sinai promulgated a new law and told them to remember it henceforth.' But the division of time into weeks, and the revelation in Genesis 2:3, are ruinous to such a reply.
"If the Fourth Commandment was newly instituted in the desert, how can one avoid inconsistency without regarding the other nine also as new? Now, there is no mention of any law against murder in the first four chapters of Genesis. Yet Cain clearly knew that murder was forbidden. He also knew that God had sanctified the Sabbath.
"For this reason the Ten Commandments must be regarded as the moral law, in the words of the [Presbyterian] Catechism, 'summarily comprehended.' Is it not utterly incongruous to think of a temporary ceremonial regulation embedded in the Decalogue? If all mankind, not the Jews only, are obligated to worship the one true God, to avoid images and profanity, are they not also obligated to sanctify the Sabbath forever? A negative answer is utter absurdity." (Gordon H. Clark, Colossians: Another Commentary on an Inexhaustible Message [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979], 94-97.)