The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 5 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 5 of 8)

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 5 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2part 3 & part 4)

First-Day Corporate Meetings in the New Testament

Notice the phenomenon of first-day corporate meetings in the New Testament. Acts 2:1 indicates that the Jerusalem disciples were assembled on the day of Pentecost, the first day of the week. “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.”

Acts 20:7 says, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Here Luke tells us that the disciples in Troas met “on the first day of the week” with no comment on the reason why. This is not a command to meet on the first day of the week. It does, however, appear to assume a practice already in place. As Owen says, “This [i.e., gathering on the first day] they did without any extraordinary warning or calling together . . .”[1] It is not the institution of first-day meetings; it is a record of one such. On this day, the disciples conducted activities with special religious significance. Some understand the breaking of bread as the Lord’s Supper. Paul spoke to them, surely teaching them apostolic doctrine (i.e., authoritative oral apostolic tradition). They met on the first day of the week and had fellowship around spiritual matters. This text echoes aspects of the conduct of the early church, as recorded in Acts 2:42, “And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.” It is also of interest to note that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16), yet he stayed seven days in Troas (Acts 20:6) and did not leave until the day after the one described in 20:7. He left on Monday. Commenting on Acts 20:7, Martin notes:

. . . it seems that this incident occurred on the day that the churches ordinarily gathered for worship, for the way that Luke includes a reference to the church meeting “on the first day of the week,” i.e., with no further explanation, indicates that this was, as Owen says, “that which was in common observance amongst all the disciples of Christ.”[2]

The reference to the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 seems to be something early readers of Acts would not need explained to them. Though the basis for meeting on that day as opposed to another day is not stated, putting the various pieces of evidence provided for us in the New Testament together, it is not a leap in the dark to assume they met on that day due to the theological and practical implications for the church of our Lord’s resurrection.

In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read:

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)

Here the Corinthians are told to do something that Paul had ordered the churches of Galatia to do. Though the specific apostolic injunction has to do with a first-century need is agreed upon by all, Paul’s mention of “the first day of every week” is what is of interest to our discussion. Paul does not order first-day meetings in Corinth in this text; he assumes that’s when they meet, and he assumes that they meet every week. Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses the meeting of the Corinthian church in the context of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11:17-22, we read:

But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. (1 Cor. 11:17-22)

Paul distinguishes between the gathered church, the house of God, and their own homes in verses 17 (“you [plural] come together”), 18 (“when you [plural] come together as a church”), 20 (“when you [plural] meet together”), and 22 (“Do you [plural] not have houses in which to eat and drink?”). He specifically mentions coming together for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper (v. 20), though they had so trampled upon it that their practice had ceased being what they intended it to be. Upon what day of the week did the Corinthians “come together as a church”? Though chapter 11 does not tell us, we do have 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and other considerations from the New Testament that lead us to the conclusion that they came “together as a church” every first day of the week.

Some want to argue what Paul is requiring in 1 Corinthians 16 is a private putting aside and saving, but if that were his intent, they would have to take a collection when he came. This, in fact, is what he does not want.[3] Martin’s words are to the point:

He is not saying, as is often suggested, that each one should lay aside his contributions privately at home, for then, any day of the week would do as well as another and a final collection still would need to be made. In specifying the first day of the week, Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of an activity that will take place at the time of their public assemblies. And he assumes that this will take place on the same day as in the churches of Galatia.[4]

Part 6

[1] Owen, Works, 18:423.

[2] Martin, The Christian Sabbath, 278. The quote from Owen is cited as “John Owen, Hebrews, 2:423.”

[3] Wells, The Christian and the Sabbath, 95, commenting on 1 Cor. 16:1-2, says: “Is Paul speaking of an activity that was to take place in church meetings here? Probably not.”

[4] Martin, The Christian Sabbath, 281-82. See Owen, Works, 18:424.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 4 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 4 of 8)

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 4 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2 & part 3)

The Prominence of the First Day Immediately Subsequent to Christ’s Resurrection

Notice the prominence of the first day immediately subsequent to Christ’s resurrection.

Matt. 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 

Matt. 28:5-6 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 “He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 

Matt. 28:9-10 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.” 

Mark 16:9 Now when he rose early in the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene 

Mark 16:12 After that, he appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. 

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table” 

Luke 24:1-2 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. But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb. 

Luke 24:13-15 Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 

Luke 24:36 Now as they said these things, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 

These post-resurrection appearances of Christ all happened on the first day of the week. How can we best account for this? Waldron comments on this phenomenon:

(1) We note first the phrase in John 20:26, “eight days later”. Since the Jews counted inclusively, this eighth day was the first day of the week. John is careful to include these details of time because they point to his Lord’s Day theology (Rev. 1:10). In fact, four of the eight New Testament references to the first or Lord’s Day are in the Johannine literature of the New Testament (John 20:1,19,26; Rev. 1:10). John 20:26 increases strikingly in its significance when it is compared with John 21:14. There the appearance beside the Sea of Tiberias is said to be “the third time that Jesus was manifested to His disciples.” This statement is, of course, problematic and must be qualified in some fashion. Whatever its specific meaning, it clearly marks the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus of John 20:19, 20:26, and 21:1 as unique and distinct. There were no intervening appearances of like character. Probably the meaning is that Jesus between these three appearances did not appear to a large group of disciples (Apostles). This means, of course, that between the first and eighth days of John 20 there were no like appearances to the disciples. This fact must have had a psychological effect upon the gathered disciples which would have clearly marked the first day of the week as of special significance for their resurrected Lord.

(2) Acts 2:1f. is also significant because the day of Pentecost occurred upon the first day of the week (Lev. 23:15-21). Pentecost, it is interesting to note was a day upon which no laborious work was to be done. Thus, it was in a sense a Sabbath. At any rate, the two constitutive events of the New Covenant and New Creation (the resurrection of Christ and the Pentecostal giving of the Spirit) both occurred on the first day of the week. Surely the disciples of Christ could not have overlooked or failed to ponder these facts.[1]

Though these observations of themselves do not prove that the first day of the week is the Christian sacred day for church worship, taken together with the many other issues we have discussed and will discuss below, they indicate that something is very unique about the first day of the week even after Christ rose from the dead. In other words, the New Testament notes recurring first days after the resurrection of Christ. These post-resurrection and pre-ascension appearances seem to assume something peculiar about the first day of the week. Just what that peculiarity is demands further revelation.

Part 5

[1] Waldron, Lord’s Day.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 3 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 3 of 8)

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 3 of 8, click here for part 1 & part 2)

Now notice what Luke records in Acts 6:2-4:

So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. 3 “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:2-4)

The “ministry of the word” most likely refers to the message preached, the things proclaimed by the apostles. This is, in fact, the ministry of the word of God. This is confirmed for us in 1 Thessalonians 2:13.

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13)

Kruger comments on this text as follows:

Paul emphasizes that the apostolic message borne by the apostles was to be received as the authoritative word of God . . . Although this message was certainly passed along orally by the apostles, it is clear that Paul expected his written letters to bear the same weight as his words spoken in the Thessalonians’ presence. Second Thessalonians 2:15 says, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” It is difficult to imagine that the Thessalonians would have understood Paul’s letters in any other way than as the authoritative apostolic message that demanded their submission and obedience.[1]

The apostles realized their message was God’s message in light of the sufferings and glory of our Lord. It was God’s message through them, something communicated by Christ in them by virtue of the promise and ministry of the Spirit. Our Lord had prepared them to expect this.

The following words by the Lord to the disciples prior to his death and resurrection apply to them in a unique way as apostles.

These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. (John 14:25-26)

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 testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27)

“But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 16:13-15)

These promises set the background for the apostolic ministry. The apostolic ministry includes both speaking and writing on behalf of Christ in fulfillment of these very words.

The apostles have left the church with what has been termed apostolic tradition. These apostolic traditions were first spoken by the apostles and then written for us in the New Testament. This means that some things done by the early churches prior to the writing of the New Testament were based on the authoritative spoken word of the apostles (e.g., the Lord’s Supper in Corinth [1 Cor. 10 and 11]; the presence and function of teachers of the word in Galatia [Gal. 6:6]; the presence and function of overseers and deacons in Philippi [Phil. 1:1]; and the presence and function of laborers who oversee and instruct in Thessalonica [1 Thess. 5:12-13]). It is important to note, as Kruger asserts, the authoritative tradition that the New Testament speaks of is not human tradition or ecclesiastical tradition, but apostolic tradition.[2] It is also important to realize that what was first spoken was subsequently written and canonized. As Kruger acknowledges:

Although this apostolic tradition was initially delivered orally as the apostles preached, taught, and visited churches (2 Thess. 2:15), it very soon began to be preserved and passed along in written form. Of course, this transition did not happen all at once—oral apostolic tradition and written apostolic tradition would have existed side by side for a period of time.[3]

In sum, the New Testament documents can be understood as the written expression of the authoritative, foundational, and eyewitness tradition delivered by the apostles of Jesus Christ.[4]

Oral apostolic tradition is assumed and further explicated by written apostolic tradition.

What does the discussion above about apostolic tradition have to do with the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week? The resurrection of our Lord is not left as a self-interpreting act of God. Its theological and practical implications were brought to the early church by the apostles via both oral and written apostolic tradition. Though we do not necessarily possess the oral apostolic tradition in the exact words in which it was first delivered, the written assumes the oral and builds upon it. This being the case, if the New Testament indicates that the church met on the first day for public worship (i.e., practice), that it did so due to the first-day resurrection of our Lord (i.e., redemptive-historical basis), and that this practice was approved by an apostle or apostles (i.e., authoritative approval), is it too difficult to conclude that first-day meetings of the church for worship were also ordained by Christ through the apostles (i.e., dominical and apostolic sanction)? Just as the Book of Acts and the Epistles do not command the Lord’s Supper to be instituted, neither do they command the churches to meet on the first day of the week. Just as the Lord’s Supper is assumed by the Epistles, so the Lord’s Day is assumed as well. The churches addressed in the New Testament, and the things they practiced, existed prior to letters being written to them. As we shall see in our discussion of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, first-day church meetings at Corinth are assumed to be in place, just as the Lord’s Supper is assumed to be in place, and both prior to the writing of 1 Corinthians. The importance of the discussion on apostolic tradition will become more evident in the discussion which follows.

Part 4 

[1] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 186-87; emphasis original.

[2] See Kruger, Canon Revisited, 177. As understood and explained by Kruger, apostolic tradition is categorically different from Roman Catholic tradition.

[3] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 179.

[4] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 181.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 2 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 2 of 8)

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

(This is part 2 of 8.  Read part 1 here.)

One interesting aspect of the book of Acts and the Epistles is there are points at which it may be observed that the early Christians did certain things that are assumed as already in practice prior to the written record concerning the practice. For example, in 1 Corinthians 10:21, Paul writes about “the cup of the Lord” and “the table of the Lord.” Then in 1 Corinthians 11:20 he reduces those phrases to the phrase “the Lord’s Supper.” In 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, he recounts the words of the first institution of the Supper by our Lord. It is obvious that the Corinthians did not first partake of the Lord’s Supper after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. He wrote to them to correct their thinking and practice, not to institute something never before practiced. In other words, the Corinthians knew about the Lord’s Supper and were in fact abusing it prior to Paul writing to them about it. This indicates that the practice of the Lord’s Supper predates Paul’s corrective concerning it. In 1 Corinthians 11:23, Paul says, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you . . .” This pertains to the Lord’s Supper. Paul had already delivered to the Corinthians the words of institution and their practical significance for the Corinthian church. Interestingly, in 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul says, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” In context, it seems inescapable that one of those apostolic traditions is the Lord’s Supper. This is an instance where what is recorded for us in the Gospels (i.e., our Lord’s words of institution) is brought by an apostle to a local church by means of theological and practical implications. But when did Paul first bring the theological and practical implications of the institution of the Supper by our Lord to the Corinthians? The answer is he did so prior to writing 1 Corinthians, and he did so in the form of authoritative apostolic tradition.[1] Paul does not say, however, “By the way, I am an apostle. The traditions I delivered to you as a church are the theological and practical implications of the redemptive-historical acts of God in Christ. Just as the events recorded for us in the Pentateuch form the historical and theological basis for the rest of the Old Testament and from which the writers of the Old Testament draw out theological and practical inferences for the people of God, so it goes with the events connected to our Lord’s sufferings and glory and the church of the inaugurated new covenant.” Though he does not say this, it is the best way to account for what took place in the first century. The Lord’s Supper did not start with Paul. It was instituted by our Lord and put into practice by other apostles prior to Paul’s conversion, and even prior to the writing of any New Testament books. When was it first called “the Lord’s Supper”? Though we cannot pinpoint an exact date, we know that it at least predates the writing of 1 Corinthians. Most likely, it goes back either to our Lord himself prior to his ascension or to the apostles prior to Paul. Why do I assert this?

Recall that the eleven were addressed by our Lord after his resurrection. The event to which I am referring is recorded for us in Luke 24:44-49.

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 “You are witnesses of these things. 49 “And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:44-49)

Our Lord could have instructed them about the Lord’s Supper and called it such at this time (or before), though we cannot know for certain.

The Book of Acts (written by Luke) informs us of other post-resurrection appearances by our Lord to the apostles. We read in Acts 1:1-4 the following:

The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; . . .” (Acts 1:1-4)

The “first account” (v. 1) refers to the Gospel of Luke. The words “all that Jesus began to do and teach” imply the Book of Acts concerns what Jesus continued to do and teach after his resurrection. Alan J. Thompson says:

Luke tells Theophilus in the first verse in Acts that his first book was all about what Jesus began to do and teach. The implication of these opening words in Acts is that he is now going to write about all that Jesus continues to do and teach.[2]

Thompson adds, “Acts 1:1 indicates that the book is going to be about what Jesus is continuing to do and teach; therefore, the ‘Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus’ would be a better title.”[3] Before Christ’s ascension, he “had given orders to the apostles . . .” He appeared “to them over a period of forty days and” spoke “of the things concerning the kingdom of God.” He also reminded them of what Luke records for us in Luke 24 (see Acts 1:4). They were to wait in Jerusalem for Pentecost, at which time they would receive a special pneumatic endowment, equipping them for apostolic ministry while Christ was in heaven.

Part 3

[1] See the compelling discussion on apostolic tradition in Kruger, Canon Revisited, 174-94.

[2] Alan J. Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus: Luke’s account of God’s unfolding plan, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Gove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 48; emphasis original. Thompson’s book is highly recommended.

[3] Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus, 49.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 1 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 1 of 8)

This discussion comes from Getting the Garden Right, coming soon from Founders Press. It is used with permission.
Copyright © 2017 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

It will serve us well to be reminded of the uniqueness of the first day of the week in the New Testament. The concept of a unique day of the week is not novel to the New Testament. What is novel is the uniqueness of the first day of the week. In order to identify that the first day is unique in the New Testament, why it is so, and what implications for Christians entail in light of it, the following will be examined: 1) the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the first day; 2) the prominence of the first day immediately subsequent to our Lord’s resurrection; 3) that the New Testament Christians met on the first day; and 4) identifying the reason for such first-day meetings. This will display that the uniqueness of the first day of the week in the New Testament is rooted in the epoch-changing, redemptive-historical event of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Conservative biblical scholars admit the first-day resurrection of our Lord. The prominence of the first day of the week immediately after our Lord’s resurrection is an indisputable phenomenon in the New Testament, as is the fact that the early Christians met on the first day of the week. The debate comes when seeking to determine the reason for and the implications of first-day meetings of the church. If the reason is mere convenience, then there is nothing significant in the resurrection of Christ in terms of directing orthopraxy or conduct with respect to public church worship on the first day of the week. If the reason is redemptive-historical, however, there is a theological basis for first-day church meetings that transcends the first century and ought to shape our conduct. If the reason is convenience, then anyone who mandates a particular day for churches to gather and conduct public worship has violated the law of Christ. If the reason is redemptive-historical, and therefore theological, then first-day church meetings for worship are rooted in the act of Christ and we should expect the apostles and writers of the New Testament to reflect this. These are important issues which we need to think through carefully. We will come back to the issue of the basis for first-day meetings in the discussion below.

Christ Rose from the Dead on the First Day of the Week

The New Testament is clear: the Lord Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week. The first day is the day “after the Sabbath . . . the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1; see Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19), “when the Sabbath was over” (Mark 16:1). Several passages testify of Christ’s first-day resurrection (Matt. 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-23). Jesus rose from the dead early on the first day of the week (Mark 16:2, 9). Five times the Gospels mention this fact (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19). Sam Waldron comments on this unique phenomenon, suggesting a reason why:

Is this five-fold re-occurrence of the phrase “the first day of the week” merely an interesting detail or is it of religious significance? The singular importance of this repeated reference to the first day of the week may be seen by asking the question, How many times are days of the week mentioned by their number in the New Testament? The answer is not once. The third day after Christ’s death is mentioned. The Lord’s Day is also mentioned. The preparation day for the Sabbath is mentioned. Yet, there is no other reference to a day of the week by its number in the entire New Testament. This being the case it is difficult to think that the mention of “the first day of the week” five times by the evangelists is incidental. We are constrained to think that it has religious significance. But what is that significance? It appears to be recorded to show the origin of the church’s practice of observing the first day. There is no other natural explanation of this peculiar insistence on the “first day of the week” in the resurrection account.[1]

Most conservative biblical scholars agree that the New Testament church met on the first day of the week because Christ rose from the dead on that day. What Waldron is asking is how should we understand the repeated phenomena of the Gospels mentioning the fact of Christ’s first-day resurrection? Is it merely historical accounting with no theological and practical entailments? Or could it be that the accounting of redemptive history in the Gospels lays a basis for theological and practical significance which awaits further revelation for its explanation? Let’s explore this a bit before continuing the discussion. It is very important to consider.

We have seen that historical acts of God subsequently recorded for us in narrative accounts are often the basis from which further explanation of their significance is teased out by the human agents of said subsequent written revelation. Could this be the case with Christ’s resurrection? If this is the case (and I think it is), we should not demand or even expect the Gospel accounts to draw out the theological and practical implications of the resurrection of our Lord for the church of the inaugurated new covenant. The Gospels record the redemptive-historical acts of God in the sufferings and glory of Christ. It is left up to divine revelation via divinely appointed agents to draw out the implications of these redemptive-historical acts. We have this in the apostles and the other books of the New Testament (i.e., Acts-Revelation). The theological and practical implications of Christ’s first-day resurrection are not left up to us to interpret on our own. God has acted in Christ’s sufferings and glory recorded for us in the Gospels. God also interprets those acts through his divinely ordained agents, drawing out the implications for us in the rest of the New Testament. As Michael J. Kruger says:

God did not simply perform redemptive acts and then leave the announcement and promulgation of those redemptive acts to chance or to random movements of human history. Instead, God established the authority structure of his apostolate to be the foundation of his church for generations to come.[2]

Part 2 

[1] Samuel E. Waldron, Lectures on the Lord’s Day, unpublished.

[2] Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 174-75.

 

Pin It on Pinterest