BACCHIOCCHI'S FIRST NEGATIVE
Dear John:
Thank you for inviting me to respond to your propostion that the New
Testament enjoins Christians to observe Sunday as the new day of rest and
worship. You wrote: "The New Testament teaches that we today, and every
follower of God since the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, is obligated to
observe the first day of the week as a day of worship."
Your proposition, John, has been debated throughout the Christian centuries.
Lately it has appeared again in various news organizations. I sincerely hope that
our dialogue will help many sincere Christians to know which is God's Holy Day
in the NT and how it should be observed by Christians today.
Some feel that debates of this nature are a waste of time. I do not share this
view. During the past 20 years I have discussed this vital subject with a countless
number of scholars, church leaders, and Christians of all denominations. The
results have been very gratifying. Thousands of people have been convinced and
convicted of the Biblical validity and value of the principle and practice of
seventh-day Sabbathkeeping for our Christian life today. There have been also
hundreds of scholars who after reading my research have come to accept
intellectually the validity of the Sabbath, though they are not prepared to adopt its
observance existentially. I sent you an older edition of my book FROM
SABBATH TO SUNDAY because at the end of the book you will find 12 pages of
positive testimonials from scholars and church leaders who have favorably
reviewed the book. These testimonials represent only a fraction of the hundreds of similar
positive reviews received.
For our dialogue to be meaningful, John, we both must resolve in our hearts
to reexamine the Biblical and historical data with an open mind, willing to
reconsider our view, if that should prove to be necessary. On my part I promise to
do so and I hope you will do the same.
Recently I have been involved in a dialogue with thousands of former
members and ministers of the Worldwide Church of God who have challenged me
to reconsider my views on the ancient Feasts of Israel. I accepted their challenge
and after a year of diligent study, I changed my views. I have come to realize that
though the sacrificial aspects of the annual Holy Days terminated at the Cross,
their typological and eschatological function still remains and is relevant for us
today. I cite this example simply to show that I am willing to reconsider my views,
when I am convicted by the witness of the Scripture. I trust that you are willing to
do the same. You have impressed me as a sincere student of the Word of God.
This gives me reason to hope that you also, like many other clergymen, after
having examined all the relevant Biblical and historical data, will come to accept
the continuity, validity, and value of the Sabbath commandment for NT Christians.
After these introductory remarks, I will briefly respond to the two major
propositions of your essay. Your first proposition is that "Christians are under
Christ's law, not the law of Moses in ANY sense whatsoever." In your view the
Sabbath commandment is part of the old law which was nailed to the cross. You
wrote: " Jesus nailed the old law to the cross (Col. 2:14)." Your second
proposition is that 1 Cor 16:1-3 supports Sundaykeeping in the New Testament,
because Paul instructed the Corinthian believers to give their offering weekly on
the first day of the week.
CHRIST NAILED TO THE CROSS THE OLD LAW WHICH INCLUDED
THE SABBATH
Your first proposition, John, is based on a faulty theological construct which
sees the Cross as the line of demarcation between Judaism and Christianity. Like
many others, you seem to believe that before the Cross there was Judaism, the law,
and the Sabbath. After the Cross there is Christianity, grace, and Sundaykeeping.
This theological construct is based on fantasy rather than facts. Recent research
has shown that Christianity began as a continuation of Judaism and not as a radical
break away from Judaism. The thousands of Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth
as their expected Messiah, did not abandon the law in general and the Sabbath in
particular. They simply became "BELIEVING JEWS" who are described by
James (almost 30 years after the death of Jesus) as "all zealous for the law" (Acts
21:20). It is hard to believe that if they were zealous in theobservance of the law,
they would have pioneered the abondonment of the Sabbath commandment and
the adoption of Sundaykeeping.
I would urge you, John, to read chapter 2 of my book THE SABBATH IN
THE NEW TESTAMENT which is entitled "The Continuity between Judaism and
Christianity." There you will find a lengthy discussion of this question. This is
one of the three complimentary Sabbath books I mailed you last week. I would be
glad to e-mail this chapter to anyone interested.
To support your view that the old law, which included the Sabbath, was
nailed to the Cross, you refer to Col 2:14. What you are doing is nothing new. If
you read the 30 pages appendix of my dissertation FROM SABBATH TO
SUNDAY, you will see that throughout the centuries this text has been used even
by men like Luther and Calvin as a proof that Christ by His death abolished the
law in general and the Sabbath in particular. In spite of its popularity, this
interpretation of Col 2:14 has recently been rejected by practically all the scholars
who have closely examined the passage. This is why I was urging you to read
some of the scholarly literature produced even by Sundaykeeping scholars, before
beginning this debate. It would have made unnecessary for me to discuss mistaken
interpretations which have been largely put to rest. For the sake of brevity, I will
share few paragraphs from pages 168-169 of my book THE SABBATH IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT which I hope will help you to see the real meaning of Col
2:14.
COLOSSIANS 2:14. In spite of its antiquity and popularity, the view that
Paul teaches in Col 2:14 that the law was nailed to the Cross, is totally unfounded
for at least two reasons. First, because as E. Lohse points out in the
THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, "in the whole of
the epistle the word law is not used at all. Not only that, but the whole
significance of the law, which appears unavoidable for Paul when he presents his
gospel, is completely absent."13 Second, this interpretation detracts from the
immediate argument (v. 13) designed to prove the fulness of God's forgiveness.
The wiping out of the moral and/or ceremonial law would hardly provide
Christians with the divine assurance of forgiveness. Guilt is not removed by
destroying law codes. The latter would only leave mankind without moral
principles. What was nailed to the Cross was not the "law-nomos" but the
cheirographon, a term which occurs only in Colossians 2:14. Its meaning has been
clarified by its occurrence in apocalyptic literature where cheirographon is used to
designate the "record-book of sin" or the certificate of sin-indebtedness but not the
moral or ceremonial law.14
By this daring metaphor Paul affirms that through Christ, God has
"cancelled," "set aside," "nailed to the cross" "the written record of our sins which
because of the regulations was against us." The legal basis of the record of sins
was "the binding statutes, regulations" (tois dogmasin) but what God destroyed on
the Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement in sin, but the
written record of our sins.
By destroying the evidence of our sins, God has also "disarmed the
principalities and powers" (2:15) since it is no longer possible for them to accuse
those who have been forgiven. There is no reason therefore for Christians to feel
incomplete and to seek the help of inferior mediators, since Christ has provided
complete redemption and forgiveness.
We conclude then that the document nailed to the cross is not the law in
general or the Sabbath in particular, but rather the record of our sins. Any attempt
to read into it a reference to the Sabbath or to any other Old Testament ordinance
is an unwarranted and gratuitous fantasy.
The fundamental problem I see in your position, John, is that you create an
unwarranted dichotomy between the Moses' law and Christ's law. You wrote: "I
contend that Christians are under Christ's law, not the law of Moses in ANY sense
whatsoever." Such statement implies that Christ gave moral laws that are radically
different from the moral laws of Moses. If this were true, it would imply first that
Moses himself, and not God, was the originator of the moral and ceremonial laws
found in the Pentateuch. Second, that the laws of Moses were bad and
consequently Christ had to replace them with better laws.
This view is discredited by the witness of both the OT and of Christ Himself.
The OT consistently teaches us that it was God Himself who gave to Moses on Mt.
Sinai both the Ten Commandments and the various ceremonials and civil laws.
Similarly Christ taught that He had come not not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it
(Matt 5:17), that is, to reveal its fuller meaning. This He did by clarifying the
divine intent of the Ten Commandments in general and of the Sabbath in
particular.
This clarification was especially needed for the Sabbath commandment
whose meaning and function has been obscured by over 1500 rabbinical
regulations about its observance. This is why the Gospels report no less than seven
Sabbath healing episodes, in addition to all the controversies generated by the
unconventional way Christ observed the Sabbath. Through His Sabbath teaching
and ministry Christ taught that the Sabbath is a day "to do good" (Matt 12:12), a
day "to save life" (Mark 3:4), a day "to liberate" men and women from physical
and spiritual bonds (Luke 13:12), a day to show mercy and not just religiousity
(Matt 12:7).
Many scholars recognize that the unusual coverage given in the Gospels to
the Sabbath teachings and ministry of Jesus, is indicative of the importance of
Sabbathkeeping in the apostolic church. The sayings of Jesus reflect the on-going
debate between the church and the synagogue. Christians appealed to Christ's
teachings to argue with the Jews that the Sabbath is not merely rules to obey, but
people to love. You will find a lengthy discussion of the manner of
Sabbathkeeping in the apostolic church in Chapter V of THE SABBATH IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT which is entitled "Sabbathkeeping in the New Testament."
Please read it.
Let us now turn to a brief examination of your interpretation of 1 Cor 16:2
where Paul says: "On the first day of every week each of you is to put something
aside and store it up as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made
when I come." You summarize your interpretation of this passage, saying: "Paul
gave 'orders' that a collection should be made upon the first day of every week (1
Cor. 16:1-2). Offerings are a part of worship itself. Since offerings are a part of
worship and since offerings took place on the first day of the week, worship also is
to take place on the first day of the week."
I would urge you to read pages 90 to 101 of my dissertation FROM
SABBATH TO SUNDAY where I discuss your argument at considerable length.
For the sake of brevity I will simply point out the fallacies of your syllogism which
runs like this:
Major premise: Offerings are a part of church worship
Minor premise: Paul ordered the Corinthians to take up their offering
on the first day of the week,
Conclusion: Thus, the first day of the week was the regular day of worship.
The fundamental problem with your syllogism, John, is that it is based on
faulty premises. In your major premise, you assume that offerings were a part of
Sabbath worship in the OT and of Sunday worship in the NT. But nowhere does
the Bible enjoins to take up collection during the Sabbath or Sunday religious
service. On the contrary, Jewish tradition clearly forbade taking up collection on
the Sabbath. No offerings were to handled during the Sabbath worship at the
synagogue. The offerings were brought to the Temple or collected from home to
home during the week, and not on the Sabbath. For references see footnote 7 on
page 91 of FROM SABBATH TOSUNDAY.
The problem with your minor premise is that you wrongly assume that Paul
ordered the Corinthians to take up their offerings on the first day of the week
during their church service. Please note that there is nothing in the text that
suggests that the Corinthians met for church worship on the first day of the week.
The laying aside of funds was to be done not publicly at church but privately and
individually at home: "each one of you by himself-ekastos umon para eauto" (v.2).
The money was to be "stored up-thesaurizon" in each individual house until the
Apostle came for it.
If the Christian community was worshipping together on Sunday, it appears
paradoxical that Paul should recommend laying aside at home one's gift. Why
should Christians deposit their offering at home on Sunday, if on such a day they
were gathering for worship at church? Should not the money have been brought to
church on Sunday and deposited, to use your words, "in one central treasury"?
The fact that Paul's fundraising plan calls to lay aside the money at home, strongly
suggests that no worship gatherings took place on Sunday.
Why then did Paul recommend a first-day deposit plan? The answer is given
by the Apostle himself: "so that contributions need not be made when I come" (v.
2). The purpose of the plan then is not to enhance Sunday worship by the offering
of gifts, but to ensure a substantial and efficient collection upon Paul's arrival.
Four characteristics can be identified in the plan. The offering was to be laid aside
PERIODICALLY ("on the first day of every week"), PERSONALLY ("each of
you"), PRIVATELY ("by himself in store"), and PROPORTIONALLY ("as he
may prosper").
Paul's mention of the first day of the week could be motivated by practical
reasons. To wait until the end of the week or of the month to set aside one's
contributions is contrary to sound budgetary practices, since by that time one may
find himself with nothing left to give. On the other hand, if on the first day of the
week, before planning any expenditure, one sets aside what he plans to give, the
remaining funds will be so distributed to meet all the basic necessities.
Since no money was handled on the Sabbath by the Jews, it is possible that
out of respect for the Sabbath Paul recommended to lay aside the offering privately
at home right after the Sabbath, that is, on the the first day of the week.
Summing up, the text proposes a valuable weekly plan to ensure a substantial
and orderly contribution on behalf of the poor in Jerusalem, but to extract more
meaning from the text would distort it.
May I close, John, by inviting you to consider two important questions: 1). If
your proposition that Sundaykeeping "is enforced upon God's people" in the NT
were true, why is it that we have no commandment of Christ or of the apostles
regarding a weekly Sunday or annual Easter Sunday celebration of the
resuurection? This is all the more surprising since we have specific commands
regarding baptism, the Lord's supper, and footwashing. If Jesus wanted the day of
His resurrection to be memorialized, would He not have taken the opportunity
when He rose to establish a memorial of His resurrection as He did at the Last
Supper? Please note, John, that Biblical institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, the
Lord's Supper, footwashing, all trace their origin to a divine act that established
them. The ideal time for Christ to establish a memorial of His resurrection would
have been the very Sunday of His resurrection. But all the utterances of the risen
Savior are an invitation to work and not to rest and worship in honor of His
resurrection. If you take time to study this question, John, you will discover that
the resurrection in NT times was celebrated existentially and not liturgically.
2). If, as you seem to assume Paul was the pioneer and promoter of
Sundaykeeping, why is it that there is no echo of any controversy between Paul
and the Jerusalem brethren over his abandonment of the Sabbath? As you know
there was pleanty of controversy over circumcision but not over the Sabbath.
Why? Are you suggesting that Paul was in perfect agreement with the Jerusalem
brethren over the abandonment of the Sabbath and
adoption of Sunday? If this is what you think, please read chapter V of my
dissertation FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY entitled "Jerusalem and the origin
of Sunday," before you prepare your reply.
My final recommendation to you, John, is to read the three volumes on the
Sabbath before preparing your response. I signed off two weeks ago from the
Internet and Compuserve so that I can work without distraction on my new book
on the Fall Feasts of ancient Israel. I am willing to make an exception for you and
to take precious time out of my research, if I see that you are making an earnest
effort to study and understand the issues relating to the Sabbath/Sunday question.
On the other hand, if I see that your interest is not to study the issues, but to
recycled old arguments that have been largely discredited by recent research, then
I will follow Jesus' advice as found in Matthew 7:6.
Thank you again for the opportunity granted me to dialogue with you. It is
my fervent hope and prayer that as a result of our efforts some sincere souls will
come to understand and experience more fully the Savior's peace and rest in their
restless lives.
Christian regards
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
A NOTE: Feel free to contact me for copies of my Sabbath books which I
would be glad to make available to you.
Back to Lewis/Bacchiocchi Page
Go to Lewis' Second Affirmative