|
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
A PERSONAL NOTE and PREAMBLE TO THE ESSAY: This is the twelfth essay of the ongoing Sabbath Discussion. It is the longest of the documents I have posted so far. The unusual length of this essay is largely determined by the importance of the subject examined, namely, the relationship of the Sabbath to the New Covenant. Those of you who have followed the Sabbath discussion, have noticed that the renewed attempts to negate the continuity and value of the Sabbath for Christians today, largely stem from a misinterpretation of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. Without hesitation most Sundaykeeping Christians think of Sabbathkeeping as a relic of the Old Covenant and of Sabbatarians as "Judaizers" still living under the Mosaic law. In the previous essay "The Sabbath Under Cross Fire" I traced the orign and development of this anti-Sabbath theology. This essay attempts to unmasks the fallacies of the popular New Covenant theology which recently has been embraced by several former Adventist pastors life Dale Ratzlaff and Clay Peck. In view of the importance of the subject I have devoted considerable time and effort in preparing this essay. I can say without exaggeration that I have spent over 60 hours researching and writing this study. My aim has been to provide an indepth analysis of the arguments used by Ratzlaff and others to develop their New Covenant theology which negates the validity of the Old Testament law in general and of the Sabbath in particular for Christians today. Many of you have told me that my last essay "The Sabbath Under Crossfire" was the best I posted so far. After reading this essay you may change your mind and feel that this is even better. I would like to take this opportunity to thank again the many of you who have taken time to email me touching "thank you" messages. They mean a lot to me even if often I reply with a single line. Processing over 100 requests a day in addition to preparing essays such as this, leaves me with very little time to interacts with you friends. It is a heartwarming experience for me to receive messages from practically all over the world. Some messages are from Church administrators, Bible teachers, or pastors, all of whom take time to inform me that they are downloading my essays, reformating them and making them available to their workers, members, or students. Some messages are from former Adventists who share with me how this material has rekindled their desire to honor the Savior on His Holy Sabbath days. Few messages come in every day from current ministers of the Worldwide Church of God who express appreciation for the opportunity these essays provide for them to reexamine the question of the Sabbath. This past week I received a dozen of requests from clergymen of different denominations. Our Sabbath Updates mailing list has grown from from 0 to well over 5000 names during the past few weeks, and it continues to grow at the steady pace of 50 to100 names a day. It is a real privilege for me to be able to share my ministry of research with so many people around the world. My concern at this point is whether or not I will be able to sustain the pressure of producing and posting on a regular basis an indepth analysis of relevant End-time issues. The overwhelming response indicates that there is a real need for this kind of ministry. On my part I would like to continue to offer this service, but whether or not I will be able to do it on a long term basis largely depends on two major factors. The first factor is time. It takes a considerable amount of time to produce an indepth analysis of documents like the Pope's Pastoral Letter, chapters of Ratzlaff's book, anti-Sabbath articles like the one that appeared on the latest issue of Sunday magazine written by a former Adventist, new books defending the Sabbath written by non-Sabbatarians, recent studies by Catholic and Protestant scholars who reject the dualistic view of the mortal body and immortal soul. Since the Sabbath Discussion began on June 15, 1998, I have devoted 90% of my time to deal with incoming requests for the Sabbath material, and to prepare new essays that I have posted on a weekly basis. The compensation I receive for offering this service comes in the form of "thank you" notes for which I am grateful. I told my wife that if we could use the "thank you notes" as legal tender notes to pay our bills, we would be doing very well financially. This leads me to mention the financial factor. During the past 20 years I have been off-teaching and off-salary from June to December of each year in order to be able to devote myself full time to research and write books on our fundamental beliefs. The result has been the publication of 14 volumes dealing with such fundamental doctrines as the Sabbath, the Second Advent, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Christian Dress and Adornment, the State of the Dead, the Bible and Alcohol, the Atonement, the Rapture, the End-time Signs, Israel in Prophecy, the Role of Women in the Church, Hell, the World to Come, and etc. Usually at this time of the year when I am off-teaching I spent part of my time writing a new book and part of the time marketing my books to meet our financial obligations. During the past two months, however, 90% of my time has been taken by the processing of the over 5000 requests that have come in from all over the world and by the preparing the dozen of essays I have posted ranging in length from 30k to 70k. Some of the topics like the present one on the New Covenant were relatively new to me. So I went to the library and checked out a dozen of books (out of the over 300 titles on the Biblical Covenants) which I read, at least in part, to be able to deal more intelligently with the New Covenant theology propagated by people like Ratzlaff. What all of this means is that I have largely neglected the marketing of my books which I do at this time of the year via bulk mailing and telemarketing. Fortunately, some of you have ordered copies of my books and this has been of great help to us. If you feel that I should continue to provide this service of analysing important issues affecting our faith today, such as the Sabbath, the state of the dead, end-time prophecies, life-style issues, ect., would you consider supporting my ministry of research by ordering some copies of my books? Your response will show to me in a tangible way whether or not you really want me to continue offering this service. If you already have all the 14 books that I have authored, I would greatly appreciate if you could inform your friends about them. On my part I am glad to show my gratitude for your helpfulness to me in two ways. First, I can mail you free of charge any quantity needed of three brand new color fliers descriptive of all the 14 books that I have authored. One flier contains a sampling of 20 testimonials from scholars of all persuasions who have favorably reviewed my books. You can pass out these fliers to your church members and friends. Second, I am willing to offer you my books at a substantially
discounted price. The complete set of 14 volumes that regularly sells
for $200.00 at the ABC, can be yours for only $100.00, postpaid even
overseas. The three volumes on the Sabbath (From Sabbath to
Sunday, Divine Rest for Human Restlessness, and The
Sabbath in the New Testament) that retail for $15.00 each, can
be yours for only $30.00, postpaid even overseas, instead of the
regular retail price of $45.00. I would especially recommend my latest
book You can send your order with a personal check to: Biblical
Perspectives, 4990 Appian Way, Berrien Springs, MI 49103. We guarantee
to process your order on the very same day we receive it. In my web
page http://www.andrews.edu./~samuele you will find a picture of the cover of each book, a brief description of the content, several
chapters of each book, and an order form. Thank you immensely for your
help in promoting these timely books and thus supporting my ministry of
research into Biblical truths.
In case you are wondering what is coming next, let me give you a
preview of some essays I will be working on during the next month.
A Report on Ratzlaff The reason I asked him to prepare cohesive essays is that his
treatment of the Sabbath in his book is very fragmented. To understand
his view of the New Covenant with respect to the Sabbath for this
essay, I had to jump from chapters 5 to 12 to 15. I would have
preferred to deal with a more cohesive exposition of the subject. In
the second message Ratzlaff says: "Please keep me on your mailing list.
I may want to respond from time to time." At this point I am not so
sure what he intends to do in the future.
Whether or not Ratzlaff decides to reply to this or future essays that
I will be posting on the Sabbath, it does not make a significant
difference to me. The reason is that my goal has been from the outset
to help people who have been influenced by his New Covenant theology,
understand the fallacies of his methodology and conclusions. This
endeavor will continue for the next few weeks until I have finished
examining His major arguments against the Sabbath. After the
completion of this project, we wwant to turn our attention to other
relevant end-time issues. During the past few days I received numerous
proposals of timely subjects that need investigation. As time allow we
will turn our attention to some of them.
Thank you for your patience in reading this long preamble.
Christian regards
Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., E-mail: samuele@andrews.edu
WWW HOMEPAGE: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com
The renewed attempts to negate the continuity and value of the
Sabbath for Christians today, largely stem from a blatant
misrepresentation of the relationship between the Old and New
Covenants. Dispensational and New Covenant authors argue that there is
a radical discontinuity between these two covenants, often referred to
also as Law and Gospel. Allegedly the Old Covenant was characterized
by strict obedience to the law, of which the Sabbath was a chief
precept. By contrast, the New Covenant is presumably manifested in a
faith-acceptance of the provision of grace, of which Sunday is for many
a fitting memorial. Simply stated, the Cross is seen as the line of
demarcation between the Old and New Covenants, Law and Grace, the
Sabbath and Sunday. In the last essay we briefly traced the origin and
development of this anti-Sabbath theology.
To a large extent this is the theological construct promoted by Dale
Ratzlaff in his book The Sabbath in Crisis and by Clay
Peck in New Covenant Christians. For the sake of
accuracy I must say that, contrary to most New Covenant and
Dispendational authors, both Ratzlaff and Peck are more concerned to
prove the "fulfillment" and termination of the Sabbath in Christ, than
to defend Sunday observance as an apostolic institution. For them the
New Covenant does not require the observance of a day, but the daily
experience of the rest of salvation typified by the Sabbath rest. In
his book Ratzlaff does include a chapter on "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.
This essay examines Ratzlaff's understanding of the relationship
between the New Covenant and the Sabbath, as articulated especially in
chapters 5, 12 and 15 of his book The Sabbath in
Crisis. The same view is expressed in a more succinct
fashion by Clay Peck in chapters 3 to 6 of New Covenant
Christians. My analysis will focus primarily on Ratzlaff's
material because the latter has influenced not only the Worldwide
Church of God (WWCG), but several former Adventist ministers (including
Clay Peck) to reject the Sabbath as an Old Covenant, Mosaic institution
no longer binding upon Christians today. The outcome of the New
Covenant theology in the WWCG has been a massive exodus of over 70,000
members who have refused to accept such teachings. In the Adventist
church the New Covenant teaching has influenced several former pastors
who have established independent "grace" oriented congregations.
Procedure This study is most important because it examines, not an isolated
opinion, but the prevailing misconception of the Christian world at
large regarding the relationship between the Sabbath and the Covenants.
Without hesitation most Sundaykeeping Christians think of
Sabbathkeeping as a relic of the Old Covenant and of Sabbatarians as
"Judaizers" still living under the Mosaic law. Thus, there is an
urgent need to unmasks the fallacies of this popular New Covenant
theology.
In my previous essay "The Sabbath under Crossfire" I traced briefly
the origin of this anti-Sabbath theology. Now, we want to examine its
major arguments as espoused by Dispensationalists and New Covenantists.
We focus on Ratzlaff's New Covenant anti-Sabbath theology for two
simple reasons: (1) It largely reflects the Dispensational and New
Covenant views of the Sabbath; (2) His book The Sabbath in Crisis has
exercised considerable influence, especially in the Sabbatarian
community.
For the sake of those less versed in theological nuances, it might
help to clarify the difference between Dispensational and Covenant
theologies. Both of them 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 interpreting the 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, whose destiny will be different for all
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 and
responsible Christians would dare to fabricate such a divisive theology
that grossly misrepresents the fairness and justice of God.
A LOOK AT RATZLAFF'S VIEW OF THE NEW COVENANT
Ratzlaff defines the New Covenant in terms of contrasts with
the Old Covenant. His aim is to show that the New Covenant is better
than the Old, because it is no longer based on the law but on love for
Christ. He 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 will focus on
the major contrast that Ratzlaff establishes between the Old and New
Covenant, namely, law versus love. To ensure an accurate
representation of his views, I will quote him verbatim as much as
possible.
The Old Covenant Was Based on Laws while New Covenant is Based on
Love "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" (p. 78). Again
Ratzlaff says: "The Ten Commandments were the words of the covenant.
There was also an expanded version of the covenant: the laws of Exodus
through Deuteronomy" (p. 180).
On a similar vein Peck writes: "The Old Covenant was the Ten
Commandments. But it involved more than just the Ten commandments, for
they were just a summary. Many more laws and regulations were given to
interpret and explain and expand 'The Ten'" (p. 22).
By contrast, the essence of the New Covenant for Ratzlaff and Peck 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!" (p.181).
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 the just 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" (p. 182).
Peck faithfully reproduces Ratzlaff's construct through a simple
diagram: "The Old Covenant: Ten Commandments ... The New Covenant:
Love as Christ loved" (p. 67). Like Ratzlaff, Peck develops the
contrast between the two saying: "Just as the Old Covenant had both
the words of the covenant and the book of the covenant, so the new
covenant has more than just the basic words or command-to love each
other as Christ loved us. We have the Gospels, which demonstrate how
Jesus loved, showing him in action; and the Epistles, the rest of the
New Testament, which interpret the work of Christ and apply the law of
Christ" (p. 67).
Do the Old and New Covenants Contain Two Sets of Laws? Both Ratzlaff and Peck affirm this view unequivocally. Ratzlaff
writes: "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" (p. 74) "The new law
[given by Christ] is better that the old law [given by Moses]" (p. 73).
"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" (p. 181). Similarly Peck writes: "Contrast those
Old Covenant regulations with the simple command of the New Covenant:
'A new command I give you: Love one another' (John 13:34). What a
simple, yet beautiful and far-reaching command: 'Just love each other.'
That is the whole law of God in the New Covenant" (p. 17).
The attempt of Ratzlaff and Peck to reduce the Old and New Covenants
to two different sets of laws, the latter being simpler and better than
the former, is designed to support their contention that Ten
Commandments in general and of the Sabbath in particular were the
essence of the Old Covenant terminated at the Cross. The problem with
their imaginative interpretation is that it is clearly contradicted by
Scripture besides incriminating the moral consistency of God's
government.
Nowhere the Bible Suggests Two Sets of Laws 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).
May I ask Ratzlaff and Peck, Why should God first call His people to
respond to His redemptive deliverance from Egypt by living according to
the moral principles of the Ten Commandments, and then summon His
people to accept His redemption from sin by obeying simpler and better
commandments? Did God discover that the moral principles promulgated
at Sinai were not sufficiently moral, and consequently they 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 the Law in the New Covenant Ratzlaff's argument that under the New Covenant "the law no longer
applies to one who has died with Christ" (p. 207), is senseless, to say
the least. 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. The 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, a
highly respected Evangelical scholar, rightly acknowledges that "more
than once he [Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that
enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom 8:3,4; 13:10; Gal
5:14)."3
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 the
respect for the law of God can be dangerous to Christian growth. I
submit that this is a fundamental problem of the New Covenant theology
espoused by Ratzlaff, Peck, and countless Evangelicals today: it is a
theology that ultimately makes each person a law unto himself. This can
easily degenerate into irresponsible behavior. It is not surprising to
me 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 can find an excuse do what is
right in their own mind.
A covenant cannot exist without the law, because a covenant denotes an
orderly relationship that the Lord graciously establishes and
maintains with His people. The Law guarantees the order required for
such 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 came to know how
to reflect God's love, compassion, fidelity and other perfections.
No Dichotomy Between Law and Love 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
19:19; 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 liberate men and women from
physical and spiritual bonds (Luke 13:12), a day to show mercy rather
than religiosity (Matt 12:7). In a future essay on "The Savior and the Sabbath" we shall 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 fellowbeings 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, but makes the
letter become alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.
Jesus and the New Covenant Law "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill 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 on of the least of
these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:17-19; NIV).
In this pronouncement Christ teaches three important truths. (1) Twice
He denies that His coming had the purpose of abrogating the Old
Testament commandments. (2) All the law of God, including its minute
details, has an abiding validity until the termination of the present
age. (3) Anyone who teaches that even the least of God's commandment
can be broken, stands under divine condemnation. This indictment should
cause New Covenantists, like Ratzlaff and Peck, to do some soul
searching.
There is no exegetical stalemate here. There is no suggestion here
that with the coming of Christ the Old Testament moral law was replaced
by a simpler and better law. It is unfortunate that Ratzlaff and Peck
try to build a case for a replacement of the Old Covenant Ten
Commandments with a simpler and better law of the New Covenant by
selecting few problem-oriented texts (2 Cor 3:6-11; Heb 8-9; Gal 3-4),
rather than by starting with Christ's own testimony-a testimony that
should serve as the touch stone to explain apparent contradictory texts
which speak negatively of the law.
In a future essay on "PAUL AND THE LAW" I will deal with Paul's
apparently contradictory statements about the law. We shall ask, How
can Paul view the law both as "abolished" (Eph 2:15) and "established"
(Rom 3:31), unnecessary (Rom 3:28) and necessary (1 Cor 7:19; Eph 6:2,
3; 1 Tim 1:8-10)? We shall see that the solution is rather simple.
Paul rejects the law as a method of salvation but upholds it as a
standard for Christian conduct. The Christian is not under the law as
the basis of justification, but is under the law as a revelation of
God's ethical standards for his life.
The failure to recognize this fundamental distinction, causes Ratzlaff
and Peck to develop a unilateral antinomian position. A responsible
study of Paul's view of the law must take into account both his
negative and positive statements about the law. For example, in Romans
3:28, Paul maintains that "a man is justified by faith apart from works
of the law," yet in 1 Corinthians 7:19 he states that "neither
circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the
commandments of God." How can these apparently contradictory
statements be reconciled? Ratzlaff and Peck make no attempt to deal
with this problem. They prefer the "cafetaria style" of selecting
those texts that best support their termination view of the law. Such
a method is hardly reflective of responsible Biblical scholarship.
Ratzlaff's Interpretation of Matthew 5:17-19. In chapter 14 "Jesus:
the Law's fulfillment," Ratzlaff does examine Matthew 5:17-19. His
conclusion is that this passage does not support the continuing nature
of the Ten Commandments. He reaches this conclusion through an
imaginative but unfounded interpretation of the two key terms "Law" and
"fulfill." A survey of the use of the term "law" in Matthew leads
Ratzlaff to "conclude that the 'Law' Jesus has reference to is the
entire old covenant law, which included the Ten Commandmends" (p. 226).
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 is that he uses the broad meaning of the Law
to argue that Christ abrogated not only the Ten Commandments but the
whole Mosaic law. This he does by giving a narrow interpretation to the
verb "to fulfill." On the basis of his survey of the use of the verb
"to fulfil" Ratzlaff concludes that "in the book of Matthew every time
the word 'fulfill' 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 fulfillment" (p. 228). On the
basis of these considerations Ratzlaff concludes that the word
"fulfill" in Matthew 5:17-19 refers, not to the continuing nature of
the law and the prophets, but to the fulfillment of "prophecies
regarding the life and death of Messiah" (p. 229).
Ratzlaff further claims that the six times Jesus says "You have heard
. . . but I say unto you" indicate that the Lord was taking authority
to "completely do away with the binding nature of the old covenant.
This He will do, but not before He completely fulfills 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" (p. 229).
The Continuity of the Law Christ did not modify or replace the Law, but 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
5:2126). 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 to show that
obediences to spirit of God's commandments involves the inner motives
as well as the outer actions.
Christ is the Continuation and Realization of the Law and the Prophets In Matthew the teachings of Christ 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 in essence "the law and the
prophets." In Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus tells the rich young man who
wanted to know what he should do to have eternal life, "keep the
commandments." Then He proceeds to list 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." It is important for
Ratzlaff to understand that the summary does not abrogate or discount
that which it summarizes. It would make 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 what loving the neighbor entails. We must not
forget that when the Lord called upon us 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 most important subject will be
studied in a future essay.
THE NEW COVENANT IN THE BOOK OF HEBREWS
To defend his thesis that the Ten Commandments and other Mosaic
laws were part of the Old Covenant which came to an end with the coming
of Christ, Ratzlaff appeals especially to the book of Hebrews. His
reason is clear: "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" (p. 197).
Ratzlaff proceeds citing Hebrews 8:13, which reads: "In speaking of
the new covenant, he treats the first obsolete. And what is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." In his
interpretation of this text Ratzlaff argues that what is obsolete and
vanishing away is the Mosaic law in general and the Sabbath in
particular. Listen to his reasoning:
"The very next verses make it clear. '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 includes the Sabbath commandment, and the 'laws
for divine worship," which include the Sabbath, are old and ready to
disappear" (p. 198).
Discontinuity in Hebrews Ratzlaff interprets these affirmations as indicating a radical
abrogation of the Old Testament law in general and of the Sabbath in
particular. Such an interpretation ignores that the statements in
question are found in chapters 7 to 10, which deal with the Levitical,
sacrificial regulations. Though the author uses in these chapters the
term "law" (10:1) and "covenant" (8:7, 8, 13), he mentions them 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" (10:9). But this declaration can hardly be
taken as a blanket statement for the abrogation of the law in general.
The reference to "the tables of the covenant' in Hebrews 9:4 is found
in the context of the description of the content of the ark of the
covenant, which included "the tables of the covenant." The latter are
mentioned are part of the furnitures 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 If Ratzlaff's argument was correct that the Ten Commandments
terminated at the Cross because they were part of the furnishing of the
sanctuary, why then 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 suggest that the principles of the Ten
Commandments are still the foundation of God's government?
It is unfortunate that in his concern to prove the discontinuity
between the Old and New Covenants, Ratzlaff ignores the 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" (1:1-2). There is continuity in the faithfulness and
accomplishments of Moses and Christ (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 (chs. 7, 8, 9, 10). There is continuity in
faith and hope, as New Testament believers share in the faith and
promises of the Old Testament worthies (chs. 11-12).
More specifically, there is continuity in the
"Sabbathkeeping-sabbatismos" which "remains (apoleipetia) for the
people of God" (Heb 4:9). The verb "remains-apoleipetai," literally
means "to be left behind." Literally translated verse 9 reads: "So
then a Sabbath rest is left behind for the people of God." The
permanence of the Sabbath is also implied in the exhortation to
"strive to enter that rest" (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 is left behind for the people of God" (Heb 4:9).
Ratzlaff's Objections to Literal Sabbathkeeping Peck expresses the identical view, saying: "The Greek word here for
'Sabbath-rest' is not found in any other place in the Bible. It is as
if the writer invents a new word to express the New Covenant fulfilment
of the Sabbath"(p. 88).
May I remind Ratzlaff and Peck that they are the ones inventing a new
meaning for sabbatismos to support their unBiblical and irrational New
Covenant theology. The author of Hebrews did not have to "invent a new
word" because it already existed and was used by 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.5
Prof. A. T. Lincoln, one of the contributors to the symposium From
Sabbath to the Lord's Day which is the major source used by Ratzlaff
for his book, 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."6 Note that Prof. Lincoln is not a Sabbatarian but a
Sundaykeeping scholar who deals in a responsible way with the
historical data.
Ratzlaff's Five Reasons Against Literal Sabbathkeeping 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 (pp. 243-244).
This conclusion is totally wrong because it ignores the deeper meaning
that Hebrews attaches to the Sabbath rest, as representing physical
rest, national rest in the land of Canaan, and spiritual (messianic)
rest in God. The argument of Hebrews, as we shall see in a moment, is
that though the Israelites did enter into the land of rest under Joshua
(Heb 4:8), because of unbelief they did not enter into God's rest (Heb
4:2, 6). In view of the fact that the spiritual dimension of
Sabbathkeeping as an invitation to enter God's rest was not experienced
by the Israelites as a people, and in view of the fact that at the time
of David God renewed the invitation to enter into His rest (Heb 4:7),
then a sabbatismos-sabbathkeeping has been left behind for the people
of God. 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, as we shall see, with a deeper meaning.
The physical act of rest represents a faith-response to God.
The third reason given by Ratzlaff is his claim that "the concept of
'believing' is never associated with keeping the seventh-day Sabbath in
the old covenant" (p. 244). This comment reflects again Ratzlaff's
incapacity or unwillingness to think theologically. How can he say
that the concept of "believing" is foreign to the Old Testament
understanding of the Sabbath, when the Sabbath is given as the sign
"that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you" (Ex 31:13). May I
ask, Ratzlaff, 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" (p. 244). In other
words, for Ratzlaff 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 the comparison the text makes 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 has ceased from His work on the seventh day in order to rest,
so believers who have ceased from their work on the Sabbath have
entered into God's rest. This is 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 (v. 10). In the
present we must "strive to enter that rest" (v.11) by being obedient.
Both in the RSV and in the NIV the two verbs are given in the present
("enters - - - ceases") because the context underlines the present and
timeless quality of the Sabbath rest (4:1,3,6,9, 11).
Is Sabbatismos a Daily Rest of Grace in the New Covenant? It amazes me how both Ratzlaff and Peck succeed in misconstruing the
use of "Today" to defend their abrogation view of the Sabbath. Their
interpretation violates the function of the adverb "today-semeron."
The argument in Hebrews is that God's Sabbath rest was not exhausted
when the Israelites under Joshua did enter the land of rest, because
"David so long afterward" (4 :7) says "Today, when you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts" (Heb. 4 :7, cf. Ps. 95 :7). The function of
the "today" is not to teach a continuous Sabbath rest of grace that
replaces literal Sabbathkeeping, but to show that Sabbathkeeping as an
experience of rest in God was not experienced by the Israelites at the
time of Joshua and David because of unbelief (Heb 4:6). To prove this
fact Hebrews quotes Psalms 95:7 where God invites the people to
respond to Him "Today."
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 are to observe the Sabbath every day by living in God's
rest, means to ignore also the historical context. The "Today" was
spoken by God at the time of David. If Ratzlaff and Peck's
interpretation of "Today" was correct, then already at the time of
David God replaced the literal observance of the Sabbath with a
spiritual experience of rest in Him. Can this be true? Obviously not.
It is an absurd conclusion derived from a misinterpretation of the
text.
Three Levels Interpretation of Sabbath Rest in the Old Testament The rest and peace of the Sabbath, which as a political aspiration
remained largely unfulfilled, became 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 (58 : 13-'And
you shall call the Sabbath delight . . . and honor it'; 66:1 1-'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."7
Later rabbinic 'and apocalyptic literature provide more explicit
examples where the Sabbath is understood as the anticipation and
foretaste of the world-to-come. 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!"8 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."9
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, encouraged the viewing of the Edenic Sabbath as
the paradigm of the future Messianic age. In fact, the Messianic age is
characterized by material abundance (Amos 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 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
epitomized the national aspirations for a resting place in the land of
Canaan and in the sanctuary of Jerusalem. This in turn pointed forward
to the future Messianic age which came to be viewed as "wholly sabbath
and rest."10
Three Levels Interpretation of the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews At a second level, the Sabbath rest symbolizes the promise of entry
into the land of Canaan, which the wilderness generation "failed to
enter" (4:6; cf. 3 :16-19), and which was realized later when the
Israelites under Joshua did enter the land of rest (4:8). At a 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 (vv. 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). Second, that such rest has dawned with the coming
of Christ (4:3, 7).
The phrase "Today, when you hear his voice" (4 :7) has a clear
reference to Christ. The readers had heard God's voice in the "last
days" (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 (4:10) signifies both a present experience
of redemption (4:3) and a hope of future fellowship with God (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 rest.11
The Nature of the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews Historically, the majority of commentators have interpreted the
cessation from work of Hebrews 4:10 in a figurative sense, namely 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, in the New Covenant the Sabbath rest experience occurs not
on the seventh day, but daily as believers experience salvation-rest.
As Ratzlaff puts it: "The New Covenant believer is to rejoice in God's
rest continually" (p. 247).
In support of this view, appeal is made to Hebrews' reference to "dead
works" (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 would be 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.
Further support for a literal understanding of Sabbathkeeping is
provided by the historical usage of the term "sabbatismos-sabbath rest"
found in Hebrews 4:9. We have seen that the term is used in both pagan
and Christian literature as a technical term for literal
Sabbathkeeping.
The Meaning of Sabbathkeeping in Hebrews 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" (4:6, 11)-that is, faithlessness which results in
disobedience-and those who enter it by "faith-pistei" (4:2, 3), that
is, faithfulness that results in obedience.
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 (4:7) but the making of oneself available to "hear his
voice" (4:7). It means experiencing God's salvation rest not by works
but by faith, not by doing but by being saved through faith (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."12
The Sabbath rest that remains for the New Covenant people of God (4:9)
is not a mere day of idleness, but rather an opportunity renewed every
week to enter God's rest, that is, to free oneself from the cares of
work in order to experience freely by faith God's creation and
redemption rest.
The Sabbath experience of the blessings of salvation is not exhausted
in the present, since the author exhorts his readers to "strive to
enter that rest" (4:11). This dimension of the future Sabbath rest
shows that Sabbathkeeping in Hebrews expresses the tension between the
"already" and the "not yet," between the present experience of
salvation and its eschatological consummation in the heavenly Canaan.
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 the Sabbath rest and on the
other hand explains that the nature of these blessings consists in
experiencing both a present-salvation-rest and the future
restoration-rest which God offers to those "who have believed" (4:3).
It is evident that for the author of Hebrews Sabbathkeeping remains in
the New Covenant not only as a physical experience of cessation from
work, but also as a faith response, a yes "today" response to God.
CONCLUSION
The preceding study of the New Covenant in relationship to the
Sabbath has shown that there is an organic unity between the Old and
New Covenants. 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 to the moral principles He has
revealed. Christ came not to nullify or modify God's moral law, but to
clarify and reveal its fuller 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 because
the 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 allows
God to work in them more fully and freely. They show in a tangible way
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
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 lip-service, but the service of our total being,
by consecrating our time and life to Him.
FOOTNOTES
1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism, p. 107.
2. Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, p. 518.
3. Ibid., p. 128
4. John H. Gerstner, "Law in the NT," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised edition, vol 3, p. 88.
5. Plutarch, De Superstitione 3 (Moralia 1660); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 23, 3; Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 30, 2, 2; Apostolic Constitutions 2, 36.
6. A. T. Lincoln, "Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament," in From Sabbath to the Lord's Day, ed., Donald A. Carson (1982), p. 204.
7. Theodore Friedman, "The Sabbath: Anticipation of Redemption,"
Judaism 16 (1967): 445. Friedman notes that "at the end of the Mishnah Tamid (Rosh Hashanah 31a) 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).
8. Sanhedrin 97a.
9. Vita Adae et Evae 51:1, 2, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, R. H. Charles, ed., 1913, II, 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.
10. Mishna 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 (n. 7, pp. 447-452).
11. Gerhard von Rad, "There Remains Still a Rest for the People of God," in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1965, p. 94-102.
12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 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 Dogmatics, vol. 3, part 2, p. 50).
|