The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 8 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 6 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2part 3part 4part 5part 6 & part 7)

 The Reason for First-Day Meetings in the New Testament (continued)

It is important to recognize that the resurrection is an epoch-changing event. The resurrection is seen as the beginning of the new creation. Believers are united to Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection through faith.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin (Rom. 6:3-6)

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Col. 2:11-12)

Union with Christ brings believers into the orbit of redemptive privilege. They may know “the power of His resurrection” (Phil. 3:10) because they are united to him through faith. God “made us alive together with Christ . . . and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5-6). Being in Christ makes believers citizens of heaven (Phil. 3:20).

Union with Christ also involves existence in two ages at once—this age (the old creation) and the age to come (the new creation). The age to come is the age of the resurrection.

Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

Christ’s resurrection is the first bodily resurrection of the age to come because it was “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20).

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming (1 Cor. 15:20-23)

Christ’s resurrection was the first of similar resurrections to come. But being “the firstfruits,” it is not totally other than that which follows. It is different in time, but it is part of the same resurrection. It is part of the same harvest, just the first of the much greater harvest to come. Gaffin, commenting on “firstfruits,” says:

The word is not simply an indication of temporal priority. Rather it brings into view Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection-harvest, the initial portion of the whole. His resurrection is the representative beginning of the resurrection of believers. In other words, the term seems deliberately chosen to make evident the organic connection between the two resurrections. In the context, Paul’s “thesis” over against his opponents is that the resurrection of Jesus has the bodily resurrection of “those who sleep” as its necessary consequence. His resurrection is not simply a guarantee; it is a pledge in the sense that it is the actual beginning of the general event. In fact, on the basis of this verse it can be said that Paul views the two resurrections not so much as two events but as two episodes of the same event.[1]

Christ’s resurrection is the most powerful sign of the presence of the age to come. His resurrected body took on qualities it did not possess prior to the resurrection (Rom. 1:4). It was an age-to-come body, existing in this age for a brief time on the earth and now in heaven. In Christ’s resurrection, then, we see the age to come eclipsing this age. This is why Paul says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17, NKJV). This is not only true of personal renovation but also a state of existence in the new creation brought in by Christ. In Galatians 6:15, Paul says, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”

The age to come has eclipsed this age in the resurrection of Christ. Hebrews 6:5 says that some “have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Waldron says, “The great realities of the age to come have in some sense broken into and become operative in this age.”[2] Waldron’s further comments are helpful at this point:

The New Testament teaches, therefore, that there is a new creation in Christ (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10). The idea of new creation is frequently associated with Christ’s resurrection (cf. Eph. 2:10 with 2:5,7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10 with Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 1:15-18). By union with Christ in His death, the old man is destroyed. By union with Christ in His resurrection, the new man is created. When He rose again He became the firstborn of God’s new creation. As He was the beginning of the old creation, so He is now the beginning of the new (Rev. 3:14). Thus, the memorial of Christ’s resurrection is of necessity a memorial of the new creation. Thus, the Lord’s Day like the Sabbath and unlike any other religious observance points to both creation and redemption.[3]

Christ’s resurrection is the apex of all of God’s redemptive work on the earth. It is an epoch-changing event. It ushers in the first phase of the new creation, the last Adam’s entrance into glory. In one sense, it affects everything. But how does it affect the Sabbath under the inaugurated new covenant? That it is the redemptive-historical, theological, and Christological basis for first-day church meetings seems clear. But does it mark the end of all Sabbaths for the people of God? Or does it function as the first creation did in relation to the first Sabbath? Does it function as the basis for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day because it is the day Christ ceased from his redemptive work, as God rested from his creative work? Surely, no greater, more unique event could be asked for to change the day of sacred rest for the people of God.

 

[1] Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1987), 34-35.

[2] Samuel E. Waldron, The End Times Made Simple (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003), 49.

[3] Waldron, Lord’s Day.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 7 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 7 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 6 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2part 3part 4part 5 & part 6)

The Reason for First-Day Meetings in the New Testament

Finally, consider the reason for first-day meetings in the New Testament. Though it does not state the reason in explicit terms, the New Testament does present enough evidence to provide an answer. The reason for first-day meetings can be none other than the fact and implications of Christ’s first-day resurrection. The resurrection, the pivotal, epoch-changing event in redemptive history, becomes the redemptive-historical and theological basis for first-day meetings in the New Testament. It is seen as an epoch-changing event—the beginning of the new creation. It is also seen as the day in which Christ ceased from his redemptive labors (Heb. 4:9-10).

Schreiner admits that the day of Christ’s resurrection is unique, saying, “Even by stating that it [i.e., the resurrection of Christ] was the first day of the week, the authors assign a special significance to that day.”[1] He then appears to acknowledge that subsequent first days of the week were viewed in a unique way. He says:

We also see hints elsewhere in the NT that the church gathered for worship on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; cf. Rev 1:10). Such a practice is most naturally linked to Sunday being the day on which the Lord rose from the dead, though no explicit link is made between the two.[2]

Schreiner identifies church gatherings “for worship on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week . . . [as] a practice . . . most naturally linked to Sunday being the day on which the Lord rose from the dead.”

Wells makes a similar statement, though with a degree of hesitation not evident in Schreiner:

I have argued that the meeting day of the early church was not fixed by apostolic authority, but by convenience. Nevertheless there might have been a natural preference for the first day of the week. Why? Because our Lord rose from the dead on that day.[3]

Both Schreiner and Wells claim the connection between first-day church meetings and the resurrection of our Lord is a natural one, though Wells does so reluctantly. If one is reminded that the resurrection is a redemptive-historical act of God in Christ, a better word to use to indicate the connection is “theological” instead of “natural.” In other words, the practical implication of the resurrection of our Lord in terms of church gatherings for worship finds its basis in a redemptive-historical reality. It appears Schreiner would agree with this. I do not think Wells does, however. He claims that first-day meetings were “fixed . . . by convenience.” Earlier in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, he says, “If, however, we ask why Paul said, ‘On the first day of every week?’ there is a good chance that he chose that day because the Christians met on that day.”[4] The question we are asking and seeking to answer is why they met on the first day. Wells says it was out of convenience, though he does not argue his case cogently. Then he suggests, “there might have been a natural preference for the first day of the week.” If there is a redemptive-historical reason for first-day meetings, however, it is a theologically revealed basis and does not and cannot change, whether convenient for us or not. If the early Christians met on the basis of convenience, would it not have been less threatening to their well-being to meet on the last day of the week (especially Jewish believers) so as not to draw unwanted and potentially adverse attention to themselves? As will be argued below, the reason for first-day meetings of the church is not based on the mere natural connection between the resurrection of our Lord and first-day meetings. It is, in fact, very redemptive-historical, theological, and even Christological.

Part 8

[1] Schreiner, “Good-bye and Hello,” 186.

[2] Schreiner, “Good-bye and Hello,” 186-87.

[3] Wells, The Christian and the Sabbath, 95; emphasis added.

[4] Wells, The Christian and the Sabbath, 95.

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 6 of 8)

The First Day of the Week in the New Testament (part 6 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 6 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2part 3part 4 & part 5)

First-Day Corporate Meetings in the New Testament (continued)

It is no small matter for the apostle Paul to give orders to the churches concerning first-day meetings. Apostolic authority is binding for all churches. When Paul gave orders to the churches, his orders were the orders of Christ himself. John 16:13-14 (referenced above) contain a promise from Christ of inspired truth to complete the revelation of the Father’s will. This promise refers to the apostolate. Ephesians 2:20 says that the church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” First Corinthians 4:17 says:

For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Cor. 4:17)

What Paul taught “everywhere in every church” was binding on the Corinthians. In 1 Corinthians 7:17, Paul says, “Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.” Paul had authority to ordain the same things in all the churches. First Corinthians 11:2 says, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” Apostolic traditions were binding on the Corinthians (see 2 Thess. 2:15).

So for Paul to give orders to the churches means that whatever he ordered was binding on them (and subsequent churches). Apostolic authority carried with it the authority of Christ himself. The apostles were the revelatory agents through whom Christ completed the will of his Father. As the saying goes, the apostle of the man is as the man himself. First-day meetings of the church for worship, then, are the will of Christ for his churches, revealed through his apostles.

It is of interest to note something that goes on in the New Testament that relates to our discussion. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 16 imply that it is the will of our Lord that churches gather on the first day of the week. As Paul told us, what he ordered for the Corinthians he had done for the Galatian churches, which assumes they met on the first day of the week as well. According to Acts 20:7 and the other relevant factors noted above, first-day meetings for acts of public worship by the churches was the New Testament norm. It is interesting to consider the practice of first-day church worship meetings, the assumption that the basis for such is the resurrection of our Lord (to be discussed under the next heading and in chapter 14, agreed upon by most), noting the authoritative approval of the apostle Paul for such meetings, assuming this to be dominical and apostolic sanction for such, in light of the probability that 1 Corinthians was written prior to the letters to the Romans and Colossians. If one takes Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:9-10, and Colossians 2:16-17 as the negation of all special days pertaining to Christians and churches, this would seem to contradict the assumption of 1 Corinthians 16 and other parts of the New Testament. The words of William Ames are worth pondering at this point:

. . . in the practice of the churches at the time of the apostles, when mention is made of the observance of the first day, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2, it is not remembered as some recent ordinance but as something long since accepted by the disciples of Christ. . . . [I]n all things the apostles delivered to the churches what they had received from Christ, 1 Cor. 11:23. . . . [T]his institution could have been deferred not more than one week after the death of Christ if God’s own law of one sanctified day per week were to remain firm . . . The placing of the holy sabbath of the Jews on the seventh day was abrogated by the death of Christ. . . . [I]t was also most appropriate that the day of worship in the New Testament should be ordained by him who ordained the worship itself and from whom all blessing and grace is to be expected in worship.[1]

Assuming what Ames says is the case (and I think it is), how can Romans 14, Galatians 4, and Colossians 2 refer to the Lord’s Day? Ames comments on these texts as follows:

First, in all these passages the observance of some day for religious use by the action of Christ is no more condemned or denied than the choice of certain meat for religious use by the action of the same Christ. But no Christian would reasonably conclude from those passages that the choice of bread and wine for religious use in the Lord’s Supper is either unlawful or not ordained by Christ. Nothing, therefore, can be drawn from these passages against the observance of the Lord’s Day on the authority of Christ. Second, the Apostle in Rom. 14 expressly speaks of the judgment about certain days which then produced offense among Christians; but the observance of the Lord’s Day which the Apostle himself teaches had already taken place in all the churches (1 Cor. 16:1, 2) and could not be the occasion of offense. Third, it is most probable that the Apostle in this passage is treating of a dispute about choosing of days to eat or to refuse certain meats, for the question is put in Rom. 14:2 about meats only and in verses 5 and 6 the related problem of duty is discussed; and in the remainder of the chapter he considers only meats, making no mention of days. Fourth, in the Galatians passage the discussion relates only to the observance of days, months, and years as an aspect of bondage to weak and beggarly elemental spirits (4:9). But it was far from the Apostle’s mind and altogether strange to the Christian faith to consider any commandment of the decalogue or any ordinance of Christ in such a vein. Fifth, in Col. 2 the sabbaths mentioned are specially and expressly described as new moons and ceremonial shadows of things to come in Christ. But the sabbath commanded in the decalogue and our Lord’s Day are of another nature entirely, as has been shown.[2]

Whether or not readers agree with every element of Ames’ arguments is not the point. The point being made is that prior to the writing of Romans and Colossians, holy drink and food (i.e., the Lord’s Supper), and a holy day (i.e., the Lord’s Day) were already in place. Whatever particular issues each passage is addressing, they cannot teach against the bread and wine and the sanctity of the first day of the week.

A further dilemma for those who think Romans 14, Galatians 4, and Colossians 2 deny the sanctity of the Lord’s Day needs mention at this time. If the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, has not been sanctioned by our Lord himself through the apostles for churches to gather for public worship, who determines when churches ought to gather for such? If one says it is up to each church, does each church then have the authority to discipline one of its own for preferring another day and rarely attending their own church’s meetings for worship? Would this not be a violation of the interpretation of Romans 14, Galatians 4, and Colossians 2 that those who advocate against the sanctity of the first day take? It seems to me it would. If the words “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” refer to the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week, as well as all other days, how could a church discipline any of its members for forsaking the assembly of the saints, let alone encourage them to assemble on a stated day? Romans 14 cannot be a universal law against all holy days, just as it cannot be a universal law against all holy food and drink, and neither can Galatians 4 or Colossians 2. If they were, the Lord’s Supper could just as well be observed by using tacos and beer.

First day of the week meetings in the New Testament were sanctioned by Christ through his apostles. These meetings for worship are not to be placed in the category of adiaphora, something indifferent or outside the law of Christ. This is not an issue of Christian liberty, left up to each individual soul to determine what’s best for them. It is the will of Christ revealed to us in the New Testament in various ways to be practiced by his churches until he comes again.

Part 7

 

[1] Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 2.15.30 (295).

[2] Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 2.15.32 (297).

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.

Pin It on Pinterest