by the late Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
Chapter 3
THE SABBATH AND THE NEW COVENANT
Few Bible doctrines have been under the constant crossfire
of controversy as has the Sabbath. In recent years,
Dispensational and "New Covenant" Christians have renewed their
attack against the Sabbath with fresh zeal. The stock weapon of
their arsenal is the allegation that the Sabbath is an Old
Covenant relic that terminated at the Cross. Their strategy is to
make the Cross the line of demarcation between the Old and New
Covenants, Law and Grace, the Sabbath and Sunday. Since they
believe the Ten Commandments formed the core of the Old Covenant
and the Sabbath is central to the Ten Commandments, by firing on
the Sabbath they hope to destroy the validity and value of the
Mosaic Law in general, and of the Sabbath in particular.
This is largely the strategy recently adopted by such former
Sabbatarians as the Worldwide Church of God, Dale Ratzlaff in his
influential book "Sabbath in Crisis," and some of the newly
established "grace-oriented" congregations, which consist mainly
of former Sabbatarians. Their literature contains some of the
strongest attacks against the Sabbath ever published. This is a
surprising development of our times, because, to my knowledge,
never before in the history of Christianity has the Sabbath been
attacked by those who previously had championed its observance.
The weapons used by former Sabbatarians in their attacks
against the Sabbath are taken largely from the aging munition
dump of Dispensational literature.
For the sake of accuracy I must say that, contrary to most
Dispensational authors, both the Worldwide Church of God (WCG)
and Dale Ratzlaff are more concerned with proving the
"fulfilment" and termination of the Sabbath in Christ than in
defending Sunday observance as an apostolic institution. For
them, the New Covenant does not require the observance of a day
as such, but the daily experience of the rest of salvation
typified by the Sabbath rest. In "Sabbath in Crisis," Ratzlaff
does include a chapter, "The First Day of the Week," where he
makes a feeble attempt to justify the biblical origin of
Sundaykeeping, but this is not the major concern of his book.
For the benefit of those less versed in theological nuances,
it might help to clarify the difference between Dispensational
and New Covenant theologies. Both emphasize the distinction
between the Old Mosaic Covenant, allegedly based on Law, and the
"New Christian Covenant" presumably based on grace.
Dispensationalists, however, go a step further by applying
their distinction between the Old and New Covenants as
representing the existence of a fundamental and permanent
distinction between Israel and the Church. "Throughout the ages,"
writes Lewis Sperry Chafer, a leading Dispensational theologian,
"God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth
with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is
Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly
people and heavenly objectives, which is Christianity." 1
Simply stated, Dispensationalists interpret the Old and New
Covenants as representing two different plans of salvation for
two different people - Israel and the Church. The destiny of each
is supposed to be different, not only in this present age but
also throughout eternity. What God has united by breaking down
the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:14)
Dispensationalists are trying to divide by rebuilding the wall of
partition not only for the present age but for all eternity. It
is hard to believe that intelligent, responsible Christians would
dare to fabricate such a divisive theology that grossly
misrepresents the fairness and justice of God's redemptive
activities.
Importance of This Study.
The importance of this study stems from the popular
perception that the Sabbath is an Old Covenant institution no
longer binding upon "New Covenant" Christians. This thesis is es-
poused by most Evangelical authors and is widely accepted by
Christians at large. In recent years, as we noted, the abrogation
view of the Sabbath has been adopted by an increasing number of
former Sabbatarians.
This chapter examines primarily the literature produced by
former Sabbatarians, especially Ratzlaff's "Sabbath in Crisis."
We focus on Ratzlaff's book for two reasons: (1) "The Sabbath in
Cris" largely reflects the Dispensational and "New Covenant"
views of the Sabbath. Consequently, the analysis of this book
provides an opportunity to examine the abrogation view of the
Sabbath held by most Christians today. (2) This book has
exercised considerable influence not only on WCG, 2 but also
among a considerable number of former Adventist ministers and
members who have rejected the Sabbath as an Old Covenant, Mosaic
institution that no longer is binding upon Christians today.
A fitting example of the influence of Sabbath in Crisis
among Seventh-day Adventists is the book "New Covenant
Christians" by Clay Peck, a former Adventist pastor who currently
serves as senior pastor of the Grace Place Congregation in
Berthoud, Colorado. In the "Introduction" to his book Peck
acknowledges his indebtedness to Ratzlaff saying: "While I have
read and researched widely for this study, I have been most
challenged and instructed by a book entitled 'Sabbath in Crisis,'
by Dale Ratzlaff. I have leaned heavily on his research,
borrowing a number of concepts and diagrams." 3
The far reaching influence of the "New Covenant" theology,
championed among Sabbatarians by people like Dale Ratzlaff, is
hard to estimate. The WCG has experienced a massive exodus of
over 70,000 members who have refused to accept the changes
demanded by the "New Covenant" theology. In the Adventist church,
the "New Covenant" teaching has influenced several former pastors
to establish independent "graceoriented" congregations.
This study on the relationship between the Sabbath and the
New Covenant extends beyond the sabbatarian communities. Most
Sundaykeeping Christians think of Sabbathkeeping as a relic of
the Old Covenant and of Sabbatarians as "Judaizers" still living
under the Old Covenant. It is urgent, then, for us to examine
this popular perception which, as our study will show, is based
on a one-sided, misleading interpretation of the biblical
teaching on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.
Objectives of This Chapter.
In Chapter 2 I briefly traced the origin and development of
the anti-Sabbath theology. This chapter continues the study of
the anti-Sabbath theology by focusing on the major arguments
adduced by the "New Covenant" theology to negate the continuity,
validity, and value of the Sabbath for today.
This chapter is divided into two parts. The first deals with
the alleged distinction between the Old Covenant based on Law and
the New Covenant based on faith and love. The fundamental
question addressed in the first part is: Do the Old and New
Covenants contain a different set of laws, or are they based on
the same set of moral principles? The second part examines the
continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants as
taught in the book of Hebrews. The fundamental question to be
considered here is: Does the book of Hebrews support the popular
contention that the coming of Christ brought an end to the Law,
in general, and to the Sabbath, in particular?
PART 1
A LOOK AT THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS
A major characteristic of the "New Covenant" theology
recently adopted by a significant number of former Sabbatarians
is the Dispensational emphasis on the radical distinction between
the Old and New Covenants. To illustrate this point, we briefly
examine two representative studies: (1) The Pastor General
Report, entitled "The New Covenant and the Sabbath," prepared by
Pastor Joseph Tkach, Jr., Pastor General of the WCG; and (2)
Chapters 5,12, and 15 of the book "Sabbath in Crisis," where
Ratzlaff articulates his understanding of the distinction between
the Old and the New Covenants.
(1) Joseph Tkach's View of the Distinction Between the Two
Covenants
In his Pastor General Report of December 21, 1994, Pastor
Joseph Tkach, Jr., devotes 20 pages to explain to his ministers
the fundamental difference between the Old and New Covenants. He
argues that the difference lies in the fact that the Old Covenant
was conditional upon obedience to a "package of Laws," while the
New Covenant is unconditional, that is, without obedience as a
requirement 4
For Tkach, the Sabbath is part of the Old Covenant "package
of Laws" and this is why "we don't find the Sabbath commanded in
the New Covenant." 5 "Something was seriously wrong with the
Israelite covenant. The people did not have the heart to obey,
and God knew it (Deut 31:1621, 27-29). Unlike Abraham, they did
not believe and were not faithful (Heb 3:19).... Therefore, God
predicted a New Covenant. He hinted at it even in the old ....
There would be no need for a New Covenant, of course, unless the
Old was deficient." 6
If it were true that "something was seriously wrong" with
the Old Covenant, then why did God in the first place give a
faulty covenant that could not change the hearts of the people?
Was something "seriously wrong" with the covenant itself? Or was
it with the way the people related to the covenant? If the human
response was a factor with the Old Covenant, could it also be a
factor with the New Covenant?
Superiority of the New Covenant.
"The New Covenant is superior to the Old, because it is founded
on better promises (Heb 8:6)." 7 Tkach argues that the New
Covenant is the renewal of the Abrahamic covenant which was based
on God's unconditional promises. "God didn't say, I'll do this if
you do that. Abraham had already done enough. He had accepted
God's call, went to the land as God had commanded, and he
believed God and was therefore counted as righteous." 8 Like
Abraham, "New Covenant" Christians accept salvation by faith and
not by works of obedience.
Tkach writes: "In the New Covenant, faith is required ...
Christians have a relationship with God based on faith, not on
Law ... We are saved on the basis of faith, not on Law-keeping
... In other words, our relationship with God is based on faith
and promise, just as Abraham's was. Laws that were added at Sinai
cannot change the promise given to Abraham ... That package of
Laws became obsolete when Christ died, and there is now a new
package." 9 The problem with this statement is the gratuitous
assumption that salvation was possible in the Old Covenant
through Law-keeping. This is completely untrue, because, as we
shall see in Chapter 6, obedience to the Law represented Israel's
response to the gracious provision of salvation. Law-keeping has
never been the basis of salvation.
(It is so true as Dr.Sam says, see my study "Saved by Grace" -
Keith Hunt)
According to Tkach, the Old Covenant did not work because it
was based "on a package of Laws" that "could not cleanse a guilty
conscience." 10 On the other hand, the New Covenant works
because it is based on the blood of Christ and the work of the
Holy Spirit in the heart. "The Holy Spirit changes their
[believers] hearts. The people are transformed, and they grow
more and more like Christ.... The New Covenant affects our
innermost being. The blood of Jesus Christ changes us.... His
sacrifice sanctifies us, makes us holy, sets us aside for a holy
purpose." 11
Does this mean that the blood of Christ has some kind of
magic power to automatically change people, whether or not they
are willing to obey God's commandments? To attribute such magic
power to the Spirit and/or to Christ's blood reminds one of the
magic power the Jews attributed to the Law. Isn't this another
form of legalism? Does the atoning sacrifice of Christ and the
ministry of the Holy Spirit render obedience to God's
commandments unnecessary or possible?
The WCG acknowledges that "no New Testament verse
specifically cites the Sabbath as obsolete." 12 But since WCG
believes that the Sabbath is part the Old Covenant terminated by
Christ's coming, the Sabbath also is no longer required. "There
are verses that say that the entire Old Covenant is obsolete. The
law of Moses, including the Sabbath, is not required. We are
commanded to live by the Spirit, not by the Law inscribed in
stone. The Sabbath is repeatedly likened to things now obsolete:
temple sacrifices, circumcision, holy bread, a shadow." 13
This statement contains several glaring inaccuracies that
are addressed later in this chapter. We shall see that the New
Testament distinguishes between the continuity of the moral law
and the discontinuity of the ceremonial law (1 Cor 7:19). In the
book of Hebrews, especially, we find a clear contrast between the
Levitical services which came to an end with Christ's coming (Heb
7:18; 8:13;10:9) and Sabbathkeeping "which has been left behind
for the people of God" (Heb 4:9).
Evaluation of WCG "New Covenant" Theology.
A detailed analysis of "New Covenant" theology presented in
the literature of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) would take us
beyond the limited scope of this chapter. Consequently, I make
only a few basic observations.
One fundamental problem in the WCG "New Covenant"
understanding of the Plan of Salvation is the faulty
Dispensational assumption that, during the course of human
history, God has offered salvation on different bases to
different people. God started out by offering salvation to
Abraham unconditionally on the basis of faith; but at Mt.Sinai He
agreed to save the Israelites conditionally on the basis of
obedience to His commandments, or what Tkach calls "the old
package of Laws." When God discovered that such an arrangement
did not work - because the Law "could not make anyone perfect. It
could not change their hearts" He reverted to the "faith
arrangement" He had with Abraham. To make things easier, in the
New Covenant, God did away with most of the old package of laws,
including the Sabbath, and decided this time to work in the heart
through the Holy Spirit.
If this scenario were true, it would surely open to question
the consistency and fairness of God's saving activities. It would
imply that, during the course of redemptive history, God has
offered salvation on two radically different bases: on the basis
of human obedience in the Old Covenant and on the basis of divine
grace in the New Covenant. It would further imply, presumably,
that God learned through the experience of His chosen people, the
Jews, that human beings cannot earn salvation by obedience
because they tend to disobey. Consequently, He finally decided to
change His method and implement a New Covenant plan where
salvation is offered to believing persons exclusively as a divine
gift of grace rather than a human achievement.
Such a theological construct makes God changeable and
subject to learning by mistakes as human beings do. The truth of
the matter, however, is that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday
and today and for ever" (Heb 13:8). Salvation has always been in
the Old and New Covenants, first and foremost a divine gift of
grace and not a human achievement. Obedience to the Law provided
Israel with an opportunity to preserve their covenant
relationship with God, not to gain acceptance with Him. This is
the meaning of Leviticus 18:5: "You shall therefore keep my
statutes and my ordinances, by doing which a man shall live." The
life promised in this text is not the life in the age to come (as
in Dan 12:2), but the present enjoyment of a peaceful and
prosperous life in fellowship with God. Such a life was God's
gift to His people, a gift that could be enjoyed and preserved by
living in accordance with the principles God had revealed.
Sinai Covenant: Law and Grace.
Part of the problem of the "New Covenant" theology is the
failure to realize that the Sinai Covenant reveals God's gracious
provision of salvation just as much as the New Covenant does. God
revealed to Moses His plan to deliver Israel from Egypt and to
set her up in the land of Canaan (Ex 3:7-10,16) because Israel is
"His people" (Ex 3:10). God's deliverance of the Israelites from
the bondage of Egypt reveals His gracious provision of salvation
just as much as does His deliverance of New Testament believers
from the bondage of sin. In fact, in Scripture, the former is a
type of the latter.
What Tkach ignores is the fact that the Israelites responded
with faith to the manifestation of salvation: "Thus the Lord
saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians ... and the
people feared the Lord; and they believed in the Lord and in his
servant Moses" (Ex 14:30-31). When the Israelites believed, God
revealed to them His covenant plan: "Now therefore, if you will
obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own
possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you
shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex 19:5).
These words show the gratuity of the divine election of
Israel. God chose Israel without merit on her part (Deut 9:4ff),
simply because He loved her (Deut 7:6ff). Having separated her
from pagan nations, He reserved her for Himself exclusively. "I
bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself" (Ex 19:4).
Through the Sinai covenant, God wished to bring people to Himself
by making them a worshipping community dedicated to His service,
living by the principles of His Law. This divine plan revealed at
Sinai was ultimately realized at the Cross when types met
antitypes.
The prophets appeal to the Sinai Covenant with emotional
overtones drawn from human experiences to explain the
relationship between God and His people. Israel is the flock, and
the Lord is the shepherd. Israel is the vine, and the Lord the
vinedresser. Israel is the son, and the Lord is the Father.
Israel is the spouse, and the Lord is the bridegroom. These
images, as Pierre Grelot and Jean Giblet bring out, "make the
Sinaitic covenant appear as an encounter of love (cf. Ez
16:6-14): the attentive and gratuitous love of God, calling in
return for a love which will translate itself in obedience." 14
All of this hardly supports Tkach's contention that
"something was seriously wrong with the Israelite covenant."
Faith Is Not Alone
The obedience called for by the Sinaitic covenant was meant
to be a loving response to God's provision of salvation, not a
means of salvation. Unfortunately, during the intertestamental
period, the Law did come to be viewed by the Jews as the
guarantee of salvation, just as faith alone is considered by many
Christians today as the only basis for their salvation. But a
saving faith is never alone because it is always accompanied by
loving obedience (Gal 5:6). Can a person truly obey God's laws
without faith? Is there such a thing as a saving faith that is
not manifested in obedience to God's commandments? Is the problem
of legalism resolved by changing packages of laws? Such
distortions can only serve to make both the Old and New Covenants
ineffective for many people.
At Sinai, God invited His people to obey His commandments
because He had already saved them, not in order that they might
be saved by His laws. As George Eldon Ladd affirms in his classic
work, "A Theology of the New Testament," - "The Law was added
(pareiselthen) not to save men from their sins but to show them
what sin was (Rom 3:30; 5:13,20; Gal 3:19). By declaring the will
of God, by showing what God forbids, the Law shows what sin is."
15 Ladd continues noting that "the line of thought in Galatians
3 and Romans 4 is that all the Israelites who trusted God's
covenant of promise to Abraham and did not use the Law as a way
of salvation by works were assured of salvation." 16
Another point overlooked in the Pastor General Report is
that at Sinai, God revealed to the Israelites not only principles
of moral conduct but also provision of salvation through the
typology of the sacrificial system. It is noteworthy that when
God invited Moses to come up on the mountain, He gave him not
only "the tables of stone, with the Law and the commandment" (Ex
24:12), but also the "pattern of the tabernacle" (Ex 25:9) which
was designed to explain typologically His provision of grace and
forgiveness.
The major difference between the Old and New Covenants is
not one of methods of salvation, but of shadow versus reality.
The Old Covenant was "symbolic" (Heb 9:9) of the "more excellent"
redemptive ministry of Christ (Heb 8:6). Consequently, it was
necessary for Christ to come "once for all at the end of the age
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26).
Greg Bahnsen rightly notes that "If we allow the Bible to
interpret itself and not infuse it with a preconceived
theological antithesis between the 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 covenants by means of promises,
prophecies, ritual observances, 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 [baptism and the Lord's Supper]. The substance of
God's saving relationship and covenant is the same under the Law
and the Gospel." 17
The Old Testament does not offer a way of salvation or teach
justification differently than the New Testament. Justification
is grounded in the Old Testament in "the Lord our Righteousness"
(Jer 23:6). The saints of the Old Testament were people of faith,
as Hebrews 11 clearly shows. Abraham himself, the father of the
Jews, was a man of faith who trusted God's promises (Gen 15:6;
Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). The prophet Isaiah proclaimed, "In the Lord
shall all the seed of Israel be justified" (Is 45:25; KJV). Paul
came to understand that in the Old Testament "the righteousness
of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written [in
Hab 2:4], 'He who through faith is righteous shall live'"(Rom
1:17. cf. Gal 3:11).
The result of Christ's coming is described as "setting
aside" (Heb 7:18), making "obsolete" (Heb 8:13), and "abolishing"
(Heb 10:9) all the Levitical services associated with the Old
Covenant. It is unfortunate that these statements are interpreted
as meaning that Christ by His coming abrogated the Mosaic Law, in
general, including the Sabbath. This interpretation, which is at
the heart of much misguided thinking about the Law today, ignores
the fact that the termination statements found in Hebrews refer
to the Levitical priesthood and services of the Old Covenant, not
to the principles of God's moral Law which includes the Sabbath
Commandment. Of the Sabbath the Book of Hebrews explicitly
states, as we shall see below, "a Sabbathkeeping is left behind
for the people of God" (Heb 4:9).
In many ways Ratzlaff' s view of the distinction between the
Old and New Covenants is strikingly similar to that of Joseph
Tkach, Jr. Consequently, there is no need to repeat what has
already been said. Ratzlaff's aim is to show that the New
Covenant is better than the Old because it is based no longer on
the Law but on love for Christ. Like Tkach, Ratzlaff reduces the
Old Covenant to the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant to the
principle of love in order to sustain his thesis that Christ
replaced both the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath with simpler
and better laws. For the purpose of this analysis, I focus on the
major contrast that Ratzlaff makes between the Old and New
Covenant in terms of Law versus Love.
(2) Dale Ratzlaff' s View of the Distinction Between the Two
Covenants
......................
To be continued
NOTE:
Such ideas as taught by the present WCG and people like Dale
Ratzlaff is so unsound, so crazy a theology, it would be
laughable if they did not take it so seriously, and want millions
to believe it. Salvation has from the beginning always been the
very same - saved by grace - faith and law as Paul in Romans and
James in the book by his name, make abundantly clear. The great
apostle John both in his Gospel and his 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
epistles makes it as clear as the sun in a cloudless sky, that
the commandments of the Lord stand fast forever, just as David
also wrote in the Psalms (just read the first Psalm for starters,
then try Psalm 119). It is the mind of heretics and the doctrine
of demons (see what Paul said in 1 Tim.4:1-2) that teaches the
Ten Commandments of God and the whole law of Moses is "done away
with" under the New Covenant. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Christ came to uphold and MAGNIFY the law (Isa.42:21)
which can be seen plainly, if you have a child's mind, from the
famous "Sermon on the mount" (Mat.5 through 7).
The far out, from planet Pluto (which they say is not a
planet) theology of some is so mixed up and plain stupid
reasoning, it blows the mind to think that some minds will do
anything to have no 4th commandment in this age of the New
Covenant. And that is the bottom line as to why they do it, why
they teach such dribble and corruptible theology, so they do not
have to obey the 4th commandment of the holy, just, and good law
of God (see Romans 7). They simply do not want to have ANY rest
day of the week, they want to do their own thing, at their own
time, on any and all days of the week.
Shame on them, they will be rewarded accordingly with
corruption and destruction if they do not REPENT!!
Keith Hunt
The Sabbath under Crossfire #9The Old and New Covenants
Continued from previous page:
The Sabbath and the New Covenant
Law Versus Love.
Ratzlaff s fundamental thesis is that there is a radical
distinction between the Old and New Covenants because the former
is based on laws while the latter is based on love. Though he
acknowledges that an important aspect of the Old Covenant was
"the redemptive deliverance of Israel from Egypt," 18 he
concludes his study of the Old Covenant with these words: "We
found that the Ten Commandments were the covenant. They were
called the 'tablets of the testimony' (Ex 31:18), the 'words of
the covenant,' the 'Ten Commandments' (Ex 34:28), the 'testimony'
(Ex 40:20), the 'covenant of the Lord' (1 Ki 8:8, 9,21)." 19
"We also found that the other Laws in the books of Exodus through
Deuteronomy were called the 'book of the covenant' (Ex 24:7) or
'the book of the Law' (Deut 31:26). We saw that these Laws served
as an interpretation or expansion of the Ten Commandments." 20
Again Ratzlaff says that "The Ten Commandments were the words of
the covenant. There was also an expanded version of the covenant:
the Laws of Exodus through Deuteronomy." 21
By contrast, for Ratzlaff the essence of the New Covenant is
the commandment to love as Jesus loved. He writes: "Part of this
'new commandment' was not new. The Old Covenant had instructed
them to love one another. The part that was new was 'as I have
loved you' . . . In the Old Covenant what made others know that
the Israelites were the chosen people? Not the way they loved,
but what they ate and what they did not eat; where they
worshipped, when they worshipped, the clothes they wore, etc.
However, in the New Covenant, Christ's true disciples will be
known by the way they love!" 22
Ratzlaff develops further the contrast between the two
covenants by arguing that as the Old Covenant expands the Ten
Commandments in "the book of the Law, so the New Covenant
contains more than just the simple command to love one another as
Christ loved us. We have the Gospel records which demonstrate how
Jesus loved.... Then, in the epistles we have interpretations of
the love and work of Christ.... So the core, or heart, of the New
Covenant is to love one another as Christ loved us. This is
expanded and interpreted in the rest of the New Testament, and
also becomes part of the New Covenant." 21
According to Ratzlaff, the distinction between "Law" and
"Love" is reflected in the covenant signs. "The entrance sign to
the old Covenant was circumcision, and the continuing, repeatable
sign Israel was to 'remember' was the Sabbath.... The entrance
sign of the New Covenant is baptism [and] the remembrance sign
[is] the Lord's Supper." 22 The distinction between the two sets
of signs is clarified by the following simple chart:
"The Old Covenant:
Entrance sign Circumcision
Remembrance sign Sabbath
The New Covenant:
Entrance sign Baptism
Remembrance sign The Lord's Supper. 25
The above contrast attempts to reduce the Old and New
Covenants to two different sets of laws with their own
distinctive signs, the latter being simpler and better than the
former. The contrast assumes that the Old Covenant was based on
the obligation to obey countless specific laws, while the New
Covenant rests on the simpler love commandment of Christ. Simply
stated, the Old Covenant moral principles of the Ten Commandments
are replaced in the New Covenant by a better and simpler love
principle given by Christ.
Ratzlaff affirms this view unequivocally: "In Old Covenant
life, morality was often seen as an obligation to numerous
specific Laws. In the New Covenant, morality springs from a
response to the living Christ." 26 " The new Law [given by
Christ] is better that the old Law [given by Moses]." 27 "In the
New Covenant, Christ's true disciples will be known by the way
they love! This commandment to love is repeated a number of times
in the New Testament, just as the Ten Commandments were repeated
a number of times in the Old." 28
Evaluation of Ratzlaff s Covenants Construct.
The attempt by Ratzlaff to reduce the Old and New Covenants
to two different sets of laws with their own distinctive signs,
the latter being simpler and better than the former, is designed
to support his contention that the Ten Commandments, in general,
and the Sabbath, in particular, were the essence of the Old
Covenant that terminated at the Cross. The problem with this
imaginative interpretation is that it is devoid of biblical
support besides incriminating the moral consistency of God's
government.
Nowhere does the Bible suggest that with the New Covenant
God instituted "better commandments" than those of the Old
Covenant. Why would Christ need to alter the moral demands that
He has revealed in His Law? Why would Christ feel the need to
change His perfect and holy requirements for our conduct and
attitudes? Paul declares that "the [Old Testament] Law is holy,
and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12). He
took the validity of God's moral Law for granted when he stated
unequivocally: "We know that the Law is good, if one uses it
Lawfully" (1 Tim 1:8). Christ came not to change the moral
requirements of God's Law, but to atone for our transgression
against those moral requirements (Rom 4:25; 5:8-9; 8:1-3).
It is evident that by being sacrificed as the Lamb who takes
away the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7), Christ
fulfilled all the sacrificial services and Laws that served in
Old Testament times to strengthen the faith and nourish the hope
of the Messianic redemption to come. But the New Testament, as we
shall see, makes a clear distinction between the sacrificial laws
that Christ by His coming "set aside" (Heb 7:18), made "obsolete"
(Heb 8:13), "abolished" (Heb 10:9), and Sabbathkeeping, for
example, which "has been left behind for the people of God" (Heb
4:9).
Why should God first call the Israelites to respond to His
redemptive deliverance from Egypt by living according to the
moral principles of the Ten Commandments, and later summon
Christians to accept His redemption from sin by obeying simpler
and better commandments? Did God discover that the moral
principles He promulgated at Sinai were not sufficiently moral
and, consequently, needed to be improved and replaced with
simpler and better commandments?
Such an assumption is preposterous because it negates the
immutability of God's moral character reflected in His moral
laws. The Old Testament teaches that the New Covenant that God
will make with the house of Israel consists not in the
replacement of the Ten Commandments with simpler and better laws,
but in the internalization of God's Law. "This is the covenant
which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says
the, Lord: I will put my Law within them, and I will write it
upon their hearts; and I will be their God" (Jer 31:33).
This passage teaches us that the difference between the Old
and New Covenants is not a difference between "Law" and "love."
Rather, it is a difference between failure to internalize God's
Law, which results in disobedience, and successful
internalization of God's Law, which results in obedience. The New
Covenant believer who internalizes God's Law by the enabling
power of the Holy Spirit will find it hard to break the Law
because, as Paul puts it, "Christ has set him free from the Law
of sin and death" (Rom 8:2).
Internalization of God's Law.
The internalization of God's Law in the human heart applies
to Israel and the Church. In fact, Hebrews applies to the Church
the very same promise God made to Israel (Heb 8:10; 10:16). In
the New Covenant, the Law is not simplified or replaced but
internalized by the Spirit. The Spirit opens up people to the
Law, enabling them to live in accordance with its higher ethics.
Ratzlaff's argument that under the New Covenant "the Law no
longer applies to one who has died with Christ" 29 is mistaken
and misleading. Believers are no longer under the condemnation of
the Law when they experience God's forgiving grace and, by the
enabling power of the Holy Spirit, they live according to its
precepts. But this does not means that the Law no longer applies
to them. They are still accountable before God's Law because all
"shall stand before the judgment seat of God" (Rom 14:10) to give
an account of themselves.
The Spirit does not operate in a vacuum.
His function of the Spirit is not to bypass or replace the
Law, but to help the believer to live in obedience to the Law of
God (Gal 5:18, 22-23). Eldon Ladd notes that "more than once he
[Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables
the Christian truly to fulfil the Law (Rom 8:3,4; 13:10; Gal
5:14)." 30
Any change in relation to the Law that occurs in the New
Covenant is not in the moral Law itself but in the believer who
is energized and enlightened by the Spirit "in order that the
just requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Rom
8:4). Guidance by the Spirit without respect for the Law of God
can be dangerous to Christian growth. This is a fundamental
problem of "New Covenant" theology espoused by the WCG, Ratzlaff,
and countless Evangelicals today: it is a theology that
ultimately makes each person a Law unto himself. This easily
degenerates into irresponsible behavior. It is not surprising
that America leads the world not only in the number of
evangelical Christians (estimated at almost 100 million) but also
in crime, violence, murders, divorces, etc. By relaxing the
obligation to observe God's Law in the New Covenant, people find
an excuse do what is right in their own eyes.
Perhaps as a reaction to the popular "abrogation of the Law"
perception, there is a hunger today for someone to help the
Christian community to understand how to apply the principles of
God's Law to their lives. To a large extent, this is what the
Basic Youth Conflict seminars have endeavored to accomplish since
1968, drawing thousands of people to its sessions in every major
city in North America. Referring to this phenomenon, Walter
Kaiser writes: "This is an indictment on the church and its
reticence to preach the moral Law of God and apply it to all
aspects of life as indicated in Scripture." 31
No Dichotomy Between Law and Love.
No dichotomy exists in the Bible between Law and Love in the
covenantal relationship between God and His people because a
covenant cannot exist without the Law. A covenant denotes an
orderly relationship that the Lord graciously establishes and
maintains with His people. The Law guarantees the order required
for such a relationship to be meaningful.
In God's relationship with believers, the moral Law reveals
His will and character, the observance of which makes it possible
to maintain an orderly and meaningful relationship. Law is not
the product of sin, but the product of love. God gave the Ten
Commandments to the Israelites after showing them His redeeming
love (Ex 20:2). Through God's Law the godly come to know how to
reflect God's love, compassion, fidelity, and other perfections.
The Decalogue is not merely a list of ten laws, but
primarily ten principles of love. There is no dichotomy between
Law and love, because one cannot exist without the other. The
Decalogue details how human beings must express their love for
their Lord and for their fellow beings. Christ's new commandment
to love God and fellow beings is nothing else than the embodiment
of the spirit of the Ten Commandments already found in the Old
Testament (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5). Christ spent much of His
ministry clarifying how the love principles are embodied in the
Ten Commandments. He explained, for example, that the sixth
commandment can be transgressed not only by murdering a person
but also by being angry and insulting a fellow being (Matt
5:22-23). The seventh commandment can be violated not only by
committing adultery but also by looking lustfully at a woman
(Matt 5:28).
Christ spent even more time clarifying how the principle of
love is embodied in the Fourth Commandment. The Gospels report no
less than seven Sabbath-healing episodes used by Jesus to clarify
that the essence of Sabbathkeeping is people to love and not
rules to obey. Jesus explained 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 rather than religiosity (Matt 12:7).
In Chapter 4, "The Savior and the Sabbath," we take a closer
look at how Jesus clarified the meaning and function of the
Sabbath.
Ratzlaff's attempt to divorce the Law of the Old Covenant
from the Love of the New Covenant ignores the simple truth that
in both covenants love is manifested in obedience to God's Law.
Christ stated this truth clearly and repeatedly: "If you love me,
you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). "He who has my
commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me" (John 14:21).
"If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love" (John
15:10). Christ's commandments are not an improved and simplified
set of moral principles, but the same moral principles He
promulgated from Mt.Sinai.
Under both covenants, the Lord has one moral standard for
human behavior, namely, holiness and wholeness of life. Wholeness
of life is that integration of love for God and human beings
manifested in those who grow in reflecting the perfect character
of God (His love, faithfulness, righteousness, justice,
forgiveness). Under both covenants, God wants His people to love
Him and their fellow beings by living in harmony with the moral
principles expressed in the Ten Commandments. These serve as a
guide in imitating God's character. The Spirit does not replace
these moral principles in the New Covenant. He makes the letter
become alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.
Jesus and the New Covenant Law. The contention that Christ
replaced the Ten Commandments with the simpler and better
commandment of love is clearly negated by the decisive witness of
our Lord Himself as found in Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that
I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come
to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until
heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the
least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the
least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same
will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (NIV).
In this pronouncement, Christ teaches three important
truths: (1) Twice He denies that His coming had the purpose of
abrogating "the law and the prophets"; (2) all of the Law of God,
including its minute details, has an abiding validity until the
termination of the present age; and (3) anyone who teaches that
even the least of God's commandments can be broken stands under
divine condemnation. This indictment should cause "New Covenant"
Christians to do some soul-searching.
There is no exegetical stalemate here. Christ gave no hint
that with His coming the Old Testament moral Law was replaced by
a simpler and better Law. It is biblically irrational to assume
that the mission of Christ was to make it morally acceptable to
worship idols, blaspheme, break the Sabbath, dishonor parents,
murder, steal, commit adultery, gossip, or envy. Such actions are
a transgression of the moral principles that God has revealed for
both Jews and Gentiles.
It is unfortunate that Ratzlaff, the WCG, and Dispen-
sationalists try to build their case for a replacement of the Old
Testament Law with a simpler and better New Testament Law by
selecting a few problem oriented texts (2 Cor 3:6-11; Heb 8-9;
Gal 3-4), rather than by starting with Christ's own testimony.
The Savior's testimony should serve as the touchstone to explain
apparent contradictory texts which speak negatively of the Law.
In Chapter 5, "Paul and the Law," I examine Paul's apparently
contradictory statements about the Law. This study suggests that
the resolution to this apparent contradiction is to be found in
the different contexts in which Paul speaks of the Law. When he
speaks of the Law in the context of salvation (justification
--right standing before God), especially in his polemic with
Judaizers, he clearly affirms that Law-keeping is of no avail
(Rom 3:20). On the other hand, when Paul speaks of the Law in the
context of Christian conduct (sanctification --right living
before God), especially in dealing with antinomians, he upholds
the value and validity of God's Law (Rom 7:12; 13:8-10; 1 Cor
7:19).
Ratzlaff s Interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19.
Ratzlaff examines at some length Matthew 5:17-19 in chapter
14 of his book entitled "Jesus: The Law's Fulfilment." He bases
his interpretation of the passage on two key terms: "Law" and
"fulfil." A survey of the use of the term "Law" in Matthew leads
him to "conclude that the 'Law' Jesus makes reference to is the
entire Old Covenant Law, which included the Ten Commandments." 32
This conclusion per se is accurate, because Jesus upheld the
moral principles of the Old Testament, in general. For example,
the "golden rule" in Matthew 7:12 is presented as being, in
essence, "the Law and the prophets." In Matthew 22:40, the two
great commandments are viewed as the basis upon which "depend all
the Law and the prophets."
The problem with Ratzlaff's rationale is that he uses the
broad meaning of Law to argue that Christ abrogated the Mosaic
Law, in general, and the Ten Commandments, in particular. He does
this by giving a narrow interpretation to the verb "to fulfil."
He argues that "in the book of Matthew every time the word
'fulfil' is used, it is employed in connection with the life of
Christ, or the events connected with it. In every instance it was
one event which 'fulfilled' the prophecy. In every instance
Christians are not to participate in any ongoing fulfilment." 33
On the basis of these considerations, Ratzlaff concludes
that the word "fulfil" in Matthew 5:17-19 refers not to the
continuing nature of the Law and the prophets but to the
fulfilment of "prophecies regarding the life and death of
Messiah." 34
To support this conclusion, Ratzlaff appeals to the phrase
"You have heard ... but I say unto you," which Jesus uses six
times in Matthew 5:21-43. For him, the phrase indicates that the
Lord was asserting His authority to "completely do away with the
binding nature of the Old Covenant. This He will do, but not
before He completely fulfils the prophecies, types and shadows
which pointed forward to His work as the Messiah and Savior of
the world which are recorded in the Law. Therefore, the Law must
continue until he has accomplished everything. This happened,
according to John, at the death of Jesus." 35 The conclusion is
clear. For Ratzlaff, the Cross marks the termination of the Law.
The Continuity of the Law.
Ratzlaff's conclusion has several serious problems which
largely derive from his failure to closely examine a text in its
immediate context. The immediate context of Matthew 5:17-19
clearly indicates that the fulfilment of the Law and the prophets
ultimately takes place, not at Christ's death as Ratzlaff claims,
but at the close of the present age: "I tell you the truth, until
heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the
least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
until everything is accomplished" (Matt 5:18). Since, at Christ's
death, heaven and earth did not disappear, it is evident that,
according to Jesus, the function of the Law will continue until
the end of the present age.
Ratzlaff's claim that the six antitheses, "You have heard
... but I say unto you," indicate that Jesus intended to do away
completely "with the binding nature of the Old Covenant" is
untenable because in each instance Christ did not release His
followers from the obligation to observe the six commandments
mentioned. Instead, He called for a more radical observance of
each of them. As John Gerstner points out, "Christ's affirmation
of the moral Law was complete. Rather than setting the disciples
free from the Law, He tied them more tightly to it. He abrogated
not one commandment but instead intensified all." 36
Christ did not modify or replace the Law. Instead, He
revealed its divine intent which affects not only the outward
conduct but also the inner motives. The Law condemned murder;
Jesus condemned anger as sin (Matt 5:21-26). The Law condemned
adultery; Jesus condemned lustful appetites (Matt 5:27-28). This
is not a replacement of the Law, but a clarification and
intensification of its divine intent. Anger and lust cannot be
controlled by Law, because legislation has to do with outward
conduct that can be controlled. Jesus is concerned with showing
that obedience to the spirit of God's commandments involves inner
motives as well as outer actions.
The Continuation of the Law.
Ratzlaff is correct in saying that "to fulfil" in Matthew
generally refers to the prophetic realization of the Law and
prophets in the life and ministry of Christ. This implies that
certain aspects of the Law and the prophets, such as the
Levitical services and messianic prophecies, came to an end in
the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But this
interpretation cannot be applied to the moral aspects of God's
Law mentioned by Jesus, because verse 18 explicitly affirms that
the Law would be valid "till heaven and earth pass away." In the
light of the antitheses of verses 21-48, "to fulfil" means
especially "to explain" the fuller meaning of the Law and the
prophets. Repeatedly, in Matthew, Jesus acts as the supreme
interpreter of the Law who attacks external obedience and some of
the rabbinical (Halakic) traditions (Matt 15:3-6; 9:13; 12:7;
23:1-39).
In Matthew, Christ's teachings are presented not as a
replacement of God's moral Law but as the continuation and
confirmation of the Old Testament. Matthew sees in Christ not the
termination of the Law and the prophets but their realization and
continuation. The "golden rule" in Matthew 7:12 is presented as
being the essence of "the Law and the prophets." In Matthew
19:16-19, the rich young man wanted to know what he should do to
have eternal life. Jesus told him to "keep the commandments," and
then He listed five of them.
In Matthew 22:40, the two great commandments are viewed as
the basis upon which "depend all the Law and the prophets."
Ratzlaff should note that a summary does not abrogate or discount
what it summarizes. It makes no sense to say that we must follow
the summary command to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:19;
Matt 22:39) while ignoring or violating the second part of the
Decalogue which tells us what loving our neighbor entails. We
must not forget that when the Lord called upon people to
recognize "the more important matters of the Law" (Matt 23:23),
He immediately added that the lesser matters--should not be
neglected.
We might say that, in Matthew, the Law and the prophets live
on in Christ who realizes, clarifies, and, in some cases,
intensifies their teachings (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28). The
Christological realization and continuation of the Old Testament
Law has significant implications for the New Testament
understanding of the Sabbath in the light of the redemptive
ministry of Jesus. This important subject is investigated in
Chapter 4 of this study, "The Savior and the Sabbath."
PART 2
THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
Considerable importance is attached to the book of Hebrews
in defining the relationship between the Sabbath and the
covenants. Why? First, because Hebrews deals more with the
relationship between the Old and New Covenants than any other
book of the New Testament; and second, because Hebrews 4:9
clearly speaks of a "'Sabbathkeeping that remains for the people
of God." If the reference is to a literal Sabbathkeeping, this
text would provide a compelling evidence of the observance of the
Sabbath in the New Testament church.
The WCG Interpretation of the Sabbath in Hebrews 4:9.
The Worldwide Church of God acknowwledges the importance of this
text, saying: "If this passage [Heb 4:9] requires Christians to
keep the seventh day Sabbath, it would be the only direct
post-resurrection Scriptural command to do so. If it doesn't,
then we have no existing proof-text command specifically written
to the New Testament church mandating the keeping of the Sabbath.
In view of this, it is extremely important that we understand
clearly what the verses in question are telling us." 37
There is no question that "it is extremely important" to
understand the meaning of Hebrews 4:9 in the context of the
author's discussion of the Old and New Covenants.
...................
To be continued
NOTE:
Any Bible Commentary worth its salt will uphold the moral Ten
Commandment law in the New Testament. The Old Bible Commentaries
like that of Albert Barnes never come close to making the "law of
the Lord" - the Ten Commandments - VOID under the New Testament.
It is true that Albert Barnes believed Sunday had replaced the
7th day Sabbath, but ministers like him back one, two, and three
hundred years, taught Sunday was a holy day, to be observed as
the Sabbath of the Lord. They had no thoughts that the Ten
Commandments were abolished under the New Covenant. Such ideas
have come about in popularity through dispensational teaching
over the last 100 years in particular where it is popular to
teach "Law verses Grace." The truth of the matter is that it is
"Law AND grace" as fully expounded in my study "Saved by Grace"
and the Appendixes of note from various sound commentators who
know it is "law and grace" and NOT "law verses grace."
The Lord does NOT have to repeat in detail all the Ten
Commandments in the New Testament to still make them valid. There
is NOT ONE verse in the New Testament to abolish the Ten
Commandments or any ONE of them. There is not one word in the New
Testament to state the fourth commandment has been abolished or
changed from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week. There was no
"ministerial conference" (as like that for "the circumcision
question" in Acts 15) to argue over the Sabbath question, if, or
if not, it was still valid. All arguments to "do away with" God's
law of the Ten Commandments is usually, if not always, because
people do not want to observe the FOURTH commandment. They will
not tell you they argue so no fourth commandment needs to be
observed, so they try to argue that the whole law is abolished
under the New Testament and some vague (set your own standards)
law of love has taken its place.
Such is the foolishness and twisted mind-set of the human heart,
that can be deceitful and desperately wicked, dressing up sin and
coming to you as an angel of light.
Keith Hunt
The Sabbath under Crossfire #10Answer to New Covenant theology Teachers
by the late Samuele Bacchiocchi PhD
Continued from previous page:
The Sabbath and the New Covenant
This is indeed what we intend to do now by examining the
text in the light of its immediate and larger contexts. The
interpretation given by the WCG to the Sabbath in Hebrews can be
summarized in a simple syllogism.
First premise:
Christ made the Old Covenant obsolete.
Second premise:
The Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the literal observance of the Sabbath is obsolete. 38
The WCG interprets the "Sabbathkeeping--sabbatismos--that
remains for the people of God" (Heb 4:9) as a daily experience of
spiritual salvation rest, not the keeping of the seventh-day
Sabbath. "The spiritual rest of salvation into which God's people
are entering is a sabbatismos-'a Sabbathkeeping.' . . . In
summary, the verses in question do not exhort us to keep the Old
Covenant Sabbath, but they do admonish us to enter the spiritual
'rest' of God by having faith in Christ." 39 The evaluation of
the WCG interpretation of the Sabbath in Hebrews 4:9 is given in
the context of the analysis of Ratzlaff's interpretation, since
the two are similar.
Ratzlaff' s Interpretation of Hebrews 4:9.
Like the WCG, Ratzlaff attaches great importance to the
teachings of the book of Hebrews regarding the covenants and the
Sabbath. His reason is clearly stated: "The contextual teaching
of this book deals with the very point of our study: how
Christians were to relate to the Old Covenant Law. Therefore, we
should accept the following statements as having the highest
teaching authority." 40
Ratzlaff's argument is essentially identical to that of the
WCG. He argues that the Sabbath was part of the Old Covenant Law
which became obsolete and was done away with the coming of
Christ. He states his view clearly in commenting on Hebrews 9:1:
"Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship
(Greek word is service) (Heb 9:1). It is unquestionably clear
that the Sabbath was one of those regulations of divine worship
or service (Lev 23).... Let me clarify by reviewing what is said
here... First, our author calls the Sinaitic Covenant the 'first
covenant' (called old in other places). Then he says that it had
regulations for divine worship. He goes on to list the things
included in this 'first covenant,' including 'the tables of the
covenant'--a clear reference to the Ten Commandments. These are
the facts of Scripture in their contextual setting. Thus the
'tables of the covenant,' which include the Sabbath commandment,
and the `Laws for divine worship,' which include the Sabbath, are
old and ready to disappear." 41
Discontinuity in Hebrews.
Ratzlaff is right in pointing out the discontinuity taught
by Hebrews between the Old and New Covenant as far as the
Levitical services are concerned. These were brought to an end by
Christ's coming. But he is wrong in applying such a discontinuity
to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments, especially the
Sabbath. There is no question that the author of Hebrews
emphasizes the discontinuity brought about by the coming of
Christ when he says that "if perfection had been attainable
through the Levitical priesthood" (Heb 7:11), there would have
been no need for Christ to come. But because the priests, the
sanctuary, and its services were "symbolic" (Heb 9:9; 8:5), they
could not in themselves "perfect the conscience of the
worshipper" (Heb 9:9). Consequently, it was necessary for Christ
to come "once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself" (Heb 9:26). The effect of Christ's
coming, as Ratzlaff notes, is described as "setting aside" (Heb
7:18), making "obsolete" (Heb 8:13), "abolishing" (Heb 10:9) all
the Levitical services associated with the sanctuary.
The problem is that Ratzlaff interprets these affirmations
as indicating the abrogation of all the Old Testament laws,
including the Sabbath. Such an interpretation ignores that the
statements in question are found in chapters 7 to 10 which deal
with the Levitical, sacrificial regulations. In these chapters,
the author uses the terms "Law" (Heb 10:1) and "covenant" (Heb
8:7, 8,13) specifically with reference to the Levitical
priesthood and services. It is in this context--that is, as they
relate to the Levitical ministry--that they are declared
"abolished" (Heb 10:9). But this declaration can hardly be taken
as a blanket statement for the abrogation of the Law, in general.
Walter Kaiser emphasizes this point: "The writer to the Hebrews
clearly shows that what he saw as being abrogated from the first
covenant were the ceremonies and rituals - the very items that
had a built-in warning from God to Moses from the first day they
were revealed to him. Had not God warned Moses that what he gave
him in Exodus 25-40 and Leviticus 1-27 was according to the
'pattern' he had shown him on the mountain (e.g., Ex 25:40)? This
meant that the real remained somewhere else (presumably in
heaven) while Moses instituted a 'model,' 'shadow,' or
'imitation' of what is real until reality came! The net result
cannot be that for the writer of Hebrews, the whole Old Covenant
or the whole Torah had been superseded." 42
Ratzlaff ignores the fact that the reference to "the tables
of the covenant" in Hebrews 9:4 is found in the context of the
description of the contents of the ark of the covenant, which
included "the tables of the covenant." The latter are mentioned
as part of the furniture of the earthly sanctuary whose
typological function terminated with Christ's death on the Cross.
However, the fact that the services of the earthly sanctuary
terminated at the Cross does not mean, as Ratzlaff claims, that
the Ten Commandments also came to an end simply because they were
located inside the ark.
Continuity of the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant.
Hebrews teaches us that the earthly sanctuary was superseded
by the heavenly sanctuary where Christ "appears in the presence
of God on our behalf" (Heb 9:24). When John saw in vision the
heavenly Temple, he saw within the Temple "the ark of the
covenant" which contains the Ten Commandments (Rev 11:19). Why
was John shown the ark of the covenant within the heavenly
temple? The answer is simple. The ark of the covenant represents
the throne of God that rests on justice (the Ten Commandments)
and mercy (the mercy seat).
If Ratzlaff's argument is correct that the Ten Commandments
terminated at the Cross because they were part of the furnishings
of the sanctuary, then why was John shown the ark of the covenant
which contains the Ten Commandments in the heavenly Temple? Does
not the vision of the ark of the covenant in the heavenly
sanctuary where Christ ministers on our behalf provide a
compelling proof that the principles of the Ten Commandments are
still the foundation of God's government?
It is unfortunate that in his concern to argue for the
discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, Ratzlaff ignores
the clear continuity between the two. The continuity is expressed
in a variety of ways. There is continuity in the revelation which
the same God "spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets" and
now "in these last days has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb 1:1-2).
There is continuity in the faithfulness and accomplishments of
Moses and Christ (Heb 3:2-6). There is continuity in the
redemptive ministry offered typologically in the earthly
sanctuary by priests and realistically in the heavenly sanctuary
by Christ Himself (Heb 7-10). There is continuity in faith and
hope as New Testament believers share in the faith and promises
of the Old Testament worthies (Heb 11-12). More specifically,
there is continuity in the "Sabbathkeeping--sabbatismos" which
"remains (apoleipetai) for the people of God" (Heb 4:9). The verb
"remains--apoleipetai" literally means "has been left behind."
Literally translated, verse 9 reads: "So then a Sabbath-keeping
has been left behind for the people of God." The permanence of
the Sabbath is also implied in the exhortation to "strive to
enter that rest" (Heb 4:11). The fact that one must make efforts
"to enter that rest" implies that the "rest" experience of the
Sabbath also has a future realization and, consequently, cannot
have terminated with the coming of Christ.
It is noteworthy that while the author declares the
Levitical priesthood and services as "abolished" (Heb 10:9),
"obsolete," and "ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13), he explicitly
teaches that a "Sabbathkeeping has been left behind for the
people of God" (Heb 4:9).
Ratzlaff's Objections to Literal Sabbathkeeping.
Ratzlaff rejects the interpretation of "sabbatismos" as
literal Sabbathkeeping because it does not fit his "New Covenant"
theology. He goes as far as saying that sabbatismos is a special
term coined by the author of Hebrews to emphasize the uniqueness
of the salvation rest of the New Covenant. "The writer of Hebrews
characterizes this rest as a 'Sabbath rest' by using a word which
is unique to Scripture. I believe he did this to give it special
meaning just as we do when we put quotation marks around a word
as I have done with the term 'God's rest.' As pointed out above,
the author is showing how much better the new covenant is over
the old. I believe the truth he is trying to convey is that the
`'abbath' (sabbatismos, Gr) of the New Covenant is better than
the Sabbath (sabbaton, Gr) of the Old Covenant." 43
The truth of the matter is that the author of Hebrews did
not have to invent a new word or use it with a unique meaning
because the term sabbatismos already existed and was used both by
pagans and Christians as a technical term for Sabbathkeeping.
Examples can be found in the writings of Plutarch, Justin,
Epiphanius, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Martyrdom of
Peter and Paul. 44 The one who is inventing a new meaning for
sabbatismos is not the author of Hebrews but Dale Ratzlaff
himself, in order to support his unbiblical "New Covenant"
theology.
Professor Andrew Lincoln, one of the contributors to the
scholarly symposium "From Sabbath to the Lord's Day," a major
source used by Ratzlaff, acknowledges that in each of the above
instances "the term denotes the observance or celebration of the
Sabbath. This usage corresponds to the Septuagint usage of the
cognate verb sabbatizo (cf. Ex 16:23; Lev 23:32; 26:34f.; 2 Chron
36:21) which also has reference to Sabbath observance. Thus the
writer to the Hebrews is saying that since the time of Joshua an
observance of Sabbath rest has been outstanding." 45
Lincoln is not a Sabbatarian but a Sundaykeeping scholar who
deals in a responsible way with the linguistic usage of
sabbatismos. Unfortunately, he chooses to interpret spiritually
the ceasing from one's works on the Sabbath (Heb 4:10) as
referring to the spiritual cessation from sin rather than to the
physical cessation from work. 46 This interpretation, as we see
below, is discredited by the comparison the author of Hebrews
makes between the divine and human cessation from "works."
Ratzlaff's Five Reasons Against Literal Sabbathkeeping.
Ratzlaff submits five reasons to support his contention that
sabbatismos "cannot be the seventh-day Sabbath of the fourth
commandment." 47
The first and second reasons are essentially the same.
Ratzlaff argues that since Hebrews states that the Israelites at
the time of Joshua and, later, the time of David "did not enter
the rest of God," though they were observing the Sabbath, then,
the sabbatismos has nothing to do with literal Sabbathkeeping. 48
This conclusion ignores the three levels of meaning that the
author of Hebrews attaches to the Sabbath rest as representing
(1) the physical rest of the seventh day, (2) the national rest
in the land of Canaan, and (3) the spiritual (messianic) rest in
God. The argument of Hebrews is that though the Israelites did
enter into the land of rest under Joshua (Heb 4:8), because of
unbelief they did not experience the spiritual dimension of
Sabbathkeeping as an invitation to enter God's rest (Heb 4:2,6).
This was true even after the occupation of the land because, at
the time of David, God renewed the invitation to enter into His
rest (Heb 4:7). The fact that the spiritual dimension of the
Sabbath rest was not experienced by the Israelites as a people
indicates to the author that "a sabbatismos-sabbathkeeping has
been left behind for the people of God" (Heb 4:9). It is evident
that a proper understanding of the passage indicates that the
sabbatismos-sabbathkeeping that remains is a literal observance
of the day which entails a spiritual experience. The physical act
of rest represents a faith response to God.
The third reason given by Ratzlaff is his assumption that
"the concept of 'believing' is never associated with keeping the
seventh-day Sabbath in the old covenant." 49 This assumption is
negated by the fact that Sabbath is given as the sign "that you
may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you" (Ex 31:13). Is it
possible for anyone to experience God's sanctifying presence and
power on the Sabbath without a "belief" or "faith response" to
God? Furthermore, does not the prophet Isaiah summon the people
to honor the Sabbath by "taking delight in the Lord" (Is 58:14)?
Can one delight in the Lord on the Sabbath without believing in
Him?
The fourth reason advanced by Ratzlaff relates to the verb
"has rested" in Hebrews 4:10 which is past tense (aorist tense in
Greek). To him the past tense indicates "that the believer who
rests from his works did so at one point in time in the past." 50
In other words the past tense "has rested" suggests not a weekly
cessation from work on the Sabbath but a rest of grace already
accomplished or experienced in the past.
This interpretation ignores two important points. First, the
verb "has rested-katepausen" is past simply because it depends
upon the previous verb "eiselthon-he that entered," which is also
past. The Greek construction (aorist participle) makes it clear
that some have already entered into God's rest. It is evident
that he who "entered" into God's rest in the past has also
"rested from his works" in the past.
Second, the text makes a simple comparison between the
divine and the human cessation from "works." In the RSV the text
reads: "For whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors
as God did from his" (Heb 4:10). The point of the analogy is
simply that as God ceased from His work on the seventh day in
order to rest, so believers who cease from their work on the
Sabbath enter into God's rest. If the verb "has rested" referred
to the "rest of grace," as Ratzlaff claims, then by virtue of the
analogy God also has experienced "the rest of grace," an obvious
absurdity. All of this shows that the analogy contains a simple
statement of the nature of Sabbathkeeping which essentially
involves cessation from work in order to enter God's rest by
allowing Him to work in us more fully and freely.
The reason both verbs "entered-eiselthon" and "rested-
katepausen" are past tense (aorist) may be because the author
wishes to emphasize that the Sabbathkeeping that has been left
behind for the people of God has both a past and present
dimension. In the past, it has been experienced by those who have
entered into God's rest by resting from their work (Heb 4:10). In
the present, we must "strive to enter that rest" (Heb 4:11) by
being obedient. Both the RSV and the NIV render the two verbs in
the present ("enters-ceases") because the context underlines the
present and timeless quality of the Sabbath rest (Heb 4:1,3,6)
Is the Sabbath Rest a Daily Rest of Grace?
The fifth reason given by Ratzlaff for negating the literal
meaning of "sabbatismos-Sabbathkeeping" in Hebrews 4:9 is his
contention that, since "the promise of entering God's rest is
good 'today,'" the author of Hebrews is not thinking of the
seventh day Sabbath rest but of the "'rest' of grace" experienced
by believers everyday. 51 "The writer of Hebrews stresses the
word 'today' on several occasions. In the New Covenant, one can
enter into God's rest 'today.'" He does not have to wait until
the end of the week. ... The New Covenant believer is to rejoice
into God's rest continually." 52
It amazes me how Ratzlaff can misconstrue the use of "today"
to defend his abrogation view of the Sabbath. The function of the
adverb "today-semeron" is not to teach a continuous Sabbath rest
of grace that replaces literal Sabbathkeeping; it is to show that
Sabbathkeeping as an experience of rest in God was not
experienced by the Israelites as a people because of their
unbelief (Heb 4:6). To prove this fact, the author of Hebrews
quotes Psalm 95:7 where God invites the people to respond to Him,
saying: "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your
hearts" (Heb. 4:7, cf. Ps. 95:7).
The "today" simply serves to show that the spiritual
dimension of the Sabbath as rest in God still remains because God
renewed the invitation at the time of David. To argue that
"today" means that "New Covenant" Christians observe the Sabbath
every day by living in God's rest is to ignore also the
historical context - namely, that the "today" was spoken by God
at the time of David. If Ratzlaff's interpretation of "today"
were correct, then already, at the time of David, God had
replaced the literal observance of the Sabbath with a spiritual
experience of rest in Him. Such an absurd conclusion can be
reached only by reading into the text gratuitous assumptions.
Three Levels of Interpretation of the Sabbath Rest in the Old
Testament.
To understand better the preceding discussion about the
Sabbath rest in Hebrews 3 and 4, it is important to note three
levels of meaning attached to the Sabbath rest in the Old
Testament and in Jewish literature. In the Old Testament, we find
that the Sabbath rest refers first of all to the physical
cessation from work on the seventh day (Ex 20:10; 23:12; 31:14;
34:21). Second, the Sabbath rest served to epitomize the national
aspiration for a peaceful life in a land at rest (Deut 12:9;
25:19; Is 14:3) where the king would give to the people "rest
from all enemies" (2 Sam 7:1; cf. l Kings 8:5), and where God
would find His "resting place" among His people and especially in
His sanctuary at Zion (2 Chron 6:41; 1 Chron 23:25; Ps 132:8,13,
14; Is 66:1).
The fact that the Sabbath rest as a political aspiration for
national peace and prosperity remained largely unfulfilled
apparently inspired the third interpretation of the Sabbath rest
- namely, the symbol of the Messianic age, often known as the
"end of days" or the "world to come." Theodore Friedman notes,
for example, that "two of the three passages in which Isaiah
refers to the Sabbath are linked by the prophet with the end of
days (Is 56:4-7; 58:13, 14; 66:22-24) .... It is no mere
coincidence that Isaiah employs the words 'delight' (oneg) and
'honor' (kavod) in his descriptions of both the Sabbath and the
end of days (Is 58:13--'And you shall call the Sabbath a delight
... and honor it'; Is 66: 11 - 'And you shall delight in the glow
of its honor'). The implication is clear. The delight and joy
that will mark the end of days is made available here and now by
the Sabbath." 53
Later rabbinic and apocalyptic literature provide more
explicit examples of the Messianic/eschatological interpretation
of the Sabbath. For example, the Babylonian Talmud says: "Our
Rabbis taught that at the conclusion of the septennate the son of
David will come. R. Joseph demurred: But so many Sabbaths have
passed, yet has he not come!" 54 In the apocalyptic work known
as "The Book of Adam and Eve" (about first century A.D.), the
archangel Michael admonishes Seth, saying: "Man of God, mourn not
for thy dead more than six days, for on the seventh day is a sign
of the resurrection and the rest of the age to come." 55
How did the Sabbath come to be regarded as the symbol of the
world to come? Apparently the harsh experiences of the desert
wandering, first, and of the exile, later, inspired the people to
view the Edenic Sabbath as the paradigm of the future Messianic
age. In fact, the Messianic age is characterized by material
abundance (Am 9:13-14; Joel 4:19; Is 30:23-25; Jer 31:12), social
justice (Is 61:1-9), harmony between persons and animals (Hos
2:20; Is 65:25; 11:6), extraordinary longevity (Is 65:20; Zech
8:4), refulgent light (Is 30:26; Zech 14:6,7), and the absence of
death and sorrow (Is 25:8).
This brief survey indicates that both in the Old Testament
and in later Jewish literature, the weekly experience of the
Sabbath rest served not only to express the national aspirations
for a peaceful life in the land of Canaan (which remained largely
unfulfilled), but also to nourish the hope of the future
Messianic age which came to be viewed as "wholly sabbath and
rest." 56
Three Levels of Interpretation of the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews.
The existence in Old Testament times of three levels of
interpretation of the Sabbath rest as a personal, national, and
Messianic reality provides the basis for understanding these
three meanings in Hebrews 3 and 4. By welding two texts together-
-namely, Psalm 95:11 and Genesis 2:2-the writer presents three
different levels of meaning of the Sabbath rest. At the first
level, the Sabbath rest points to God's creation rest, when "his
works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Heb 4:3).
This meaning is established by quoting Genesis 2:2.
At the second level, the Sabbath rest symbolizes the promise
of entry into the land of Canaan, which the wilderness generation
"failed to enter" (Heb 4:6; cf. 3:16-19), but which was realized
later when the Israelites under Joshua did enter the land of rest
(4:8).
At the third and most important level, the Sabbath rest
prefigures the rest of redemption which has dawned and is made
available to God's people through Christ.
How does the author establish this last meaning?
By drawing a remarkable conclusion from Psalm 95:7,11 which
he quotes several times (Heb 4:3,5,7). In Psalm 95, God invites
the Israelites to enter into His rest which was denied to the
rebellious wilderness generation (Heb 4:7-11). The fact that God
should renew "again" the promise of His rest long after the
actual entrance into the earthly Canaan--namely, at the time of
David by saying "today" (Heb 4:7)--is interpreted by the author
of Hebrews to mean two things: first, that God's Sabbath rest was
not exhausted when the Israelites under Joshua found a resting
place in the land, but that it still "remains for the people of
God" (4:9); and second, that such rest has dawned with the coming
of Christ (Heb 4:3,7).
The phrase "Today, when you hear his voice" (Heb 4:7) has a
clear reference to Christ. The readers had heard God's voice in
the "last days" (Heb 1:2) as it spoke through Christ and had
received the promise of the Sabbath rest. In the light of the
Christ event, then, ceasing from one's labor on the Sabbath (Heb
4:10) signifies both a present experience of redemption (Heb 4:3)
and a hope of future fellowship with God (Heb 4:11). For the
author of Hebrews, as Gerhard von Rad correctly points out, "the
whole purpose of creation and the whole purpose of redemption are
reunited" in the fulfillment of God's original Sabbath rests 57
The Nature of the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews.
What is the nature of the "Sabbath rest" that is still
outstanding for God's people (Heb 4:9)? Is the writer thinking of
a literal or spiritual type of Sabbathkeeping? The answer is
both. The author presupposes the literal observance of the
Sabbath to which he gives a deeper meaning--namely, a faith
response to God. Support for a literal understanding of
Sabbathkeeping is provided by the historical usage of the term
"sabbatismos-sabbathkeeping" in verse 9 and by the description of
Sabbathkeeping as cessation from work given in verse 10: "For
whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did
from his."
We noted earlier that sabbatismos is used in both pagan and
Christian literature to denote the literal observance of the
Sabbath. Consequently, by the use of this term, the writer of
Hebrews is simply saying that "a Sabbathkeeping has been left
behind for the people of God." The probative value of this text
is enhanced by the fact that the writer is not arguing for the
permanence of Sabbathkeeping; he takes it for granted.
The literal nature of Sabbathkeeping is indicated also by
the following verse which speaks of the cessation from work as
representing entering into God's rest. "For whoever enters God's
rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his" (Heb 4:10).
The majority of commentators interpret the cessation from work of
Hebrews 4:10 in a figurative sense as "abstention from servile
work," meaning sinful activities. Thus, Christian Sabbathkeeping
means not the interruption of daily work on the seventh day, but
the abstention from sinful acts at all times. In other words,
"New Covenant" believers experience the Sabbath rest not as a
physical cessation from work on the seventh day but as a
spiritual salvation rest every day. As Ratzlaff puts it, "The New
Covenant believer is to rejoice in God's rest continually." 58
To support this view, appeal is made to the reference in
Hebrews to "dead works" (Heb 6:1; 9:14). Such a concept, however,
cannot be read back into Hebrews 4:10 where a comparison is made
between the divine and the human cessation from "works." It is
absurd to think that God ceased from "sinful deeds." The point of
the analogy is simply that as God ceased on the seventh day from
His creation work, so believers are to cease on the same day from
their labors. This is a simple statement of the nature of
Sabbathkeeping which essentially involves cessation from works.
The Meaning of Sabbathkeeping in Hebrews.
The concern of the author of Hebrews, however, is not merely
to encourage his readers to interrupt their secular activities on
the Sabbath, but rather to help them understand the deeper
significance of the act of resting for God on the Sabbath. The
recipients of the book are designated as "Hebrews" presumably
because of their tendency to adopt Jewish liturgical customs as a
means to gain access to God. This is indicated by the appeal in
chapters 7 to 10 to discourage any participation in the Temple's
sacrificial services. Thus, these Hebrew-minded Christians did
not need to be reminded of the physical-cessation aspect of
Sabbathkeeping. This aspect yields only a negative idea of rest,
one which only would have served to encourage existing Judaizing
tendencies. What they needed, instead, was to understand the
meaning of the act of resting on the Sabbath, especially in the
light of the coming of Christ.
This deeper meaning can be seen in the antithesis the author
makes between those who failed to enter into God's rest because
of "unbelief-apeitheias" (Heb 4:6,11), that is, faithlessness
which results in disobedience, and those who enter it by "faith
--pistei" (Heb 4:2,3), that is, faithfulness that results in
obedience.
Chapter 4 covers more fully the meaning of Sabbathkeeping as
a faith response to God in conjunction with the relationship
between the Savior and the Sabbath. There we see that Hebrews'
deeper meaning of Sabbathkeeping reflects to a large extent the
redemptive understanding of the day we find in the Gospels.
Christ's offer of His "rest" (Matt 11:28) represents the core of
the "Sabbath rest" available "today" to God's people (Heb 4:7,
9).
The act of resting on the Sabbath for the author of Hebrews
is not merely a routine ritual (cf."sacrifice"--Matt 12:7) but
rather a faith response to God. Such a response entails not the
hardening of one's heart (Heb 4:7) but being receptive to "hear
his voice" (Heb 4:7). It means experiencing God's salvation rest,
not by works but by faith - not by doing but by being saved
through faith (Heb 4:2,3,11). On the Sabbath, as John Calvin
aptly expresses it, believers are "to cease from their work to
allow God to work in them." 59
This expanded interpretation of Sabbathkeeping in the light
of the Christ event was apparently designed to wean Christians
away from a too materialistic understanding of its observance. To
achieve this objective, the author, on the one hand, reassures
his readers of the permanence of the blessings contemplated by
Sabbathkeeping and, on the other hand, explains that such a
blessing can be received only by experiencing the Sabbath as a
faith response to God.
It is evident that for the author of Hebrews the
Sabbathkeeping that remains for "New Covenant" Christians is not
only a physical experience of cessation from work on the seventh
day but also a faith response, a yes "today" response to God.
Karl Barth puts it eloquently. The act of resting on Sabbath is
an act of resignation to our human efforts to achieve salvation
in order "to allow the omnipotent grace of God to have the first
and last word at every point." 60
Conclusion
The preceding study of the Sabbath in its relationship to
the New Covenant has shown that there is an organic unity between
the Old and New Covenants--a unity which is reflected in the
continuity of the Sabbath. Both covenants are part of the
everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20), that is, of God's commitment to
save penitent sinners. In both covenants, God invites His people
to accept the gracious provision of salvation by living in
accordance with the moral principles He has revealed. Christ came
not to nullify or modify God's moral Law but to clarify and
reveal its deeper meaning. Christ spent much of His ministry
clarifying how the love principle is embodied in the Ten
Commandments, in general, and in the Sabbath, in particular.
Of all the commandments, the Sabbath offers us the most concrete
opportunity to show our love to God because it invites us to
consecrate our time to Him. Time is the essence of our life. The
way we use our time is indicative of our priorities. A major
reason why the Sabbath has been attacked by many throughout human
history is that sinful human nature is self-centered rather than
God-centered. Most people want to spend their Sabbath time
seeking for personal pleasure or profit rather than for the
presence and peace of God.
New Covenant believers who on the Sabbath stop their work to
allow God to work in them more fully and freely tangibly show
that God really counts in their lives. They make themselves
receptive and responsive to the presence, peace, and rest of God.
At a time when so-called "New Covenant" theology is deceiving
many Christians into believing in the "simpler" and "better"
principle of love, the Sabbath challenges us to offer to God not
just lip-service, but the service of our total being by
consecrating our time and life to Him.
NOTES TO OLD AND NEW COVENANTS
1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, 1936), p.107.
2. A study paper on "The Sabbath" released by the Worldwide
Church of God on 1995, lists Dale Ratzlaff's book, Sabbath in
Crisis, as one of the major sources used. The other two sources
are the special issue of Verdict (vol. 4), entitled
"Sabbatarianism Reconsidered," published by Robert Brinsmead on
June 4, 1981, and the symposium From Sabbath to the Lord's Day,
and published by Zondervan in 1982.
3. Clay Peck, "New Covenant" Christians (Berthoud, Colorado,
1998), p.2.
4. Joseph Tkach, Jr., "The New Covenant and the Sabbath," Pastor
General Report (December 21, 1994), pp.8,11.
5. Joseph Tkach, Jr., Pastor General's Report (January 5, 1995),
p. 1.
6. "Covenant in the Bible," a Bible study prepared by the
Worldwide Church of God and posted in their Web page (www.wcg.org
- September 15, 1998), p.3.
7. Ibid., p.4.
8. Joseph Tkach, Jr., (note 4), p.2.
9. Ibid., p.11.
10. Ibid., p.6.
11. Ibid., p.7.
12. "The Sabbath in Acts and the Epistles," a Bible study
prepared by the Worldwide Church of God and posted on their web
page (www.wcg.org, September 1998), p.3.
13. Ibid., pp.3-4.
14. Pierre Grelot and Jean Giblet, "Covenant," Dictionary of
Biblical Theology, ed., by Xavier Leon-Dufour (New York, 1970),
p.95.
15. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1974), p.507.
16. Ibid., p.507.
17. Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Theonomic Reformed Approach to the Law
and Gospel," in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1993), p.97.
18. Dale Ratzlaff, Sabbath in Crisis: Transfer/lModification?
Reformation/Continuation? Fulfilment/Transformation? (Applegate,
California, 1990), p.73.
19. Ibid., p.78, emphasis supplied.
20. Ibid., p.78.
21. Ibid., p.180.
22. Ibid., p.181.
23. Ibid., p.182.
24. Ibid., pp.182,183,185.
25. Ibid., p.185.
26. Ibid., p.74.
27. Ibid., p.73.
28. Ibid., p.185.
29. Ibid., p.207.
30. George Eldon Ladd (note 15), p.128.
31. Walter C. Kaiser, "The Law as God's Gracious Guidance for the
Promotion of Holiness," in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern
Christian (Grand Rapids, 1993), p.198.
32. Dale Ratzlaff (note 18), p.228.
33. Ibid., p.228.
34. Ibid., p.229.
35. Ibid., p.229.
36. John H. Gerstner, "Law in the NT," International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia, revised edition, (Grand Rapids, 1960), vol 3,
p.88.
37. "Does Hebews 4:9 Command Us to Keep the Sabbath?" A Bible
study prepared by the Worldwide Church of God and posted on their
Web page (www.wcg.org - September, 1998), p.1.
38. "The New Covenant and the Sabbath," a Bible study prepared by
the Worldwide Church of God and posted on their Web page
(www.wcg.org - September, 1998), pp.9-10.
39. "Does Hebrews 4:9 Command Us to Keep the Sabbath?" (note 37),
pp.8-9.
40. Dale Ratzlaff (note 18), p.197.
41. Ibid., p.198.
42. Walter C. Kaiser (note 31), p.186.
43. Dale Ratzlaff (note 18), p.246.
44. Plutarch, De Superstitione 3 (Moralia 1660); Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho 23, 3; Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 30, 2,
2; Apostolic Constitutions 2,36.
45. Andrew T. Lincoln, "Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New
Testament," in From Sabbath to the Lord's Day, ed. Donald A.
Carson (Grand Rapids, 1982), p.213.
46. Ibid.
47. Dale Ratzlaff (note 18), p.243.
48. Ibid., pp.243-244.
49. Ibid., p.244.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid., p.247.
53. Theodore Friedman, "The Sabbath: Anticipation of Redemption,"
Judaism 16 (1967), p.445. Friedman notes that "at the end of the
Mishnah Tamid (Rosh Hashanah 31 a) we read: 'A Psalm, a song for
the Sabbath day--a song for the time-to-come, for the day that is
all Sabbath rest in the eternal life.' The Sabbath, the Gemara
asserts, is one-sixtieth of the world to come" (ibid., p.443).
54. Sanhedrin 97a.
55. The Books of Adam and Eve 51:1,2 in R. H. Charles, ed., The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913),
vol 2, p.153. Cf. Apocalypsis of Mosis 43:3. A similar view is
found in Genesis Rabbah 17:5: "There are three antitypes: the
antitype of death is sleep, the antitype of prophecy is dream,
the antitype of the age to come is the Sabbath." Cf. Genesis
Rabbah 44:17.
56. Mishnah Tamid 7:4. The viewing of the Sabbath as the symbol
and anticipation of the Messianic age gave to the celebration of
the weekly Sabbath a note of gladness and hope for the future.
Cf. Genesis Rabbat 17; 44; Baba Berakot 57f. Theodore Friedman
shows how certain Sabbath regulations established by the school
of Shammai were designed to offer a foretaste of the Messianic
age (note 53, pp.447-452).
57. Gerhard von Rad, "There Remains Still a Rest for the People
of God," in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New
York, 1965), p.94-102.
58. Dale Ratzlaff (note 18), p.247.
59. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1965), vol. 2, p.337. Karl Barth keenly
observes that by resting on the Sabbath after the similitude of
God (Heb 4:10), the believer "participates consciously in the
salvation provided by him [God]" (Church Dogmatic [Edinburgh,
1961], vol.3, part 2, p.50).
60. Karl Barth (note 59), p.51.
…………………………………
To be continued
NOTE:
Once more I submit that a small child can understand Hebrews 4.
The "rest" of God is clearly associated with the "seventh day" -
as those words are specifically used, along with God resting from
His works, a clear reference to Genesis 2 and the seventh day
that God sanctified and rested upon, which to Paul the author of
Hebrews, is still in function and using the "present" tense -
there REMAINS (presently) a sabbath-keeing to the people of God,
and he who enters that Sabbath rest has ceased from His labor,
his literal secular work just as God did from His.
We are to labor, put some effort into, entering that rest of God,
lest we also fall after the same example of the Israelite
unbelief, who many times in their history departed from literal
Sabbath keeping to follow the ways and customs of the pagan
nations around them.
A child can see the SEVENTH day was made holy and sanctified from
the beginning of creation week in Genesis 1 and 2. As a child of
7 years old reading my Bible in a Church of England school
(first half hour of the day was spent reading the Bible) it was
as clear as day to me that the seventh day was set aside,
sanctified and made holy, in Genesis 2. Then as I was taught to
remorize and recite the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 (full
version), it was as clear as day to me that the FOURTH
commandment talked about this seventh day Sabbath as being made
holy and as meaning we are to remember to keep it holy; that we
are to refrain from our secular work, even our servants and
cattle are to rest from physical labor.
It was clear to me as a young boy that NOT ONE word of the Ten
commandments had EVER been "done away with" - it never ever
entered my head (and it was not taught to me either) that ANY of
the Ten Commandments were not to be observed or were changed in
any way. As a child I can remember thinking that if all nations
and peoples on earth observed the Ten Commandments, what a
WONDERFUL and SAFE and PEACEFUL world we would live in.
It is most shocking and disgussing to me now, to hear/see the
arguments of some who would try and abolish the Ten commandments,
the law that Paul said was HOLY, JUST and GOOD!! The plain truth
is that such people come up with crazy theology to "throw out the
Ten Commandments" BECAUSE they will not submit themselves to
observing the FOURTH commandment, which is as plain as the nose
on their face, telling people to remember to keep holy the
SEVENTH day of the week ... not the 6th day, not the 1st day, not
just any day, BUT THE 7TH DAY!!
Such is the rebellious carnal heart, such is the darkness of the
mind, such is the working of the spirits of darkness that come
with cleaver/twisted sounding theology and appear as angels of
light.
You need to read the Bible as a child would read it. You need to
come to God and Christ as a child, for Jesus said such would be
in the Kingdom, unless you are as such you will not inherit the
Kingdom. And if you see these things, the simple truths of God as
expounded on this blog, then PRAISE THE LORD! For it is as our
Savior said, "I thank you Father, that you have hid these things
from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them unto babes."
Keith Hunt
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment