Reply to Dr. Bacon's Discussion of the Second Adam
The Typological Argument for Sunday Transference

(Ted Noel, September 12, 2000)

A Call for Scholarship

As all students will recognize, it is difficult to dispute any point of a proffered argument without sounding contentious. I will make every effort to avoid such a tone. This may be difficult, for, as my mother is fond of noting, Noels are experts with the cactus touch, not the "tactus" touch. I pray that I may be able to remain in the tone and spirit of our Lord and master as we discuss his word. I will re-re-read this material to avoid any such untoward statements, but in the event that one slips through, I ask the forgiveness of Dr. Bacon and the reader in advance.

It is our task in this endeavor to determine the content of the Biblical record, not what we would like to see in it. We are all called to be students (2 Tim 2:15), and should examine the record for ourselves (cf. Acts 17:11). Therefore, I call on all readers to look up every text, examine every proposition, and finally to be convinced in their own minds (Rom 14:5) as to the truth of any proposition. With that said, let us examine the foundation Dr. Bacon proposes to lay.

All scriptural quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise noted.

The Importance of the Resurrection

We happily agree that Jesus is our Savior, and died on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, which were an ultimate indirect consequence of the sins of Adam and Eve. And it is of particular importance that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. But we must immediately part ways as to the reason for that importance. The best expositor of this issue is Christ himself.

Jesus foretold that he would be killed, would lay in the grave, and would rise again on the third day (Matt 16:21, Mark 8:31; 9:31, Luke 9:22, John 2:19-21, cf. Matt 26:61; 27:40, Mark 14:58; 15:29, Luke 19:47). Thus, since he died on the preparation day, the day we know as Friday (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:14, 31, 42), the third day was the first day of the week. Had he not risen on that day, he would have lied to his listeners. This would have disqualified him as our sinless sacrifice.

Jesus also explained just why he was telling the disciples of his future death and resurrection. In John 13:19 we find that it is so that they will know "that I AM." In John 14:29 it is so that they will "believe." In other words, this prophecy is the capstone in the arch of truth which the disciples were being taught. It is of particular importance that these statements are between the Last Supper and Jesus' arrest. It tells us that the specific focus of the statement is the cross and resurrection. The disciples did not yet have a true understanding of the nature of Jesus' mission. Jesus told them so that they would become eyewitnesses (Acts 1:8). John records this charge.

26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me,
27 and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. John 15:26-7

In the very first recorded encounter between the apostles and the people after the cross, we find that Peter explicitly identifies this as the authority by which he is able to preach the gospel.

32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Acts 2:32

In fact, being an eyewitness was so important that when it was time to replace Judas, only eyewitnesses to the resurrection were considered as candidates.

21 "It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-
22 beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-- one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection. " Acts 1:21-22

Later on, in the epistles, we repeatedly find that being an eyewitness is a key element of the message (1 John 1:1-3, Acts 5:32; 10:39; 13:31, 1 Cor 15:15). Even Paul claims this status (1 Cor 15:1-3, 8, see 1 Cor 11:23). In fact, the entire New Testament corpus of epistles may be classified as direct witnesses to the gospel which Paul defines for us in 1 Cor 15:1-5.

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

We should carefully notice the elements that Paul declares to be of "first importance" regarding the gospel. Jesus 1) died for our sins 2) was buried 3) rose on the third day and 4) appeared to witnesses. We should also note that at no time does he say that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, even though it is true and Paul knew it. This is very significant. By omitting the day of the week in the list of important things, Paul is saying that the day of the week is not important! This is sufficiently decisive as to call for restatement. Rising on the "third day" is of "first importance," but rising on the "first day of the week" is unimportant. As we study other "proofs" of Sunday observance, we will find this to be a repeated pattern. Events which may have occurred on the first day of the week are not stated as being on that day because the day of the week was unimportant. So why was it so important on resurrection Sunday?

Jesus died on the preparation day, or Friday. He was in the tomb on Sabbath, and rose on the first day of the week. This is three days by Jewish inclusive counting. On that Sunday he appeared to three recorded groups of witnesses. The gospel accounts specifically record details which are designed to demonstrate the physical fact of his timely resurrection as well as his divine nature. These events become the foundation of faith which is both Christianity and the body of the NT. As we will discover later when discussing specific days, there is no religious content in these accounts referable to institution of religious significance for Sunday. But there is a wealth of specific material which defines the importance of the resurrection on the third day. And the identified days allow us to repeat the count of days reported in scripture so that we can confirm it.

Fulfilling the Sabbath

As we read through Dr. Bacon's post, we find that one underlying premise of his position is that the seventh day Sabbath is a temporary "type" which Jesus fulfilled as an "antitype." In order to understand just what is being proposed, we must briefly review the concept of types. Fortunately, the Bible contains specific examples identified by exactly this language. Rom 5:14 identifies Adam as a "type of him who was to come." Paul describes Adam as the "first Adam" in 1 Cor 15:45 where he then identifies Jesus as the second Adam. That is, in certain ways, Adam was an acted out prophecy pointing to Jesus.

While scripture is seldom quite this direct in its language, we may readily identify a substantial number of types. Obvious examples include David as a type of Jesus as king (Psa 89, 132, Amos 9:11-15, etc.), Melchizedek as a type of Jesus as a different kind of high priest (Gen 14:18-24, Psa 110, cf. Heb 6:19-7:28), the lamb of the guilt/sin offering as a type of Jesus (Lev 5:6, cf. John 1:29), and so on. In fact, essentially every element of the tabernacle furnishings and services is a type of Christ in one way or another. Which brings us to another key feature of types.

When the antitype comes, the temporary type is obsolete (Heb 8:13ff). As the writer of Hebrews points out, the type "disappears" when the antitype comes. Thus, when Jesus became the atoning sin offering on the cross (Heb 8-9), the earthly sanctuary was no longer valid. We see this physically in the fact that the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was torn by an angel from top to bottom at the moment Jesus died (Matt 27:51, Luke 23:45). This allowed anyone to look into the Holy of Holies at any time, and demonstrated to all that the glory of God had departed. The ultimate sacrifice for sin took away the need for further sacrifices which could not truly cleanse the sinner (Heb 9:9-10). This brings us to the first problem with using the Sabbath as a type. If the Sabbath is a type which Jesus fulfilled, then it should vanish at the cross, not change from the seventh day to the first day.

The second problem is that every type was in some way a part of the great controversy. That implies that every type came into being as a way to point to the victory of Christ over sin. No type came into being before sin entered the world because there was no need for them. This is of great importance, since the Sabbath, as we have discovered earlier, came into being in the sinless Garden of Eden. But some may object that Adam was a type. This is true, but he did not become a type until he sinned, an act which changed him from his original state. That is, the type in Paul=s reference is sinful Adam, not sinless Adam.

Marriage as a Type

We must for completeness mention marriage, which has its origin in sinless Eden. It was first used in typological form in the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa 49:18; 61:10; 62:5) and Jeremiah (Jer 2:32), although the imagery of apostasy as harlotry permeates the entire O.T. But we must note that this adaptation of the imagery differs from all other types. The church, which is the antitypical bride of Christ, the antitypical groom (Rev 21:9-10), exists today, but the institution of Biblical marriage remains unchanged. Marriage will cease in the kingdom (Luke 20:34-35, Matt 22:30), when the marriage of the Lamb is complete (Rev 19:9; 21:2, 9-10; 22:17).

Typology and the Sabbath

The Sabbath is even more special than marriage in that it has its origin in Eden and as we have shown in prior posts, it will continue in the kingdom. If the Sabbath has been adapted to serve as a type, then by the example of Biblical marriage, it will continue unchanged. If, on the other hand, the Sabbath were to be a temporary type with Jesus the antitype, "fulfilling the Sabbath" would imply the obsolescence of the Sabbath and its disappearance. In that case, Isa 66:23 would become difficult to explain.

There are two passages in scripture which can be taken directly to suggest that the Sabbath is a type. The first is Col 2:16-17.

16 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

It is asserted that the Sabbath is clearly referred to in this passage as a type by using "shadow," reminiscent of Heb 8:5 where the temple is referred to as a "copy and shadow" of the heavenly sanctuary. Before examining this premise, we must notice the complete passage. First Paul lists five things: food, drink, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths. Then he says that all these things are shadows of what is to come. That is, whatever the meaning of "shadow" is in this passage, it applies to all five items. Having noticed this facet of the statement, we must move on to the issue of just what the list includes.

There are four major interpretations of this passage of which I am aware. The first is the classic Seventh-day Adventist position. It says that "Sabbaths" means the O.T. festivals, all of which were called sabbaths. This would neatly dispose of the weekly Sabbath as a consideration. I believe it to be incorrect because Paul has repeated a typical Jewish literary pattern in this text. He lists, in order, festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths. Such a list occurs in 1 Chr 23:31, 2 Chr 2:4; 8:13; 31:3, Ezek 45:17; Neh 10:33, Hos 2:11, and a number of ancient non-canonical references. In Col 2:16 it is in "yearly, monthly, weekly" order, while in the passages cited it is sometimes in reverse order.

The problem with finding annual sabbaths here is that Paul would then be listing in "yearly, monthly, yearly" order, which does not fit Jewish thinking. His intention is clearly to include all religious events regardless of frequency. Thus, the weekly Sabbath is in view. But we should note that Paul gives no hint that he is aware of any change in the Sabbath. In fact, his language assumes its continuance in its original form. He is concerned not with its existence, but with the rules imposed on it by men. (The Greek krineto/judge implies official judgment of compliance with rules.)

The second approach is that Paul is referring to the sacrifices related to each of the five items [1]. There were meat and drink offerings as well as annual, monthly, and Sabbatical sacrifices. We know that the Jews, including those at Colossae, continued to pay temple tax to support the sacrifices after the cross.

I find this to be an unsatisfying explanation since the sacrifices became obsolete at the cross. As a result, it seems anachronistic for Paul to discuss them in a Christian context. Further, in verse 18 Paul continues the discussion of the heresy by including asceticism and worship of angels. Modern archeology has uncovered curse tablets in ancient Colossae which suggest that its predominant nature was that of a Jewish-pagan syncretism [2].

The third approach is that Paul's intention is that no one should offer any opinions contrary to how anyone observes or does not observe the Sabbath. This would allow the Sabbath to be of no importance. It should be noted that such an interpretation would be a theological non-sequitur. What men think of our religious behavior has never been a criterion for how we should behave. We will all give our account to God (Rom 14:12), not to men. Therefore, whatever men think about the Sabbath is of no theological importance. This interpretation would also contradict the permanence we have already discovered for the Sabbath.

The fourth approach, I believe, does justice to the entire context. Paul does not use the term nomos/law anywhere in the epistle, so he is not referring to the ten commandments or the Mosaic law. By using krineto to describe enforcement of rules by human authorities, he is telling the Colossians not to allow men to tell them how to worship or live. The list is a general one which acts as an umbrella to cover the bulk of activities which may take on religious importance. Paul's proscription is parallel in theme to Jesus' statement in Mark 7:8 where he accuses the Pharisees of neglecting God's law by observing rules written by men.

We must make one other comment. If the Sabbath is intended by Col 2:16-17 to be of a form which was to be changed by typological function from Sabbath to Sunday, then new moons, festivals, food and drink are all to be changed by their typological function. Since there is no change to new moons or drink, to pick two which are clearly uncontroversial, then the idea of a change in the Sabbath becomes very much open to question.

Colossian "Shadows"

This brings us to just what is meant by the statement that these five items are shadows. If we insist on a typological application, then only the interpretation that Paul is talking about the sacrifices will fit. All the sacrifices and offerings pointed to Christ, and all were extinguished when their antitype was manifested on the cross (Dan 9:27, Matt 27:51). This, however, would say nothing at all about the existence of day of observance of the Sabbath. Another possibility exists.

The Greek skia/shadow has the connotation of nonsubstantiality and emptiness, particularly when compared to soma/body. Virtually all modern translations emphasize this contrast by pointing out the substantiality of Christ here. This suggests that the point Paul is making is not typological at all, but rather the same point he makes in 1 Cor 13:9-12. I quote the Living Bible because it brings this point home most clearly.

9 Now we know so little, even with our special gifts, and the preaching of those most gifted is still so poor.
10 But when we have been made perfect and complete, then the need for these inadequate special gifts will come to an end, and they will disappear.
11 It's like this: when I was a child I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child does. But when I became a man my thoughts grew far beyond those of my childhood, and now I have put away the childish things.
12 In the same way, we can see and understand only a little about God now, as if we were peering at his reflection in a poor mirror; but someday we are going to see him in his completeness, face to face. Now all that I know is hazy and blurred, but then I will see everything clearly, just as clearly as God sees into my heart right now.

Here Paul is pointing out that, as humans, we are so blind as to have great difficulty seeing the realities of God. But one passage alone cannot make this case. We need another witness. Job 8:9 refers to our days on earth as a "shadow." In Job 17:7 we see a particularly apt use.

7 "My eye has also grown dim because of grief, And all my members are as a shadow.

This thought of nonsubstantiality is also found in Psa 102:11; 109:23; and 144:4. It also appears in Heb 10:1, where the law is noted to be nonsubstantial and is unable as a result to perfect those who draw near to it and its services. While shadow is used in many other ways, it is consistent with Jewish thought patterns to use it in this non-typological way. Paul is telling the Colossians that the things that they see, touch, and observe are insubstantial when contrasted with the reality of God. This does not lead to their unreality, but rather to the awareness of the insignificance of man when compared to God. This approach to the text also fits with the Jewish-pagan heresy, because pagans attempted to make gods out of what they could observe, and therefore made for themselves a "true knowledge" which was imaginary in fact. God has revealed himself to us directly, and it is worthless to become "wise" by anything other than that revelation (1 Cor 2:6-16).

"Shadows" Redux

It has been suggested that the phrase "shadow of what is to come" (skia ton mellonton) nearly requires a typological interpretation. This would then require an antitypical termination of the Sabbath. But if we insist on a typical application of the list in Col 2:16, the Sabbath itself is not in view because only the sacrifices can satisfy the requirements of typology for all five elements of the list. On the other hand, if we abandon the idea of typology, then only the charge to reject the false judicial authority of man over Sabbath observation seems to satisfy the requirements imposed on the interpreter by the text. In neither case does the validity or day of observance of the Sabbath come into view.

Sunday sabbatarianism requires a transformation of the seventh day to the first day. Only the permissive interpretation can allow Sunday observance, but in that case the sacredness of the day is lost. This leaves Sunday sabbatarianism without support in Col 2:16, since permissiveness can allow any day of the week to be observed. The only requirement of permissiveness is the absence of a coercive rule which sabbatarianism of either variety requires.

The Sabbath Rest

This brings us to Heb 4. First we must note that entire chapter is a continuation and extension of the discussion in Heb 3. There the argument develops the contrast between believers and unbelievers in the group of people who were led out of Egypt by Moses. Because of unbelief, God swore that they would not enter his rest in the land of Canaan (Heb 3:11, 18-19). That generation died in the wilderness.

Rest in the land is first promised to Israel in Deut 12:8-10, and is a recurring theme throughout the O.T. The hiphil stem of the Hebrew root nuah/to rest, when combined with the preposition le/"to" or "for" (e.g. "Rest for Israel," etc.) and a person or group becomes a special technical term. Thus, in some twenty instances we find heniah le to be a place granted by the Lord (Ex 33:14, Deut 3:20, Josh 1:13, 15: 22:4; 2 Chron 14:5), a peace and respite from enemies round about (Deut 12:10; 25:19, Josh 21:44; 23:1, 2 Sam 7:1, 11, 1 Ki 5:18, 1 Chr 22:9, 18; 23:25, 2 Chr 14:6; 15:15; 20:30; 32:22), or a cessation of sorrow and toil in the future (Isa 14:3; 28:12). [3]

As we move into chapter 4 there is noted a promise of rest (vv. 1-2). Then Psa 95:11 (a curse against faithless Israelites in the wilderness) is welded to Gen 2:2 to draw a picture of the nature of the rest. It is the rest God entered at creation on the seventh day Sabbath, which those who harden their hearts (Psa 95:8-11) will not receive. That is, it is a rest for all who are saved, and has existed from the foundation of the world. We find that this is the message of verses 3, 5, and 10.

This concept of rest is continued in verse 8 where Joshua is cited as not giving the Israelites rest. When the sections of the book of Joshua to which this refers are examined (Josh 21-24) we find that the rest is the peaceful occupation of the land. God had given the Israelites rest in the promised land, but they threw it away by apostasy. When Joshua questioned the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, they promised fealty to God. Joshua was shown that they would not honor their promise, and so prophesied (Josh 24:19). Joshua was not able to give them the rest of obedience. Thus he spoke of another day, a day of disobedience. Thus, if the other day cited is Sunday, then it would be a sign of rebellion.

This concept of rest in the land is found repeated in Heb 11:9-10, speaking of Abraham.

9 By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise;
10 for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Abraham entered into the rest of God, which is, has been and according to Isa 66:23 will be forever signified by the seventh-day Sabbath. Let us consider the rest of Hebrews 4. The "sabbath-keeping" which is promised forever in verse 9 is a result of God's statement that "today" (Psa 95:7) is the time to come to salvation. The Sabbath rest of God is the result of our salvation. It is the time when we dwell in peace in that city Abraham sought for and which the church now inhabits (Heb 12:22-24). But we must note that this is exactly the same rest that was promised throughout history, without any change.

The writer of Hebrews has used an historical type to show the nature of the eternal antitypical rest in the kingdom with God. By pointing us back to the seventh day Sabbath (4:2, 9) he is showing us that the present-day sign of that eternal rest promised by Jesus (Matt 11:28) is the seventh day Sabbath, the same sign of obedience we found in the discussion of the Mark of the Beast and the Seal of God in a prior essay.

Other Selected Issues

Having devoted large amounts of ink to a couple of foundational issues, let us now turn our attention to specific suggestions by Dr. Bacon.

A New Covenant of Grace?

Dr. Bacon suggests that the new covenant was the covenant of grace, while the old covenant was something else, perhaps a covenant of works. If that is true, it should be found in scripture. But when we consider the record, a different picture appears. Grace is defined generally as a gift from God. While theologians may discuss many different aspects of grace, the key aspect is defined as our salvation as a gift from God (Rom 6:23). When we examine the O.T., we find that in the midst of the sentencing of Adam and Eve, God declares that he will provide a savior (Gen 3:15). Adam and Eve cannot save themselves, so God by grace provides the escape.

We see this again in the tabernacle services. The key element of them is that God will forgive (an act of grace) anyone who will bare his soul and confess his sin (Lev 16:16-31). These sins are brought by the typical priest to God and forgiven. This priestly function is now performed by antitypical priest Jesus (1 Tim 2:5, Heb 4:14-16; 7:25). The entire O.T. rule is summed up in Micah 6:8.

8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

This is what Enoch did (Gen 5:24), and what we are to do. The old covenant was just as much a covenant of grace as the new. So what is the difference? The new covenant has God's law written on our hearts (Jer 31:31-33).

We must also note that the process of atonement discussed just above is described in Hebrew by the root kahf-pe-rehsh or kippur. (Modern Jews celebrate Yom Kippur, which is the Day of Atonement.) The verb means "to deliver or ransom someone by means of a substitute." This is exactly what we describe in the N.T. as a "substitutionary sacrifice," a "ransom" (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim 2:6) or a "propitiation" (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 John 2:2; 4:10). In other words, the N.T. concept of atonement as an act of grace is exactly identical to the O.T. concept (quoted in Hebrews 8 and 10, the longest O.T. passage quoted in the N.T.).

A New International Covenant?

Dr. Bacon suggests that the new covenant was international, implying that the original was not. To this we must consider that the eternal covenant given to Adam and Eve (Gen 3:15) was given to the entire population of the world. When it was renewed with Noah (Gen 9:9ff) it was with Noah and his descendants forever. This defines the entire population of the world. Abraham was to be a blessing (present tense) to "all the families" of the world (Gen 12:1-3). God's eternal covenant has always been with the entire world, as Paul implies in Rom 1:20.

Lest we forget, Jesus strengthened the covenant with the Jews for seven years (Dan 9:27, cf. Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24), but died after three and a half. That "old covenant" with them was in force until three and a half years after the cross, and was terminated by the covenant lawsuit prosecuted by Stephen (Acts 7) which brought it to an end. Any proposed change of the Sabbath to Sunday based on old/new covenant theology must take into account the fact that both covenants were concurrent for these three and one half years.

We should also note that in Mark 2:27 Jesus specifically states that the Sabbath was made for "man," implying all of humanity. It's hard to be more universal than that.

This is the Day = Sunday?

"...this is the day the Lord has made" refers only in a typical fashion to the Sabbath(s) of the Old Testament, but is fulfilled completely in Christ's resurrection and his victory over death and the grave.""

While we readily agree that the prophecy of Psalm 118:22-29 is clearly Messianic, we must note that there is a considerable problem with identifying Sunday in it. If we assume that Jesus became the chief cornerstone on resurrection Sunday, we can see how this might be construed as suggesting Sunday observance. But there are at least two more considerations which seem closer to the Biblical intent.

Isa 25:9 and 49:8 refer to a "day of salvation," which is the general thrust of the Psalmist. He is celebrating the fact of salvation. Paul amplifies this thought in 2 Cor 6:2, where he emphasizes that "now" is the day of salvation. And as we read further in the prophecy, we find that the emphasis is not on resurrection, but on sacrifice. In verse 27 we find that the action which leads to all blessings is the sacrifice which is to be bound "to the four horns of the altar." Thus, this passage points to the cross, not the resurrection. If, therefore, it were to point to a specific day of the week, it would point to Friday, the day of the cross, not Sunday! This matches perfectly with the only new observance specifically commanded in the N.T., that of proclaiming the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:26).

1 Cor 16:2

I had expected to deal with this passage later on when we would tackle specific evidence proffered for Sunday observance, but since Dr. Bacon brings it up here, I will reply.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (KJV)

Our first step must be the Greek. While this text is correctly translated, it loses something in the process. Paul wrote this to believers in Corinth, a major Greek city. The bulk of them would be Gentiles, and would have grown up using the normal Greek expressions for each day of the week. The first day of the week would be known as the "day of the sun" to them. But Paul does not use this term. Nor does he use the term kuriakee' heemera or "Lord's Day" (cf. Rev 1:10). He says "kata mian sabbatou." This literally means "every first of the Sabbath/week." (Note the word sabbatou for "week," which is derived from "Sabbath.") While there were Jews and synagogues in Corinth, this would be a foreign expression to most, and would require education. In other words, just to understand the instruction, a new Gentile believer would have to be taught the seventh-day Sabbath!

Next we must consider the nature of the command. (I used the KJV because it follows the Greek more closely than the NIV or NASB.) Each believer is instructed to review his finances each Sunday. Then he is to save from them a portion for God's work. He is to set it aside "by him," that is, in his own house or place of business. When Paul returns, then all the money will be ready for Paul to take back to Jerusalem.

These actions are not in the nature of a religious service or Sunday observance. An examination of one's finances is part of one's daily work, from which we are specifically commanded to rest on the Sabbath. Second, the money is not to be gathered to a central repository on Sunday, but kept individually for when Paul arrives. Finally, there is no religious observance listed.

This text simply says that before you begin your work week, you are to set God's portion aside. The language in which it is couched implies that the Sabbath is to be observed, then this task is done after the Sabbath and before you engage in all the weekly labors. God is to be first in your finances as well as your time. Far from supporting Sunday observance, this passage is actually a strong support for Sabbath observance.

Jesus Entered His Rest?

"It was on that day (the resurrection day) that Jesus entered his rest"

Let us consider one of the texts that Dr. Bacon proffers for this idea.

26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" Luke 24:26

Does this tell us that Jesus began to rest on resurrection day? I submit that it does not. Jesus was actively teaching on Sunday on the Emmaus road as he spoke this sentence. This was the second of three appearances he made that day. This doesn't sound like rest to me. One Sabbath Jesus shed some light on this what he was doing.

17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." John 5:17

What was the nature of that work that both were engaging in? It was our salvation. It was the same task he was performing on the Emmaus road. It is the same task the priests did in the temple on the Sabbath (Matt 12:5), but were blameless in doing. Did that in any way cease at the cross? I submit that it did not. We have record of a number of appearances of Jesus over the forty days after the cross. These were all part of that same work. And after the ascension, we see his work as our high priest and intercessor (1 Tim 2:5, Heb 4:14-16; 7:25). Jesus is working in a different capacity now, but his work has not ended, and will not end until after the judgments and the establishment of the new earth.

The reader should check out every text proffered by Dr. Bacon. They are: Luke 24:1, 26, 46, Heb 3:1; 4:10, 14, Rom 1:4, Isa 25:7-9; 26:19; 33:1-5, 1 Cor 15:1, 12-22, 45-49. Note the context of each. Many deal with the second coming rather than the resurrection, and all have a context which shows that Jesus did not enter his rest on resurrection day.

A Few Miscellaneous Thoughts

Dr. Bacon suggests that "[The Sabbath] found its fuller form subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on the first day of the week." This thought is presented in many forums, including the Papal Encyclical Dies Domini, but scriptural support has always been lacking. Perhaps Dr. Bacon could provide us with some direct scriptural commentary on this point.

Jesus told us that "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18) It is quite clear from the flow of the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus is speaking of the entire course of earth's history, not just to the cross. Thus, the Sabbath command, which specifically identifies the seventh day as the Sabbath and is the very center of the law, will not change.

Dr. Bacon clearly would like to see the Sabbath changed to Sunday as a Biblical warrant for Sunday observance. And we have agreed in advance that we will not have competing histories. But I think that it may be of some value to note that recent scholarship indicates that the change did not occur as a Biblical warrant within the church. Instead, our best information is that it was a slow development of new theological ideas, attached to loose Biblical interpretations in response to external stress in the form of persecution of Sabbath-keeping. [4]

Summary

All evidence considered so far points to the permanence of the seventh day Sabbath. Whether we consider typology, soteriology, or other disciplines within Biblical theology, none have shown any evidence for a change to Sunday.

While it may seem to be profitable to study the less clearly enunciated issues, we must remember that the Sabbath was declared in no uncertain terms at creation, restated at Sinai, and no similarly clear statement exists to suggest a change in it. I do not feel that it is unreasonable to ask for clear statements of scripture to support a theology of a change to Sunday. Again I retire to await affirmative evidence.

1. "Sabbaton in Col 2:16," Paul Giem, Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol 19, No. 3, 195-210, 1981
2. "The Colossian Syncretism," Clinton E. Arnold, Baker Books, 1996
3. "Toward an Old Testament Theology," Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Zondervan, 1978, pp. 127-130
4. "From Sabbath to Sunday," Samuele Bacchiocchi, Pontifical Gregorian Vatican University Press, 1977, pp. 300-301