12 CHRISTIAN LIBERTY Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks (Rom. 14:1-6).
The theocentric focus of this passage is the honor of God. Different members of a church seek to honor God in different ways. The message here is that this honoring is legitimately a matter of individual decision-making: a matter of conscience. Neither the church nor its individual members should impose sanctions, positive or negative, for honoring God in one way at the expense of another way.
The Strong and the Weak "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs" (v. 2). Paul gets right to the point: some church members are weak. He identifies a weak member: a person who refuses to eat a particular kind of food. This refusal is not a matter of the food's taste. It is a matter of taboo. The member believes that his commitment to Christ prohibits him from eating a particular food. Peter's revelation in Acts 10 is representative of this sense of taboo. God told Peter that the food taboos of the Mosaic law had ended. "And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven" (Acts 10:13-16).(1) This revelation to Peter should have permanently ended the matter, but it did not, according to Paul's teaching here. Weaker members still had moral doubts about certain foods. So, Paul affirms God's revelation to Peter: no food is unclean in God's eyes. Nevertheless, in the eyes of weak Christians, there is uncleanliness in certain foods. One mark of spiritual maturity is the lack of such concern. Paul wrote: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Rom. 14:14).
The implication here is that some church members are theologically stronger than others. The strong ones, Paul says here, are those who are free from any sense of taboo regarding the foods they eat. Paul is writing this to a gentile church. He knows that there may be Jews in the membership. There may be members who were recruited from religions that have food taboos. He does not say that these people must abandon these taboos for the sake of Christ. He says only that they should not condemn others who do not honor these taboos.
The Jerusalem Council
The Jerusalem council had already dealt with the issue of prohibited foods. Members who were part of the Pharisee sect had argued that gentiles must be circumcised and must obey the Mosaic law (Acts 15:5). The council met to settle this question. "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they" (Acts 15:7-11). James followed Peter and made this suggestion: "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15:19-20). The council accepted this recommendation (vv. 22-29).
The deciding issue was not what kind of animal it was. The issue was its mode of death. Demonic paganism returns again and again to the drinking of blood. This is a matter of ritual.(2) Drinking blood becomes a covenantal act. Sometimes the drinking of blood is associated with taking the spirit of the slain animal into the drinker. The Mosaic law prohibited this by requiring the blood of an edible animal to be poured onto the ground and covered with dust. "And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust" (Lev. 17:13). "Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart. Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water" (Deut. 12:15-16). The Jerusalem council honored this prohibition, for the problem it dealt with still existed in the classical world: pagan ritual.
An Individual's Decision
Paul here tells the church at Rome that there should be no criticism within the fellowship regarding eating or not eating specific foods. Each member should do what he thinks honors God best: to abstain or to enjoy. The individual must make this decision, but only for himself. He is not to extend his personal self-assessment to others. Neither the strong Christian who treats all foods the same nor the weak Christian who avoids some foods should condemn the other. Paul's words could not be any clearer.
This means that the institutional church should not set up rules that prohibit certain foods. It also should not mandate certain foods, other than the Lord's Supper. Even in the case of the Lord's Supper, there are problems. Some fundamentalist denominations prohibit wine. In practice, so do many American Presbyterian congregations, in deference to former fundamentalists, who make up a significant percentage of conservative Presbyterian congregations. Paul's warning informs us that neither wine nor grape juice should be made mandatory, neither unleavened bread nor leavened bread. Both options should be made available.(3) But, of course, this rarely happens. A few congregations offer wine and grape juice; I have never seen one that offers leavened and unleavened bread.
Paul makes it clear that the chief issue here is the protection of the weak. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" (Rom. 14:21). In his first letter to the Corinthians, he elaborated on this theme.
Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend (I Cor. 8:7-13).
Paul is saying that it is not the theologically mature Christian who takes a stand against demon rum. It is the immature or spiritually weak Christian. He who dismisses any food or drink in God's name is a weak Christian, as defined by Paul. The problem is, in today's world, these weak Christians regard themselves as staunch defenders of the faith, the last bastions of orthodoxy. Fundamentalists in the pews are oblivious to church history, and proud of it. To them, church history earlier than 1870 is mostly Roman Catholicism and Protestantism that was corrupted with Romish practices. If they have ever read about Eastern Orthodoxy -- highly unlikely -- they dismiss it as Catholicism with long beards. They are not impressed by the fact that the most conservative wings of Protestantism, "way back when" -- Calvinism and Lutheranism -- rejected this view of alcohol. They are adamant that no one should ever drink alcohol.
Their spiritual predecessors existed in Paul's day. They were advocates of a "taste not, touch not" form of Christianity. Paul challenged them: "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh" (Col. 2:20-23). This challenge remains in force.
Paul says here what he says in I Corinthians 8: for the sake of the weaker brother, the stronger brother must avoid eating the food feared by the weaker. "But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:15-17). "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves" (Rom. 15:1).
Does this mean that the stronger brother must alter his lifestyle for the sake of the weaker brother? No. It means that in instances where the two are brought together socially, the stronger brother must forebear. If the stronger brother had to imitate the weaker brother's standards at all times, then the church would be weakened. The "touch not, taste not" legalistic standards of immature Christians would predominate in the church. Paul surely did not want this to happen.
Yet this is what has happened to most conservative Presbyterian churches in the American South. In the Lord's Supper, they follow the cultural pattern of Baptists and Methodists: grape juice exclusively. Dr. Welch's biologically dead grape juice has become the Protestant fundamentalists' symbol of communion between God and man, thus making ridiculous Christ's analogy of new wine. "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved" (Matt. 9:17). If the new wine is dead grape juice, the wineskin problem does not arise. The kingdom of God does not expand. If the Jews had just been able to pasteurize the gospel! They did their best, but they failed. The main way that they attempted to do this was to persuade the church to restore the Mosaic food laws and circumcision. The Jerusalem council called a halt to this.
If the stronger brother is supposed to capitulate to the weaker, then is the policy of exclusive grape juice correct? No. Paul says that each side must allow freedom to the other. Because the Lord's Supper is institutional, to mandate either exclusive wine or exclusive grape juice is wrong. Paul says that each side must be persuaded, and each must be tolerant. Allowing both wine and grape juice in communion upholds this principle.
The King James translation of the Greek word katakrino is "damnation." "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). Given Paul's view of the perseverance of the saints, this word should be translated as "condemned." It means that the person has condemned himself for his sin: acting against his conscience. This is how the Greek word is translated in the section in John on the woman taken in adultery. "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:10-11).
Sabbath Observance Paul does not limit his discussion to food and drink. He includes special days. "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (vv. 5-6). Elsewhere, he wrote: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17). There, too, Paul linked food taboos and holiday taboos.
John Murray, a strict sabbatarian in the Scottish tradition, insisted that this passage does not apply to the weekly sabbath.(4) He referred to the sabbath as a creation ordinance. There is one overwhelming problem with this interpretation: there was no law mandating the sabbath observance prior to the miracle of the double output of manna on the day before the sabbath. There was a positive biological sanction for sabbath observance: the manna did not rot overnight on the night before the sabbath (Ex. 16:21-23). There was no negative judicial sanction.
An ordinance is a law. A church law may have positive or negative sanctions attached to it. A civil law has only negative sanctions. The State prohibits public evil; it does not seek to make men good. There is no mention of negative sanction for mankind with respect to sabbath-breaking prior to the Mosaic law.
There is a pre-Fall reference to God's blessing the sabbath: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen. 2:2-3). There was a structure to God's creation week: six and one. There was to be structure to Adam's week: one and six.(5) But there was no law governing the sabbath. There was only one law in Eden: the law prohibiting access to one tree. There was no sabbath law from the Fall of Adam until the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20). Nehemiah said of the God of the covenant: "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant" (Neh. 9:13-14).
The issue here is law, not the underlying structure of man's work week. There was a recommended structure for the work week. God announced it: six days of work, one day of rest. But this was not what Adam had experienced. He had less than a full day of work on God's final day of creation. The Bible does not say if he rested the next day. This six-one pattern was formally announced only after the exodus. There was never any creation ordinance. A law or ordinance must have sanctions attached. Without sanctions, a law is merely a suggestion. The Mosaic law had an explicit sanction: execution. "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 31:14-15). "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death" (Ex. 35:2).
There was no institutional sanction for sabbath-breaking prior to Exodus 31. So, what Paul teaches in this passage is that with respect to the sabbath, the New Testament has reverted to the pre-Mosaic standard. There is no longer any civil or ecclesiastical sanction attached to the New Testament sabbath. This is why there was no covenantal problem for the church when, beginning early in the second century, it began shifting from Judaism's seventh-day worship to first-day worship. On what basis could this shift had been made, other than the annulment of the Mosaic covenant? Moses said: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Ex. 31:16). Yet this law is not honored, for the church changed the day of worship to the eighth day. The sabbath was replaced by the Lord's day. This is why there was no theological problem in the centuries-long interim period, when it was not clear to all Christians which day was the proper day of worship.
Today, those few Protestant church traditions that emphasize strict sabbatarianism generally accept the use of tobacco and the consumption of alcohol. Those churches that prohibit alcohol and look askance on tobacco generally have a loose view of sabbath observance. One tradition emphasizes Paul's views on Christian freedom with respect to food and drink, while the other emphasizes Paul's views on Christian freedom regarding sabbath observance. Each denies the biblical basis of the other's doctrine of Christian freedom. This was not true of either Luther or Calvin. Neither Calvin nor Luther was a strict sabbatarian, and both men defended Christian liberty regarding alcohol. The Lutheran tradition still upholds its founder's views. This is not equally true of modern Calvinists, e.g., whiskey-drinking Scottish sabbatarians or near-fundamentalist Presbyterians in the American South.
The church sets aside one day a week for corporate worship (Heb. 10:25). This is not the same as specifying judicially what should or should not be done outside of the worship service by its members, let alone non-members. The Mosaic law did do this, with a vengeance: execution. This mandated civil sanction is null and void today, all church traditions agree. What they do not agree about is the judicial basis for the annulment of this negative sanction apart from the annulment of the prohibition. In fact, they never discuss this crucial judicial issue. But if the annulment of the negative sanction was not accompanied by the annulment of the prohibition, then on what covenantal basis has the sanction been annulled?
The theological answer, based on the New Covenant, is found in this passage and in Colossians 2: the transfer of the locus of sovereignty in sabbath enforcement from the civil government to the conscience.(6) The church is also not to impose sanctions against sabbath violators; it also does not possess lawful authority in this area. Paul transferred this authority to the individual conscience. The same is true for Paul's other applications of the principle of Christian liberty, the "taste not, touch not" issues.
The Mosaic civil sanctions that enforced the fourth commandment have been annulled. Israel's civil government had been authorized by God -- indeed, required -- to enforce the fourth commandment, and to do so with its ultimate penalty: execution. The language of the sabbath statutes in Exodus is clear. So is the story of the stick-gatherer in Numbers 15. His crime was not a matter of a ritual act of rebellion. It was a matter of work.(7) He had not profaned the temple; he had profaned the sabbath.
The New Testament church has always denied the right of execution to the State with respect to sabbath violations, as well it should have. It thereby has acknowledged in principle that there has been a fundamental judicial change in the covenantal administration of one of the Ten Commandments. Nevertheless, churches for almost two millennia have refused to state the theological reason for this shift. The State enforces laws against murder, theft, adultery, and perjury. The church has applauded this down through the centuries. The State has at times enforced laws against Lord's day-breaking, but not by means of the Mosaic law's mandatory civil sanction. Does this mean that the New Covenant regards Lord's day violations as less profane than the Old Covenant did? If so, why?
The judicial issue here is the transfer of the locus of authority for the enforcement of the fourth commandment: from the State and local church to the individual conscience.(8) Paul established the principle of the authority of the conscience regarding the honoring of special days. He did not exclude from this principle the sabbath or Lord's Day. When he spoke of holy days, he was not speaking only of special days other than the Jewish sabbath, whether Jewish or gentile in their origin. On the contrary, the sabbath was the one day that would have been the common holy day in both Jewish and gentile congregations.
Cooperation Within the Church By identifying the conscience as the proper sanctioning agency in matters of food, drink, and sabbath observance, Paul provided a way for weak and strong Christians to cooperate institutionally. He taught that the church should remain a place where spiritually weak and strong Christians will forebear one another's views regarding taboos: food, drink, and sabbath.
His advice has rarely been taken since the Protestant Reformation. Protestant churches have split on taboo issues. In American fundamentalism, the taboo over alcohol is a major one. The taboo over sabbath observance is not. In practice, Scottish Presbyterian elders do not enforce discipline over nonsabbatarian members, no matter how many sermons they preach on the sabbath. Institutionally, Paul's injunction is honored on matters sabbatarian. But in fundamentalist congregations, demon rum is still the biggest demon around.(9)
Protestant denominations have divided over theology and taboos for almost five centuries. But, once established, the denominations' divisions over taboos tend to decrease. It is less expensive to transfer membership to a different denomination than to convince a majority of today's members to reconsider a taboo. Taboos define some denominations, but splits generally do not come because of debates about traditional taboos. They come over theological issues or personality issues. Cooperation may occasionally take place among denominations, but on the whole, traditional taboos remain institutionalized. Weak and strong Christians form their own denominations. All of them regard themselves as strong.
Conclusion With respect to the Mosaic laws governing foods, they are completely abolished under the New Covenant. Jesus made the general point: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" (Matt. 15:11). God announced this change of administration to Peter in Acts 10. Paul brought the same message to gentile churches. The implication was inescapable: the cultural separation between gentile and Jewish cultures was no longer in force. This separation had been imposed by dietary restrictions on the Jews. It was over. So was circumcision. The new man in Christ had replaced the old man in Moses. "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Col. 3:9-11).
There were never any prohibitions on the use of alcohol outside the boundaries of the temple (Lev. 10:9). In fact, the consumption of alcohol was encouraged by God's law. The following passage is simply never discussed by defenders of total abstinence:
And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee (Deut. 14:23-27; emphasis added).
The Hebrew word for "strong drink" is found in other passages. Strong drink was prohibited to those who took a Nazarite vow. Also prohibited were grapes and raisins. "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried" (Num. 6:3). Strong drink was not for priests who were inside the temple (Lev. 10:9).(10) Strong drink was also not for kings, as a general rule of personal conduct (Prov. 31:4). But it was all right for anyone else who was not addicted to it. It was even recommended. "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts" (Prov. 31:6).
Activities on the sabbath come under the same liberating rule. Based on the evidence from the New Testament, Christians are not legitimately bound by institutional requirements to conduct themselves in a special way on Sundays, other than to attend church. They must attend church because of the general rule to assemble (Heb. 10:25), not because of the sabbath or Lord's day. They are bound by conscience. Each individual must make the highly complex decisions regarding legitimate activities on Sunday.(11)
There is therefore no New Testament case for "blue laws" or other State-enforced restrictions on business activities on Sunday. Other than inside a family, where the head of the household exercises legitimate authority, all institutional enforcement of Mosaic laws governing the sabbath has been annulled, along with the law's mandated civil sanction: execution. The State no longer has any legitimate enforcement function in compelling people to honor the sabbath. If it did, it would be biblically compelled to execute the violators.
The strict sabbatarianism of the Scottish Presbyterian tradition has always been theologically schizophrenic: they defend a Mosaic prohibition without its mandated civil sanction. Strict sabbatarianism has always been loose sabbatarianism when compared with Mosaic sabbatarianism.
The strict sabbatarian, like the strict prohibitionist, regards his position as the strong one. Paul dismisses both as weak positions. He taught that the church should not concern itself with either form of enforcement. Both are a matter of conscience. One more time: a law without sanctions is not a law; it is a suggestion. Only at the level of individual conscience should these prohibitions be regarded as biblically legitimate laws.
Footnotes:
1. Sometime around 1968, R. J. Rushdoony adopted his view that the Mosaic food laws are binding under the New Testament. He never provided a detailed exegesis of Acts 10, which is by far the most important New Testament passage on the Mosaic food laws.
2. There is a scene in the popular movie, Red Dawn (1984), in which modern young men are required to drink the blood of a slain deer as a means of initiation.
3. The wine-grape juice division did not exist before the late nineteenth century. Prior to pasteurization, there was no commercial alternative to wine. In 1869, a teetotalling American dentist and Methodist, Dr. Thomas Welch, developed his non-fermented wine -- today called grape juice -- by boiling grape juice. He initially sold the product to churches that wanted a way to avoid alcohol in the communion meal. Welch's son took over the company on a part-time basis in 1872, and in 1896 made it his career. Even as late as 1914, it was the only fruit juice product on the market.
4. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), II, Appendix D.
5. Gary North, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis (2nd ed.; Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), ch. 5.
6. Gary North, The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1986), ch. 4.
7. He was not found in the act of kindling a fire on the sabbath, which was prohibited (Ex. 35:3). He was found working.
8. I have yet to see a detailed critique -- or any published critique -- of my thesis regarding the New Testament's transfer of the locus of sovereignty governing sabbath enforcement. I published my chapter in 1986. There has been plenty of time for sabbatarian critics to respond. They are conspicuously silent.
9. The once-powerful demons of gambling, dancing, and attendance at movies have faded into the background. The demon tobacco is still lurking in the shadows, but smoking has faded in popularity in the United States, except possibly among the generation reaching adulthood in 2000.
10. Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), ch. 8.
11. For those Christians who are unfamiliar with the Scottish sabbatarian position, personal conduct on the sabbath may not seem to be a complex issue. This is because they are part of a broad non-sabbatarian tradition, the one adhered to by Calvin. In Calvinistic circles, Calvin's view is referred to as the Continental view of the sabbath.
If you are interested in receiving Dr. North's FREE monthly e-mail newsletter send an e-mail to:
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out.