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.
[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.
