by Richard Barcellos | Mar 20, 2017 | Biblical Worship, New Testament, Worship
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.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 17, 2017 | Biblical Worship, Ecclesiology, Worship
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.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Jun 9, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (V)
Conclusion: Gospel Texts on Sabbath-Keeping
A detailed examination of all the passages in the Gospels where Christ discusses the issue of the Sabbath will show that he never predicted its abolition, nor did he ever profane it. If fact, he could not profane it, nor advocate its profanation by others, without sinning. He was born under the law, not to profane it, but to keep it (Gal. 4:5). If Christ violated the Sabbath, then he sinned and would not be a suitable Savior for others. Instead, he advocated works of necessity (Matt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5), mercy (Matt. 12:9-14; Mk. 3:1-6; Lk. 4:31-41; 6:6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; Jn. 5:8-10; 7:23; 9:13-16), and piety (Matt. 12:9; Mk. 6:2; Lk. 4:16; 6:6; Jn. 7:22-23) on the Sabbath by his teaching and example. He never violated it, advocated its violation by others, or prophesied its soon demise. In fact, Mk. 2:27-28 prophesies the perpetuity of the Sabbath under his lordship as Son of Man.
Both Matt. 12:1-14 and Mk. 2:27-28 contain transcovenantal principles relating to the Sabbath. Works of mercy and necessity are lawful on the Sabbath, linking Jesus’ teaching with revelation given prior to his earthly ministry (i.e., the OT). Jesus as Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, linking the Sabbath and its Lord with future revelation (i.e., the NT). Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath leaves us with the expectation that he will execute his lordship over the Sabbath in the future, during the inter-advental days of the new covenant. His teaching on the Sabbath is related to antecedent revelation (explicitly) and subsequent revelation (implicitly). It establishes a basis for its basic ethical perpetuity and yet in such a way as to expect changes in application due to the redemptive-historical shift that takes place due to his entrance into glory (i.e., resurrection/ascension).
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | May 24, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (III)
Mark 2:27-28
Wells discusses Mk. 2:27-28 (48-57). He claims, and rightly so, “There is no command in these verses…” (49). He continues, “…but an argument for Sabbath keeping has been drawn from each of them” (49). He states the argument this way:
The argument is twofold. First, if God at creation made the Sabbath a blessing for mankind, He certainly did not do so only to abolish it later. Second, when the Lord Jesus announces Himself as Lord of the Sabbath, it seems unlikely to suppose that He intended to exercise His Lordship over it by doing away with it. (49)
Dealing with this twofold argument, Wells assumes “that God commanded man to keep the Sabbath at the time of creation” (49), though he does not believe that to be the case. Discussing the first argument, he says:
The first argument implies the impossibility of God later abolishing anything that He made for mankind’s benefit at the creation. But is this sound reasoning? It may be true or it may be false, but it is certainly not obvious. Where is it written that if God once made something a blessing for mankind at large that He would never suspend it? (49)
He then gives examples of many things God has made for man’s benefit that he subsequently takes from man (i.e., the Garden of Eden, many wonderful fruits, extinct birds and animals, the benefits of family life for some believers in Christ, etc. [49-50]). What shall we say to this?
Wells asserts, without citing anyone, that “The first argument implies the impossibility of God later abolishing anything that He made for mankind’s benefit at the creation” (49; emphasis mine). Does the first argument imply this? Is this the way those Wells is arguing against state their position? I think the answer to both questions is a resounding, “No!” Do those who believe that God instituted some things for mankind’s good at creation also believe in “the impossibility of God later abolishing” those things? Again, Wells cites no one. In fact, he over-states his case. Claiming that God instituted some things for man’s good at creation does not necessarily imply the impossibility of God later abolishing those things. The Garden of Eden is a case in point, as Wells says.
The argument Wells set up (i.e., that “God at creation made the Sabbath a blessing for mankind”) needs additional elements to necessarily imply what he claims. Those who argue this would need to state that it is impossible for God to institute anything for man’s benefit at creation and then abolish it later. I don’t know of anyone who would argue this way, though someone who does may exist.
But there is another problem with Wells’ response. The examples he uses of things instituted by God at creation for the benefit of man and later abolished are not identified as creation ordinances by those he is combating. Creation ordinances are not co-extensive with everything instituted by God for man in the Garden of Eden. Wells himself identifies what those who hold to creation ordinances identify as such. He says, “Often three are cited: marriage, labor and Sabbath” (26). In other words, for example, the Garden of Eden is not a creation ordinance in the minds of Wells’ opponents. Even though it appears that Wells does not adhere to the doctrine of creation ordinances, he is disagreeing with those who do and should have seen the problem with arguing the way he did. In effect, he put words in the mouths of those he is critiquing and then shows those words to be impossible to square with Scripture. I found Wells’ argument unconvincing and his method of argumentation, at this point, very sloppy.[1]
After extensive discussion, Wells denies that this verse teaches any sort of Sabbath perpetuity under the lordship of Christ as Son of Man. However, is it that simple? Let’s consider these verses in context in our next post.
[1] I am sure I have been guilty of the same thing.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | May 5, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology
Chapter 3: Gospel Texts on Sabbath-Keeping
In chapter 3, Wells combs the Gospels for teaching related to the Sabbath. He makes this assertion: “There is not one syllable of positive teaching by the Lord Jesus peculiar to the Sabbath in any Gospel passage” (42).[1] What he means by “positive teaching” is “teaching that tells Christians or Jews what they must do, or not do on any Sabbath” (42). What he means by “peculiar to the Sabbath” is “teaching that is true for the Sabbath that is not also true for every other day of the year” (42). In Wells’ thinking, this would mean that if the Gospels do not contain teaching that either commands or forbids specific activities on the Sabbath or commands or forbids things that apply on any other day, then it was never Jesus’ intention “to command anyone to keep a Sabbath” (47). Do you feel the pressure of these twin pillars? If there is no “positive teaching…peculiar to the Sabbath,” Jesus was not commanding Sabbath observance. I find these constricting hermeneutical hedges both interesting and wrong-headed. It is as if Wells sets up for us in advance what kind of teaching on the Sabbath must be present in order to justify any kind of Sabbath observance for Christians or Jews from the lips of our Lord. Wells knows, as does any casual reader of the Gospels, that the Sabbath command was something already in place at the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. Jesus simply assumes its validity. Wells also knows, as does any casual reader of the Gospels, that Christ sought to correct the faulty understanding and practice of some first century Jews concerning the Sabbath. The Sabbath was already an ancient institution, predating Jesus and his contemporaries but had been abused. Requiring Jesus to present us with “positive teaching…peculiar to the Sabbath” seems to exclude any other type of teaching that might lead us to the conclusion that the Sabbath transcends the old covenant and has ethical tentacles that reach into the new covenant.
Let’s assume Wells’ position for a minute. Jesus’ teaching was not for the purpose of identifying what Christians or Jews can or can’t do on the Sabbath or Lord’s Day (45). Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath did not command or forbid anything either commanded or forbidden on any other day. Does that prove that there is no Sabbath or Lord’s Day for the Christian to obey? Assuming the validity of Wells’ equation, all it would prove is what it asserts – nothing more and nothing less. Again, Jesus was correcting the faulty teaching of his day on the Sabbath that added to and took from the word of God – commanding and forbidding things God did not. Jesus advocated a return to Sabbath-keeping as it had been revealed by God. Also, Jesus did say, “So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt. 12:12). This sure seems like “positive teaching” to me.
[1] Italics are Wells’.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
