DR.

BACCHIOCCHI, THE SABBATH, AND

THE WRITINGS OF PAUL
May 14, 2007
By Kerry Wynne
k.wynne@sbcglobal.net

B.A., English, Pacific Union College (1970)

B.A. history, Pacific Union College (1972)
M.A., educational administration, Andrews University (1978)
A.D., nursing, Kettering College of Medical Arts (1983)

SABBATH GAMES

The time has come to call “bluff” in the game the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been playing with the Sabbath
problem since the Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi fiasco began in the 1970’s. His 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday,
rejected both Adventist teachings that the Sabbath of Colossians 2:14-17 was not a reference to the Weekly
Sabbath of the Decalogue and the idea that the Roman Catholic Church was responsible for changing the Sabbath
from Saturday to Sunday. In the place of these two traditional SDA defenses, he introduced two highly imaginative
theories to replace them. With two of the most important traditional pillars of SDA Sabbath defenses rejected and
biblically invalidated by the Church’s very own Sabbath scholar, it became clear to a few thinking Adventist
theologians, pastors, and teachers that the validity of Sabbatarianism now rests on whether Dr. Bacchiocchi’s
“replacement” theories provide a Biblically sound substitute.

The reaction Bacchiocchi’s theological bombshell was delayed by several years as Adventist scholars evaluated
the implications of his teachings. A few of these Adventist thinkers decided his explanations were entirely
unsatisfactory and demonstrated a willingness to pursue the matter further. Thus the seeds were sown that
launched the new anti-Sabbatarian movement that is now threatening the very existence of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church in North America. In a theological paradox second-to-none, Dr. Bacchiocchi is now forced to
fight the very flames of the destroying fire he started.

To combat this new anti-Sabbatarian movement, Dr. Bacchiocchi published Sabbath Under Crossfire in 1998,
published the essay, “How Did Sunday Keeping Begin?” and wrote two books explaining why Christians should
observe many of the Jewish feast days—a critical part of his over-all Sabbath defense, as you will see later.

1. Dr. Bacchiocchi’s up-dated defense of Sabbatarianism as spelled-out in Sabbath Under Crossfire borders
on the fantastic and illustrates the futility of any further attempt to defend Sabbatarianism in the light of
what we now know about Colossians 2:14-17, its related texts, and the Hebrew linguistics of Genesis 1.

2. The inadequacies of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s first book, From Sabbath to Sunday, almost certainly launched, or at
least greatly hastened, the rise of the new anti-Sabbatarian movement that is currently threatening the
Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America.

3. Dr. Bacchiocchi’s theory of the historical abandonment of Sabbath keeping is evolutionary in concept and is
totally inadequate to explain why Sabbath keeping had been abandoned by a significant number of
Christians as early as 70 AD. The Pauline theory of Sabbath abandonment fits the facts of history much
better since it appears that Paul’s writings “created” this phenomena almost instantly when viewed from
today’s perspective of history.
 THEOLOGICAL HAVOC AT ITS WORST
th
Dr. Bacchiocchi’s inadequate defense of the 7 Day Sabbath doctrine, including his first and subsequent
publications, did the following amazing things:

1. Destroyed the single largest excuse Seventh-day Adventists give for ignoring Paul’s counsel in
Colossians 2:14-17 regarding the optional nature of the Weekly Sabbath— that the Sabbath of
Colossians 2:14-17 is merely a reference by Paul to the annual and monthly ceremonial Sabbaths.
In his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, he stated that the Sabbath of Colossians 2:14-17 refers to the
weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue and could not possibly be a reference to anything else (p. 360).

2. Wreaked havoc with a major tenet of Seventh-day Adventist theology as well as a pillar of
Evangelical Protestant theology fully accepted by Seventh-day Adventists. Bacchiocchi teaches that
instead of Paul making Sabbath keeping optional by his words in Colossians 2:14-17, he validated the
ordinances of the Jewish dietary laws, Jewish annual sabbath feast days, Jewish monthly sabbath feast
days, and the weekly Sabbath itself, for Christians. He accomplishes this remarkable theological “twist” by
teaching that Paul was condemning only the perversion of the observance of these ordinances—not the
ordinances themselves. In his 1977 book, From Sabbath to Sunday, Bacchiocchi is not specific about why
this is true, but in his 1998 book, Sabbath Under Crossfire, the chapter “Paul and the Sabbath” (accessed
at http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_under_xfire he is very precise in his explanation. He
teaches that the Judaizers had created an extra set of their own rules for adding additional rigor to the
keeping of the Jewish dietary laws, ceremonial sabbaths, and the Weekly Sabbath, and that it was the
observance of these “extra” rules Paul said were not be used to judge other Christians. His “rescue” of the
Weekly Sabbath, therefore, imposes the additional requirement to keep these Jewish ordinances and many
of the sacred days of the Jewish calendar on Christians. This Judaization of Christianity is contrary to
Seventh-day Adventist theology, since Adventists teach that all the ceremonial ordinances were nailed to
the cross. By imposing these additional ceremonial ordinances on Christians, Bacchiocchi has developed
a concept that is stranger to Evangelical theology than is the concept of Sabbatarianism itself. Bacchiocchi
makes it no secret that he believes the Mosaic Law is still binding on Christians today, as exemplified in
this quote, to follow shortly, from his essay, “How Did Sunday Keeping Begin,” the section entitled
“Attachment to the Law.” It is to understand that since Bacchiocchi’s research has invalidated the
traditional SDA defense against Colossians 2:14-17, the only possible way Sabbatarianism can legitimately
be held is to also accept the idea that the Mosaic Law is also binding on Christians as taught by Dr.
Bacchiocchi. This idea has immense implications, which, if taken to its furthest possible logical conclusion,
would lead to theological absurdity of the highest degree:

James' statement at the Jerusalem Council in support of his proposal to exempt Gentiles from
circumcision but not from Mosaic laws in general, is also significant: "For generations past
Moses has had spokesmen in every city; he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts
15:21). All interpreters recognize that both in his proposal and in its justification, James
reaffirms the binding nature of the Mosaic Law, which was customarily taught every Sabbath in
the synagogue.

The above statement leaps over some hurdles of logic. It does not follow that the mere fact that the Jews,
who rejected Christ, continued to read the Law of Moses every Sabbath would establish what Christians,
who accepted Christ, were also to be bound by it! Dr. Bacchiocchi would score a point with this one if he
could find a passage from any New Testament writer that states that the Early Church Christians met
together to read the Law of Moses on Sabbath. It strains the bounds of scholarly propriety to claim that ALL
interpreters agree that James is teaching, here, that the Mosaic Law is binding on Christians! If I am not
mistaken, not a single Evangelical Bible scholar would agree with this interpretation. Virtually all references
to Christians meeting together with each other in New Testament Scripture are to meetings that took place
on the first day of the week, and there is no record of them reading the Law of Moses together. Jews
observed circumcision. Christians were not required to observe circumcision, it having been rejected by the
apostles at the Council of Jerusalem. Neither Jew nor Gentile could keep the Jewish ordinances, which
were part of the Law of Moses, including the weekly Sabbath, without the head of the household meeting
all requirements for circumcision. (Biblical proof of this will be presented in a later section.)
3. Rejected a key “I was shown” statement of the Church’s prophetess, Ellen G. White. He proved that
neither the pope nor the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, thus
demonstrating her claim that God showed her this fact in vision was not true. His own theory about how
Christians came to abandon the Sabbath was not believable itself. He theorized that the Christian
community at Rome between about 100 and 140 AD pressured the churches scattered throughout the vast
Roman Empire to abandon Sabbath keeping to escape persecution that might result from the Sabbath’s
association with the Jews. The Jews were desperately hated in the Empire during this period of time (See
Bacchiocchi’s essay, “How Did Sunday Keeping Begin,” http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/how-did-
sunday-keeping-begin.html (A) It gave the Church at Rome far more power and influence than most Early
Church historians would credit to it during this critical time period for Bacchiocchi’s theory of 100-140 AD.
(B) It disparages the Christians of that period of history because it implies that even though they were
willing to die rather than to dishonor Christ for all other reasons, they would (from a Sabbatarian viewpoint)
be willing to trample on one of God’s holy Laws to avoid the possibility of persecution. (C) It ignores widely
accepted evidence that the transition to Sunday observance had to have begun before 70 AD. By his
failure to acknowledge this important fact, Dr. Bacchiocchi is betrayed by his own familiarity with the
Didache, one of the very earliest collections of Christian writings on doctrine. In the Didache, an excerpt
credited to 70 AD and widely accepted as genuine by Biblical scholars, notes that Christians were meeting
together on the “Lord’s Day”—a term now known to mean Sunday and never the Sabbath. That Dr.
Bacchiocchi is acquainted with the Didache is evident from his quoting of this set of early Christian writings
in his chapter, “Paul and the Sabbath,” in his book, Sabbath Under Crossfire. This chapter is available to all
Internet readers at Dr. Bacchiocchi’s web-site, http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_under
Once this chapter is accessed, the Internet reader has only to do a search for the word Didache to verify
this reference.

4. Validated the anti-Sabbatarian research of the highest profile SDA to ever leave the Church, D. M.
Canright, to a degree that can only be appreciated by studying the writings of both authors. In the
early 1900’s, Canright proved that the Catholic Church was not responsible for Sabbath abandonment and
that the Sabbath of Colossians 2:14-17 was, indeed, a reference to the Weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue.
See D. M. Canright’s book, Seventh-day Adventist Renounced at:
http://members.tripod.com/~Help_for_SDAs/SDAism-RENOUNCED-by-D-M-Canright.html

Review Chapter Nine, “Did the Pope Change the Sabbath?” and Chapter 15, “The Jewish Sabbath
Abolished: Colossians 2.”

5. Failed to address two major themes of the Bible: (1) Circumcision: Neither Jews or Gentiles are
permitted to keep the Sabbath without being circumcised. By traditional Jewish law, a Gentile who kept the
Sabbath without meeting all the requirements for circumcision was to be stoned to death. The Council of
Jerusalem decided not to impose circumcision on the Gentile converts, thus ending the Sabbath question
forever. Bacchiocchi teaches that the exemption for circumcision was for the Gentiles only and was still
required for the Jewish Christians. (See Bacchiocchi’s essay, “How Did Sabbath Keeping Begin,” the
section titled Attachment to the Law.) (2) The Temporary Reign of the TORAH: A new understanding of
Hebrew linguistics makes it impossible to read a Sabbath commandment into Genesis’s Creation account
(See #6). A major theme of the Bible is the principle that the TORAH had its beginning at the Exodus and
ended when Christ fulfilled it on the Cross, and the Bible supports this theme from a variety of perspectives.
An excellent set of systematic studies on this topic researched by Robert K. Sanders is available at
http://www.truthorfables.com for further study.

6. Ignored relatively new studies in Hebrew linguistics that invalidate the use of Moses’ Creation
th
account in Genesis 1 to establish a connection between his comments about the 7 Day of
Creation and a Sabbath concept. This key fact was available to him when he published his first
book and should have been standard knowledge for a theological professor by the time he
published his second book in 1998. It is now known that Moses used an important Hebrew writing
th
convention in his account of what happened on the 7 Day of Creation to specify a one-time only event
that would mark the beginning of something that would never end. This writing convention was the
elimination of the words, “the evening and the morning,” which he wrote after the account of each one
th
of the days of creation except the 7 Day. This critically important meaning indicator is oblivious to any
reader seeking to understand the passage by applying the principles of English linguistics to it because
there is no comparable writing convention in English. However, Moses’ meaning would have been
perfectly clear to his Hebrew readers. This new understanding clearly establishes the fact that there is
 no Sabbath commandment connected with Genesis 2. Without this critical link to the weekly Sabbath,
it is now plain that there is agreement between this fact and a set of other Biblical facts and concepts
that prove that there was no Sabbath commandment until the Exodus. Understood from a Hebrew
th
reader’s point of view, Moses said in Genesis 2 that God’s rest from Creation began on the 7 Day and
would never end— something that makes sense because if He was done creating the world, He
couldn’t continue to work on it beyond that point. He was going to rest from this task forever—not every
th
7 day thereafter. It is almost as if Moses somehow knew a terrible misunderstanding of this passage
would develop thousands of years later, and he did his very best to leave the victims of that unfortunate
misunderstanding with no excuse for their blunder. In his paper “A Digest of the Sabbath Question”
(Sept 1982), Robert D. Brinsmead provides the following scholarly authority for this fact: “The open-
ended nature of the "rest" of Genesis 2:2, 3 is now widely acknowledged by biblical scholars. See G. C.
D. Howley, gen. ed., A Bible Commentary for Today: Based on the Revised Standard Version (London:
Pickering & Inglis, 1979), p. 136. See also D. Guthrie and J. A. Motyer, eds., The New Bible
Commentary Revised (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 83.” Bacchiocchi
knows the research of Brinsmead very well. He has a close relationship with a Sabbatarian group that
represents the 10% of the membership that clung to Sabbath keeping and broke away from the World
Wide Church of God after the leadership of the World Wide Church of God renounced Sabbatarianism
and opened its doors on Sunday morning as a result of reading Brinsmead’s paper, “The Sabbath Re-
Examined.” It is very likely that Dr. Bacchiocchi is fully acquainted with “A Digest of the Sabbath
Question.”

The Rise of the New Anti-Sabbatarianism and Dr. Bacchiocchi

Regardless of your Sabbatarian perspective, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it was Dr. Bacchiocchi’s failure
to defend Colossians 2:14-17 with an approach in agreement with key Adventist beliefs that laid the groundwork for
the dissident thought that launched the new anti-Sabbatarian movement. His theories raised more questions than
they answered. The loss of the Church’s ability to claim that the Roman Catholic Church “changed the day” was a
huge challenge for Seventh-day Adventists, but it was almost certainly Dr. Bacchiocchi’s requirement to accept the
ogre of Judaization in order to maintain the critical defense of Colossians 2:14-17 that was most responsible for
sparking the dissident thought that eventually developed into the new anti-Sabbatarian movement. A few Seventh-
day Adventist pastors and theologians were influenced by Dr. Bacchiocchi’s failure to demonstrate a convincing
defense of Sabbatarianism to think critically about the Sabbath doctrine. When they began to apply the same
standards for evidence that a court of law would require, it was difficult to find any support for Sabbatarianism. One
good example of this kind of careful investigation was the discovery that there could not possibly be a Sabbath
th
commandment linked with Moses’ account of the 7 Day of Creation in Genesis 1.

It is significant to note that within just four years of the 1977 publication of From Sabbath to Sunday, the
controversial Australian Seventh-day Adventist theologian, Robert D. Brinsmead, wrote a paper which repudiated
Sabbatarian completely. The fact that this particular SDA theologian would write a paper repudiating
Sabbatarianism was highly significant because he criticized Adventist leadership in his earlier years for its failure to
run the Church in accordance with the writings of Ellen G. White. Brinsmead’s 1981 paper entitled
“Sabbatarianism Re-examined 1981” http://www.quango.net/brinsmead made use of a wide variety of Biblical
perspectives, the new understanding of the diversity of the Early Church, and the inadequacies of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s
book, From Sabbath to Sunday, to demonstrate that Sabbatarianism was totally opposed to the major themes,
concepts, and facts of the Bible. Within not much more than 10 years later, the leadership of the sister church of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church, The Worldwide Church of God, read Brinsmead’s paper, repudiated
Sabbatarianism, and opened its doors for business on Sunday morning. Amazingly, this former Sabbatarian
denomination retained 80% of its members, despite the radical and controversial change. It appears that these
events led Seventh-day Adventist pastors like Dale Ratzlaff, Mark Martin, and Greg Taylor to understand the
enormous problems with Sabbatarianism, and, thus the New Anti-Sabbatarianism Movement was launched. (The
Seventh-day Adventists and the World Wide Church of God were united in Sabbath keeping immediately after the
Millerite Great Disappointment of 1844, but split over the Doctrine of the Shut Door, which is another story.)

Bacchiocchi’s Imaginative Defenses Evaluated

The problems with the traditional SDA approach of defending the Sabbath against Colossians 2:14-17 are not the
focus of this paper, since the greatest of all Seventh-day Adventist Sabbath scholars, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi,
rejected the very foundation of those defenses—the idea that the Sabbath of Colossians 2:14-17 was merely a
reference to the annual and monthly ceremonial Sabbaths. To my knowledge, there has been no published attempt
by a duly authorized Seventh-day Adventist theologian to refute Dr. Bacchiocchi’s assertion that the Sabbath of
Colossians 2:14-17 is a reference to the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue. The problems with the SDA’s traditional
defense of the Sabbath are well documented on the Internet, and in print. Therefore, this article focuses on the
problems with Dr. Bacchiocchi’s own highly imaginative attempts to get around Colossians 2:14-17 and two other
key statements in the writings of Paul as outlined in his second book, Sabbath Under Crossfire. I have chosen to
emphasize this book because Dr. Bacchiocchi has modified some of his teachings since the 1977 publication of
From Sabbath to Sunday.

All the elements of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s teachings which I discuss in this section are articulated in the chapter entitled
“Paul and the Sabbath” from his 1998 book, Sabbath Under Crossfire. The entries in blue print and all capital
letters represent summaries of his key ideas, rather than quotations from his text. In some cases Dr. Bacchiocchi
may have taken several pages to develop a concept, which I have summarized in a few sentences, and in other
cases he may have presented an idea in not many more words than I have used, and the wording may be relatively
similar. The chapter is fairly short and is accessible to all Internet readers by going to Dr. Bacchiocchi’s own web-
site at http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_under_xfire/6.htm .There are no page numbers provided
on the Internet version of this chapter, so a page reference for each idea is not possible.

In October of 2006 I sent a rough draft of the following section of this paper to Dr. Bacchiocchi. I asked only that he
seek to determine whether or not I had represented his ideas accurately. He replied only that he had skimmed my
paper and that it was evident that I did not understand the real issues. There was no hint that he felt I had
misrepresented his teachings. While there have been changes to the wording of my rebuttals to his ideas since he
read my rough draft, there have been no significant changes to my summaries of his teachings.

STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS OF DR. BACCHIOCCHI’S KEY POINTS

First, let’s review Colossians 2:14-17:

Colossians 2:14-17 (NIV) - 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations,
that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the
cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public
spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone
judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon
celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come;
the reality, however, is found in Christ.

DR. B: THE SABBATH IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CONTEXT OF A DIRECT DISCUSSION OF OLD
COVENANT LAW. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE CONTEXT OF PAUL’S INSTRUCTIONS TO AVOID THE
ASCETIC PRACTICES THAT WERE THE FOCUS OF THE FALSE TEACHERS (JUDAIZERS)---
SYNCRETISTIC BELIEFS AND PRACTICES WHICH INCLUDED ELEMENTS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.
THEREFORE, WE MUST CONCLUDE THE LAW THAT WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS WAS NOT THE MOSAIC
LAW WITH BOTH ITS MORAL AND CEREMONIAL REGULATIONS.

1. At first glance, this teaching of Dr. Bacchiocchi appears strange, since the Jewish dietary laws, annual sabbath
feast days, monthly sabbath feast days, and weekly Sabbath are critically important components of the old
covenant law. What other set of laws could Paul be talking about that were nailed to the cross? Since Paul
elsewhere lists a whole set of vile sins that will keep a person from going to Heaven, he could not possibly be
referring to the set of “natural” laws that God gave to all the people of the Earth at the beginning of time.
Although Moses did not formally codify these laws in his writings, we find reference to them in the Book of
Genesis. That such a set of laws existed is illustrated by the fact that God did not appear to need any “excuse”
to condemn Cain for the murder of Abel. While never identified as such by Moses, traditional Jewish writings
about sacred and civil Jewish law referred to these natural laws as the “Noachian” laws. It all makes sense
when we understand that Dr. Bacchiocchi believes that Paul is condemning an extra set of rules and
regulations, invented by the Judaizers themselves, for making the keeping of the Jewish feast days, annual and
monthly sabbaths, and the weekly Sabbath even more rigorous to keep than the Law of Moses itself requires.
As we will see later, there is nothing implicit or explicit in this passage to justify Bacchiocchi’s claim that the
 Judaizers had invented an extra set of such rules and regulations, and there is no suggestion in this passage to
imply that Paul was referring to anything other than the requirement to keep this set of Jewish ordinances
according to requirements outlined in the Law of Moses. Furthermore, it borders on the absurd to suggest that
these extra man-made regulations could be shadows of things to come, as he teaches. The Scriptures use
persons or ordinances themselves to represent major spiritual events and concepts, but never, to my
knowledge, a set of rules. Unfortunately for Dr. Bacchiocchi, the success of his defense of Colossians 2:14-17,
and therefore of Sabbatarianism itself, is absolutely dependent on the existence of such an extra set of rules
and regulations.

2. Paul says that a set of laws was nailed to the cross. If it wasn’t the old covenant (TORAH) law set, as
Bacchiocchi teaches, what other set of laws could it possibly be? Let us consider the possibilities:

A. The extra rules and regulations supposedly invented by the Judaizers – Bacchiocchi does not even
suggest this himself. It wouldn’t make sense that an Act of God would be needed to do away with
human traditions.

B. The body of laws God gave to all the world at the very beginning, which are not codified by Moses
in his writings, but which clearly exist because of numerous references to such laws throughout the
Book of Genesis - This is not likely, since this would make no more sense than turning off all the
traffic signals in New York City at rush hour. Bacchiocchi himself does not mention this possibility
because were he to do so, the implications would be self-incriminating. It would explain how Paul
could talk about the TORAH being nailed to the cross without giving people the freedom to do
violate “natural” law. Since the present but non-codified laws discussed in the Book of Genesis
are simply “scientific” statements of cause and effect, not particularly different, let’s say, than the
laws of gravity, they could not be nailed to the cross any more easily that the events of the cross
could have stopped the moon and the Earth from attracting each other or the Moon from causing
the tides to rise and fall throughout the world.

C. Only the “ceremonial” part of the TORAH, not the “moral” part, was nailed to the cross. Dr.
Bacchiocchi does not suggest this himself. It is one of the traditional SDA arguments he knows all
too well is not even possible, in view of how the Jews thought about the TORAH as an integrated,
inseparable unit.

By the logical process of elimination, we can see that there is no possible way around the fact that Paul said the
entire old covenant (TORAH) was nailed to the cross—all 613 requirements, period! One of the 613 requirements
was the 7th day Sabbath. His Jewish audience, in particular, would demand that he give a valid reason for telling
the Church that a whole set of ordinances that has been essential to them for over 1,000 years is no longer
important. Paul provides the literary expectation of giving a reason for his command. Once you have the old
covenant (TORAH) versus new covenant principles straight, it is clear that the weekly Sabbath was given to the
Jews alone and that it was to end with the beginning of the Messianic Age. The reason why we do not have to
observe these Jewish ascetic practices is because the LAW that contained them has been nailed to the Cross.

DR. B—WHAT WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS WAS NOT THE LAW ITSELF, BUT WAS THE WRITTEN
RECORD OF OUR SINS AGAINST THAT LAW. THIS MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE GREATER CONTEXT
OF COLOSSIANS 2:14-17 IS GOD’S FORGIVENESS. PAUL DOES NOT USE THE GREEK WORD FOR LAW
(NOMOS) ANYWHERE IN THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS, AND THE WORD PAUL USES IN THIS
PASSAGE IS CHEIROGRAPHON, WHICH MEANS A WRITTEN DOCUMENT. IN APOCALYPTIC AND
RABBINICAL LITERATURE, THE WORD CHEIROGRAPHON IS USED TO DENOTE THE “RECORD BOOK OF
SINS” OR A “CERTIFICATE OF SIN INDEBTEDNESS.”

1. Bacchiocchi admits that if the Greek word cheirographon does actually refer to the Mosaic laws, there is at least
a possibility that this passage could include the weekly Sabbath as one of the ordinances that was nailed to the
Cross. The problem for Bacchiocchi’s idea that the document nailed to the Cross was merely a record of our sins,
rather than the law itself, is that in non-biblical Greek, this word has a number of meanings and may refer to (1) a
labor contract, (2) a document giving authority to act, or even (3) to business agreements. It is misleading to say,
then, that this word, as used in this passage, simply means the document itself upon which the debt is recorded. It
would only make sense that the context in which this word is found would determine what kind of written document
it is. This particular cheirographon is made up of “ordinances” and “decrees,” an interpretation demanded by Paul’s
use of the Greek word, dogmasin, which is the word immediately following the word cheirographon and which
modifies this word. An English equivalent example of a word with a modifier in this order would be “the color blue.”
There are a number of colors. Which color is it? Blue! What kind of a written document is it? Decrees and laws!
Who makes decrees and laws? The King! Who signed the law decree? God Himself! Notice that the same word,
dogmasin, appears in a discussion of the Mosaic Law in Ephesians 2:15, indicating both texts deal with similar
issues. (Credit for the information about Greek linguistics credited to Robert D. Brinsmead, “Sabbatarianism Re-
examined.” Robert D. Brinsmead was an immensely influential SDA pastor and theologian from Australia who,
beginning in the 1960’s, led a large faction of conservative SDA’s to chastise the Church leadership for its failure to
practice and promote the teachings of Ellen G. White more rigorously. In the 1970’s he lectured widely in the North
American Division, spreading discontent with the General Conference leadership. He started out with a very
legalistic view of grace and underwent a dramatic metamorphosis toward a more liberal and generous view of
grace over the years, surprising everyone with his willingness to abandon error when the evidence demanded
otherwise. His monumental 1981 paper was almost certainly the most important and influential anti-Sabbatarian
manifesto ever written, with his ideas supported by clear logic and an unmatched command of Biblical knowledge
and insight.):

Ephesians 2:15 (NIV): “by abolishing in His flesh the law with its commandments and
regulations.”

2. Additionally, the context of this passage in Ephesians is to show that the TORAH was a major barrier between
the Jews and the Gentiles and that it was God’s purpose to destroy this barrier with the Advent of the Messiah.
Another link with this concept is Romans 7:8-13, which further establishes the idea that Paul is discussing the Laws
of Moses. Now look at Ephesians 2:15 and 16:

15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose
was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one
body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their
hostility. (NIV)

3. Additionally, Paul was not writing for a rabbinical or apocalyptic audience. With the Epistle to the Colossians, he
was writing for a general audience. Paul was a highly skilled and brilliant author. One would think he would have
the sense to write for his target audience.

4. The Bible teaches that it is the Law of Moses that is “against us.” How can Bacchiocchi conclude that the Law
of Moses is not against us when the Bible says it is?
26
Deut 31:26 (NIV) “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of
the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.

5. Destroying truly moral law would simply wreak havoc in the world, like taking all of the traffic signals down in
New York City during rush hour. The creation of lawlessness would not reconcile the Jews and the Gentiles.
The passage must refer to the TORAH, which had an end and a beginning.

DR. B: PROOF THAT THE WORD, CHEIROGRAPHON, MEANS A WRITTEN DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE
RECORD OF OUR SINS IS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF COLOSSIANS 2:14, A CLAUSE ADDS THAT
THIS CHEIROGRAPHON WAS “REMOVED OUT OF THE MIDDLE.” “THE MIDDLE” WAS THE POSITION
OCCUPIED AT THE CENTER OF THE COURT OR ASSEMBLY BY THE ACCUSING WITNESS. THE
IMPLICATION, HERE, IS THAT THE WITNESS WAS TESTIFYING AGAINST A WRITTEN RECORD OF THE
PERSON BEING TRIED FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

Says who? When you go to court, you are being tried for breaking the law itself—not for breaking the written
record of that transgression against that law. Again, Paul places the Greek word, dogmasin, which means
“regulations” or “ordinances” adjacent to the word, cheirographon, as a modifier. What type of written document is
it? A list of regulations and ordinances! A piece of paper that documents a person’s transgression of a law is not
the list of regulations itself. Dr. Bacchiocchi is unsuccessful in his attempt to exploit the court metaphor for his
Sabbatarian bias. No scholar would even attempt such scholastic gymnastics without such a bias.
DR. B: ADDITIONAL PROOF THAT PAUL IS SAYING THAT WHAT WAS NAILED TO THE CROSS WAS
MERELY THE WRITTEN RECORD OF OUR SINS—NOT THE LEGAL GROUND (LAW) FOR OUR
ENTANGLEMENT INTO SIN—IS THAT IN COLOSSIANS 2:15, THIS ACT OF FORGIVENESS DISARMS THE
PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS. BECAUSE THESE EVIL POWERS CANNOT ACCUSE THOSE WHO HAVE
BEEN FORGIVEN, YOU DON’T NEED THE HELP OF A SECONDARY MEDIATOR. THIS INTERPRETATION
SEEMS TO SQUARE WITH, AGAIN, THE IMMEDIATE ARGUMENT OF COLOSSIANS 2:14-17, WHICH IS THE
FULLNESS OF GOD’S FORGIVENESS.

Only a strong Sabbatarian bias could prompt a claim such as this. There can be no such thing as additional “proof”
as Dr. Bacchiocchi would like to provide since his claims about Paul’s intended use of the Greek word
cheirographon has been shown to be invalid. The immediate argument of this passage is clearly not the fullness
of God’s forgiveness. Simply because forgiveness is one of the components of his statement does not identify it as
the focus of the passage. The key theme, here, is that the death of Christ on the cross caused a whole set of
Jewish ordinances to become obsolete because they were nailed to the cross with Him. Three things were
accomplished by the death of Christ:

1. Our sins were forgiven.

2. A set of Jewish ordinances that were shadows of Him were set aside.
3. A great victory was won over Satan and his evil angels.

Of these three items, the only one that would be likely to surprise Paul’s target audience is that Christ’s death put
an end to a whole set of Jewish ordinances that they have held sacred for well over 1,000 years. In keeping with
this common sense interpretation, it is the only item on this set of three things accomplished by Christ’s death on
the cross that Paul chooses to explain further.

What he explains is that the reason why this set of ordinances has become obsolete is that they represent shadows
of things that are to come and that the Reality shadowed by these things is Christ Himself. In order to deflect the
fatal-to-Sabbatarianism FACT that the weekly Sabbath is one of the obsolete ordinances, Bacchiocchi teaches that
shadows of things to come are the so-called extra rules and regulations invented by the Judaizers themselves.

Not only is there no indication of any kind in the passage itself or in the context in which the passage is found to
suggest the existence of this extra set of rules and regulations, but there is no Scriptural precedent for the use of
rules and regulations as a symbol that points forward or backward, or both forward and backward, to a significant
spiritual event or concept.

Dr. Bacchiocchi appears to exhibit a strong desire to evade the simple and clear message of this passage. The
passage states that a set of laws was nailed to the cross. It is incredible to think that Paul would be talking about
the laws that God gave to all peoples of the world at the beginning of time—that it is now OK to kill, steal, commit
adultery, and deceive. The only other set of laws Paul could be referring to would be the laws of the old covenant,
or the TORAH, which included 613 commandments that all Jews have considered to be equally important and
indivisible from the very beginning of Jewish history. The traditional Adventist argument has always been that the
TORAH is divided into two parts—a moral part and a ceremonial part—and that Paul meant that only the
ceremonial part was nailed to the cross. (The Sabbath is considered to be a moral law, so it supposedly did not get
nailed to the cross.) Bacchiocchi avoids this blatant error by creating the fantastic invention of the so-called extra
set of laws. If you are completely wrong in your understanding of whether the Sabbath is moral or ceremonial, and
if you are completely unwilling to acknowledge the relationship between circumcision and keeping the Sabbath, you
are forced to try every possible evasive maneuver to avoid acknowledging the obvious meaning of the passage.
Jesus broke the Sabbath with his disciples by threshing grain on the Sabbath. The Bible does not say that He
appeared to break the Sabbath. It says He did break the Sabbath. John 5:18.

Through the prophet Hosea, Jesus said that He would end the Sabbath. Moral laws are self-evident statements of
cause and effect principles that could not be ended any more than gravity could be canceled between two planets.
11
Hos 2:11 (NIV) I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath
days—all her appointed feasts.
 ANALYSIS OF DR. BACCHIOCCHI’S UNIQUE
DEFENSE OF THE SABBATH CONCEPT IN COLOSSIANS 2:14-17

Dr. Bacchiocchi is a highly educated biblical scholar. We can expect him, then, to have a broad knowledge of
traditional Jewish beliefs and teachings. The Jewish Encyclopedia lends additional support and clarification to
several biblical concepts that are not favorable to Sabbatarianism. The value of the evidence from the Jewish
Encyclopedia is especially useful in helping us to understand what Paul’s frame of reference was likely to have
been when he penned Colossians 2:14-17. As a Jewish lawyer, Paul would have been well-versed in TORAH law,
Jewish traditions, and rabbinical literature. Consider these points:

1. The writings of the rabbis prove that the Jews have nearly always believed that non-Jews (heathen peoples)
would go to Heaven if they followed the basic laws given to all mankind at the beginning of the world. They would
receive, however, a “lesser” reward. Well-educated Jewish rabbis, throughout the history of Judaism, knew the
Heathen did not have to keep the Sabbath or any other of the Jewish ordinances in order to obtain salvation. It is
unfortunate that many Jewish teachers and leaders had forgotten these principles by the time Christ was born, but
the fact that these things are so clearly delineated in the Jewish Encyclopedia today is proof that there has never
been a time when these teachings were completely lost:

A. Jew or a Gentile who kept the Sabbath without meeting the requirements for circumcision was to be
stoned. This is a traditional belief and not found in the Law of Moses.

B. Jews were always serious in their belief that the Law of Moses was for Jews only.

2. Jewish writers compared and contrasted the Law of Moses with the non-codified set of laws Moses referred to
earlier in the Book of Genesis in their writings and teachings. This fact indicates that even though Moses did
not codify them, Hebrew writers thought of these informal laws as the foundation upon which the TORAH was built.

Paul wrote Colossians 2:14-17 decades after the Council of Jerusalem, which determined that the Gentile converts
were not to be required to keep the Law of Moses. There was no show-down over the Sabbath either at the
Council of Jerusalem or when the Early Church read Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. These facts suggest that
although the Jewish Christians during the time of Paul may have had to be reminded of these facts, they were
compelled to acknowledge their legitimate place in Jewish theology. Because there were no battles over the
Sabbath on either occasion, it is probable that they understood how the writings of Moses and traditional Jewish
theology made circumcision and Sabbath keeping inseparable and viewed natural moral law as merely the
foundation upon which the TORAH was built.

If Dr. Bacchiocchi had not been exposed to these facts during his formal educational experience or subsequent
studies as a seminary professor, he almost certainly was confronted by them in the writings of Robert D.
Brinsmead, who discussed these facts from the Jewish Encyclopedia in his paper “Sabbatarianism Re-visited” and
“A Digest of the Sabbath Question.” I mentioned earlier that after the World Wide Church of God renounced
Sabbatarianism after reading “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” about 10% of this church started a small Sabbath
keeping denomination and clung to their Sabbatarian heritage. Dr. Bacchiocchi immediately formed a close
association with this church and lent his full support to their decision to retain the Sabbath. He would have been
forced to deal with their questions about the Brinsmead articles that had “brought down” their former church.

In the section, I will evaluate each of the arguments Dr. Bacchiocchi has articulated in his second book, Sabbath
Under Crossfire (1998). This book represents, in my opinion, a continuing attempt to bluff his readers into believing
that Paul did not mean what he said in Colossians 2:14-17 and two other closely associated texts. The paragraphs
in the blue, all capital letters represent my summaries of each of his major teachings from the chapter “Paul and the
Sabbath.” In October of 2006 I sent Dr. Bacchiocchi a rough draft of my full-length article “From Sunday to
Sunday” with the request that he evaluate my understanding of his ideas to make certain I was not misrepresenting
him. He replied only that he had scanned my article and that it was obvious that I did not understand the “real
issues.” He did not indicate that I had misrepresented him in any way.

Let us evaluate his teachings on a point-by-point basis:

DR. B: THE WEEKLY SABBATH IS NOT THE TARGET OF COLOSSIANS 2:14-17 BECAUSE PAUL IS NOT
CONDEMNING THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES REGARDING JEWISH DIETARY LAWS, CEREMONIAL ANNUAL
AND MONTHLY SABBATHS, AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH. INSTEAD, HE IS MERELY CONDEMNING THE
EXTRA MAN-MADE REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON THE KEEPING OF JEWISH DIETARY LAWS, ANNUAL
SABBATHS, MONTHLY SABBATHS, AND THE WEEKLY SABBATH ITSELF BY THE FALSE TEACHERS. “A
PRECEPT IS NOT NULLIFIED BY THE CONDEMNATION OF ITS PERVERSION.”

Where did these “extra” rules and regulations come from? Paul doesn’t give a hint in this passage that such a thing
exists. The context of the passage does not require it. Furthermore, how could anyone create requirements for
these ordinances of Moses that could be much more burdensome than the original regulations? How do you make
a dietary requirement any more complicated than those outlined in Leviticus 11? How do you make it more difficult
to observe annual and monthly feasts? Try to imagine what one of these additional kinds of regulations would be
like! And when it comes to the Weekly Sabbath, how could you make it any more challenging than the regulations
already specified in the TORAH? You can’t light a fire in your home, and if you pick up firewood or carry a burden
on the Sabbath, you are to be stoned to death! How much worse can it be than that? Did the so-called false
teachers create an extra rule that one has to die twice for picking up sticks on Sabbath? Taken at face value,
these false teachers are trying to get the Gentiles to observe the Jewish dietary regulations, annual and monthly
feast days, and the Weekly Sabbath that God Himself gave the Jews in the TORAH. These things have now,
themselves, become “extra” in the sense they are no longer required for Jews and NEVER were required for
Gentiles to be eternally saved. With Paul, what you see is what you get.

DR. B: THE JEWISH DIETARY LAWS AND ANNUAL, MONTHLY, AND WEEKLY SABBATH DAYS ARE NOT
SHADOWS OF CHRIST THAT POINTED FORWARD TO HIS COMING. INSTEAD, THE PRONOUN “THESE” IN
“THESE THINGS” REFERS BACK FURTHER TO THE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THE
FALSE TEACHERS—NOT TO JEWISH ORDINANCES LISTED IN THE TEXT ITSELF BY PAUL. HE CITES
SUPPORT FOR THIS THEORY BY A WELL-RESPECTED NON-SABBATARIAN THEOLOGIAN BY THE NAME
OF DR. EDUARD LOHSE, WHOM HE REFERENCES IN THIS CHAPTER.

1. Again, we have no literary justification for creating additional rules and regulations out of thin air and crediting
them to the Judaizers. The requirement to keep these ceremonial laws of the TORAH is Judaization in itself. Even
to Sabbatarians like Seventh-day Adventists, the Jewish annual and monthly feast days (sabbaths) are
unquestionably viewed as ceremonial in nature. The Seventh-day Adventist view, never-the-less, is inconsistent.
Paul places all the items, including the Weekly Sabbath, into a “basket” of things that must not be required of the
Gentile believers because they are merely “shadows of things to come” which were fulfilled in Christ. Bacchiocchi
places the same items into a “basket” of things that Christians must observe. But Seventh-day Adventists separate
these things into two baskets, saying that three of the items should go into a ceremonial basket and one of the
items should go into the moral basket. However, the point is that Bacchiocchi’s approach represents unabashed
Judaization.

2. If judged by conventional principles of literary evaluation, a pronoun must be viewed as referring to something in
the sentence or paragraph immediately before it unless such a reading clearly cannot be accommodated within any
sense of propriety. In view of the fact that there is no compelling reason to reject the standard literary expectation
in this situation, other than Dr. Bacchiocchi’s a priori bias toward Sabbatarianism, any disinterested party of 12
Biblical scholars would likely agree that the items in Paul’s list are, indeed, shadows of things that pointed forward
to Christ and were nailed to the Cross. In particular, the weekly Sabbath, as has been mentioned earlier, was
spoken of by the Jews as a symbol of the rest for God’s people, both in the (falsely) anticipated earthly Messianic
kingdom and in the Paradise beyond the grave.

3. Dr. Lohse appears not to have thought the whole issue through to its logical conclusion. Perhaps he stands in
awe of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s tremendous stature as the acknowledged world authority on the seventh day Sabbath
and has allowed himself to be taken in by one of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s occasional lapses of scholarly excellence.
Perhaps he simply cannot comprehend the gripping, overwhelming fixation that compels a dyed-in-the-wool
Sabbatarian to protect this belief at all costs. If Dr. Bacchiocchi’s reading of this passage is correct, and if his
primary way of defending Colossians 2:14-17 in general is correct, Dr. Lohse needs to lead the world of
Evangelical Christianity to Judaization. Evangelical churches would have to open their doors on Sabbath morning,
no pork could be served at potluck dinners, and church members would be observing the annual and monthly
Jewish feast days. Perhaps we would find the Evangelical churches camping out annually to celebrate the Feast
of the Tabernacles. One way to evaluate the TRUTH of a teaching is to follow it to the end of its logical conclusion.
The Judaization of Christianity cannot be the TRUTH because it is clearly opposed to everything Paul stood for as
God’s personally chosen spokesperson for interpreting Christianity to the Gentiles.

4. The term “shadow” is used two other times in a figurative sense in the book of Hebrews (Heb. 8:5 and 10:1), and
in both cases it is in association with the Law of Moses.

We have seen that it is impossible to get around the fact that the weekly Sabbath is classified, by Paul, with a group
of things that are now obsolete because they were mere shadows of “things to come.” The weekly Sabbath, as a
Jewish institution, looked both backward to Creation and forward to Christ. The Reality has already come in the
person of Christ.

Paul says that something that happened when Jesus died on the Cross caused the things in this list to be of no
importance to the new Gentile converts. We are all spiritual “Gentiles.” What is good for the Gentile goose is good
for the Gentile gander.

A study of a literal Greek translation http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm of Colossians 2:14-17

demonstrates that there is no need to question what kind of written document is indicated or which things are
shadows. It appears quite straight-forward that what is against us in found in handwriting composed of decrees.
26
How can you possibly get a list of sins committed by a certain individual out of decrees? See Deut 31:26 (NIV)
“Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will
remain as a witness against you.” Also, there is nothing else that “which” could refer to as a shadow other than
the things listed. What kind of scholarship is represented by an effort to prove that it refers to something that isn’t
even hinted at in the original language?

14. {HAVING BLOTTED OUT} {THE} {AGAINST} {US} ceirografon {HANDWRITING} {IN
THE} dogmasin {DECREES,} {WHICH} {WAS} {ADVERSE} {TO US,} {ALSO} {IT} {HE
HAS TAKEN} {OUT OF} {THE} {MIDST,} {HAVING NAILED} {IT} {TO THE} {CROSS;}

15. {HAVING STRIPPED} {THE} {PRINCIPALITIES} {AND} {THE} {AUTHORITIES,}

{HE MADE A SHOW [OF THEM]} {PUBLICLY,} {LEADING IN TRIUMPH} {THEM} {IN}
{IT.}

16 {NOT} {THEREFORE} {ANYONE} {YOU} {LET JUDGE} {IN} {MEAT} {OR} {IN}
{DRINK,} {OR} {IN} {RESPECT} {OF FEAST,} {OR} {NEW MOON,} {OR} {SABBATHS,}
17 {WHICH} {ARE} {A SHADOW} {OF THINGS} {TO COME;} {BUT} {THE} {BODY [IS]}
{OF THE} {CHRIST.}

DR. BACCHIOCCHI AND ROMANS 14:5

(NIV) 1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable
matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith
is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on
him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the
man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s
servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able
to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another
man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6
He who regards one day as special does so to the Lord. He who eats meat eats to the
Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives
thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself
alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether
we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

DR. B: ANY ATTEMPT TO SEE THE SABBATH AS ONE OF THE DAYS REFERRED TO IN THIS PASSAGE IS
NOT POSSIBLE SINCE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WEAK AND THE STRONG OVER DIET AND DAYS
CAN NOT BE TRACED BACK TO THE MOSAIC LAW. THE WHOLE DISCUSSION HERE IS NOT ABOUT THE
OBLIGATION TO KEEP THE LAW VERSUS FREEDOM FROM ITS OBSERVANCE, BUT RATHER CONCERNS
UNNECESSARY SCRUPLES OF CONSCIENCE CAUSED BY HUMAN CONVENTIONS AND SUPERSTITIONS.

Bacchiocchi is correct that the conflict between the weak and the strong can’t be traced back to the Mosaic Law.
Whether you are weak or strong, you keep it, or you die. If you pick up sticks or carry a burden on the Sabbath,
you are put to death. A mention of this fact does nothing to further the examination of the Sabbath question.

Since there is no TORAH observance without circumcision, and since the Gentile converts do not have to be
circumcised and therefore cannot keep the Laws of Moses, the discussion is, indeed, about the obligation to keep
the Law versus freedom from its observance. Christians are free from its observance. Paul says not to be
concerned about disputable matters. The fact that the Sabbath can be disputed is a clear indication that it is not
something about which to judge someone. I am in the process of disputing the Sabbath by the very act of writing
this paper. By contrast, no Christian would even think about writing a paper to influence other Christians to believe
that killing, stealing, and adultery are acceptable behavior because Jesus died on the cross.

The question raised by this passage of Scripture actually is, “An adherence or lack of adherence to what set of
dietary laws and sacred days determines whether a Christian is to be considered weak or strong?” Let us apply a
little logic to this question and work at it by the process of elimination:

1. Dr. Bacchiocchi wishes us to believe that these so-called unnecessary scruples of conscience are in regard to a
set of imaginary additional rules and regulations for keeping the Jewish dietary laws, annual sabbath feast days,
monthly sabbath feast days, and the weekly Sabbath—the diets and days. The Christian is weak or strong,
depending on his or her willingness to reject these extra rules and regulations, perhaps. As we have discussed
earlier, this so-called extra set of rules and regulations supposedly devised by the false teachers is nothing more
than a figment of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s imagination and is not explicit or implicit in the text itself or the context in which
the text is found. This statement of Paul’s is consistent with other things he has said about day sacredness
throughout his writings. There is every reason to reject Dr. Bacchiocchi’s reading of this passage and no reason
to accept it.

2. It is similarly impossible to think that Paul was discussing how a Christian could be judged to be weak or strong
on the basis of his or her rejection of pagan dietary laws and pagan sacred days in this particular passage. Did the
pagans have any dietary laws at all? The only pagan dietary law I know of is you can eat anything you want—even
roasted cockroaches. Would a Christian be judged to be strong or weak on the basis of his or her attachment to
pagan sacred days? It would seem that any interest in observing pagan sacred days would be considered a
weakness on the part of a Christian.

There is only one reasonable answer left. Since the Torah was fulfilled in Christ, its requirements exist no more.
Adherence to its requirements brought a real sense of security to the Israelites under the terms of the Mosaic
Covenant, but under the terms of the New Covenant, any degree of reliance on obsolete ordinances for a sense of
spiritual security would be considered a sign of weakness on the part of a Christian. Instead, it is a sign of strength
to be able to find security in Christ and His Grace, rather than in the observance of arbitrary ordinances. The very
idea that any day of the year has any sacredness in-and-of-itself is superstition, whether those days are sacred to
pagans or Jews.

2. Since all days are now alike, there is nothing wrong with keeping any one of those days if the motivation for
keeping such a day is not to win God’s favor but to honor Him. Thus, Paul is teaching the Roman community of
Christians that the Gentile Christians should not condemn the Jewish Christians for keeping Sabbath and the
Jewish Christians should not condemn their Gentile brothers and sisters for not keeping the Sabbath.

DR. B: PAUL, IN THIS PASSAGE, APPLIES THE BASIC PRINCIPLE “OBSERVE IT IN HONOR OF THE
LORD” ONLY TO THE CASE OF THE PERSON “WHO OBSERVES THE DAY.” IN THIS MATTER, PAUL
MAKES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIET ISSUE AND THE “DAYS” ISSUE. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT
THE PERSON WHO REGARDS ALL THE DAYS ALIKE DOES SO TO THE LORD. THEREFORE, PAUL DOES
NOT GIVE HIS STAMP OF APPROVAL TO THOSE WHO THINK IN TERMS OF ALL DAYS BEING ALIKE.

This is one of the most remarkable statements Dr. Bacchiocchi has ever made. As Jesus’ specially chosen
interpreter of New Covenant Christianity to the Gentiles, it was Paul’s responsibility to point out any real spiritual
problem. Paul rebuked Peter for slighting his Gentile brothers, and he was not known for remaining speechless
when confronted with error. Knowing Paul, he would have rebuked any Christian who might think in terms of all
days being alike if this view was wrong. Since the Sabbath was a particular day, and since Dr. Bacchiocchi thinks
that Paul did not teach that Christians don’t have to keep the Jewish Sabbath, would not Dr. Bacchiocchi expect a
pointed, crystal clear rebuke to all those who regarded every day alike? If Sabbatarianism is true (which it clearly
isn’t), those who regarded every day as alike would be wicked violators of an eternal, moral principle. The logic of
Dr. Bacchiocchi’s argument is absent. In some cases, actively doing something honors God. In other cases,
refraining from doing something honors God. I honor God by giving my offerings with a willing heart. At the same
time I honor him by not swearing by His name. Paul puts both concerns for ceremonial dietary laws and the
ceremonial superstition about the special qualities of any day in the same basket as nonessentials. Since days
have no intrinsic sacredness, what difference does it matter if you observe a day or if you don’t? The answer is that
it doesn’t.

DR. B: IF PAUL HAD SET ASIDE THE SABBATH, THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS WOULD HAVE ATTACKED
PAUL VICIOUSLY, LIKE THEY DID OVER HIS EFFORTS TO SET ASIDE CIRCUMCISION. THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF SUCH A CONTROVERSY ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, INDICATING THAT PAUL
NEVER DISCOURAGED SABBATH KEEPING OR ENCOURAGED SUNDAY KEEPING INSTEAD.

Can Dr. Bacchiocchi really be as theologically uninformed as not to understand exactly why there was a huge fight
over circumcision? As we have learned earlier in this paper, the Sabbath and circumcision cannot be separated.
We have seen that neither Jew nor Gentile could keep the Sabbath without the circumcision requirements being
met. Therefore, when the Council of Jerusalem decided not to impose the rite of circumcision on the Gentiles, the
Sabbath perished forever with it. This is why the New Testament does not mention a requirement for Sabbath
keeping by Christians thereafter. Nearly everything Jewish about Christianity was destroyed at the Council of
Jerusalem. The gateway to Sabbath observance had always been closed to anyone who was unwilling to be
circumcised, whether Jew or Gentile. Without circumcision for the new Gentile converts, there could be no
Sabbath-keeping for them. Perhaps a review of this matter is in order.

The Bible teaches that the Gentile/alien must go through the same process of becoming a Jew by circumcision if he
wanted to participate in the Jewish religion. In fact a Jew was a Gentile till he was circumcised. Ex 12:48 - Ex
48
12:49 (NIV) “An alien living among you who wants to celebrate the LORD’S Passover must have all the males in
49
his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat of it.
43
The same law applies to the native-born and to the alien living among you.” Ex 12:43 - Ex 12:45 (NIV) The
44
LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any
45
slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker
22
may not eat of it. Lev 24:22 (NIV) You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the
LORD your God.”

Jewish scholars from the very beginning of Jewish history have understood that the TORAH was given only to the
Jews. By the time of Jesus, the typical Jew was not aware of the fact that they, as a people, had never believed
that the Gentiles would be lost by not keeping the TORAH. Instead, Jewish thought has always held the belief that
the Gentiles would be saved if they kept the natural laws given by God to all Mankind. This principle is discussed
elsewhere in my paper. In fact, Jewish traditional law called for the stoning of a Gentile who kept the
Sabbath without first being circumcised.

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, had to use a different approach than in his letters to the Galatians and the
Colossians. With over 50,000 Jewish Christians living in Rome at the time, Paul, demonstrating his skill to write for
a target audience, was careful to show that the Jewish Christians were free to continue to keep the Sabbath. The
idea that Sabbath keeping became wrong after the Cross is not part of Paul’s teachings.

Dr. Bacchiocchi presents the fact that Paul never encouraged Sunday observance as evidence that Paul never
taught that the Gentiles did not have to keep the Sabbath. If the Pauline theory is true, this would come as no
surprise to anyone. Of course Paul never encouraged Sunday keeping because there is no intrinsic sacredness or
“holy magic” about Sunday. Sunday was chosen by Christians for a variety of reasons. Meeting together on the
Sabbath was not practical, since the Christians needed to be in the synagogues witnessing to the Jews that Jesus
was the Messiah on every possible Sabbath day. Jesus rose from the grave on Sunday. Any other day of the week
would have been appropriate, but Sunday had special significance to the believers. The fact that Christians chose
Sunday as the day to meet with each other was not merely an accident, but neither was it a choice governed by the
concept of day sacredness.
Finally, it is inconceivable that Paul would write to the Christians in Rome about every sacred day of the Jewish
calendar and exclude the Sabbath from his comments. Circumcision was included in Paul’s comments, and
circumcision was excluded from things to be required of the Gentile converts. Since keeping the Sabbath was not
possible without circumcision, the Sabbath issue was dead.

The greater context of his passage is that Paul is addressing the Christian Community in Rome. This church had a
very large number of Jewish Christians in its membership, so Paul would need a somewhat softer approach in
conveying the truth about the Sabbath and other Jewish sacred days to the Romans. With such a diverse group,
Paul is concerned about them arguing about things that are not essential to the Gospel. He talks about how the
LAW is fulfilled by genuine love. A review of Romans 13 is a good way to help understand the context of Paul’s
statement in the next chapter. Back in Romans 2, he talks about the principles of the Mosaic Law being in the
hearts of the Gentiles through their consciences:

ROMANS 2:12-16: (NIV) 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law,
and all who sin under the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in
God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed,
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a
law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the
requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the
day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

It is difficult to believe that after Paul makes it clear in Romans that the Gentiles who follow their consciences and
keep the universal laws will be eternally saved that Dr. Bacchiocchi could possibly think that in the Book of
Romans, Paul is teaching that the keeping of the Jewish dietary laws, annual and monthly sabbaths, and the
weekly Sabbath is now, for the first time ever, to be required of Gentiles for salvation.

DR. BACCHIOCCHI ON GALATIANS 4:9-11

Please study Galatians 4:8-11 for the complete context:

GALATIANS 4:8-11—8 (NIV) Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to
those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by
God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you
wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months
and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

DR. B: THE DAYS OF THIS PASSAGE IN GALATIANS ARE NOT A REFERENCE TO THE JEWISH
CALENDAR OF SPECIAL DAYS, BUT A REFERENCE TO THE SPECIAL DAYS OF THE PAGAN CALENDAR.
THEREFORE, THIS PASSAGE IS NOT DIRECTED AT THE JEWISH FEAST DAYS OR WEEKLY SABBATH.

The root of the problem with Dr. Bacchiocchi’s Sabbatarian bias in interpreting Galatians 4:10-11 is his singular
failure to recognize a massive theme that runs from one end of the Bible to the other, that the jurisdiction of the
TORAH was to be temporary. As we have seen, earlier, the Bible clearly teaches that God did not make the
TORAH Covenant with His people prior to Mt. Sinai. Amazingly, in Galatians 3, just one chapter before this
passage, Paul is talking about the TORAH having a certain beginning and a certain end. The beginning was at the
Exodus, it added to the Abrahamic Covenant, and it was to end when the Messiah arrived. Please examine
Galatians 3:15-19:

15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside
or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say
“and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person,
who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set
aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise;
but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 What, then, was the
 purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom
the promise referred has come.

Dr. Bacchiocchi turns to Dr. Troy Martin for support for his idea that this passage is Galatians is a reference to their
return to the observation of the sacred days of the pagan calendar, rather than those of the Jewish calendar. Dr.
Martin, Professor of Religious Studies at Xavier University in Chicago, published two articles in New Testament
Studies and the Journal of Biblical Literature. He cites Martin as saying that the days of Colossians 2:14-17 are
definitely Jewish but that the days of Galatians 4:10 seem to be characteristic of the pagan calendar. Bacchiocchi
states that Martin reaches this conclusion on the “time structure” of pagan calendars, and well as the immediate
context of Paul’s statement, which appears to be “pagan” as evidenced by their “renewed pre-conversion reckoning
of time.”

In regard to their analysis of what Paul meant in this passage, what both scholars fail to realize is that a
COMPARISON between two similar ideas does not perform the function of setting context. This is an error of logic,
because it simply does not follow. The whole book of Galatians is directed at countering the influence of
Judaizers—not paganizers.

Paul is comparing their new slavery to the observance of the days of the Jewish calendar to their former slavery to
the observance of the days of the pagan calendar. He is saying that the principle underlying the fault with both
slaveries is exactly the same. Both slaveries violate the principle that no day of the week, month, or year has any
sacredness in-and-of-itself and that honoring ANY day as sacred in itself represents superstition of one type or the
other.

The context of Chapter Four of Galatians is a focus on fighting the Judaizers from Jerusalem. By the time we get to
verse 17, Paul calls the reader’s attention back to the previous and over-all context of his remarks:

(NIV) 17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to
alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous,
provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you.

If Dr. Bacchiocchi and Dr. Martin had read just a little further in this chapter, they would have noted that by this
statement, Paul dispelled any possible confusion about whether he was talking about a return to pagan principles
or to the slavery of the Law of Moses. Look at verse 21:

(NIV) 21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?

“Those people” are Judaizers—not pagans. There is no suggestion here that Paul was addressing a problem of
pagans trying to win back the new Gentile converts to heathenism. He states plainly that the concern is over their
desire to be under the LAW again—clearly the TORAH. There is simply no license in this statement of Paul to use
one’s theological imagination to force this passage to read in a manner favorable to Sabbatarianism. Martin, who
is not a Sabbatarian, seems oblivious to the overwhelming compulsion of Dr. Bacchiocchi to force everything Paul
said into a light that is favorable to Sabbatarianism. Since the context of this passage is unquestionably one of
Jewish things, common sense tells us that we must acknowledge that this is a linguistic question of comparison—
not context. This comparison is between the slavery to the days of the pagan calendar to the slavery to the days
of the Jewish calendar. The principle, here, again, is the same. The idea that any day on any calendar has
intrinsic sacredness and must be honored is superstitious, whether it is a pagan superstition or a Jewish
superstition.

In this text, Paul seems to indicate that these people know God. Logic tells us that if Paul says these people have
a basically good relationship with God, he cannot mean that they are beginning to return to pagan practices.
These people know God. They are just in danger of thinking that they have to observe obsolete Jewish ordinances
to keep His favor.

DR. B: THE “DAYS” OF GALATIANS 4:10-11 COULD NOT REFER TO THE JEWISH CALENDAR TO SPECIAL
DAYS BECAUSE THE PHRASE “ELEMENTAL SPIRITS OF THE UNIVERSE” IS TRANSLATED INTO
ENGLISH FROM THE GREEK WORDS STOIKEIA TOU KOSMOU, WHICH MOST SCHOLARS INTERPRET AS
THE BASIC ELEMENTS WHICH THE PAGANS THOUGHT THE WORLD WAS MADE OF—EARTH, WATER,
AIR, FIRE, OR PAGAN GODS WHO CONTROLLED HUMAN EVENTS.
We have reviewed the chapter’s context and have found that Paul gives us all the clarification of context that any
reasonable reader would expect. Galatians 4:1-7 is a discussion about sacred law. Verse 17 makes it clear that he
is discussing the worrisome influence of the Judaizers, and verse 21 clearly identifies the LAW as the subject under
discussion. Therefore, there is no compelling reason believe Paul was expressing concern in this passage that his
beloved Galatians were beginning to observe their former pagan sacred days. The translators of the NIV chose to
translate word stoikeia tou kosmou as “principles.” From the Greek-Interlinear Bible http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-
bin/EnglishBible.htm we find these possible meanings for this word in the Greek language:

New Testament Greek Definition:

4747 stoicheion {stoy-khi’-on}

from a presumed derivative of the base of 4748; TDNT - 7:670,1087; n n
AV - element 4, rudiment 2, principle 1; 7
1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or
composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
1a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not
however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
1b) the elements from which all things have come, the material
causes of the universe
1c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as
others think) because in them the elements of man, life and
destiny were supposed to reside
1d) the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles
of any art, science, or discipline
1d1) i.e. of mathematics, Euclid’s geometry

After speaking about the Galatians being "enslaved" by keeping special days, months, seasons, and years. Paul
moves on to in Gal. 4:21-31 to explain the two covenants. The first covenant, which is the Sinaitic covenant which
the Jews were slaves. The second covenant represents their freedom in Christ, which is from the keeping the first
covenant. Note that Paul uses the term "slavery" about the Jews keeping the law that required Jews to keep all
these holy days. Thus for Dr. Bacchiocchi to attempt to force an out of context interpretation of this passage is
certainly not good scholarship. Notice his comment in Galatians 5:1:

1
Gal 5:1 (NIV) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves
be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Paul is clearly concerned that his beloved Galatians are being wrongly influenced by the Judaizers to think that
their spiritual welfare will be jeopardized if they return to a belief that the observation of sacred days of any kind is
necessary to keep them in a right relationship with God.

Dr. Martin may believe these “days” are pagan, but another well-respected scholar, disagrees. The Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament says that the “days” of Galatians 4:10 “are in the first instance Sabbaths, though
they include other days too, e.g., the Day of Atonement (Eduard Lohse, “The Sabbath In The New Testament, 7:30,
footnote 232, quoted in Robert D. Brinsmead, “Sabbatarianism Re-examined.”) This assessment is in keeping with
the sentence structure, as noted earlier, that Hebrew writers used when talking about the Law of Moses.

Also consider that Paul knew how to use the Hebrew language very well. It could be that no one has even done
such a good job of putting the most profound spiritual truths into language that, in general, can be understood by
most readers. Because of his good command of language, it is almost inconceivable that Paul would not add a
"disclaimer" to this passage if the weekly Sabbath were still required of Christians. He would add something like, "I
need to clarify something. I don’t mean you shouldn’t keep the 7th Day Sabbath." Since Paul was a highly
articulate writer under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, he knew, or at least God knew, what affect his words
would have on his immediate target audience, as well as on Christians down through the ages. There can be no
doubt that Paul’s words were inspired by the Holy Spirit in view of how this passage would be understood by
readers down through time.

In the next chapter, Galatians 5, we find Paul talking about the LAW again. He teaches that those that attempt to
keep the law have fallen from grace.
 2
Gal 5:2 - 4 (NIV) Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised,
3
Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be
4
circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified
by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Gal. 5:14-23 (NIV) For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit
what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not
do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. The acts of the
sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and
witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and
envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like
this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace;
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such
things there is no law.—Gal. 5:14-23.

In keeping with the theme of the Book of Galatians, Paul continues with a discussion of the LAW, which seems to
continue his theme that the TORAH has been replaced with non-arbitrary laws that are written on the heart through
the Holy Spirit. This is in line with the concept that moral laws are simply statements of cause and effect. In the
first chapter of the book of John, he says that everyone who is born into the world is influenced by the Spirit of God.
There is a basic understanding of right and wrong in all cultures and all societies. For example, if you steal
something from someone and that person wants his or her property back badly enough to fight you for it, one or
both of you may die in that fight. A Gentile growing up in the darkest recesses of Africa can see these self-evident
truths, and the Holy Spirit is there to convict through the conscience. However, that same heathen person will
never come to the self-evident conclusion that he must not do any work on one of the days of the week, much less
be able to figure out, as a self-evident principle, that he should not work on the 7th day of the week. His “week”
might have 10 days, or 17 days, or he may have no concept of a week at all. If a law is self-evident and based on
natural cause and effect, it is a moral law with eternal implications. If a law is not based on a self-evident principle
of natural cause and effect, it is not a moral law and must be classified as ceremonial and temporary. Paul teaches
that after the cross the new covenant Christians are led by the law of the Spirit and not the Law of Moses.
Christians know that it is wrong to commit immoral sins without looking at a codified law. Furthermore, he states
that the Mosaic Law was made for the lawbreakers those that commit gross sins:
9
1 Tim 1:8 - 11 (NIV) We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers
and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers
10
or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and
11
perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the
glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

It is impossible to keep the Mosaic Law. Again we see that Christians that are led by the "Law of the Spirit" which
has set them free. Christians do not need a written code to tell them what is immoral.
1
Rom 8:1 - 4 (NIV) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
2
Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of
3
sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful
nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.
4
And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law
might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the
Spirit.

CONCLUSION

Using the principles of logic, we are forced to conclude that Dr. Bacchiocchi’s defense against Colossians 2:14-17
and associated texts is completely dependent on the existence of the theoretical set of extra set of rules
supposedly developed by the Judaizers to make the keeping of the Jewish dietary laws, Jewish annual and monthly
sabbath feast days, and the weekly Sabbath more rigorous than the already stiff regulations regarding their
observance outlined in the Laws of Moses. There is nothing explicit or implicit in Paul’s statement to suggest the
existence of such a thing. How would you make the Jewish dietary laws more difficult to keep than, for example,
the restrictions outlined in Leviticus 11? Did the Judaizers discover some more “unclean” animals that God had
forgotten about when He gave Moses the text of Leviticus 11? How could you make the Sabbath more difficult to
observe than it already was? According to the Laws of Moses, anyone who gathered firewood or lit a fire on the
Sabbath was to be stoned to death. Did this so-called extra set of rules and regulations stipulate that a person
would have to die twice for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Were the monthly sabbath feast days to be kept
every two weeks instead of every month?

The extra set of rules Bacchiocchi desperately needs to salvage the Sabbath from Colossians 2:14-17 is nothing
more than the figment of his vivid imagination—an imagination fueled by the overwhelming compulsion to believe in
Sabbatarianism at all costs. There is no set of imaginary rules and regulations. Because there is no such set, and
because it now stands without any reasonable challenge that Paul commanded Christians not to enforce the
weekly Sabbath on the new Gentile converts, there is no requirement for Christians to keep the Sabbath. The
Jewish ordinances given to the Jews by God Himself through Moses were made obsolete by the death of Christ on
the Cross, and an attempt to impose this set of Jewish ordinances on Christians represents the most shocking form
of Judaization imaginable. Paul was against the Judaization of Christianity and fought it constantly during his
apostolic ministry.

Equally amazing are the conceptual blunders of Dr. Bacchiocchi’s highly imaginative theory of how Christians came
to abandon Sabbath keeping. With Christians already worshipping on Sunday by 70 AD and universally so by 140
AD, it would appear that the writings of Paul created the abandonment of Sabbath keeping almost instantly. The
fact is that it happened during the time of the Early Church about as quickly as his writings could have been copied
and circulated among the churches throughout the vast Roman Empire. On the other hand, Bacchiocchi’s theory
is evolutionary in concept. His theory of Sabbath abandonment suggests that small changes gradually took
place over several hundreds of years—absolutely ridiculous when the very first thing that any satisfactory theory
must explain is how Sunday had come to be common enough by 70 AD to be mentioned in the Didache. Historians
date Paul’s last epistle at 63 AD, less than a decade earlier!

The Council of Jerusalem convened to set a minimum set of requirements for the Gentile believers. Since no Jew
or Gentile could keep the Sabbath or observe any of the feast days without the circumcision requirements being
met, and since the Council of Jerusalem decided against the circumcision requirement for the new Gentile
converts, establishing only a minimal set of moral requirements for them, it is amazing that Bacchiocchi believes
Christians are still obligated to observe the special days of the Jewish calendar.

Once someone starts down the wrong road with an idea, it is a long and winding road back to the TRUTH. Unless
that person is willing to make an about-face, admit he or she was going the wrong direction, and head in the
direction pointed to by the evidence, the only way to rationalize an excuse to keep going the same direction is to
build up a set of complementary beliefs to support that wrong intellectual choice. You cannot have the Sabbath
without the requirement to keep the feast days, and Dr. Bacchiocchi has supplied the rationale for such a
requirement. This amazing statement is found in Bacchiocchi’s book, God’s Festivals in Scripture and History
Volume I: The Spring Festivals. You can verify this statement by going to Dr. Bacchiocchi’s website,
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_under_xfire Select the section that provides excerpts from his
books. Click the picture of this book and select the chapter, “A Preview of This Book,” to the left. Then do a search
for “A fourth surprise:”

A fourth surprise was to discover that I was wrong in assuming that the annual Feasts came to an end
with the sacrifice of Christ, simply because they were connected with the sacrificial system of the
Temple. I came to realize that the continuity or discontinuity of the Feasts is determined not by their
connection with the sacrificial system, but by the scope of their typology. If the Feasts had typified
only the redemptive accomplishments of Christ’s first Advent, then obviously their function would
have terminated at the Cross. But, if the Feasts foreshadow also the consummation of redemption to
be accomplished by Christ at His second Advent, then their function continues in the Christian
church, though with a new meaning and manner of observance.

In conclusion, please consider that since Paul worded his statement in Colossians 2:14-17 as a command, and
since his statement is chronologically the last one in the Bible to deal directly, clearly and, specifically with the
subject of Sabbath keeping, there is no amount of so-called Biblical evidence that can set it aside. We now know,
th
thanks to our more advanced knowledge of Hebrew linguistics, that the wording of the 7 day passage in the
account of Creation in Genesis 1 forbids any possibility of reading of a Sabbath command into it. Who are we, little
pieces of clay from the Potter’s hand, to insist that He was wrong in terminating the Sabbath and other Jewish
ordinances at the Cross? Even if God started the Sabbath in Eden (He clearly did not.). God has the “right” to
discontinue it at the cross if He so chooses. Through Paul He has made His will perfectly clear. The attempt of
Seventh-day Adventists and other Sabbatarians to evade this simple truth has been in vain. It has caused chaos
and alienation within the Body of Christ. It has placed a barrier between Seventh-day Adventists and the un-
churched. How tragic to erect a barrier which God Himself tore down! Simply wanting something to be true does
not make it true. No amount of scholarly writing can turn error into truth, and we have no right to try to force
everyone else to believe a lie because we think it is not only good for us, but it is good for everyone else in the
world.

I rest my case with the following proofs that the 10 Commandments represented the Old Covenant, which is now
obsolete:

God wrote the words of the covenant on stone tablets.

28
Ex 34:28 (NIV) Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating
bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten
Commandments.

"The first Covenant" had "the stone tablets of the covenant."

1
Heb 9:1 - Heb 9:5 (NIV) Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an
2
earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table
3
and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was
4
a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-
covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had
5
budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the
Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.

The first covenant written on stone tablets (Sinaitic Covenant) is obsolete.

13
Heb 8:13 (NIV) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is
obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

If Paul were alive today, would you be in the class of Christians that Paul would be forced to ask the painful
question, “Have I wasted my time on you?”

More on the covenants:

http://www.truthorfables.com/Sabbath_Not_A_Law.htm Sabbath Not a Law For Christians. This
answers many of the Sabbatarian arguments for Sabbath keeping.