A SECOND OPEN LETTER TO PASTOR JOSEPH TKACH AND THE WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD
===========================================================================

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.
Professor of Theology and Church History
Andrews University


NOTE: Pastor General Joseph Tkach of the Worldwide Church of
God had requested to dialogue with me here at Andrews University on April
29. After reading an article where I examine the current crises of the
WCG, he cancelled the appointment. I decided to address some of the issues
of his New Covenant Theology in an Open Letter I sent him and posted on
the Internet last February 11. On April 1 Pastor Joseph Tkach replied to
my Open Letter by posting himself an Open letter. What you are about to
read is my response to his latest letter where I address first few
personal allegations and then his understanding of the law and the
Sabbath. These are issues that have split the WCG, causing a massive
exodus of over 70,000 members. I trust you find this five parts letter
informative. If you should have difficulty to retrieve some segments, feel
free to contact me and I will e-mail them to you. 


April 15, 1996

Pastor Joseph W. Tkach
Worldwide Church of God
Pasadena, California 91129

Dear Pastor Tkach:	

	Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to respond to my
Open Letter with your own Open Letter dated April 1. I recognize that
preparing an open letter is time consuming for both of us. Yet I believe
that we are rendering a vital service to thousands of your former and
current WCG members who have been left confused by the doctrinal changes
you and your father have introduced. Furthermore our dialogue provides
food for thought to many other Christians who are seeking for a fuller
understanding of how the law in general and the Sabbath in particular
relate to our salvation in Christ. 
	During the past few weeks I have received countless letters and
telephone calls expressing appreciation for my Open Letter to you and the
WCG. Truly I can say that during the past 25 years of research and
writing, I have never received so many expressions of gratitude from so
many people. What these people appreciate most is the effort I made in my
Open Letter to examine your New Covenant Theology. 
	They feel that there was a desperate need for a trained scholar to
examine and respond to the arguments you have marshalled in support of
your doctrinal changes. In replying publicly to your previous and present
letter, I wish to make it known at the outset that my intent has been and
is to examine not your moral integrity but some aspects of your New
Covenant theology that you have embraced. An indication of this concern
is the fact that in my previous Open Letter I devoted 7 of the 12 pages to
an analysis of some aspects of your new theology. The same will be true
in this Open Letter. 
	I will endeavor to deal briefly with some of the questions you
have raised about my moral integrity and then proceed to address the real
issues, namely, your interpretation of the role of the law in general and
of the Sabbath in particular in our Christian life today. I sincerely
hope and pray that this open dialogue will help not only your WCG members
but also many other Christians who seek to understand the relevance of
God's law for today. For the sake of clarity, I will submit my response
again under major headings. 


MAKING A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION INTO A PUBLIC DISPUTE

In your Open Letter, Pastor Tkach, you express surprise and displeasure that
I allegedly chose "to make a private communication into a public dispute."
This allegation surprises me because I stated in the opening paragraph of my
Open Letter that I was responding not only to your letter but also to many
former and current members of your WCG who have contacted me in recent
months. My primary concern was not merely to reply to your letter, but to
address the issues raised by your New Covenant Theology to which I devoted
the largest portion of my letter. These are the issues which have left
thousands of your members bitter and confused. Many of them have contacted me
by letter and by phone during this past year because I am known in the
Christian community for my research on the Sabbath.
	I can appreciate
your desire to keep any analysis of your New Covenant Theology as private
correspondence. This is a good "damage control policy," but it hardly helps
your members who are confused by your new teachings. So far most of them
have heard only your views. No opportunity has been given them in your church
papers or in public forums to hear an open discussion of the pro and con of
the doctrinal changes you and your father have introduced.
	You wrote in your letter: "Much time, effort and money have been
spent patiently addressing questions that many raised." Surprisingly, in
all the WCG study papers and publications that I have read, I have not
seen a single article offering a response to your viewpoints. In your
letter you endeavor to show at considerable length that in the Adventist
church there is theological "stress" because articles and even
advertisements in MINISTRY discuss different theological view points. What
you seem to ignore, Pastor Tkach, is that our Adventist Church is open
enough to allow discussion of different view points even in our church
papers. To my knowledge such openness does not exist in your church. The
only views that appear in print are your own. No discussion of other
viewpoints is allowed. 
	Apparently this has been true also at the regional meetings you
convened to promote your new doctrines. Many of your members have told me
that the discussion has always been one-sided. No one has ever been given
equal time to present a reasoned response to your New Theology. This
situation may explain why my Open Letter has circulated like wildfire
around the world among your former and current members. Many of your
members want to hear a scholarly response to your New Theology. I believe
that these Open Letters are meeting, at least in part, this deeply
feltneed. 


MY CONVERSATION WITH AN "UNNAMED SCHOLAR" OF THE WCG

	Your letter questions the credibility of my reference to a brief
telephone conversation I had with an "unnamed scholar" of the WCG who
still holds to the validity and value of the Sabbath and Holy Days. You
suggest the possibility that I could "have spoken to someone from another
organization posing to be one of our representatives." On the basis of
this mistaken assumption you go on to argue: "If we had a brief telephone
conversation with and product endorsement from a Seventh-day Adventist
scholar who had misgivings about current Adventist teachings, we would not
assume that he or she expressed the concerns of the Adventist leadership." 
	You might be interested to know that the "unnamed scholar" is not
"someone from another organization," but none other than Herman L.
Hoeh, Ph. D., Executive Editor of the WCG. I understand that he is one of
the most respected scholars of the WCG church, having served it with
distinction for over 40 years. Because of his untarnished reputation, I
called him last January at your headquarters in Pasadena to find out if he
would be willing to review my latest book GOD'S FESTIVALS IN SCRIPTURE AND
HISTORY and issue me a brief comment to use in a promotional flier. He
graciously agreed to do so and sent me a positive endorsement. 
	In our telephone conversation Dr. Hoeh reassured me that he still
believes in the validity of the Sabbath and Holy Days. It was this
experience that led me to assume that you also may be rethinking some of
your doctrinal changes and wanted to meet with me here at Andrews to
discuss these topics. I chose not to mention the name of Dr. Hoeh in my
Open Letter to avoid the risk of exposing him to unnecessary criticism. 


ATTEMPT TO SELL MY BOOKS TO A FEW OF YOUR MINISTERS	

	Another allegation of your Open letter reads as follows: "You have
been in contact with a few of our ministers, and called one of our
employees with the intent of selling copies of books you have authored. We
have read several of your books and have explained that we have no
interest in promoting the sale of them because many of your
interpretations have been discredited by objective biblical scholarship." 
	This allegation greatly surprises me because I have never
initiated a contact with any of your ministers for the simple reason that
no directory of your ministers is available to the general public. In the
past when the WCG still believed in the Sabbath, a good number of your
ministers did write to me to request copies of my Sabbath books which we
mailed them. Note, however, that not one of your ministers ever gave me
the name of a fellow minister I could contact, because this was against
the policy of your church. 
	I do not recall ever calling your office with the intent of
selling my books. The first time I called was over a year ago when I spoke
with your correspondent Carrol Miller. The purpose of the call was to see
if there was any interest on the part of your father to dialogue with me
over the doctrinal changes that were creating so much unrest and confusion
among your ministers and members. You might be interested to know that it
was a local WCG minister who encouraged me to call your office to offer my
services. Mr. Miller requested a set of my three Sabbath books which I
mailed. Later he communicated with me by letter saying that the proposed
meeting with your father was not feasible at that time. 
	The second time I called your headquarter was last January to ask
Dr. Herman L. Hoeh if he would be willing to review my book GOD'S
FESTIVALS IN SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY, which he graciously agreed to do. The
allegation that I called one of your employees with the intent of selling
my books boggles my mind, because it does not make sense. How in the
world could I even imagine calling your office to sell my Sabbath books
when I knew so well that you had given up the Sabbath? It would be like my
tryingto sell refrigerators to the Eskimos. I would like to believe that I
do have enough common sense not to do such senseless things. 


MANY OF MY INTERPRETATIONS HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED

	Another allegation of your Open Letter is that "many of your
[thatis, my] interpretations have been discredited by objective biblical
scholarship." This allegation surprises me, because my scholarship is
highly respected even by the contributors to the symposium FROM SABBATH TO
THE LORD'S DAY which forms the basis of your study paper on the "Sabbath,"
published May 2, 1995. On the very first page of the paper you acknowledge
your indebtedness to this symposium produced by seven doctoral students
from Cambridge University, in England and published by Zondervan in 1982. 
	You may have noticed, Pastor Tkach, that the introductory
chapter describes at great length "the vast influence" that my work has
exerted in the English-speaking world because "it is well written and easy to
follow, even though it is extensively documented. On the whole it has
received very positive reviews" (p. 15). If you look at the index of authors
you will noticed that I am by far the most quoted author, being referred
to throughout the book 56 times.
	You might be interested to know that some of the contributors to
this symposium wrote to me saying that they changed their minds on several
areas after reading my research. For example, they accepted my conclusions
regarding the post-apostolic origin of Sunday observance coming as a
result of an interplay of social, political, and pagan factors. This is
evidenced, for example, by the following statement on pages 135-136 of the
book: "We must conclude that it is barely imaginable that first-day
Sabbath observance commenced before the Jerusalem council. Nor can we stop
there; we must go on to maintain that first-day Sabbath observance cannot
easily be understood as a phenomenon of the apostolic age or of apostolic
authority at all." The source given in support of this statement (footnote
266) is my book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, pages 153-156. 
	To further show the respect that my Sabbath research enjoys in
scholarly community, I could submit hundreds of positive comments from
reviews of respected scholars of all denominations. For the sake of
brevity I will submit only a half dozen comments. 
	"From Sabbath to Sunday is a thorough and painstaking piece of research,
which every future investigator will have to take into account." Bruce M.
Metzger, Professor of NT, PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
	"From Sabbath to Sunday is a well-researched and well-written treatise
which combines erudition, devotion and an irenic spirit. The implications
are staggering not only for the Sabbath/Sunday question, but for the
larger question of the relation between the Old and New Testaments" Don A
Carson, Ph. D., Editor , FROM SABBATH TO THE LORD'S DAY. 
	"Regardless of one's ecclesiastical orientation, he will find Dr.
Bacchiocchi's study of Sunday observance a most impressive, helpful work
of first rank scholarship." Vernon C. Grounds, President, DENVER
CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
	"A thoughtful reading of Divine Rest for Human Restlessness may change
your life for the better." Robert T. Fauth, President, EDEN THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY. 
	"Divine Rest for Human Restlessness is a definitive treatment of
Christendom's most neglected commandment." Review, CHRISTIANITY TODAY
	"From Sabbath to Sunday is a remarkable ecumenical portent. After
reading this solid piece of research any reasonable person must question the
general easy uncritical acceptance of Sunday as the Lord's Day." Marcus
Ward, The Expository Times, England


DISAGREEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN THE GROUND FOR DISFELLOWSHIP

	In your Open Letter, Pastor Tkach, you claim that "disagreements
have never been grounds for disfellowship. Unethical behavior has been." I
referred to this statement few days ago at a Sabbath Conference attended
mostly by former ministers and members of the WCG. Their reaction was
surprising. They erupted in a loud laugh. When later I asked some of them
why they laughed, they told me that they found your statement amusing
because it is so contrary to what many of them have experienced. 
	During this past year over 200 of your former ministers have
contacted me. When I asked them, Why did you leave your ministry in the
WCG? the most common answer was, " I had no other choice. I either
accepted the new teachings or resigned." I have in my possession letters
from two current teachers at Ambassador University who expect to be
terminated by the end of this school year, because they have not embraced
your new teachings. They wrote to me to find out if there might be any
openings for teaching positions here at Andrews University. 
	It is hard for me to believe your claim, Pastor Tkach, that "there
was no high-handed attempt to purge them [recalcitrant ministers]," when
these men say that they had no choice but to resign. If half of the
ministers of our Adventist church were forced to resign because they were
unwilling to accept doctrinal changes implemented by our leaders, it would
be difficult to believe that our leaders were being tolerant toward them. 
	You claim that "unethical behavior" and not disagreements has been
the ground for disfellowship. I am wondering, what do you consider to be
"unethical behavior" ? Surely those who chose to resign or leave the
church because in good conscience they could not accept your new teachings
can hardly be accused of unethical behavior. 


DRAMATIC CHANGES WITNESS TO THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

	In your Open Letter, Pastor Tkach, you see in the dramatic doctrinal
changes introduced in the WCG in such a short time a clear indication of the
work of the Holy Spirit. You wrote: "That a denomination such as ours can
make so many dramatic biblically-sound changes in such a short time is a
powerful witness to the work of the Holy Spirit."
	I am not in a position to judge what role the Holy Spirit has
played in the dramatic doctrinal changes you and your father have made in
your church. It would seem to me, however, that the work of the Holy
Spirit can be more readily recognized in changes that preserve the unity
of church rather than in those that split a church. We are told that when
the Holy Spirit was manifested on the day of Pentecost the believers were
in "one accord" (Acts 1:14). In Ephesians 4:3 Paul exhorts us "to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 
	In the formative days of our Adventist church Bible Conferences
were held to discuss doctrinal differences. One such difference was the
time for beginning and ending the Sabbath. Differing views were held:
from sunrise to sunrise, from midnight to midnight, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00
p.m., and from sunset to sunset. The brethren searched the Scriptures,
praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The result was that the
sunset to sunset principle was accepted without causing any split in
the church. 
	Sometimes divisions occur in the church because some are so eager to
implement needed reforms too fast without giving time for the Holy Spirit to
work in the hearts of fellow believers. In 1872 Ellen White offered
sensible counsel to our Adventist church regarding reforms: "We must go no
faster than we can take those with us whose consciences and intellects are
convinced of the truths we advocate" (Testimonies vol. 3, p.20). To a large
extent the Adventist church has heeded this counsel and this may explain why
in our history we have had very few off-shoots.
	This has hardly been the case in the history of your WCG. The
March 25 issue of IN-TRANSITION carries an article by Alan Ruth entitled,
"WCG offshoots now number more than 75." The article is basically a
directory with the name, address, and founder of each the 75 churches or
organizations that have recently come out of the WCG. In my view such a
proliferation of offshoots does not bespeak of the work of the Holy Spirit
manifested in the unity of the church. 


THE SABBATH WAS MADE FOR ISRAEL AND NOT FOR MANKIND

	There are several other personal allegations in your Open Letter that
I would like to address, but to do so would make this letter exceedingly
long and ultimately detract from my major concern to focus on some important
doctrinal issues. So I will respond to these at some othertime.
	 At the root of the debate is your view that the Sabbath is Mosaic
in its origin and consequently was meant to be observed only by the Jews.
I have traced this view historically in a paper I presented at an
International Sabbath Symposium sponsored by the University of Denver and
attended by Catholic, Protestant and Jewish scholars. The paper was
published in the book THE SABBATH IN JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS,
available from Crossroads publishers. I would be glad to send you a
giftcopy, if you are interested. 
	In your Open Letter you state this position as follows: "An issue
that you continue to avoid is the obvious point that the Bible gives no
Sabbath command until God gave it to Israel. The Bible never commands
Gentile nations to keep the Sabbath. Never tells them they were wrong for
not keeping it. Never punishes them for breaking it. Why? Because God
gave the Sabbath to Israel as a sign of His covenant relationship with
them. If everyone was to keep it, then it could not have been Israel's
sign. 
	"When Jesus came, he never told Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, nor
did the early church. The Sabbath was made for man, Jesus said, and the
men God gave it to were Israelites." 
	Let me assure you, Pastor Tkach, that I have not intentionally
avoided the issue of the origin and nature of the Sabbath. In fact, I
have examined these question extensively in my three Sabbath books, FROM
SABBATH TO SUNDAY, pp. 55-61, DIVINE REST FOR HUMAN RESTLESSNESS, pp.
35-42, and THE SABBATH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, pp. 42-44, 135-140. For the
sake of clarity I will address the three basic assumptions which form the
basis ofyour view on the Mosaic origin and Jewish nature of the Sabbath.1.
"The Bible gives no Sabbath command until God gave it to Israel."2. "The
Bible never commands Gentile nations to keep the Sabbath."3. God made the
Sabbath for the Israelites and not for mankind. 

	No Sabbath Command Before Sinai. Pastor Tkach, you interpret the
absence of a command to observe the Sabbath before the giving of the Ten
Commandments as meaning that Sabbathkeeping was unknown before Sinai. Your
interpretation ignores the fact that the absence of such a command could
well suggest instead that Sabbathkeeping was taken for granted. Four
reasons support this explanation. 
	First, it is important to remember that Genesis is not a book of
commands but a book of origins, as the name of the book indicates. Genesis
does not contain laws like Exodus, but rather a brief sketch of origins.
Though there is no specific mention in Genesis of any of the Ten
Commandments, we are told in Genesis 26:5, for example, that "Abraham
obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my
laws." Which commandments did Abraham observe? Did God give one set of
moral laws to Abraham and another set to Moses? To me it makes more sense
to believe that God's moral principles were known orally during the
patriarchal period before they were promulgated in a written form at
Sinai. Since no mention is made of any other commandment before Sinai the
silence regarding the Sabbath is not exceptional. 
	Second, we have a similar example of silence regarding the Sabbath
between the books of Deuteronomy and 2 Kings, a period of about 600 years.
Such silence can hardly be interpreted as non-observance of the Sabbath,
since when the first incidental reference occurs in 2 Kings 4:23, it
describes the custom of visiting a prophet on the Sabbath. 
	Third, there are throughout the book of Genesis and the
early chapters of Exodus circumstantial evidences for the use of the
seven-day week, which would imply the existence of the Sabbath as well. The
period of seven days is mentioned four times in the account of the Flood (Gen
7:4,10; 8:10, 12). The "week" is also apparently used in a technical way
to describe the duration of the nuptial festivities of Jacob (Gen 29:27)
as well as the duration of mourning at his death (Gen 50:10). A like
period was observed by the friends of Job to express their condolences to
the patriarch (Job 2:13). Possibly all these mentioned ceremonials
were terminated by the arrival of the Sabbath.
	Lastly, the Sabbath is presented in Exodus 16 and 20 as an already
existing institution. The instructions for the gathering of the double
portion of the manna on the sixth day presuppose a knowledge of the
significance of the Sabbath: "On the sixth day, when they prepare what
they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily" (Ex
16:5).The omission of any explanation for gathering a double portion on
the sixth day would be inexplicable if the Israelites had no previous
knowledge ofthe Sabbath. 
	Similarly in Exodus 20, the Sabbath is presupposed as something
already familiar. The commandment does not say "Know the Sabbath day" but
"Remember the Sabbath day" (Ex 20:8), thus implying that it was already
known. Furthermore, why would God root the Sabbath commandment in His
resting, blessing, hallowing of the seventh day at creation (Ex 20:11), if
it was meant to be observed only by the Israelites? After all, there were
no Israelites at the time of creation. Why would God go to the trouble of
blessing and sanctifying the seventh-day Sabbath at creation, when it was
meant to be a blessing only to a Semitic race that would come into
existence twenty five centuries later? Why would God establish the
Sabbath only for the Jews? Are the spiritual needs of the Jews much
different from those of the Christians? I would urge you, Pastor Tkach, to
ponder these questions. 
	To speculate on how the patriarchs kept the Sabbath would be a
fruitless endeavor since it would rest more on imagination than on
available information. Considering, however, that the essence of
Sabbathkeeping is not a place to go to fulfill rituals, but a set time to
be with God, ourselves, and others, it seems entirely possible that the
patriarchs spent the Sabbath holy hours within their households, engaged
in some of the acts of worship described in Genesis, such as prayer (Gen
12:8;26:25), sacrifice (Gen 12:8; 13:18; 26:25; 33:20), and teaching
(Gen18:19). 
	"The Bible never commands Gentile nations to keep the Sabbath."
Your second assumption is that "the Bible never commands Gentile nations
to keep the Sabbath." This assumption ignores a fundamental fact that God
never gave two sets of commandments, one for the Jews and one for the
Gentiles. God has one plan of salvation with one set of moral principles
for all people. In the OT the salvation of the Gentiles is not seen as
being separated from that of the Jews, but as being part of it. God called
the Israelites to be the channel through whom the blessings of salvation
would reach all the families of the earth (Deut 28:10; Ps 22:27; Gal 3:8). 
	Please note, Pastor Tkach, what the prophet Isaiah says about the
Gentiles: "And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to minister
to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, every one
who keeps the sabbath, and does not profane it, and holds fast my
covenant-these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in
my house of prayer; . . . for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples" (Is 56:6-7). Does not this passage clearly invite the
Gentiles to accept the Lord and to keep the Sabbath without profaning it?
Why then do you say that "the Bible never commands Gentile nations to keep
the Sabbath"? 
	You may wish to argue that the Gentiles were exempted from
Sabbathkeeping together with circumcision by the Jerusalem Council. This
is a popular but mistaken view because the Jerusalem Council did exempt
the Gentiles from the circumcision but not from the Mosaic law in general
or from Sabbathkeeping in particular. This conclusion is supported by two
major considerations. 
	First, the Council endorsed James's proposal to exempt Gentiles
from the circumcision because James appealed to Moses for his authority:
"For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach
him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:21). In
other words, James argues that his proposal is to be accepted because it
expresses what Moses expects from the Gentiles (sojourners) who wish to
live among the Israelites. This interpretation is supported by the fact
that the four ritual laws are part of the Mosaic law (Lev 17-18). 
	Second, if the Gentiles were instructed by the Council to respect
the four ritual Mosaic laws required of the sojourners who dwelt among the
Israelites (Lev 17-18), they could hardly have been exempted from
Sabbathkeeping which was seen as even more important than ritual laws. It
is only the fact that Gentile Christians were already observing the
Sabbath that made it unnecessary for the Jerusalem Council even to discuss
it. In the light of these considerations the Jerusalem Council could
hardly have considered exempting Gentile Christians from Sabbathkeeping. 
God made the Sabbath for the Israelites and not for mankind. Your third
assumption is that the Sabbath is a Jewish institution because God made it
for the Israelites, and not for mankind. In your Open Letter you wrote:
"When Jesus came, he never told Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, nor did the
early church. The Sabbath was made for man, Jesus said, and the men God
gave it to were Israelites." 
	Pastor Tkach, I find your interpretation of Christ's memorable
statement "The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27) as meaning the
Israelites only and not mankind, incredible, to say the least. In 25
years of studying Sabbath literature I never read anywhere that
"man-anthropos" means "Israelites," and not "mankind." Surprisingly this
interpretation contradicts your study paper on the SABBATH (May 2, 1995)
which says: "When Jesus used the word 'man' in Mark 2:27, he was using in
a general sense, without reference to Jews specifically or to gentiles
specifically"(p.11). I am wondering what caused you to change your mind.
Was it perhaps a new vision, dream, or a direct communication from God?
Please let us know. 
	The truth of the matter is that Christ establishes the permanent
validity of the Sabbath by appealing to its original creation when God
determined its intended function for the well-being of mankind. Our Lord's
choice of words is significant. The verb "made-ginomai" alludes to the
original "making" of the Sabbath and the word "man-anthropos" suggests its
human function. Thus to establish the human and universal value of the
Sabbath, Christ reverts to its very origin, right after the creation of
man. Why? Because for the Lord the law of the beginning stands supreme. 
	The Early Church did not teach Sabbath keeping. You also mention
in the statement quoted earlier that the Early Church did not teach
Sabbathkeeping. This view ignores the witness of both the New Testament
and the early Christian literature which contain implicit and explicit
indications of the existence of Sabbathkeeping. In this Open Letter I can
only make a brief allusion to a few significant evidences. 
	The earliest indications of Sabbathkeeping come to us from the New
Testament itself. In chapter V of my book THE SABBATH IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT discuss the numerous New Testament references to the fact and
manner of Sabbathkeeping. The unusual coverage given by the Evangelists
to the Sabbath healings and teachings of Christ is indicative of the great
importance attached to Sabbathkeeping at the time of their writing. 
	More significant still is the New Testament witness to the new
Christian understanding of Sabbathkeeping, namely, a day "to do good"
(Matt12:12), "to save" (Mark 3:4), "to loose" physical and spiritual bonds
(Luke13:16), and to show "mercy" rather than religiosity (Matt 12:7). 
This new Christian interpretation indicates that the Apostolic Church did
observe the Sabbath, but with a new meaning and in a new manner. 
	 The existence of Sabbathkeeping is attested also in the early
Post-New Testament references to Sundaykeeping. The Epistle of Barnabas,
for example, dated between A.D. 130 and 138, speaks of the observance of
the "eighth day" (that is, Sunday) in addition to, rather than as a
substitute for the Sabbath. After having argued for the superiority of the
eighth-day, Sunday, over the seventh-day Sabbath, the author writes, "This
is why we also observe the eighth day with rejoicing" (15:9).1 The "also"
(dio kai) suggests that Sunday observance was introduced as an addition to
rather than as a substitute for the Sabbath. 
	Justin Martyr, writing from Rome by the middle of the second
century, differentiates between two types of Sabbathkeepers. He speaks of
some Sabbathkeepers who compelled everybody to observe the Sabbath and of
other Sabbathkeepers who did not induce others to do likewise. 2 This
clearly implies that Sabbathkeepers existed in Rome by the middle of the
second century, though they appear to have been a minority. 
	In the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, dated in the middle of the
second century, Jesus is reported to have said, "If you fast not from the
world, you will not find the kingdom; if you keep not the Sabbath as
Sabbath, you will not see the Father" (chapter 27). Though this saying can
hardly be authentic, it does reflect a high view of the Sabbath in the
community where the document circulated. 
	Another document known as the Martyrdom of Polycarp, dated about
A.D. 120, records that Polycarp's death occurred on "a Festival
Sabbathday" (8:1). This phrase could well reflect Sabbath observance among
some Christians in Asia Minor, in spite of their hostile attitude toward
the Jews exhibited in the narrative. Another document known as the
Martyrdom of Polycarp, dated about A.D. 120, records that Polycarp's death
occurred on "a Festival Sabbath day" (8:1). This phrase could well reflect
Sabbath observance among some Christians in Asia Minor, in spite of their
hostile attitude toward the Jews exhibited in the narrative. 
	Early in the third century, the Alexandrian theologian, Origen,
refers to Sabbath observance in a sermon, saying: "Forsaking therefore
the Judaic Sabbath observance, let us see what kind of Sabbath observance
is expected of the Christian. On the Sabbath day, nothing of worldly
activity should be done. If therefore desisting from all worldly works
and doing nothing mundane but being free for spiritual works, you come to
church, listen to divine readings and discussions and think of heavenly
things, give heed to the future life, keep before your eyes the coming
judgment, disregard present and visible things in favor of the invisible
and future, this is the observance of the Christian Sabbath." 

3 Origen's mention of Sabbathkeeping in Alexandria is significant, since
two centuries later two church historians, Socrates Scholasticus and
Sozomen, inform us that the custom of assembling together on the Sabbath
was practiced everywhere except in Rome and Alexandria. 4 A major factor
which contributed to an earlier abandonment of Sabbathkeeping in these two
cities was, as I have shown elsewhere, the presence of strong anti-Judaic
feelings.
	For the sake of brevity I will not list other sources
indicatingthe existence of Sabbathkeeping both in the East and West. One
of the most telling evidences of the Sabbathkeeping in early Christianity
which is often ignored is found in the ongoing polemic against
Sabbathkeeping. The bizarre and sometimes ridiculous arguments which were
fabricated to show the superiority of Sunday over the Sabbath, are
indicative not only of the existence of, but also of the influence exerted
by Sabbathkeepers. 
	Justin Martyr (about 150), for example, argues that Christians
must not observe the Sabbath because it is a Mosaic ordinance given
exclusively to the Jews (does it sound familiar?) as a sign of their
wickedness to distinguish them for punishment they justly deserve. 
Instead, Christians are to assemble for worship on Sunday to commemorate
the first day creation of light and the resurrection. 5 Justin's false and
senseless denunciation of Sabbathkeeping as a trademark of Jewish
depravity must be seen as a desperate attempt to wean Christians away from
such a practice. Another fitting example of the ongoing Sabbath/Sunday
controversyis found in the Syriac Didascalia (c. 250), where the author
appeals to Sabbathkeepers to stop saying "that the Sabbath is prior to the
first day of the week" because, he argues, when the first day, Sunday, was
made at creation "the seventh day was yet unknown." He continues, "which
is greater, that which had come into being, and existed, or that which was
yet unknown, and of which there was no expectation that it should come to
be?" 
	The author draws another argument from the paternal blessings which are
bestowed not on the last but on the first child and also from Matthew
20:16, which says, "The last shall be first and the first last." On the
basis of such senseless reasoning he concludes that Sunday is greater than
the Sabbath. 7 These bizarre and artificial arguments to justify
Sundaykeeping are indicative of the existence and persistence of
Sabbathkeeping in early Christianity. 


IS SABBATHKEEPING REQUIRED TO BE SAVED? 

	An important question you asked me in your Open Letter is: "Do you
believe God requires Christians to keep the Sabbath to be saved? Of
course, not one New Testament verse says that. It does say that Peter was
free to live as a gentile, and that Roman Christians could choose not to
observe special days to God." 
	My answer to your first question is simple. Salvation is first and
foremost a divine gift and not a human achievement. No person will ever
be saved or lost because he or she observed or did not observed the
Sabbath. We are not saved by observing commandments but through Christ's
atoning death. 
	Accepting God's gift of salvation means, however, also accepting
God's claim to conformity to His will through the grace of Christ.
Salvation is a gift of grace but the acceptance of this gift requires a
response of obedience which shows the genuineness of our faith.
Sabbathkeeping offers us a unique opportunity to respond to God because
the consecration of the Sabbath time to the Lord enables us to consecrate
our life to Him. 
	By enjoining us to stop our work, the Sabbath makes us free and
available for God's omnipotent grace to work in us. The act of resting on
the Sabbath represents the acceptance of salvation by grace and not by
works. It represents our renunciation of human efforts to achieve
salvation and our willing acceptance of God's gracious provision of
salvation. We stop our work on the Sabbath to allow God to work in us. 


THE MOSAIC LAW IS NO LONGER THE STANDARD OF CHRISTIAN CONDUCT

	A final point I would like to address is your view that the Mosaic
law is no longer the standard of Christian conduct. You wrote: "What you
fail to see is that Paul does not hold the Mosaic law as a moral standard
of Christian conduct. Rather, he holds up Jesus Christ, the suffering of
the cross, the law of Christ, the fruit and leadership of the Holy Spirit,
nature, creation and the moral principles that were generally understood
throughout the gentile world as the basis of Christian ethics. He never -
I repeat, never - argues that the law is the foundation of Christian
ethics. Paul looks at Golgotha, not Sinai." 
	My immediate reaction to this statement is one of total disbelief.
I cannot believe that you really believe what you wrote. Do you really
believe that Paul rejects the moral principles found in the Mosaic law in
favor of some hazy ethical principles derived solely from Christ, the Holy
Spirit, and moral values as generally accepted in the Gentile world? Which
were the moral principles of the Gentile world by which Christians were to
live? If your contention were true, it would imply that the moral
principles God revealed through Moses, are inadequate and inferior to
those found in Christ's teaching and in the Gentile world. Is this what
the New Testament teaches? 
	Did not Christ spend much of His ministry clarifying the spirit
and intent of God's law? Did not Christ affirm that He came not to abolish
but to fulfil the law (Matt 5:17), that is, to show its fuller meaning?
Did not Christ teach that we break the sixth commandment not only by
killing with the sword, but also by hating and insulting our brethren
(Matt 5:22-23)? Did not Christ teach that we break the seventh
commandment not only by committing adultery, but also by looking lustfully
at a woman (Matt 5:27-28)? Did not Christ teach that Sabbathkeeping is not
only rules to obey but people to love (Matt 12:8; Luke 13:10-17)? Did
Christ invent these moral principles or did He clarify the moral
principles of the Mosaic law? 
	Did Paul reject the "Mosaic law as a moral standard of Christian
conduct"? If this were true, why then did Paul write that "the law is
holy and just and good" (Rom 7:12) and that God sent "his Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh . . . in order that the just requirement of the
law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:3-4)? Why did Paul write that "neither
circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the
commandments of God" (1 Cor 7:19)? 
	In my previous Open Letter, Pastor Tkach, I discussed at some
length how Paul rejects the law as a method of salvation but upholds it as
a standard of Christian conduct. I would urge you to reread those two
pages where I address this issue. If you prefer to read another author, I
would recommend the chapter on "The Law" in George Eldon Ladd's book
ATHEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. This is a standard textbook in many
theological seminaries. As you know, Prof. Ladd from Fuller Theological
Seminary is one of the most respected and influential evangelical scholars
of our generation. I will quote here only few paragraphs. 
	Ladd writes: "By fulfilling the promise given to Abraham, Christ
has ended the age of the Law. . . . However, it is clear that inasmuch as
Paul always regards the Law as holy and just and good, he never thinks of
the Law as being abolished. It remains the expression of the will of God.
This is evident from his frequent assertion that redemption in Christ
enables believers in some real sense to fulfill the Law. . . . The
permanence of the Law is reflected further in the fact that Paul appeals
to specific commands in the Law as the norm for Christian conduct. . . .
Christ has brought the Law as a way of righteousness and as a ceremonial
code to its end; but the Law as the expression of the will of God is
permanent; and the man indwelt by the Holy spirit and thus energized by
love is enabled to fulfill the Law as men under the Law never could"
(pp.509-510). 
	Contrary to your contention, Pastor Tkach, that Paul, "never - I
repeat, never - argues that the law is the foundation of Christian ethics,
"Prof. Ladd affirms: " The permanence of the Law is reflected further in
the fact that Paul appeals to specific commands in the Law as the norm for
Christian conduct." 
	Frankly, I am perplexed by your attempts to negate the validity
and value for Christians of God's law in general and of the Sabbath
commandment in particular. It reminds me of Marcion (about A. D. 140) who
rejected the OT in general and the Sabbath in particular because he
believed they were the product of an evil god. It is unfortunate that the
influence of Marcion's dualism, as Adolf Harnack, the famous German church
historian has pointed out, has plagued Christianity to this very day. In
many ways this is reflected in the New Covenant Theology that you have
adopted. 
	In closing this letter I feel a bit disappointed, because I was
hoping to deal also with two critical texts (Col 2:14-16; Rom 14:4-5) to
which you appeal in the attachment to the Open Letter to support your
abrogation view of the Sabbath. I have done considerable research on these
texts which I would love to share with your members. But this would double
the length of this already lengthy letter. Perhaps I might be able to
share this research in the next Open Letter. I trust that you will choose
to reply and thus continue this dialogue which for some of your members
may be the only chance to hear a scholarly response to your new theology. 
	Thank you, Pastor Tkach, for granting me the opportunity to
dialogue with you and your members through this medium. Rest assured that
our theological differences do not detract from the respect that I have
for you as a person. I still hope that someday we might be able to sit
down and discuss these issues in an informal setting. 
	May the Lord continue to richly bless your life and endeavors to
understand His revealed will for yourself and your church members. 

Christian regards

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D
Professor of theology and Church History
Andrews University


NOTES	

1. The Epistle of Barnabas 15:9.
2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 47.
3. Origen, Homily 23, on Numbers, Patrologica Graeca 12, 749-750.	
4. Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 5, 22;Sozomen, 
     Ecclesiastical History 7, 19.
5. Justin's texts are cited and analyzed in From Sabbath to Sunday 
     (Rome, 1977), pp. 223-233.
6. Syriac Didascalia 26, ed. R. Hugh Connolly (Oxford, 1929), p. 233.
7. Ibid.