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 | Jun 8, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (IV)
Mark 2:23-28 narrates another incident between Jesus and his disciples and the Pharisees. Jesus was “passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples began to make their way along while picking the heads of grain” (Mk. 2:23). The Pharisees said, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (Mk. 2:24). This is the regulating question Jesus answers in this passage. According to the Pharisees’ understanding, Christ’s disciples were violating the law of God by doing that which was, in their words, “not lawful on the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:24). Christ, as in Matt. 12:3-4, brings up the example of David and his companions entering the house of God and doing that “which [was] not lawful…” (Mk. 2:26). In Matt. 12:7, he pronounced his disciples innocent. In Matt. 12:12, Jesus said, “So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Though he does not pronounce his disciples innocent in Mark 2, he uses David and his companions as an example of someone in Scripture doing a similar thing his disciples were doing. It seems obvious that if his disciples were innocent in one text (Matt. 12), they are innocent in another (Mk. 2).[1] But how were they innocent? Did they, in fact, do that which was not lawful on the Sabbath? Obviously, Jesus did not think so in Matthew 12 or here. In Jesus’ mind, they did that which was lawful. It was lawful because God desires compassion or mercy over sacrifice (cf. Matt. 12:7). In other words, Jesus makes a distinction between aspects of the Old Testament’s laws. Mercy overrules the positive aspects of the Sabbath under the old covenant.[2]
In Mk. 2:27, Jesus does as Paul and Moses do elsewhere. He draws a principle from creation that is germane to mankind (cf. Exod. 20:8-11 and 1 Tim. 2:12-13). Mark 2:27-28 says, “And He said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.’” First, note that both man and Sabbath are said to be made. The verb used by Mark in v. 27, evge,neto (“made”), comes from gi,nomai, which means ‘to become’ or ‘to be.’ It is the same verb used in Jn. 1:3, where it is translated “made.” There it refers to the creation of all things through the Word. What Jesus is saying in Mk. 2:27 is that, in the past, both man and the Sabbath came into being (i.e., ‘were made’) and that coming into being is described by one verb. This leads us to the conclusion that man and Sabbath were made at the same time. It would be quite clumsy to separate the making of man and the making of the Sabbath by hundreds and maybe even thousands of years by placing the Sabbath’s birth after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt in Exod. 16 or 20. Since we know that man was created (i.e., ‘came into being’) according to Gen. 1 and 2 in the Garden of Eden, Christ would have us to conclude that the Sabbath, as he refers to it here, was made at the same time and in the same place (cf. Exod. 20:11). This relates Christ’s teaching on the Sabbath with previous revelation.
Second, both Sabbath and man are singular and articular in the Greek text (To. sa,bbaton… to.n a;nqrwpon [“the Sabbath…the man”]). Both words occur twice in this verse and both words are preceded by an article each time. This is one way to emphasize both Sabbath and man. Jesus did not say “The Sabbath was made for the Jews” or “the Sabbaths[3] were made for the Jews.” He said “the Sabbath” was made for “the man.” “The man” refers either to Adam as the head of the human race or mankind. Either way, it is clear that Christ goes back to the creation account and sees both man and the Sabbath being made. In context, Christ not only corrects the Pharisees for misunderstanding the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23-24), he, in effect, rebukes their narrow-minded and unbiblical approach to this issue. Jesus teaches us that the Sabbath is not unique to the Jews. God caused it to come into being as he caused Adam and all mankind to come into being for his glory and their good. The Sabbath is as old as man, according to Christ, not merely as old as the Jews. Again, this relates Christ’s teaching with previous revelation.
Third, the Sabbath is said to have been “made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Two observations are worthy to consider. First, “[t]he Sabbath was made for man.” It was not made for God. God does not need a Sabbath. We do. It was made by God for our good. Second, man was not made “for the Sabbath.” Man existed first. His needs existed before the Sabbath did. The Sabbath came into being to serve man’s needs to be like God and to enjoy him. We don’t serve the Sabbath, it serves us so we can serve God better. Again, this relates Christ’s teaching with previous revelation.
Fourth, Christ puts his stamp of Messianic lordship on the Sabbath that was made at creation. “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:28). This provides us with the expectation that the Sabbath will abide under his lordship and will take on characteristics appropriate to this lordship under the new covenant (cf. Rev. 1:10). John Murray comments:
What the Lord is affirming is that the Sabbath has its place within the sphere of his messianic lordship and that he exercises lordship over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man. Since he is Lord of the Sabbath it is his to guard it against those distortions and perversions with which Pharisaism had surrounded it and by which its truly beneficent purpose has been defeated. But he is also its Lord to guard and vindicate its permanent place within that messianic lordship which he exercises over all things–he is Lord of the Sabbath, too. And he is Lord of it, not for the purpose of depriving men of that inestimable benefit which the Sabbath bestows, but for the purpose of bringing to the fullest realization on behalf of men that beneficent design for which the Sabbath was instituted. If the Sabbath was made for man, and if Jesus is the Son of man to save man, surely the lordship which he exercises to that end is not to deprive man of that which was made for his good, but to seal to man that which the Sabbath institution involves. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath–we dare not tamper with his authority and we dare not misconstrue the intent of his words.[4]
It is clear from the text in Daniel, where the phrase “Son of Man” comes from, that it refers to Christ in the posture of enthronement, immediately following his ascension into glory and is a title appropriate for him during the days in which he is given a kingdom and the nations become his.
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14)
In other words, Christ administrates the Sabbath as the Son of Man during the whole interadvental period–the days of the new covenant. This relates Chris’s teaching on the Sabbath with both previous and future revelation. Christ’s lordship over the Sabbath also implies Christ’s deity. The Sabbath is God’s (Isa. 56:4; 58:13). Since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath as Son of Man and since this title is his during the inter-advental days of the new covenant, then we should not be shocked if the Sabbath bears unique characteristics of his lordship under the new covenant. Patrick Fairbairn says:
He is Lord of the Sabbath, and, as such, has a right to order everything concerning it, so as to make it, in the fullest sense, a day of blessing for man–a right, therefore, if He should see fit, to transfer its observance from the last day of the week to the first, that it might be associated with the consummation of His redemptive work, and to make it, in accordance with the impulsive life and energy thereby brought in, more than in the past, a day of active and hallowed employment for the good of men.[5]
Jesus (Matt. 19:4-5 [and Mk. 2:27-28]), Paul (1 Tim. 2:12-13), and Moses (Exod. 20:11) argue in similar fashion. Each of them goes back to the creation account for the basis of ethics in terms of marriage, divorce, male/female roles in the church, and Sabbath. They all apply the same reasoning, though to different issues. If the basis for their argument is creation, and if creation transcends covenants and cultures, how can we not conclude that what they are arguing for applies to all men at all times, though dependant upon revelation from God in terms of specific application at any given point in redemptive history? In other words, though the application may vary due to various redemptive-historical situations (i.e., divorce permitted due to the entrance of sin, 7th day Sabbath to 1st day Sabbath/Lord’s Day, etc.), the principle itself stands. And the reason why it stands is due to the order and ethical implications of creation drawn out by the Bible itself.
If the principle applies to marriage, divorce, and male/female roles in the church, then doesn’t it still apply to the Sabbath as well? If it does not apply to the Sabbath, upon what grounds is the principle dismissed? If one says, “The Sabbath was an ordinance for the Jews only. It was theirs’ as God’s old covenant people to apply to their culture alone in the Promised Land,” then couldn’t someone argue the same for male/female roles in the church? They could say, “Paul was dealing with a culture-relative issue. His reasoning applied to that culture alone. Women, therefore, may have authority over men in the church and may teach and preach to them. Women may be pastors.” Some in our day argue this way. But when the Bible bases ethics upon creation, the principle applies to all cultures at all times. And until this age gives way to the fullness of the age to come, creation-based ethics (i.e., creation ordinances) are moral laws for all men.
[1] If Matthew utilized Mark, it could be that he filled out the incident for his own purposes. If Mark used Matthew, it could be that he trimmed the incident because he knew Matthew had dealt with it in detail. If the Gospel writers wrote independent of each other based on eye-witness accounts, each one wrote what they did for authorial purposes. Either way, both texts were inspired by God and can and ought to be used to interpret each other.
[2] See the Second London Baptist Confession, 22:7, where it acknowledges that the Sabbath is “a positive moral, and perpetual commandment…” I take this to mean that the Sabbath can and does take upon itself temporary aspects (i.e., positive laws) during the history of redemption, which can and do change, yet its essence is moral or perpetual. This means that its positive aspects may give way to the moral or perpetual aspects of God’s law.
[3] The Jews under the old covenant had both a weekly Sabbath and other non-weekly Sabbaths.
[4] John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. I (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 208.
[5] Fairbairn, Revelation of Law, 238.
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.
