LEWIS? SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
I appreciate this second opportunity to affirm that the New Testament teaches that
the first day of the week as a day of worship is enforced upon God's people in this
age of the world. In the fifty to sixty debates I have read, attended or participated
in, I have never heard the type of statement I heard from Mr. Bacchiocchi in his
first reply. He said, "....if I see that your interest is not to study the issues, but to
recycled old arguments that have been largely discredited by recent research, then
I will follow Jesus' advice as found in Matthew 7:6." Correct me if I'm wrong
Sam, but this statement says to me that you will choose not to respond if you
consider my work as "recycled old arguments." In other words, Bacchiocchi
might not respond. If I don't present arguments just the way he desires, he will
consider me like as a "dog" (Mt. 7:6) and not give me what he says is holy. How
convenient. I am truly amazed that a man with the credentials of Dr. Bacchiocchi
would respond in such a fashion. Both Sam and I agreed by signing our names
that we would have a public debate. We agreed through E-mail correspondence
that this written debate would take place before our public debate. Now he says
he might not respond if my arguments aren't up to his standards. I also might add
that Sam's argument on 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 is nothing new to me. I have heard
the same argument many times. I even anticipated it in my first affirmative. I
have in my hand a written debate which was published in the year 1942. A.N.
Dugger made the exact same argument as you did on 1 Corinthians 16. Is your
argument, therefore, a recycled old argument since it has been made many times
before? We wait patiently to see.
THE FIRST DAY NOT A DAY OF "REST"
Sam said, "Thank you for inviting me to respond to your proposition that the New
Testament enjoins Christians to observe Sunday as the new day of rest and
worship." Mr. Bacchiocchi must not have read me first affirmative very closely.
He says my proposition includes the first day as a "day of rest...." I never said the
first day of the week was a day of rest. In fact, in my introductory statements I
specifically said: "I do not believe Sunday was ever a 'Christian Sabbath' as some
denominational preachers have taught. I do not contend that God 'changed' the
'Sabbath' from the seventh day to the first day. The first day was not a Sabbath
day to begin with." The first day of the week is not a "new day of rest" or a "new
Sabbath." It is simply a day given to us by God on which to worship Him.
LET'S KEEP THE STORY STRAIGHT
Sam also talks about the time he must spend in preparation for his new book. He
says he has signed off the Internet. But "I am willing to make an exception for
you and to take precious time out of my research," says he. Bacchiocchi acts as if
he is doing me a favor. But who was it that decided we should have this written
debate before our public debate? It was Samuele Bacchiocchi. And now he will
have me to know that he is willing to make an exception for me! Let's be sure to
keep the story straight.
COLOSSIANS 2:14
Mr. Bacchiocchi thinks I introduced Colossians 2:14 as an argument in defense of
the first day of the week. No I did not. I merely mentioned Colossians 2:14 in
defining the terms of my proposition. I thought Sam had debated enough to know
that it is customary and honorable to precisely define the terms of the proposition
in the first affirmative and that this section is not used as proof of the proposition
itself. I was not using Colossians 2:14 as an argument. This is proven by the fact
that when I came to 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 I said, "My *first* argument....."
Nevertheless, I will briefly respond to his analysis of Colossians 2:14.
Dr. B believes Colossians 2:14 does not speak of the law being nailed to the cross.
Instead he says it refers to the "written record of our sins." He offers two items of
proof. First, he says the word "law" nor its concept is found in Colossians. True,
the word "law" is not mentioned specifically in Colossians; but both the immediate
and remote context indicate that Paul is discussing the Mosaic law itself in
Colossians 2:14. Even Sam admits that the "Colossian heresy" was a mixture of
both "Hellenistic and Jewish elements." (The Sabbath in the New Testament, p.
109). You cannot have it both ways, Sam! Paul mentions "circumcision" and
"uncircumcision" (Col. 2:11-13). That sounds like law of Moses language to me.
He mentions "festivals," "new moons," and "sabbaths." (2:16) which are a "shadow
of things to come." (2:17). "Shadow" is used two other times in a figurative sense
in the book of Hebrews. In both of these cases it makes reference to the law of
Moses (Heb. 8:5; 10:1). Therefore, the immediate context of Colossians 2:14
indicates that Paul is discussing the law of Moses being nailed to the cross.
The remote context also indicates that Colossians 2:14 speaks of the law of Moses
being nailed to the cross. Paul speaks of something being nailed to the cross (Col.
2:14). In Ephesians 2:15 that which was "abolished in his flesh" was the "law of
commandments" which clearly refers to the law of Moses (cf. Rom. 7:8-13). Here
in Ephesians 2:15 the law of Moses is referred to as "ordinances" which is the
same word used in Colossians 2:14. Context clearly indicates that Paul is not
discussing merely the penalty of the law, but the law itself being nailed to the
cross.
Bacciocchi's second argument that this does not speak of the law being nailed to
the cross is: "this interpretation detracts from the immediate argument (V13)
designed to prove the fullness of God's forgiveness." Actually, the theme of this
section is that Christians "are complete in him" (2:10). Jesus is all that is needed.
People need not go back to the law of Moses because Christ, the fullness of the
Godhead, has nailed it to the cross. Christ is everything! Therefore, why do we
allow people to tell us we should observe festivals, new moons, or sabbaths.
ARE CHRIST'S LAWS 'RADICALLY DIFFERENT'?
When I contend that we are under Christ's law and not the law of Moses in any
sense, Bacchiocchi says "such [a] statement implies that Christ gave moral laws
that are radically different from the moral laws of Moses." No, it does not. I think
you know better than this. The island of Jamaica at one time was under the rule of
Great Britain. Their laws forbid murder, theft, etc. Jamaica is no longer under
British Rule. Are we to assume, Sam, that because Jamaica is no longer under
British Rule that Jamaica's moral laws (murder, theft, etc.) are "radically
different" from those of Great Britain? Just because we are no longer under the
law of Moses does not mean Christ's moral laws are radically different.
MATTHEW 5:17
Bacchiocchi mentions Matthew 5:17. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The key
to understanding this is found in verse 18: The law would not pass "till all be
fulfilled." I'm sure you are familiar with the word "till." It means that the law of
Moses would last "up until" the time of its fulfillment. Bacchiocchi says "fulfill"
means "to reveal its fuller meaning." Let's assume that it does mean that. Did
Christ reveal (i.e. fulfil) the "fuller meaning" of the law when He was on the earth,
Sam? If so, then it has passed away because Jesus said the law would last only
"till all be fulfilled"!
CHRISTIANITY A "CONTINUATION" OF JUDAISM?
Sam says, "Recent research has shown that Christianity began as a continuation of
Judaism and not as a radical break away from Judaism." I do understand that Jews
were still Jews by nationality even after the church was established. However, the
Record is very clear that Christianity was not a mere continuation of Judaism.
Jeremiah 31:31-32 says, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a
new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;...." God said He would make a ?new?
covenant that was "not according to" the one made with their fathers when He
brought them "out of the land of Egypt." Which covenant was it that God made
with Israel when He led them out of Egypt? I invite you to read 1 Kings 8:9:
"There was nothing in the ark save the *two tables of stone,* which Moses put
there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, *when
they came out of the land of Egypt.*" Sam agrees that the "two tables of stone"
refers to the Ten Commandments. But this was the covenant which was made
when they came out of the land of Egypt. And Jeremiah says that the new
covenant would be "not according" to this one! Hebrews 8:7-13 clearly shows
that Jeremiah 31:31ff had been fulfilled in the first century. Verse 13 says that the
old covenant (which refers to the Ten Commandments as we've seen) was made
"obsolete." (NKJV).
UNUSUAL COVERAGE OF SABBATH IN GOSPEL ACCOUNTS
One more point Sam made before finally getting to my argument was that the
unusual coverage given to the Sabbath in the gospels "is indicative of the
importance of Sabbathkeeping in the apostolic church." May I remind you that
you are in the negative and we are not at this time focussing on the Sabbath. You
will have ample opportunity to do that when you take the affirmative. Just
because something is mentioned many times throughout the gospel accounts does
not prove the apostolic church practiced such. This reasoning first came from the
liberals who reject even the inspiration of the Bible. These liberals believe the
writers of the gospel accounts were merely writers who were "theologically
motivated" to write the things they did. On several occasions temple worship and
sacrifice are mentioned. Do you contend that we must conduct our worship in the
temple according to temple regulations complete with sacrifice of animals?
1 CORINTHIANS 16
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
If Dr. Bacchiocchi spent as much time dealing specifically with my arguments as
he did with promoting his books, we might have a good debate. Dr. B. mentioned
his books no less than eight times in his first reply. Yet he very rarely specifically
addressed my first affirmative paper. Let me urge you, Sam, to quit the "cut and
paste" method of debating where you have obviously just taken portions of your
books and copied them word for word in this debate. That's not debating. In case
you don't know, the job of the negative writer is to respond *directly* to the
arguments, questions, and points made by the affirmative writer. This you have
not done. Notice the specific questions and arguments I made throughout my
paper that you did not even attempt to answer:
1. What reason could there be for giving such an instruction upon the first day of
every week unless the first day was a day to be devoted to God?
2. Is giving to the church a religious service?
3. Could giving be done on any day of the week? If yes, then why did Paul
specifically give orders for it to be done on the "first day of the week"?
4. Suppose you could find a passage which read like this: "Upon the seventh day
of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him,
that there be no collections when I come." Would you present this as abundant
proof in defense of seventh day worship?
5. Do you lay by in store upon the first day of every week?
6. Upon which day of the week do Sabbatarians give to their church?
7. By what authority does the Seventh Day church give upon the seventh day of
the week?
8. I pointed out that Paul had given "orders" not only to the church at Corinth but
also to the Galatian churches. Further, the book of 1 Corinthians was a book to all
Christians (1:2).
9. Your own church manual says that the collection is a vital part of "worship."
Yet you do not have one ounce of authority for this form of worship to be done on
the seventh day of the week.
10. I anticipated your response on 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 being simply a collection
which you say takes place at home. I specifically said, "Paul said he wanted them
to give so that there would be no collections when he came. But if this is talking
about laying by in store 'at home' then there *would* be collections when Paul
came because the offerings would of necessity need to be collected from people?s
homes." Yet you passed by this in silence. You need to deal with this, Sam.
1 CORINTHIANS 16:
SILENT SAM, SILENT SAM
Let us now deal specifically with his response (his book in condensed form) on 1
Corinthians 16. I will not merely deal in generalities as Sam has done. I promise
to deal specifically with what he said. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 Paul gave orders to
the churches in Galatia and Corinth that upon the first day of every week
Christians were to lay by in store in order that there would be no collections when
Paul came to take this collection to Jerusalem. The point at issue is whether Paul
is describing a setting aside to be done at home or in a corporate worship
assembly. If Paul is discussing a worship assembly then my proposition is
established since this would prove that Christians came together upon the first day
of every week.
I asked Mr. Bacchiocchi a very simple question which he failed to notice. Silence
on your part, Sam, does not answer the argument. Please answer this: If you were
to find a passage which said "upon the seventh day of every week, let every one of
you lay by him in store" would you use this as proof for seventh-day worship?
Seventh Day Adventists would love it if such a passage could be found. You
know how I know this? Because they use several passages from the book of Acts
which only mention that Paul preached on the Sabbath. If these Acts passages are
offered as proof for Sabbath observance, then certainly one which said, "Upon the
seventh day of the week" would be used. Friends, this is the *only* day on which
the Bible mentions the setting aside of money. I mentioned that the Seventh-Day
Church manual says that offerings are to be made on the Sabbath. By what
authority, Sam, does your church take up collections upon the seventh day? This
is another question you passed over in utter silence.
Another point which Dr. B overlooked is my question regarding whether giving
was a religious service. Is giving (whether at home or in the worship of the
church) a religious service? If it is, then please show us where you get your
authority to do this on the seventh day. If giving is not a religious service then
please explain how your authoritative church manual says that giving is a "vital
part of the worship" (p. 108).
I point out again that Paul gave "orders" both to the churches of Galatia and the
church at Corinth (16:1). But note: Bacchiocchi said, "why then did Paul
*recommend* a first-day deposit plan"? (emphasis mine). Bacchiocchi says Paul
merely recommended a first day plan; Paul says he ordered them to do it. "Order"
is defined as an "order, direct, command." (Baur, Arndt, & Gingrich, 2nd edition,
189). Do you follow this command, Sam? These were instructions given to "all
that in every place who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:2). The
things which Paul wrote were the commandments of God (14:37). Yet Sam says
they were mere "recommendation."
1 CORINTHIANS 16:
SAM'S WORN OUT "RECYCLED" ARGUMENT
Sam spouts the old worn out recycled argument that Paul is merely describing
something which took place privately at home. He believes ekastos humon par
eauto means "privately and individually at home." We wonder where Sam got "at
home" out of this text since it literally reads "everyone of you all by himself." To
suggest anything more than this is to read into the text. I would like to point out
that ekastos humon is used in Acts 2:38. The text literally reads, "Repent and be
baptized *each of you all*...." Peter certainly is describing something which is
private and individual in nature. No one can be baptized for me. But he certainly
didn't mean I can only be baptized "privately and individually at home." Further,
just because giving was to be done "by himself" does not imply that it of necessity
must be at home. I partake of the Lord's Supper "by myself" (ekastos, 1 Cor.
11:21). But this doesn't mean I do it at home all alone. On the contrary, the Bible
teaches that this should be done when the church comes together (1 Cor. 11:17ff).
In the same way, Paul is simply pointing out that giving is a very personal matter.
Giving is something I do for myself. No one can do it for me.
Why did Paul give instructions for a first day deposit plan? Sam says, "To wait
until the end of the week or of the month to set aside one's contributions is
contrary to sound budgetary practices...." This is mere speculation. You admit in
your own book that there is no proof that people of ancient times were paid on the
first day of the week (From Sabbath To Sunday, p. 100). Even if some were paid
upon the first day of the week, certainly all of them were not. Paul's instructions
were something which applied to EVERY person in EVERY church. Since
everyone was not paid on the first day of the week, these instructions could not
apply to EVERY person in EVERY church. These would be "sound budgetary
practices" only if you were paid upon the first day of the week. But what if you
were paid on the fourth day of the week? In this case you couldn't plan your
budget on the first day since you wouldn't get paid till the fourth day. Do you see
all the speculation you get yourself into when you accept Dr. B's view?
Paul is describing "the first day of the week" as something which applies to
EVERY person in EVERY church. Bacchiocchi's view might apply to SOME
people in SOME churches, but it certainly couldn't apply to EVERY person in
EVERY church. The only way the first day of every week could apply to EVERY
person in EVERY church would be because Paul knew that this was the day when
EVERY person in EVERY church assembled together to worship God!
MY ANSWERS TO HIS QUESTIONS
Though Sam did not answer my questions, I will answer his. He asked, "If your
proposition that Sundaykeeping "is enforced upon God's people" in the NT were
true, why is it that we have no commandment of Christ or of the apostles regarding
a weekly Sunday or annual Easter Sunday celebration of the resurrection"? First, I
do not contend an "Easter Sunday celebration" as many denominations do. But I
will answer your question first by asking you one: If your proposition of Sabbath
keeping by the church is enforced upon God's people is true, why is it that we
have no example where the church ever assembled on the Sabbath for worship? If
there is one, please bring it forth. You know as well as I do that the Bible teaches
by direct command, example, and implication. You try to put God in a box when
you demand a direct statement for first day observance. You don't allow God to
teach us by example.
Second Question to me: "If, as you seem to assume Paul was the pioneer and
promoter of Sundaykeeping, why is it that there is no echo of any controversy
between Paul and the Jerusalem brethren over his abandonment of the Sabbath"? I
do contend that there was some controversy over the abandonment of the Sabbath
by Jews (Col. 2:14-16). But even if we don't read of any, your argument is based
upon silence.
1 CORINTHIANS 16
MORE PROOF OF MY PROPOSITION
I emphasized in my first affirmative that Paul desired that there "be no collections"
when he came (1 Cor. 16:2). Listen to what Dr. Bacchiocchi said: "The purpose
of the plan then is not to enhance Sunday worship ... but to ensure a substantial
and efficient *collection* UPON PAUL'S arrival." (emphasis mine). Sam
contends that Paul gave these instructions so that when he came an efficient
"collection" could be taken. Mr. Bacchiocchi, did you not read what Paul said?
He ordered them to lay by in store so that there would be NO collections when he
came; you say he ordered them to do this so there WOULD be a collection when
he came. Friends, read his quote above once again and let it soak in.
I emphasize again that if 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 is giving instructions to lay by in
store at home, then there *would* be collections when Paul came because the
offerings would need to be collected from the people's homes. Since Paul wants
there to be "no collections" he obviously is talking about an offering collected into
one central treasury. Silence on you part, Sam, does not answer the argument.
This is the point he cannot and will not overcome.
The very word "collection" is further proof that Paul is talking about money
collected in one central fund. First, we notice that logeia ("collection") is used in
reference to the collection of many individuals throughout ancient writings. From
the Qxyrhynchus Papayri we learn that logeia is used in the sense of "an
extraordinary tax." (II, 239, 8). Taxes, of course, are a "collection," into one
central fund, not of each person privately at home. We also learn from Ostraka
that a collection was taken for the official services of the cult of Isis (II, 413, 63
A.D.). The Sylloge Inscription (1st cent. A.D.) talks about a "vessel which was
gilded ..., for the collection and procession of the gods" which has reference "to a
procession at which the spectators were expected to contribute money"?
(Deissmann in TDNT, 4:282). So logeia was used in its everyday sense in
reference to a collection which each individual contributed. Paul, therefore, is
commanding the Corinthians to "collect" their money into one central fund. This
would necessitate that they come together. This proves that first century
Christians came together upon the first day of the week to make offerings. The
Seventh Day Church manual admits that the offering is "a vital part of the
worship" (p. 108).
On the word thesaurizon ("storing up") Sam says this refers to "each individual
house until the Apostle came for it." But here too we have abundant proof in
defense of a central treasury. First, we have the example from Malachi 3:10. The
text says, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in
mine house." "Storehouse" is here defined as "to store, lay up" (verb form) or
"treasure, treasury, storehouse" (noun form) (Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament, 1:68). This is an exact parallel to the meaning of Paul's usage in 1
Corinthians 16:1-3. The Jews of Malachi's time were to "store up" in a
"treasury." Yet this wasn't a storing up which occurred at home. Instead, it was
collected in one central location (i.e. God's house, the Temple). Our Greek word,
noun form, was also used quite frequently to refer to "temple treasury, a temple
storehouse for offerings ... Thasauros are temple offerings, sacrificial and guilt
offerings, or thank offerings..." Heron of Alexandria even mentions "collection
boxes with an automatic contrivance to pay the entrance of money" (TDNT, 3:136).
It looks like there is abundant evidence in support of a central collection under
discussion. Paul said there should be no collections when he came. This must
have been money cast into a central treasury; otherwise there would have been
collections when he came. This proves that the church came together on the first
day of the every week to lay by in store into one central treasury.
Having done this, we have once again proven first day worship. The Seventh-Day
manual describes giving as a "vital part of the worship" (p. 108). But giving took
place upon the first day of every week (1 Cor. 16:1-3). If giving is worship and
giving took place on the first day of the week, then worship took place on the first
day of the week. My proposition has been established.
2 Corinthians 8-9 and 1 Corinthians 16 speak of the same collection. Bacchiocchi
even admits this in his books. However, the Adventist manual which lays out the
"policy and practice" (p. 19) of this denomination uses 2 Corinthians 8-9 in proof
of regular contributions to the church (p. 34, 181) which is considered to be a
"vital part of the worship" (p. 108). But if the offering of 2 Corinthians 8-9 and 1
Corinthians 16 are the same offering and if the offering of 2 Corinthians 8-9 refers
to worship, then the offering of 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 also refers to worship! But
this day of worship is said to take place on the first day of EVERY week. "Your
own mouth [the Seventh-Day Church Manual] has testified against thee" (2 Sam.
1:16).
I invite you to read my friends last reply. He will respond in the negative to this
affirmative. After that he will begin his first affirmative in defense of the seventh
day of the week.
John T. Lewis
Back to Lewis/Bacchiocchi Page
Go to Bacchiocchi's First Negative
Comments? Please E-mail me