Sign In Sign-Up

Sabbath vs. Sunday

An Internet Debate
Installment #10

In this installment Dr. Bacchiocchi responds briefly to

some important comments that Mr. Ratzlaff made to
his posts in installment 8 and 9 of the debate.

Since Mr. Ratzlaff's comments are interspersed

throughout Dr. Sam's responses, Dr. Bacchiocchi will
first reinterrate Mr. Ratzlaff's most significant
comments and deal with them directly instead of
reposting the full text of his response.

Links to significant points in this installment

Argument /Response 1 Response: Dr. Sam doesn't judge

Argument: Dr. Sam makes very Mr. Ratzlaff's sincerity. However,
judgemental statement that as a general rule, people tend to
abrogation view of the Sabbath develop a theology that justifies
appeals to those who wish to their lifestyle. (Samuele
spend the Sabbath seeking for Bacchiocchi)
their own pleasure and profit. Mr.
Ratzlaff changed his view of
Sabbath based on the Bible. He
feels relationship with Christ is
closer now than before. (Dale
Ratzlaff).

Argument/Response 2 Response: Absence of explicit

Argument: God's moral laws
were known and enforced before
Sinai. However, in the Genesis
record you will not find Sabbath
keeping as one of the preexisting
moral laws. (Dale Ratzlaff).
references to Sabbath keeping
between Genesis 2 and Exodus
16 does not necessarily mean
that the principle of
Sabbathkeeping was unknown.
Gives reasons explaining why
custom of Sabbath keeping
taken for granted and not
mentioned. (Samuele
Bacchiocchi)

Argument/Response 3 Response: Fundamental problem

Argument: Dr. Sam's statement is Mr. Ratzlaff's method which
that Mr. Ratzlaff's emphasizes
the similarities between Sabbath
and circumcision to show that
both are temporary signs of the
Old Covenant is wrong. I believe
both circumcision and Sabbath
are said to be "eternal" or
"perpetual" signs. (Dale
Ratzlaff).
Argument/Response 4
Argument: Sinaitic Covenant
shows God's grace as
represented in His gracious
prevision of forgiveness on
condition of repentance and the
offering of certain sacrifices.
Nonetheless, the emphasis of the
convenant is on law. (Dale
Ratzlaff).
Argument/Response 5
Argument: Old covenant has
been antiquated by the new. Old
was not bad. It was the best for
its time, but now, new , better
things have come. (Dale
Ratzlaff).
Argument/Response 6
Argument: If The Sabbath in
Crisis is so poorly written one
wonders why so many pastors,
including SDA pastors, scholars
and church leaders say it is the
best book on the topic of the
Sabbath in print. (Dale Ratzlaff).
consists of listing inconclusive
statements, without explaining
how they contribute to develop
his final thesis that Sabbath is
part of the Old Covenant
ceremonies and terminates at
the Cross. Dr. Sam contends that
Mr. Ratzlaff actually does NOT
believe that the Sabbath and
Circumcision are "eternal" or
"perpetual." (Samuele
Bacchiocchi)
Response: Mr. Ratzlaff fails to
recognize that many of the laws
found in Pentateuch govern not
only the religious life, but also
the social, civil, political life of
Israel. (Samuele Bacchiocchi)
Response: It is painful for Dr.
Sam to read Mr. Ratzlaff's book
Sabbath in Crisis due to
methodology used to reach
conclusions. Doesn't matter if
book agrees or disagrees with Dr.
Sam, but whether the author
deals with the Biblical and
historical data in a coherent and
responsible way or not.
Assumption that Old Testament
morality is defined in terms of
obedience to law while in the
New Testament it is defined in
terms of a response to Christ is
wrong--ignores three important
facts. (Samuele Bacchiocchi)
Response: It is hard for Dr. Sam
to believe that competent
scholars, familiar with the
Sabbath/Sunday literature,
would say Mr. Ratzlaff book is
best one on Sabbath. There are
no comments on Mr. Ratzlaff's
book from scholars. (Samuele
Bacchiocchi)
 Argument/Response 7
Argument: Upon what texts does
Dr. Sam base his claim that
keeping the Sabbath is a renewal
of our Baptismal Covenant?
(Dale Ratzlaff).
Response: Correlation between
Sabbath and baptism is
suggested by fact that both are
covenant signs which involve an
experience of renouncement and
renewal. (Samuele Bacchiocchi)

Master Index to major arguments in all installments.

Note: The page references given in parenthesis are usually

from the 1990 edition of Mr. Ratzlaff's book The Sabbath in
Crisis.

If Mr. Clay Peck's name is mentioned, the page references

refer to his book New Covenant Christians.

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my comment that the abrogation view of the

Sabbath appeals to those who wish to spend the Sabbath
seeking for their own pleasure and profit,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

This is a very judgmental statement. You imply that those

changing their view of the Sabbath do so because they don't
want to be restricted by Sabbath laws and want to seek their
own pleasure. Nothing could be further from the truth! While
I cannot speak for everyone who has changed their
understanding of the Sabbath I can speak for myself and
many that I personally know, both ex-SDA's and Christians in
the Worldwide Church of God. We changed for no other other
reason that we felt that is what the Bible taught. Further, we
feel our relationship with Christ is closer now than before.
There is a deeper commitment to follow Christ, a deeper
understanding of Grace. I know this does not fit the Adventist
paradigm. When I tell people "I studied myself out the
Adventist church" they have no way to process this
statement other than to degrade character or motives.

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

Dale, I do not question your sincerity. Let God be the judge.

As a general rule I find that people tend to develop a
theology that justifies their lifestyle. You may have noted that
on the Internet homosexuals argue ad nauseam that the
Bible is far more permissive of homosexual behavior than
most Christian think. Chritians who live together before
marriage or who engage in pre-marital sex argue that
Biblically speaking there is not nothing wrong with pre or
extra-marital sex, as long as one is committed to that person.
Christians who love to deck their bodies with jewelry will
argue that the Bible does not condemn bodily adorment.
Chritians who love to drink alcoholic beverages will argue
that the Bible teaches moderation and not total abstinence.
Chritians who love to believe that they are immortal try to
prove from the Bible that their soul is immortal. By the same
token Christians who prefer to spend their Sabbath or
Sunday for that matter, seeking for their own pleasure or
profit, will often argue that for them the Bible teaches that
every day is a Sabbath because Christ offers them salvation-
rest.

The belief that every day is Sabbath (pansabbatism) is as

absurd as the belief that everything is God (pantheism). The
end result in both instances is that no real worship is offered
to God, because nothing really matters. The theory that every
day is Sabbath ultimately results in no Sabbath at all. This
truth is brought out perceptively in the following poem:

Shrewd men, indeed, these reformers are!

Each weekday is a Sabbath, they declare:
A Christian theory! The unchristian fact is
Each Sabbath is a weekday in their practice.

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my argument that God revealed the moral

nature of the Sabbath by making it a rule of His divine
conduct,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

What you say may be true. However, it is very clear in the

Genesis record that God's moral laws were known and
enforced before Sinai. These extended to all peoples, not just
Abraham and his descendents who became "Israel."
However, in the Genesis record you will not find Sabbath
keeping as one of the preexisting moral laws. One wonders
why if the Sabbath were the most important of the ten, as
Ellen G. White says, there is no record of Adam, Noah,
Abraham, etc. keeping the Sabbath. However, in the Genesis
record we do find that it is wrong to kill, steal, commit
adultery, etc. These facts fit my paradigm, do they fit yours?

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

You are raising a legitimate question. But, the absence of

explicit references to Sabbath keeping between Genesis 2
and Exodus 16 does not necessarily mean that the principle
of Sabbathkeeping was unknown. The apparent silence
could mean that between Adam and Moses, the Sabbath,
though known, was not generally observed. The non-
observance of the feast of the Booths between Joshua and
Nehemiah, a period of almost a thousand years, would
provide a parallel situation (Neh 8:17).

A more plausible explanation is that the custom of Sabbath

keeping is not mentioned simply because it is taken for
granted. A number of reasons support this explanation.

First, we have a similar example of silence regarding the

Sabbath between the books of Deuteronomy and 2 Kings.
Such silence for a period of six centuries can hardly be
interpreted as non-observance of the Sabbath, since when
the first incidental reference occurs in 2 Kings 4:23, it
describes the custom of visiting a prophet on the Sabbath.

Second, Genesis does not contain laws like Exodus, but

rather a brief sketch of origins. Since no mention is made of
any other commandment, the silence regarding the Sabbath
is not exceptional.

Third, there are throughout the book of Genesis and the early
chapters of Exodus circumstantial evidences for the use of
the seven-day week which would imply the existence of the
Sabbath as well, since in the Bible the weekdays are
numbered with reference to the Sabbath. The period of seven
days is mentioned four times in the account of the Flood
(Gen 7:4, 10; 8:10, 12).
The "week" is also apparently used in a technical way to
describe the duration of the nuptial festivities of Jacob (Gen
29:27) as well as the duration of mourning at his death (Gen
50:10). A like period was observed by the friends of Job to
express their condolences to the patriarch (Job 2:13).
Probably all the mentioned ceremonials were terminated by
the arrival of the Sabbath.

Lastly, the Sabbath is presented in Exodus 16 and 20 as an

already existing institution. The instructions for the gathering
of the double portion of the manna on the sixth day
presuppose a knowledge of the significance of the Sabbath.
The Lord said to Moses: "On the sixth day, when they
prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they
gather daily" (Ex 16:5). The omission of any explanation for
gathering a double portion on the sixth day would be
inexplicable, if the Israelites had no previous knowledge of
the Sabbath.

Clay Peck's argument that "Moses had to give them [the

Israelites] explicit instructions about the Sabbath because it
was new to them" (p. 80), ignores that no instructions are
given by the Lord to Moses as to why the Israelites were to
gather a double portion on the sixth day (Ex 16:4-6). Why?
Presumably because the people knew that the sixth day was
the preparation day for the Sabbath and thus they had to
gather a double portion. The instructions given later on the
chapter are necessitated by the fact that some of the people
failed to obey God's command (Ex 16:20-21).

Similarly in Exodus 20, the Sabbath is presupposed as

something already familiar. The commandment does not say
"Know the Sabbath day" but "Remember the Sabbath day"
(Ex 20:8), thus implying that it was already known.
Furthermore, the commandment, by presenting the Sabbath
as rooted in creation (Ex 20:11), hardly allows a late Exodus
introduction of the festival.

To speculate on how the patriarchs kept the Sabbath would

be a fruitless endeavor since it would rest more on
imagination than on available information. Considering,
however, that the essence of Sabbath keeping is not a place
to go to fulfill rituals, but a set time to be with God,
ourselves, and others, it seems entirely possible that the
patriarchs spent the Sabbath holy hours within their
households, engaged in some of the acts of worship
described in Genesis, such as prayer (Gen 12:8; 26:25),
sacrifice (Gen 12:8; 13:18; 26:25; 33:20), and teaching (Gen
18:19).

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my contentions that Ratzlaff emphasized the

striking similarities between the Sabbath and circumcision
simply to show that both of them are temporary signs of the
Old Covenant,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

I have no objective other than to find out what Scripture

teaches. As I read the sections on circumcision and Sabbath
I found them to be strikingly similar. Don't you? Who said
these were temporary signs? In my summary given above I
clearly stated what the Bible says: both circumcision and
Sabbath are said to be "eternal" or "perpetual" signs. That is
the way they are presented here in the old covenant. Would
you not agree this is what Scripture says?

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

The fundamental problem is the method you have used so far

which consists in posting a list of inconclusive statements,
without explaining how they contribute to develop your
overall thesis that the Sabbath is part of the Old Covenant
ceremonies that terminated at the Cross. I trust that this
problem will be resolved beginning from your next
installment. I have asked you to make each response a
complete unit, with an introduction, documents and
arguments, and then a conclusion. This will make it possible
for readers to understand what you are trying to prove and
for me to examine your whole argument, and not just bits
and peaces.

You seem to deny that you view the Sabbath and

circumcision as temporary signs, when you say: "Who said
these were temporary signs? In my summary given above I
clearly stated what the Bible says: both circumcision and
Sabbath are said to be 'eternal' or 'perpetual' signs." The
whole thesis of your book is that circumcision was replaced
by baptism and the Sabbath by the Lord's Supper (p. 185).
Incidentally the notion Dale, you know very well that you do
not believe that the Sabbath and Circumcision are "eternal"
or "perpetual."of the Sabbath being replaced by the Lord's
Supper is a figment of your imagination, utterly devoid of
Biblical and historical support. To this we shall come back
another time. At this point I simply want to point out that this
needless discussion is caused by your inconclusive
statements that fail to show how you use the similarity
between the Sabbath and circumcision to argue your case for
the abrogation of the Sabbath.

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my comment that Mr. Ratzlaff ignores that the

function of the Sinaitic Covenant was to ADMINISTER GRACE,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

Quote out of context. "While Gods grace was represented in

His gracious prevision of forgiveness on condition of
repentance and the offering of certain sacrifices, the
emphasis, nonetheless, is on law." Sabbath in Crisis, Pg. 48.
Anyone who read Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy must
agree that the Sinaitic Covenant is characteristically a law
covenant. Granted many of these laws has to do with
sacrifices which in turn had to do with atonement.

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

The 1990 edition of your book which I use does not have
your quote on page 48. Apparently you made some changes
in the new edition. This does not alter your position that "the
Sinaitic Covenant is characteristically a law covenant." The
problem with your conclusion is your failure to recognize that
the many laws found in the Pentateuch govern not only the
religious life, but also the social, civil, political life of Israel.
Remember the Israelites had a theocratic form of govenment,
where God instructed them, not only on how to conduct their
religious life, but also on how to deal with various kinds of
social problems and civil offences.
To make a fair comparison we should compare the Mosaic
legal code, not with the New Testament where theocracy no
longer exists, but with the civil and penal law codes of the
various American States. When you make this comparison,
you soon discover, Dale, that the American legal system is
far more legalistic than the Mosaic one. My son, Gianluca,
sat yesterday for the bar exam in Albany, New York. He told
me last night that part of the exam took everybody by
surprise because it dealt with some minute laws of the State
of New York that nobody had ever heard about. If one were to
place the Mosaic laws (about 150 pages of the Pentateuch)
next the thousands of pages of State laws, it is evident that
the legal system of our Chritian society today is far more
legalistic than it was in the time of Moses. Surprisingly,
inspite of the multitude and multiplications of laws, today
people still get away with murder.

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my comment that Ratzlaff's explanation of the

Sinaitic covenant gives the impression that it was an irrational
collections of detail laws,burdensome to the people,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

Dr. Bacchiocchi, that may be your reaction---it is not mine.

Perhaps you have never read my book straight through! On
two different occasions you said you through it in the trash.
Perhaps the facts of Scripture, upon which Sabbath in Crisis
is based, are too much for you. In Sabbath in Crisis I say,
"Just as the old, slow, cumbersome, hand-operated
calculator has been antiquated by the new, fast compact
electronic computer. So the old covenant has been
antiquated by the new. Not that the old was bad, for is was
not. It was the best for its time, but now, new , better things
have come." Then I quote 2 Cor. 3:7-11. The theme of the
book Hebrews is how much better the new covenant is over
the old!

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

You are correct in saying that I threw your manuscript in the

waste basket after reading the first dozen of pages. I did the
same with the booklet by Harold Camping entitled Sunday-
The Sabbath? after reading the first 8 pages. I could not go
beyond page 8 where Camping interprets the temporal
statement: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week" (Mat 28:1) as being a
theological statement indicating the termination of the
observance of the Sabbath when Jesus resurrected on the
first day of the week. Such a senseless interpretation was
enough to qualify the book for the trash.

Rest assured that what makes it painful for me to read your

book is not the fact that your conclusions are radically
different from mine, but the methodology that you use in
reaching your conclusions. I have already discussed at length
your methodology in the fifth installment of this series. In
researching for my three volumes on the Sabbath I have read
literally hundreds of books advocating your abrogation view
of the Sabbath. You can tell it by the extensive footnotes
apparatus found in my books. I never trashed any of those
books. For me the issue is not whether a book agrees or
disagrees with my views, but whether or not the author deals
with the Biblical and historical data in a coherent and
responsible way.

Let me cite as an example Willy Rordorf's dissertation

Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the
Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church. I have great
respect for Rordorf, though I totally disagree with his
conclusions which I challenge constantly throughout my
dissertation From Sabbath to Sunday. On his part Rordorf a
great respect for me. This is indicated by his comments in the
introduction to the Italian edition of his dissertation where
Rordorf urges the reader to read my dissertation as "a
corrective" to the conclusions of his research. It takes a
really great and humble scholar to suggest that his
conclusions stand in need of "a corrective" provided by the
study of another scholar. I relate this example simply to make
the point that what troubles me about your book is not your
conclusions, but the arbitrary methodology you use to reach
them.

Regarding your differentiation between the Old and New

Covenants, the problem is your assumption that "in the new
covenant morality springs from a response to the living
Christ" rather than from the moral laws of the Old Testament"
(p. 74). For you the principle of loving one another largely
replaces the moral law of the Old Testament. You write:

"While morality is clearly taught in the Old

Testament, the New Testament writers seldom
refer to the Old Testament law as the reason for
moral living, and when the law of the old covenant
is mentioned in the epistles, it is usually by way of
illustration, rather than by way of command" (p.
74).

Your assumption that in the Old Testament morality is defined

in terms of obedience to law while in the New Testament it is
defined in terms of a response to Christ, ignores three facts.
First, the Old Testament moral law was given by Christ (1 Cor
10:4). Thus, "a response to the living Christ" presupposes
obedience to the moral principles He has revealed in the Old
Testament. Second, in the Sermon on the Mountain Christ
defines the morality of the New Covenant, not in terms of a
generic principle of love, but in terms of the fuller meaning of
the Ten Commandment. For example, Christ taught that one
can break the sixth commandment, "Thou shall not kill" not
only by murdering a person, but also by being "angry" or
"insulting" a person (Matt 5:21-22).

One can break the seventh commandment, not only by

committing adultery, but also by looking lustfully upon a
woman. If I understand Jesus' teachings correctly, the
morality of the New Covenant derives not from the generic
principle of love but from a fuller revelation of the intent of
the Ten Commandments. This is especially evident when one
studies all the Sabbath pronoucement of Jesus. They reveal,
as we shall see in a future essay, that Jesus went out of His
way to clarify the divine intent of the Sabbath commandment,
which is people to love rather than rules to obey.

Third, as Eldon Ladd rightly states it, "the permanence of the

Law is reflected in the fact that Paul appeals to specific
commands of the Law as the norm for Christian conduct. He
appeals to several specific commandments (entolai) of the
Decalogue that are fulfilled in love (Rom 13:8-10). . . . It is
clear that the Law continues to be the expression of the will
of God for conduct, even for those who are no longer under
the Law" (Theology p. 510). The reasons for the continuity of
the Old Testament moral law is that God does not have two
sets of moral principles, one based on the Ten
Commandments for the Old Covenant and the other on the
generic principle of love for the New Covenant. Love without
law can be dangerous, even destructive.

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my comment that for me it is a depressing and

distressing experience to examine Ratzlaff's book because I
find the reasoning often incoherent and the methodology
arbitrary,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

If The Sabbath in Crisis is so poorly written one wonders why

so many pastors, including SDA pastors, scholars and church
leaders say Sabbath in Crisis is the best book on the topic of
the Sabbath in print.

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

Dale, it is hard for me to believe that competent scholars,

familiar with the Sabbath/Sunday literature, would say that
"The Sabbath in Crisis is the best book on the topic of the
Sabbath in print." Your claim is hardly supported by the five
comments in the jacket of the book, none of which are from
scholars. Even the comments by Donald Carson, the editor of
From Sabbath to the Lord's Day, who wrote the Foreword to
your book, are very cautious to say the least. He wrote: "Mr.
Ratzlaff allows the evidence to take him where he thinks it
goes, and doubtless few will agree with him on every
particular." The three merits of your book, according to
Carson, are:

1. The book "is accessible to the ordinary reader."

2. "Mr. Ratzlaff let us in on his thought processes and
commitments."
3. "The net effect of this book is to open up options in
the minds of ordinary Christians."

None of these three merits have to do with compelling

scholarship in the analysis of the Biblical material.

You might be interested to read what the same Donald

Carson had to say in his review of From Sabbath to Sunday:

"The book is a well-researched and well-written

treatise that combines erudition, devotion, and an
irenic spirit. Bacchiocchi argues that the
understanding of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath
finds its roots, not at all in the New Testament, but
in the complex historical and ideological
pressures of the patristic period. If this contention
of Dr. Bacchiocchi is correct-and I think it is-then
either one must go all the way with him and
support a continuing (seventh day) Sabbath, or
one must study afresh the primary documents to
develop some other synthesis. I am personally
inclined toward the latter; but either way, the
implications are staggering, not only for the
Sabbath/Sunday question itself, but also because
of the larger question of the relations between the
Old and New Testaments."

I could post dozens of similar statements from reviews of

outstanding scholars and recognized journals. Interested
readers can find them in my web page:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/. Surprisingly, in all my
reading of the Sabbath/Sunday scholarly literature, I have
never seen your book cited. This gives me reason to believe
that your book hardly enjoys scholarly admiration.

Dr. Bacchiocchi's previous comments

In response to my argument that the Sabbath shares with

Baptism the covenant commitment experience of
renouncement and renewal,

Mr. Ratzlaff replies:

Dr. Bacchiocchi, you accuse me of poor scholarship. Upon

what texts do you base your claim that keeping the Sabbath
is a renewal of our Baptismal Covenant? You list 1 Cor.
12:13. However, The Sabbath is not even mentioned in the
context. If fact, it is not even mentioned in the whole book of
1 Corinthians! One wonders why this church had so many
problems and questions about Christian practices but the
question of Sabbath observance is never mentioned. Could it
be that?

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds:

Call me "Sam" please, that is good enough for me and easier

for you. The correlation between Sabbath and baptism is
suggested by the fact that both of them are covenant signs
which involve an experience of renouncement and renewal.
One does not always need a Bible text to establish a
conceptual similarity. What theological reflection requires is
the capacity to think and not merely the ability to cite a Bible
text. This is what Karl Barth does when he expands on these
functions of the Sabbath in Church Dogmatics.

It might be of interest to you to know, Dale, that even the

great Lutheran Reformer and Theologian, Philip Melanchthon
(1496-1560) acknowledges these two meanings of the
Sabbath in his Loci Communes (1555), saying:

"After the Fall the Sabbath was re-established

when the gracious promise was given that there
would be a second peace with God, that the Son
of God would die and would rest in death until the
Resurrection. So now in us our Sabbath should be
such a dying and resurrection with the Son of
God, so that God may again have his place of
habitation, peace and joy in us, so that he may
impart to us his wisdom, righteousness, and joy,
so that through us God may again be praised
eternally. Let this meaning of the Sabbath be
further pondered by God-fearing men." (On
Christian Doctrine. Loci Communes 1555, trans. by
Clyde L. Manschreck, 1965, p. 98)

In compliance with Melanchthon's exhortation, I have

pondered this meaning of the Sabbath.

It does not require a Bible text to recognize that the Sabbath,

like baptism, signifies renouncement, for example, to
greediness and selfishness which, though symbolically buried
under the baptismal waters, continually tends to reappear
 and thus needs to be overcome. The Sabbath invites weekly
believers to stop being greedy by looking for more and start
being grateful by counting the blessings received. Like
baptism, the Sabbath summons to renounce to self-
sufficiency. By enjoining cessation from work,the Sabbath
invites the believer to glance away from his own
achievements and to look instead to God's work and working
in him.

Like baptism, the Sabbath is a renewal experience. The

difference is that it occurs weekly rather than once in the
lifetime like with baptism. This weekly renewal is made
possible through the time the Sabbath affords to have a
special rendezvous with God, ourselves, and others, which
results in physical, social and spiritual renewal.

The reason for a conceptual similarity between the Sabbath

and baptism is because both of them are signs of covenant
commitment. No two persons can become one without
renouncing certain rights in order to gain greater privileges.
Through the Sabbath God invites human beings to renounce
several things in order for them to receive His greater gifts.

Conclusion

The Sabbath means different things to different people. To

some, like Ratzlaff, the Sabbath is a relic of the Old Covenant
no longer relevant for Christians today. To others, like me,
the Sabbath is God's gracious invitation to make myself free
and available for Him so that I can experience more freely
and fully the awareness of His presence, peace, and rest in
my life.

God invites us on the Sabbath to stop our work in order to

allow Him to work in us more fully and freely, and thus enter
into His rest (Heb 4:10). It is my fervent hope and prayer that
the Lord will use this Sabbath discussion to meet the spiritual
needs of many.

[Installment #9] | [Installment #11]

This article taken from the Bible Study Web Site at http://www.biblestudy.org/