Sign In Sign-Up

Sabbath vs. Sunday

An Internet Debate
Installment #8

In this installment, Dr. Bacchiocchi explains his

comments about Clay Peck, writer of New Covenant
Christians, in regards to the Saturday Sabbath.

Dr. Bacchiocchi responds to Ratzlaff's introductory

observations and then deals in a general way with
his attempt to link the Sabbath with circumcision, in
order to make them both Old Covenant signs that
terminated at the Cross.

Links to significant points in this installment

Explanation 1
Dr. Sam apologizes to Clay Peck, a former Adventist pastor who
wrote booklet New Covenant Christians, about stating his church
doesn't meet on Saturday. Comments on Mr. Peck's belief that Christ
is fulfillment of Sabbath. (Samuele Bacchiocchi)

Explanation 2 Response: Mr. Ratzlaff's Biblical

Mr. Ratzlaff thanks Dr.
Bacchiocchi for recognizing the
impact that The Sabbath in Crisis
has made in the lives of so many
people. (Dale Ratzlaff).
interpretation is faulty. Context
of Colossians 2:14-17 ignored
and modern scholarship on
meaning of "written document"
nailed to cross ignored as well.
(Samuele Bacchiocchi)

Argument/Response 1 Response: Contention that

Argument: Mr. Ratzlaff states he
is in unique position to look at
Sabbath subject objectively. Dr.
Sam is defending position rather
than looking only at the text
under consideration. If we try to
interpret the seventh-day in
Genesis by appealing to Exodus,
Hebrews 4, etc. we are trying to
force a paradigm. (Dale Ratzlaff).
interpreting the seventh day in
Genesis in light of Exodus 20:11
or Hebrews 4:4 is totally wrong.
Fullest meaning of a Biblical text
is determined by bringing
together all the relevant
passages. We must recognize
unity of Bible. (Samuele
Bacchiocchi)
 Argument/Response 2
Argument: Mr. Ratzlaff's
summary facts on Genesis
account (see installment 4) are
what he will "stick" with for now.
(Dale Ratzlaff).
Response: Summary facts are
OK, but are wrongly interpreted
to build case for a Mosaic origin
of Sabbath. Principles of Ten
Commandments known before
Moses. Mr. Ratzlaff needs to
respond to Dr. Sam's analysis of
his arguments and methodology.
(Samuele Bacchiocchi)

Argument/Response 3 Response: Mr. Ratzlaff's

Argument: Biblical covenants in
general, including Sinaitic
Covenant, closely follow the form
of other ancient, Near East
treaties. Mr. Ratzlaff delineates
form of Noahic, Abrahamic and
Sinaictic covenants. There is
parallel in covenant language
between two signs (circumcision,
Sabbath) as recorded in Genesis
17: 9-14 and Exodus 31:12-18;
20:12. Circumcision given to
Israel as one-time entrance sign
into the covenant community,
Sabbath given as repeatable sign
of the Sinaitic Covenant Israel
was to "remember." (Dale
Ratzlaff).
statements are erroneously used
to show that the Sabbath and
circumcision are strikingly
similar temporary signs of the
Old Covenant. Equating Sabbath
with circumcision paves way for
Mr. Ratzlaff to later argue for
their termination and
replacement in New Testament.
God's emotional appeal to His
people make Biblical covenant
different from ancient political
covenants. Dichotomy between
law and grace is not present in
Old Covenant. Sinaitic Covenant
based on Grace. Concern to
prove that Sabbath/circumcision
are Old Covenant institutions
causes Mr. Ratzlaff to ignore
several important questions.
(Samuele Bacchiocchi)

Master Index to major arguments in all installments.

A Clarification about Clay Peck/Grace Place Church

Note: The page references given in parenthesis are 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 states

In a previous installment I mentioned that Ratzlaff's book

The Sabbath in Crisis has influenced many to abandon the
Sabbath. I mentioned specifically the Worldwide Church of
God and several former Adventist pastors who have recently
established independent "Gospel" oriented congregations.

The information I gave about Clay Peck, a former Adventist

pastor who has established the Grace Place congregation in
Colorado, was not completely accurate. I was told that he
has abandoned the Sabbath and moved church services to
Sunday. The latter has proven to be false because at this
point in time the Grace Place congregation still meets on
Saturday. I posted a correction and apology.

Some members of Grace Place congregation were deeply

offended by my post because they told me that Peck has not
been influenced by Ratzlaff, he is deeply committed to the
Sabbath, and has not moved the church service to Sunday.
One concerned member of Grace Place called me to reassure
me that he is a committed Adventist who would never
consider giving up the Sabbath. He went on explaining to me
that he joined Grace Place because he felt that the Rocky MT.
Conference had not treated Peck fairly. In his view Peck has
never suggested in his sermons that Christ is the fulfillment
of the Sabbath. If that should prove to be true, then he would
leave the church.

This member and others of like mind will be sorely

disappointed if they take time to read Clay Peck's booklet
New Covenant Christians (90 pages), which contains six
sermons he preached at his Grace Place congregation. In
many ways this booklet is a summary of Ratzlaff's The
Sabbath in Crisis. Peck himself acknowledges in the
introduction that he was "most challenged and instructed by
a book entitled The Sabbath in Crisis by Dale Ratzlaff."

Peck's booklet made me wonder why some members of his

Grace Place congregation were so deeply offended by my
remarks, when Peck clearly states that "Christ is fulfillment of
the Sabbath. He is our rest. The reality has come to which the
Sabbath foreshadowed" (p. 88). For Peck the Sabbath is no
longer a day to observe but the existential reality of
salvation-rest. He writes: "If you have accepted Jesus and are
depending on him alone for salvation, then you have rested
from your own work . . . you are experiencing the Sabbath-
rest that God want you to have, not just once a week, but
'Today' and every day" (p. 88).
In a future installment I plan to unmask the fallacies of this
existential interpretation of the Sabbath which negates the
need for its observance. At this point let me simply say that
to retain the Sabbath as the symbol of salvation-rest while
denying the need for its observance, is like retaining the
Lord's Supper as the symbol of Christ's atoning sacrifice,
while negating the need to partake of the emblems of the
bread and wine.

What Peck, Ratzlaff and supporters fail to recognize is that

the Sabbath, like the Lord's Supper or Baptism, are divine
institutions designed to help us conceptualize and internalize
the reality of salvation. This means that to do away with the
Sabbath means to do away with a sacred ordinance designed
to help us conceptualize and internalize the spiritual reality of
salvation. As Hebrews 4:10 explains, we cease from our work
on the Sabbath to enter into God's rest. John Calvin aptly
expresses this truth when referring to Hebrews 4:10, say that
believers on the Sabbath are "to cease from their work to
allow god to work in them" (Institutes, vol 2, p. 339).

If the booklet New Covenant Christians reflects what Peck

preaches to his congregation, then it is evident that either
some people do not understand what he preaches, or that he
is ambiguous enough to allow people to believe that he still
holds to the continuity of the Sabbath, when in reality he
does not. When the latter becomes better known, some
members of his congregation will be sorely disappointed with
him. In a forthcoming installment I will explain why
Peck/Ratzlaff's understanding of the Sabbath as being a
daily salvation-rest experience rather than the observance of
the seventh day, not only grossly misrepresents the Biblical
teachings, but also destroys a vital institution designed to
help believers experience the reality of salvation-rest.

Will Evangelical "Adventists" adopt Sunday Keeping?

In a pleasant telephone conversation Dale Ratzlaff confirmed

to me that he conducts his church service for his
congregation in Phoenix, AZ, not on Saturday but on Sunday.
He has also a Wednesday night meeting and meets with a
group of young people on Saturday night. Will Clay Peck and
the other former Adventist pastors who in recent years have
established independent "grace" oriented churches follow
Ratzlaff's example in moving their church services to
Sunday? I have reasons to believe that they will certainly do
it. It is just a matter of time.

How can I be so sure? For two reasons. First, because of the

example of the Worldwide Church of God. Their
congregations are gradually moving their church services to
Sunday. Some of WWCG leaders have recently stated in their
forum that a move from Saturday to Sunday church services
has become a necessity to help their congregations make a
radical break with what they perceive to be Old Covenant
institutions. Second, Sunday services makes them look more
"evangelical" and thus better able to attract Sunday keepers.

The historical reality is that the acceptance of the New

Covenant theology leads not only to the abandonment of the
principle and practice of Sabbath keeping, but also to the
adoption of Sunday keeping, if nothing else to distance
oneself from what what is regarded as an important relic of
the Old Covenant.

My comments this time will be more limited in nature. First, I

will respond to Ratzlaff's introductory observations and then
I will deal in a general way with his attempt to link the
Sabbath with circumcision, in order to make them both Old
Covenant signs that terminated at the Cross. Currently I am
preparing a study on the relationship between the Sabbath
and the Old/New Covenants which I hope to post within a
couple of weeks. In that study I will deal in greater depth
with Ratzlaff/Peck's fundamental thesis that the Sabbath is
part of the Old Covenant ceremonies terminated at the Cross.

Mr. Ratzlaff states:

Dr. Bacchiocchi, I want to thank you for recognizing the

impact that The Sabbath in Crisis has made in the lives of so
many people. When people read what it says in context, it
must say something or so many people would not be making
such major changes!

Dr. Bacchiocchi replies

There is no question in my mind that your book has exercised

considerable influence. I received an email message from
Gerhard Pfandl, Field Secretary of the South Pacific Division
where he says that your book "is causing waves in our
churches here in the SPD as well."

I only wish that it were true that most people evaluate

Biblical teachings on the basis of their faithfulness to the
immediate and larger contexts. If that were the case,
Christianity would not be plagued by so many errors. The
truth of the matter is that most people read into Bible texts
their own presuppositions, often ignoring the key words of
the text, the immediate and larger context, as well as the
overall teaching of Scripture.

Your method of Biblical interpretation is a perfect example,

as I have shown it in installment 5 of the debate where I
examined your interpretation of Colossians 2:14-17 as a
case study. I pointed out how you ignored the context of the
passage as well as the contribution of modern scholarship to
the understanding of such key words as "cheirographon," the
"written document" that was nailed to the Cross. Both the
context and the extra-Biblical use of cheirographon make it
abundantly clear that the document nailed to the Cross was
not the Old Covenant Law (as you claim), but the record of
our sins. The term "law-nomos" is conspicuously absent in
the whole epistle, though it frequently occurs in other Pauline
epistles.

Why do you persist in identifying the "written document" with

the Old Covenant Law when such interpretation lacks textual
and contextual support? Presumably because you are more
concerned to prove that the Sabbath terminated at the Cross
rather than to understand what Paul is saying in this
passage. The result is that you to interpret Colossians 2:16
as a Pauline condemnation of the Sabbath, when modern
scholarship has clearly shown that a careful study of the
context indicates that Paul is warning not against the
observance of festivals, but against the right of the false
teachers to "pass judgment" on how to observe them. The
Apostle is challenging not the validity of the festivals as such
but the authority of the false teachers to legislate on the
manner of their observance.
Your assumption that "so many people would not be making
such major changes [in rejecting the Sabbath]" if your
conclusions were unsound, ignores the fact that people are
apt to accept what best supports their views and lifestyle.
Paul warns us on this regard, saying: "For the time is coming
when people will not endure sound teaching, but having
itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to
suit their own likings" (2 Tim 4:3). People who find the
Sabbath a day of frustration rather than of joyful celebration
of God's creative and redemptive love, undoubtedly will
welcome your abrogation interpretation of the Sabbath,
because it gives them a justification for doing what they
wanted to do in the first place, namely, to spend the Sabbath
seeking for their own pleasure and profit rather than for the
presence and peace of God in their lives.

Mr. Ratzlaff states:

Second, I want to say a few words about method. You will

note that I am not responding to any of the texts you bring
which do not deal with the part of Scripture under study.
These texts will all be dealt with later IN CONTEXT. When I
did my long study of the Sabbath I had no axe to grind. I had
left the SDA church two years earlier but was a pastor of a
church still worshiping on the Sabbath. I had no reason to
leave the Sabbath and no reason to not leave the Sabbath
other than the teachings of Scripture. Therefore, I believe I
was in a unique position to look at the subject objectively. It
was not until I got to the New Testament that I saw a new
paradigm. Suddenly, I saw all the facts that we had listed
earlier from the contextual study of each part, fit together
into a new picture with Christ at the center, and not a day.

I feel you are very much defending a position rather than

looking only at the text under consideration. And I certainly
can understand that considering where you are coming from.
Let me illustrate. I am sure that you have seen the picture
used to illustrate paradigm. It a black and white picture of a
head of a women. One person can look at it and see an ugly
old lady. Another can look at it and see a attractive young
lady. It is all a matter of paradigm. How this applies to our
study is this. If we try to interpret the seventh-day in Genesis
by appealing to Exodus, Hebrews 4, etc. We are trying to
force the paradigm. When we get to Exodus 20, doubtless,
you will interpret it by the conclusions we reached in Genesis.
When we get to Hebrews 4, you will doubtless interpret it by
the conclusion reached in Genesis and Exodus 20. All this
sounds good, however, it is nearly circular reasoning.

It would be like going back to the picture of the ugly woman

and attractive young girl--to argue that because a particular
part of the picture is a nose and therefore could be nothing
else. When in reality, it may be a nose of the ugly old women
when seen through one paradigm, but it may also be the chin
of an attractive young girl when seen through another
paradigm. Therefore in my response, I intend to only state
what each verse says in context. Lets draw the complete
picture from the FACTS of Scripture and then look for the
picture to emerge from the facts when it is complete. I want
to find out everything a given section of Scripture says but I
do not want to try to make it say more than it says. Hopefully,
this will make sense and explain why I am not answering all
the many texts you put up to "interpret" what the text under
consideration ACTUALLY SAYS.

Dr. Bacchiocchi replies

To argue that the interpretation of the Bible is "all a matter of

paradigm," means to reject the self-authenticating authority
of the Bible. Ultimately this view destroys the normative
authority of the Scripture because the teachings of the Bible
are allegedly a matter of private interpretation.

You wrote: "If we try to interpret the seventh-day in Genesis

by appealing to Exodus, Hebrews 4, etc. We are trying to
force the paradigm. When we get to Exodus 20, doubtless,
you will interpret it by the conclusions we reached in Genesis.
When we get to Hebrews 4, you will doubtless interpret it by
the conclusion reached in Genesis and Exodus 20. All this
sounds good, however, it is nearly circular reasoning."

Dale, your contention that interpreting the seventh day in

Genesis in the light of Exodus 20:11 or of Hebrews 4:4,
means "trying to force the paradigm" or reasoning in
"circular reasoning" is totally wrong. Why? Because it ignores
that the fullest meaning of a Biblical text is determined by
bringing together all the relevant passages. This procedure
is justified by the recognition of the underlying unity of the
Bible.

This is your problem, Dale. Let me explain. First, you

conclude that the divine act of resting, blessing, and
sanctifying the seventh day at creation, was meant to make
the Sabbath a peaceful "condition" in a sinless world, rather
than a permanent institution for mankind, and then you use
your unwarranted interpretation to explain all the other
relevant Biblical passages. This is the kind of faulty circular
reasoning you are talking about. You cannot make your faulty
interpretation of the seventh day in Genesis the criteria by
which to interpret the rest of the witness of the Bible.
Instead, you must allow the rest of the Bible, especially the
witness of Jesus, to determine whether or not God intended
the seventh day to be a creational institution for mankind
(Mark 2:27), or, a peaceful "condition" that would exist in a
sinless world.

Regarding the seventh day in Genesis, let me share with you

a perceptive comment from a paper I received from Roy
Gane, Ph. D., an Old Testament Professor here at our
Seminary. Gane wrote:

"On each of the first six days of creation, God did

something which had on-going results for our
world. Thus, we expect that what he did on the
seventh day would also have earthly on-going
results."

"God set up cyclical time even before man was

created (Gen 1:3-5, 14-18). According to Genesis
1:14, God made heavenly luminaries, chiefly the
sun and moon (vs. 16), to mark earthly time as
"signs," "seasons," i.e. appointed times, days and
years. So when Genesis 2:3 says that God blessed
and hallowed the seventh day, this blessing and
consecration could be on-going in a cyclical
sense, applying to each subsequent seventh day.
In fact, the seventh day Sabbath provides a
plausible explanation for the origin of the week,
which is not defined by the movement of heavenly
bodies (cp. Cassuto 1967: 244)."
The important point Gane makes is that all what God
accomplished during the creation week, included the
septenary structure of time built on the Sabbath, was meant
to have on-going results for mankind.

Mr. Ratzlaff states:

I have listed the summary facts I got from the Genesis

account. I believe and I may be wrong here that you agree
with my summary statements but think they should be
expanded by bringing other texts to bear upon them. At this
point, I am just going to stick with what is explicitly said,
nothing more and nothing less.

Dr. Bacchiocchi replies

The problem, Dale, is not so much your summary statements

of the Genesis account, but the way you interpret such
statements to build a case for a Mosaic origin of the Sabbath.
For example, you make the statement "There is no command
for mankind to rest in the Genesis account" (p. 25). The
statement is true. What is wrong is the way you interpret the
absence of a command, as indicating that the Sabbath is not
a creational institution. Your interpretation is wrong because
it ignores that Genesis is a book of origins and not of
commands.

None of the Ten Commandments are ever mentioned in

Genesis, yet we know that their principles were known
because we are told, for example: "Abraham obeyed my
voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws" (Gen 26:5). You also ignore that God revealed
the moral nature of the Sabbath by making it a rule of His
divine conduct. Is a principle established by divine example
less binding than one enunciated by a divine command? Do
not actions speak louder than words? More important still
you ignore the witness of the rest of Scripture, especially of
Christ, who explicitly stated that "The Sabbath was made for
mankind" (Mark 2:27), and not just for the Jews.

Your strategy, Dale, is to trap me into accepting early

statements in order to make it difficult for me to reject your
later conclusions built upon them. This strategy does not
work with me because I know where you are heading to. I
look at all your statements in the light of your overall
objective, which is to negate the universality and continuity
of the Sabbath. My proposal, Dale, is for you to change your
strategy. Rather than asking me to accept or reject your
simplistic statements, it would be better for you to take time
to respond to my analysis of your arguments, including my
essay on your methodology. You have failed to respond to my
examination of your arguments and methodology,
presumably because you are at a loss to deal with them. I
had the same experience with a Church of Christ evangelist
who invited me a couple of years ago to debate the
Sabbath/Sunday question on cyberspace. The debate did not
last very long, because the evangelist could not rationally
exegete the Biblical and historical data regarding the
Sabbath/Sunday question.

Mr. Ratzlaff states:

With this long introduction, I now turn to a study of the old

covenant. I am not going to list the all the biblical evidence
for it. It is thoroughly documented in Sabbath in Crisis. Again,
look at this list and see if we can agree on what is said about
the old covenant IN THE OLD COVENANT without bring
numerous N. T. texts to bear yet. Save that for later!

Summary of the Old Covenant:

1. The biblical covenants in general, and the Sinaitic

Covenant in particular, closely follow the form of other
ancient, Near East treaties. (this information comes
from historical studies, see foot notes in SIC, it is
important only in that it helps us SEE what is IN
Scripture)
a. There is a covenant promise of the suzerain to the
vassal.
b. There is a covenant promise of the ruled party to
suzerain.
c. The document which contains the covenant
agreement has the sign of that covenant in the
very center of the document.
d. Two identical copies of the covenant document
are made.
e. The document(s) are placed in the house of the
 vassals god who is called to witness the oath of
the covenant.
2. In the Noahic Covenant:
a. God promised never again to destroy the earth
with a flood of water.
b. Noah was commanded never to eat flesh with its
blood in it.
c. The sign of this covenant was the rainbow.
3. In the Abrahamic Covenant:
a. God promised to multiply Abraham's descendants,
make him a father of many nations, have kings of
people come from him and give to him and his
descendants the land of Canaan as an everlasting
possession.
b. Abraham was to walk in integrity and change his
name from Abram to Abraham as an act of belief.
c. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was
circumcision.
4. The Sinaitic Covenant does not nullify the covenant
provisions of the former covenants made with Noah
and Abraham.
5. The stipulations of the Sinaitic Covenant were not a
part of the covenant God made with Noah or Abraham.
6. The elements of the Sinaitic Covenant are three:
a. The Ten Commandments are the words of the
Sinaitic Covenant. (see Ex 31:18; Deut 4:13; Deut
9:9,15; 1 King 8:9,21)
b. The "other laws" found in Exodus through
Deuteronomy are the expanded version of the
Sinaitic Covenant and are usually called "the book
of the covenant," or "the book of the law."
c. The Sabbath was the sign of the Sinaitic Covenant
and, as such, was placed in the very center of Ten
Commandments.
7. The "book of the law" interpreted and applied the
"tables of the law" to specific situations in the life of
Israel.
8. The wording of the covenant of circumcision is nearly
identical with the wording of the covenant of Sabbath.
What is said of one is said of the other. (This important
discovery I did not make in the SDA church. I will list
the evidence for it.)
Notice the parallel in covenant language between these two
signs as recorded in Genesis 17: 9- 14 and Exodus 31:12-18;
20:12:
C.=Circumcision; S.=Sabbath

C. "You shall keep My covenant" Gen. 17:9

S. "You shall surely observe My sabbath" Ex. 31:13

C. "Me and you and your descendants" Gen. 17:9

S. "Me and the sons of Israel" Ex. 31:17

C. "And you shall be circumcised" Gen. 17:11

S. "You are to observe the sabbath" Ex. 31:14

C. "Throughout your generations" Gen. 17:12

S. "Throughout your generations" Ex. 31:13

C. "The sign between Me and you" Gen. 17:11

S. "A sign between Me and you" Ex. 31:13

C. "An everlasting covenant" Gen. 17:13

S. "A perpetual covenant" Ex. 31:16

C. "Uncircumcised . . . cut off" Gen. 17:14

S. "Whoever does any work . . . cut off" Ex. 31:14

C. Servant to be circumcised Gen. 17:12

S. Servant to keep Sabbath Ex. 20:10

C. Sign of circumcision given at time of giving of the

covenant Gen. 17:1- 9
S. Sign of Sabbath given at time of giving of the covenant
Ex. 31:18

C. Circumcision mentioned 6 times

S. Sabbath mentioned 6 times

The similarities in wording, style and time of giving, are too

striking to be accidental. And the similarity is even more
apparent in the original language. For example, "everlasting"
(Gen. 17:13) and "perpetual" (Ex. 31:16) are translations
from the same Hebrew word, olam. It is important that we
understand the relationship between circumcision and
Sabbath and see the role they play in the Sinaitic Covenant.
Circumcision was the entrance sign into the covenant God
made with Abraham and his descendants. It was the
initiatory or entrance sign of the covenant by which one
became a member of the covenant community. The Passover
feast was a celebration for the covenant community only. In
the following reference circumcision served as the entrance
sign into the covenant community and thus gave one the
right to participate in the Passover (or covenant) celebration.
(Ex. 12:43,44,48)

The Sabbath, in a similar way, was the continuing sign of the

covenant Israel was to "remember." It was a ceremony
observed weekly as a renewing of the covenant. As in the
case with circumcision, if a foreigner desired to join in
covenant fellowship he was to observe the Sabbath.

"The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God; in it

you shall not do any work, you or the sojourner who stays
with you" (Ex. 20:10).

Notice how in the time of Isaiah the Sabbath was related to

the covenant and how foreigners who joined themselves to
Israel were expected to observe the Sabbath of the covenant.

"Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord
say, "The Lord will surely separate me from his people."
Neither let the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For
thus says the Lord, "To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, to
them I will give in My house and within My walls a
memorial, and a name better than that of sons and
daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will
not be cut off. Also the foreigners who join themselves to
the Lord, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the
Lord, to be His servants, every one who keeps from
profaning the sabbath, and holds fast My covenant" (Isa.
56:3- 6).

Circumcision was given to Israel as the one-time entrance

sign into the covenant community. The Sabbath was given as
the repeatable sign of the Sinaitic Covenant Israel was to
"remember."

9. The covenant partners were God and the nation of

Israel ONLY. No other people were included within this
 covenant. (I know SDAs do not want to accept this,
please look closely what the Bible SAYS here. Again,
this may not fit the SDA paradigm, don't try to make it
fit just see what Scripture Says!)
10. The provisions of the Sinaitic Covenant were open to
others, but only if they became circumcised, kept the
Sabbath and were willing to abide by all the covenant
stipulations.
11. The duration of the Sinaitic Covenant was said to be
forever, eternal, perpetual, or "throughout your
generations."
12. The purpose of the covenant was to provide the basis
of fellowship between God and Israel and to serve as a
witness in case of covenant violations.
13. Violations of the covenant included violations of the
Ten Commandments, the other laws in the "book of
the covenant," or the signs of the covenant: Sabbath
and circumcision.
14. Provision was made for the difference between
intentional and unintentional sin.
a. An Israelite was put to death or cut off from the
covenant community for intentional sin.
b. An Israelite who committed unintentional sin was
provided atonement conditional on the fulfillment
of certain sacrifices.
15. The Sinaitic Covenant is characteristically a law
covenant.
16. The Sinaitic Covenant is minutely detailed as if it were
written for immature people.
17. The Sinaitic Covenant is a mediated covenant with a
key leader standing between God and the sons of
Israel.

Dr. Bacchiocchi, do you agree that the above statements are

what the Bible Says? Please do not bring in other N. T. texts
at this time. Let us first agree with what it says. OK?

Dr. Bacchiocchi replies

The overall objective of your 17 statements is simply to show

that the Sabbath and circumcision are strikingly similar
temporary signs of the Old Covenant. By equating the
Sabbath with circumcision you are paving the way for arguing
later (chapter 12 of your book) for their termination and
replacement. You maintain that in the New Covenant
circumcision was replaced with baptism, and the Sabbath
was replaced with the Lord's Supper (p. 185). The latter
claim is totally devoid of Biblical and historical support, as I
will show in a later installment.

A close analysis of each of your statements would require

more time and space than is available to me. Thus, I will limit
myself to briefly point out some of the fundamental problems
of your methodology and conclusions. In forthcoming
installments I will address some of these specific points in
greater depth.

(1) Failure to define the Biblical view of the covenant

The fundamental problem I see in the statements above,

Dale, is your failure to grasp the Biblical view of the covenant,
which is God's commitment to save His people. You speak
constantly the Sinaitic covenant as if it consisted primarily of
legal stipulations between God and the Israelites, like the
secular covenant of the time. You say, for example, "The
Sinaitic Covenant is characteristically a law covenant."

You ignore that one striking characteristic of the Biblical

covenant, not found in the ancient political covenants, is
God's emotional appeal to His people. The Lord says, for
example: "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians; and
how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my
covenant, you shall be my own possession among all
peoples" (Ex. 19:4-5). Though the covenant was based on
God's revealed commandments which the people were
expected to observe (Ex. 24:7; Deut. 27 :1), its ultimate
function was to reveal God's saving grace in and through His
people: "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy
nation" (Ex. 19:6; cf. Deut. 14:1-2; 26:19).

The dichotomy that you make between law and grace is not
present in the Old Covenant. Recent studies have shown that:

"it is with the demands of the commandments

that God's grace becomes known. That is, it is not
possible to equate the covenant with grace and
 then the commandments with law. The
discrepancy between covenant and
commandments (i.e. grace and law) in the way in
which it has been understood in Protestantism
does not exist in the Old Testament" (J. J. Stamm
and M. E. Andrew, The Ten commandments in
Recent Research, p. 70).

(2) Failure to Recognize that Sinaitic Covenant was based

on Grace

By focusing primarily on the Ten commandments and the

"other laws" derived from them, you convey the impression
that the Old Covenant was essentially a system of
administration of law, and consequently it did not offer
salvation by grace through faith like in the New Covenant.
This is a misrepresentation of the Old Covenant which was
based on God's gracious provision of salvation.

Note, Dale, that God introduces the Ten Commandments by

reminding the people that He is their Deliverer: "I am the
Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage" (Ex 20:2). It is because God has
saved His people and want to make them "kingdom of
priests and a holy nation" that He revealed to them both the
principles of life and the provisions of grace. In fact, we read
that when God invited Moses on "the seventh day" (Ex
24:16) to enter into the cloud of His glorious presence, He
gave him the Ten Commandments on the one hand and the
provision of grace (blue print of the Tabernacle) on the other
hand. In his dissertation Il Settimo Giorno-The Seventh Day
published by the Pontifical Gregorian University, Nicola
Negretti states that "the seventh day" marks not only the
completion of creation but also the completion of God's
revelation on Mt. Sinai of his principles of life and provision of
grace.

The OT recognizes that in God's sight no one could be

justified (Ps 143:2) by his own works, because justification is
grounded in "the Lord Our righteousness" (Jer 23:6).
Righteousness had to be imputed in the Old Covenant even to
father Abraham (Gen 15:6; cf. Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). God's saints
in the OT were people of faith (cf. Heb 11). The Old Covenant
taught that "the righteous shall live by faith" (Hab 2:4; cf.
Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11). Isaiah declares: "In the Lord all the
descendants of Israel will be found righteous" (Is 45:25)."

Dale, listen carefully to the following profound statement

from Prof. Greg Bahnsen:

"If we allow the Bible to interpret itself and not

infuse it with a preconceived theological antithesis
between Old and New Covenants (Law and
Gospel), we are compelled to conclude that the
Old Covenant-indeed the Mosaic law-was a
covenant of grace that offered salvation on the
basis of grace through faith, just as does the
Good News found in the New Testament. The
difference was that the Mosaic or law-covenant
looked ahead to the coming of the Savior, thus
administering God's covenant by means of
promises, prophecies, ritual sacrifices, types, and
foreshadowings that anticipated the Savior and
His redeeming work. The Gospel or the New
Covenant proclaims the accomplishments of that
which the law anticipated, administering God's
covenant through preaching and the sacraments
[Lord's Supper, Baptism ]. The substance of God's
saving relationship and covenant is the same
under the Law and Gospel" (The Law and the
Gospel and the Modern Christian, p. 97).

(3) Failure to reflect on why God chose the Sabbath and

Circumcision as signs of the Covenant

Your primary concern, Dale, to prove that both the Sabbath

and circumcision are Old Covenant institutions that were
nailed to the Cross, has caused you to ignore several
important questions:

a. Why did God choose the physical sign of circumcision

and the spiritual sign of the Sabbath to constantly
remind the Israelites of their covenant commitment to
Him?
b. If the Sabbath was given as the sign of sanctification
("that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you" Ex.
31:13) in the Old Covenant, why should such sign be
 abolished in the New Covenant? Do not Christians
need such a sign of God's sanctifying presence in their
lives?
c. Why did the first Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) exempt
the Gentiles from circumcision but not from the
Sabbath? Why did the brethren appeal to Moses
saying that "he is read every Sabbath in the
synagogue" (Acts 15:21)?
d. Why did Paul make a distinction between circumcision
and the keeping of God's commandments when he
said: "For neither circumcision counts for anything nor
uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of
God" (1 Cor 7:29)? Does not this suggest that Paul
(the NT) recognizes the difference between the
temporary function of circumcision and the universal
function of the Ten Commandments?
e. Where do you find any support in the NT for your claim
that the Sabbath is replaced by the Lord's Supper? Did
not Christ institute the Lord's Supper in the context of
the Paschal Supper? Your claim is a pure fabrication
totally devoid of Biblical and historical support, as I
will show in a later installment.

CONCLUSION

In closing, Dale, I would like to appeal to you to take time to

reflect on the broad scope of the Sabbath that encompass
creation, redemption, and final restoration. Rather than
trying to negate the Sabbath by equating it with circumcision
and the Old Covenant, why not explore why God has chosen
the Sabbath to help believers in every age to express and
experience a belonging relationship with Him. You will find
this kind of theological reflection, a far more fruitful and
rewarding endeavor. My heart has been warmed in reading
the profound insights into the meaning and relevance of the
Sabbath for today, from outstanding theologians like Karl
Barth.

In a future installment I will present seven reasons why God

has chosen the Sabbath as the Sign of our Covenant
commitment to Him. I trust that these theological reflections
on the Sabbath as a vital covenant sign for our Christian life,
will help you, Dale, and many others to discover the Sabbath
 not as an alienating imposition, but as a divine invitation
extended to us by God each week to fellowship with him and
thus experience more fully and freely His sanctifying
presence in our lives.

[Installment #7] | [Installment #9]

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