CBTS Logo
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)

by | Apr 4, 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 6 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2, part 3, part 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 5 of 8)

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

by | Mar 30, 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 5 of 8, click here for part 1, part 2, part 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 2 of 8)

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

by | 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.

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)

by | 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 on Biblical Theology Now Available!

by | Feb 14, 2014 | Announcements, Biblical Theology

We are excited to announce the online release of our latest course at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies! Dr. Richard Barcellos’ class on Biblical Theology I is now available on MCTS Pathway: http://goo.gl/wYpQ3d

In this course, Dr. Barcellos introduces Biblical Theology as a discipline. He covers its place and function in the encyclopedia of theology, a brief history, a working definition, various models and practitioners, and hermeneutics.

Do you want to have a better understanding of the progressive unfolding of God’s redemptive plan as revealed in the Bible? Then consider registering for this course, which opens up a much richer reading of God’s Word.

To whet your appetite, here is a sample lecture video from Dr. Barcellos where he provides a brief sketch of God’s progressive revelation from Genesis through Revelation.

You can also download the course syllabus for more information.

Pin It on Pinterest