The Sabbath Under Cross Fire
In chapter six of his book “The Sabbath Under Cross Fire,” Dr. SamueleBacchiocchi argues against the interpretations of three main passages, Colossians 2:14-17, Galatians 4:8-11, and Romans 10:4-5, that are used by those that hold the “popular view” on the Sabbath.[1]The sabbath is no longer binding on New Covenant Christians. In his chapter, one can tell that he is very intentionalin how he writes. From the vocabulary that he uses to sound knowledgeable and credible and the good use of questions in order to have his readers feel involved in “accurately interpreting” the passages and refuting the traditional view. Despite at times appearing more like he is arguing against a specific person’s view than the overall traditional viewand relying on assumption to make a few claims, Dr. Bacchiocchi does make a persuasive, while not completely convincing, argument for why the sabbath is still binding on Christians, specifically on Saturday.
Dr. Bacchiocchi does an overall good job in gaining the trust of his readers. He does this by the way he first presents a passage with a summarization of its context, so the readers have afairly good understanding of the passage before he begins tobreak it down further. For example, on Colossians 2:14-17, he writes, “theologically, the Colossian ‘philosophy’ (Col 2:8) was competing with Christ for believer’s allegiance…” then he later writes, “The practical outcome of the theological speculations of the Colossian heretics was their insistence on strict ascetism and ritualism…”[2]By doing this consistently in his book, he presents himself as someone that is treating the passage with fairness and not trying toslide anything under the reader. Or, that he is trying to change the meaning of a passage to better fit his argument that he will later present. Very rarely did I find myself having to question his integrity.
In keeping with his ethos, Dr. Bacchiochi didn’t try to just summarize a passage fairly, but he would also, with fairness, attempt to present how others who oppose him view the passage, like those who hold the traditional view. After presenting the passages that are commonly used to “attack the sabbath,” he writes, “based on these texts, [more specifically Colossians 2:14-17] the predominant historical consensus has been that Paul regarded the Sabbath as part of the Old Covenant that was nailed to the cross.”[3] Then he provides a quotation of someone, like Paul K. Jewett, who specifically holds this view: “‘Paul’s statement (Col 2:16) comes as near to a demonstration as anything could, that he taught his converts they had no obligation to observe the seventh-day Sabbath of the Old Testament.’”[4] After he does this throughout the chapter, one is left willing to hear him out despite not agreeing with him.
One could say that his logical approach iswhy one is also left trusting him. By presenting opposing views and even quoting scholars that hold those views, as demonstrated in the previous paragraph, before arguing his disagreement, Dr. Bracchiocchishows that he is going after the logic of a view and not just relying on emotional opinion for why they are wrong. To put it simpler, he does not appear to be one sided in his argument, for he is also presenting the opposing view through quotes of those that hold it. Page 245 holds another example of this. After quoting Luther on the subject of the “Sabbath” from Colossians 2:16-17, Dr. Bacchiochialso quotes Dr. Ratzlaff’s interpretation, “Ratzlaff interprets the passage along the same line [as Luther], saying: ‘The context makes it clear that Paul is against those who are trying to force the Colossians to keep the Sabbath and other old covenant convocations. They are to allow no one to make them feel guilty for not observing them,”’ before expressing why he disagrees with Dr. Ratzlaff, “This interpretation is wrong because in this passage Paul warns the Colossians not against the observances of these practices as such, but against ‘anyone’ (tis) who… imposed ‘regulations’ (Col 2:20) on how to observe these practices…”[5] Often when one argues in a one-sided manner, he has the tendency in creating a strawman argument. This is when one presents a false representation of a view, or belief, in order to easily break it down giving the impression of lazy logic.So,you’re left at least respecting his logical approach despite not agreeing.
One can tell that Dr. Bacchiochi is not lazy in his research. While reading through chapter six of his book, I quickly realized that he was not lazy but well-disciplined in doing his research on whatever topic he was speaking on. Chapter six alone is littered with footnotes and quotes from scholars who spoke on a specific topic. Dr. Douglas De Lacey (Cambridge University New Testament professor), Martin Luther, Dr. Pual K. Jewett (author of “The Lord’s Day”), and former Sabbatarian organization Worldwide Church of God, are a few of the people or people groups that he quotes from.[6] If I am correct, the majority of the people he quotes from do not hold the same theological beliefs as he does. His willingness to research, even those that oppose him, speaks of how disciplined Dr. Bacchiocchi is in making sure he leaves no rock unturned when it comes to properly researching a topic and defending his claim with evidence.
As good as Dr. Bacchiochi is in researching and referencing his evidence, there are some negative affects to providing so many references.At times I’m found myself distracted by the number of references he writes down.Moreover, at times, it feels like he is allowing the references that he is quoting to be doing most of the thinking or writing of a page or paragraph that is regarding a topic. Pages 245-246 provide a good example of the latter. Dr. Bacchiocchi will lead with a sentence stating how the scholar, Dr. De Lacy, agrees with him on a conclusion, then quotes him. “It is noteworthy that even De Lacey reaches this conclusion, in spite of his view that Paul did not expect Gentile converts to observe the Sabbath.He writes: ‘Here again (Col 2:16), then, it seems that Paul could happily countenance Sabbath keeping…However, we interpret the situation, Paul’s statement ‘Let no one pass judgement on you,’ indicates that no stringment regulations are to be laid down over the use of festivals.’”[7]He immediately follows the same pattern in his next paragraph. These are just a few examples of Dr. Bacchiocchi seeming to allow his references to do most of the writing. I still wouldn’t say that he does them enough that it takes away from the overall persuasiveness of his argument throughout the chapter.
While Dr. Bacchiocchi has very good vocabulary, I would say there were times he could have used simpler terms. For a book that is also intended for lay readers and not just scholars, there were times that I found myself having to reread a sentence, or look up a word in the dictionary,so I couldproperly understand what he waswriting. In writing about the agreement of some commentators over the words “a festival or a new moon or a sabbath” from Colossians 2:16, he writes, “…these words represent a logical and progressive sequence (annual, monthly, and weekly), as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times.”[8] Maybe it is from my lack of vocabulary, but I found myself grabbing a dictionary to look up “enumeration”. And I ended up thinking to myself, “why didn’t he just use the word ‘list’? it would have made the same point.” This is just one example of me having to distract myself with a dictionary then having to go back and re-read the passage in order to make sure I understood him correctly. This may very much just be a personal issue of mine, so I can’t heavily hold this against Dr. Bacchiocchi since we all don’t have the same level of vocabulary. Since this could be a personal critique of mine, I can’t say that it should take away from how persuasive his paper objectively was in general.
Despite not agreeing with him completely, Dr. Bacchiochipatience’s in arguing his case ,and not just rushing to his conclusion, is a major reason for why I found him to be persuasive. As stated earlier, Dr. Bacchiocchi would patiently present and summarize a passage for his readers.Next, he would present the traditional view of that passage, with references to a scholar(s) that hold that view. Lastly, Dr. Bacchiocchi would begin to breakdown and provide evidence to why he disagrees with their interpretation. In going over Romans 14 he writes, “[t]hat the Mosaic law is not at stake in Romans 14 is also indicated by the term ‘koinos-common’ which is used in verse 14 to designate ‘unclean’food. This term is radically different from the word ‘akathartos-impure’ used in Leviticus 11 (Septuagint) to designate unlawful foods”, Dr. Bacchiocchiismaking sure that his readers properly understand the terms used in a passage. This demonstrates that he is in no rush to try to convince anyone.Buthe is willing to painstakingly research and argue, with evidence, his conclusion on the subject of the Sabbath and why it is still binding on Christians.[9]
[1]SamueleBacchiocchi, “Paul and The Sabbath,” in The Sabbath Under Crossfire: A Biblical Analysis of Recent Sabbath/Sunday Developments. (Barrien Springs, MN: Biblical Perspectives, 1998), 239.
[2]Ibid., 240.
[3]Ibid., 239.
[4] Ibid., 239.
[5] Ibid., 245.
[6] Ibid., 258-260.
[7] Ibid., 246
[8] Ibid., 248.
[9] Ibid., 251.
