by CBTSeminary | Apr 13, 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 & 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.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Richard Barcellos | 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).
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 CBTSeminary | 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.
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Richard Barcellos | Mar 24, 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 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.
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 22, 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 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.
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.
