On Monday, October 14th, Dub McClish and I drove up to Burkburnett for the first of the two-night, above-mentioned debate. Steve Wiggins was affirming that “The Bible Teaches That The First Day of the Week Is The Day of Worship Required for God’s People in the Christian Age.” Bill Sharon, a Seventh Day Baptist, took the view that the Sabbath day is still binding as the day of worship in the Christian age.
Steve was well-prepared with more material than he would be able to use; his opponent was reminiscent of Antony Flew, who read previously-prepared lectures, paying scant attention to the arguments brother Warren presented in their debate here in Denton in 1976. These comments are not made to denigrate Mr. Sharon; they simply state what was obvious to all who were in attendance. Much of what he said was not relevant to the discussion, and he failed to answer any of the arguments Steve set forth.
Brother Wiggins began by defining his proposition and then explaining what he was not affirming. So that his opponent would not misconstrue what he was teaching, Steve began by saying that he was NOT affirming that: 1) the first day of the week is the “Christian” Sabbath; 2) the Sabbath was never enjoined on God’s people; 3) the Old Testament is useless for God’s people; 4) Jesus did not keep the Sabbath; 5) the apostles did not use the temple/synagogue on the Sabbath as an opportunity to preach the gospel. These are all doctrines that people sometimes assume are being affirmed; Sharon thought so despite the disclaimers presented in the very first speech.
Wiggins specifically affirmed that the first day of the week is the day God stipulated for worship in the Christian age. After showing that Christ has all authority (Matt. 28:18-20), that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all Truth (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13), and that Christians continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, he pointed out that Christians never assembled on the Sabbath day for worship under apostolic direction in the New Testament. But Christians did assemble on the first day of the week for worship under apostolic direction (Acts 20:7).
He rounded out his first speech with a careful and thoughtful analysis of Acts 20:6-7, demonstrating that Paul stayed there an entire week so that he could meet with the brethren on the first day of the week, which is the only day the disciples came together. He also tied in 1 Cor. 16:1-2, which is the day Paul instructed brethren in Corinth and in Galatia to set aside a contribution.
Mr. Sharon said very little by way of response. He got off to a very slow start in saying anything relative to the debate; finally he made several pronouncements, such as that God’s day is evening to evening and God’s law never changes. By the latter statement he meant that since the Sabbath day was included in the ten commandments, it must be an eternal law.
Then he read, as it were, from a prepared text. “There are three churches: God’s church, the apostate church, and the occult church. There are two spirits: God’s spirit, and the spirit of the antiChrist.” Nobody knew how these observations related to the subject.
The Literal Time Spent in the Tomb
Finally, he said something germane to the discussion: “No Scripture authorizes worship on the first day of the week.” Of course, in order to make this statement one must ignore Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, which is exactly what he did.
Then, instead of attempting to refute the affirmative arguments, he began making one of his own (which he didn’t complete until his second speech). Even if he had been successful in proving his assertion, it would have in no way negated the material presented on Acts 20:7. He tried to show that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and raised on Saturday (so that no one could claim that Sunday is the Lord’s day).
He said that some people try to rely upon Mark 16:9 to say that Jesus arose on the first day of the week, but that verse offers no proof for a Sunday resurrection. The reader can judge for himself.
Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils.
Sharon made no effort to disprove what this verse obviously proves-a Sunday resurrection. In his second speech he cited Matthew 28:1 as evidence that Jesus was raised on Saturday (just before the first day of the week). Coupling that with the three days and three nights mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 12:39-40 (and assuming it must be a literal 72 hours), he concluded that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and buried just before 6:00 p.m. What does Matthew 28:1 say?
In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre (KJV).
Sharon’s argument is based upon the phrase, in the end of the Sabbath. The Jewish Sabbath day actually begins about sunset (6:00 p.m.) on Friday evening (which is the reason Jesus needed to be buried before the Sabbath day began), and it ends on Saturday evening. Sharon contends that “the end of the Sabbath” would be just prior to 6:00 p.m., Saturday.
The problem is that the King James and the American Standard (or the NAS) did not provide us the best translation of the Greek phrase. Nearly every modern translation and version, such as the New King James, uses “Now after the Sabbath.” [Ironically, Mr. Sharon consistently quoted from a modern version throughout the debate but reverted to the King James for this one passage.] One need not know Greek, however, to decide which is the best rendering. Look at the text. How can it be (at one and the same time) “the end of the Sabbath” and “dawn” on the first day of the week when they are separated by twelve hours?
The New King James makes much more sense: “Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn. . . .” This version causes the twelve-hour discrepancy to evaporate. Besides, all of the accounts have the women coming to the tomb in the morning-not at sunset the evening before. The New King James’ rendering also harmonizes much better with Mark 16:9. The best Mr. Sharon could do was to introduce one passage of Scripture (ambiguously translated) to set it against another verse.
The Third Day
In Steve Wiggins’ second speech he showed that an exact 72 hours was never in view the way the Jews and Romans reckoned time. He began with Luke 24:1 to identify the day of the week it was when the women came to the tomb.
Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
Next he pointed out that the two disciples on the road to Emmaeus were traveling “that same day” (Luke 24:13). Later they mention to the stranger (whom they did not recognize as Jesus) that Jesus had been “condemned to death, and crucified” (20) and that “today is the third day since these things happened” (21). After Jesus opened their understanding, He told them:
“Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day” (46).
The point is that the way the ancients reckoned time three days and three nights was not incompatible with “on the third day.” For us it would be; we would say “on the fourth day.” Steve also cited Paul, who wrote:
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
Brother Wiggins went on to note that Jesus made several appearances on the first day of the week after His resurrection and that the church was established on the first day of the week. He next discussed the fact that the Sabbath day was only commanded to be observed in one dispensation-the Mosaic Age. God gave no commandment concerning its observance during the Patriarchal Age, and He gave no such commandment to Christians, either. Furthermore, there was no example of the Sabbath day being observed until Sinai, and there was no penalty for violating the day during the Patriarchy or in the Christian age. He also introduced the fact that the law was taken out of the way.
False Dichotomy
In his second negative speech of the evening Mr. Sharon ignored just about everything that Steve had presented in his first two speeches. The only response was to affirm that the ten commandments were spoken by God, are eternal, and were not abolished by Christ (Matt. 5:17). He argued that only the ceremonial portions of the Law of Moses were done away, but the Law of God is eternal.
Brother Wiggins was prepared to explain this false dichotomy that seventh-day adherents consistently (and erroneously) champion. He referred to several passages which show that the Law of God and the Law of Moses are identical (Neh. 8:1, 8; 10:29). He also presented Jeremiah 31:31-32 which talks about the new covenant and then showed how that the ten commandments constituted the old covenant (1 Kings 8:9, 21). The old covenant (which specifically includes the ten commandments) has been done away (Heb. 13:6-13).
In response to Matthew 5:17 (the one verse seventh-day advocates rely on most heavily) it was pointed out that Jesus taught that the law was to be obeyed until it was fulfilled, but Jesus Himself (after His death for our sins, His burial, and resurrection) taught that all things written concerning Him had been fulfilled (Luke 24:44).
The only other thing Mr. Sharon did in his second speech was to introduce what he called “18 lies about Sunday.” It was evident that he was going to rely upon secular history to try to prove that the day of worship was changed after the first century, apparently forgetting that the debate concerned what the SCRIPTURES taught.
In his final speech of the evening brother Wiggins pointed out how many of his arguments went untouched. He reiterated many of them, adding that Jesus kept the Passover and all other portions of the law (in harmony with what he taught in Matthew 5:17-20), but when He died, He nailed the law to the cross (Col. 2:14).
How Not To Debate
Mr. Sharon began his final speech with perhaps the most astute observation he had made all evening. He assessed Steve Wiggins as a “formidable opponent.” His problem, however, was not his adversary (well-prepared though he was); his problem consisted mostly in being opposed to the Truth.
Instead of answering the arguments based on Acts 20:7, he finally said of the passage, “It has no significance,” which was also his assessment of the fact that the church began on a Sunday, the day of Pentecost. When teaching a group of neophyte inductees in to one’s religion, dismissing an argument with a wave of the hand may suffice; in debate it fails.
He made several unsupportable statements, such as: 1) “The New Testament church rested on the Sabbath day”; and 2) “Only semi-converted pagans kept Sunday.” In a debate the audience expects some evidence to be given to substantiate one’s position.
He ignored his opponent’s arguments while responding to some that were never made. “Some people say it doesn’t matter what day we keep-as long as we keep one.” He must have been studying the Antony Flew debating technique, since Flew spent an entire speech denouncing the idea that one can prove the existence of God by his own subjective feelings. The only problem is that brother Warren had never advanced such a ludicrous position. Whenever a debater dodges, sidesteps, or ignores his opponent’s main arguments (and even spends time refuting what was not said), there must be a reason. The reason is that he knows he is trapped.
When a disputant presents an irrefutable case, the opposition has no choice but to change the subject. He may do so by taking refuge in his strongest point, by attacking his opponent for things he did not say, or by giving a charismatic presentation of irrelevant matters. One’s pride and commitment to the error he has espoused will cause many to be blinded to the Truth.