The Epistles and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Conversation (Part Eight)

The Epistles and the Lord's Day/Sabbath Conversation (Part Eight)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four
     
Series Part Five     Series Part Six

There are very few actual references in the epistles to the Sabbath or to the Lord's Day.  Technically there is only one reference to the "first day of the week."  It is this one reference we will end with.
So from here we discuss 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 after some preliminary comments on related passages.

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."

Two other related texts are Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16.  Gal 4:10 reads, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" and Col 2: 16 states, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

From here we have two goals: (1) to explain the texts in their specific context, and (2) to revisit the prescriptive/descriptive discussion as each text relates to the Lord's day/sabbath issue.

In Gal 4:1-7, Paul focuses on the believers sonship.  In verses 9-12 he focuses on their desire to want to return again to a situation he describes as "to the weak and beggarly elements" (v. 9).  He immediately qualifies this statement by identifying their observance of particular calendar events.  The events being described no doubt are part of the Jewish ceremonial calendar.   If not this then what is he referring to?  The text does not explicitly say observing these events is sinful in and of itself.  This would be contradictory to his own personal practice throughout the book of Acts, both passover, pentecost, the sabbath, and vows.  It would also be in contrast to his own teaching from Rom 14:5, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike."  So if I am following Paul's argument it is not the observance of the sabbath (think: day, months, times and years) which is sinful.  It is the intent or motive that is driving the observance of these events.  This interpretation meshes well with Gal 3:1-5, where Paul was addressing a similar issue of law and faith and its relationship to receiving the Spirit (think: new birth).  It seems most obvious that they are trying to return to a position of having a righteous standing before God on the basis of obeying the law itself (I would suggest this is actual "theological legalism").  That position in itself is contrary to a righteousness of God by faith alone (Rom 3).

If a position on the church and its relation to the law is taken not allowing for the above interpretation then of course this makes it easy to see Paul's direct reference to any part of the ceremonial (or even any pre-determined part) of the law to not apply to the church.  I still have problems with this interpretation for the following summary reasons (not exhaustive): (1) nearly every NT sermon bases its texts or proof-texts from the OT; (2) the ten commandments themselves are repeatedly quoted even in direct reference to the church (see Eph 6:1-2); (3) you have to come to the conclusion that both Paul's teaching throughout the epistles and his personal practice in Acts are in error, since he is repeatedly trying to obey the law and avoid offense in its practice.  As to the ongoing application of the Mosaic law for the church today needs to be the topic of another thread (I would suggest this boarders on "theological antinomianism" not to be equated with "practical antinoianism").  I would define this (practical antinomianism) as the belief that a believer does not have to obey the precepts and/or commands of scripture nor is the reality of "progressive" sanctification a necessity for believers (these ideas will be readdressed in a later thread). I would suggest to an extent this in no way detracts from those who believe they are presently under the law of Christ as NT believers.  I do want to be careful here to avoid being accused of setting up straw men, ad hominem arguments, equivocation, and especially not either/or fallacies. If using the above labels draws criticism in this regard, then I apologize in advance.

Back to the other two texts.  Col 2;16 appears in a section where Paul is addressing a false philosophy.  Again the idea appears to be a warning of the concepts taught by false teachers.  Similar terms appear in relation to the Mosaic law, especially with ceremonial overtones: "holy day" "new moon" and "sabbath days."  Clearly the context again is drawing attention to the fact (just like back in Acst 15) there are people teaching that the observing of the these calendar and/or ceremonial aspects of the law are necessary to have a righteous standing before God.  Later on he reemphasizes this which the addition of human elements "Touch not, taste not, handle not" (v. 21).  Again issues that are of man-made derivation, "the rudiments of the world" (v. 20) and "the commandments and doctrines of men" (v. 22).  None of this is in contrast or contradiction to Paul's lifestyle practice or doctrinal teaching elsewhere on this subject.  To try to earn a righteous status before God via obedience to these would be in my estimation "doctrinal legalism." Not trying to create a straw man but the unfortunate reality is that there are those in evangelical circles who would accuse the same of Christians either of "doctrinal or practical legalism" for actually suggesting that Christians should obey the 500+ imperatives in the NT (ironic concept to obey scriptural commands out of love for Christ and God, the one law giver according to James).  (There are other dangers in this area making it certain that a thread on progressive sanctification is forthcoming).

Again these previous two texts did not directly address the "first day of the week" terminology.  They only made reference to "days' or to the "sabbath."  We turn now to the only reference in the epistles to "the first day of the week" (1 Cor 16:1-2).  This text is introduced by one of the last of introductory formulas in 1 Corinthians translated with the phrase "Now concerning."  Paul's immediate concern is the collection of finances (v. 1).  Paul uses an plural imperative verb (one of the 500+ NT commands) to instruct them to gather money for collection (v. 2).  It is not the collection of money that is our focus here, but on the particular day of the week in which it is to be collected, "the first day of the week" (v. 2). The text itself makes not direct connection with the sabbath nor with Christ's bodily resurrection form the dead (we would need to extrapolate this information from the gospel accounts).  What is important is how Paul addresses his readers.  It is almost as though the pattern for meeting on this day has already been occurring.  He gives no command for them to meet here nor in any other text (via command) to meet on the "first day of the week."  But he from what I can surmise assumes this is the day on which they are meeting corporately.  I don't believe it is too much of a stretch to interpret the text this way.  Consider the the fact that this letter was most likely written on his third missionary journey (Acts 18-21).  It is in this same chapter content where the previous identification occurred in Ephesus when they met on "the first day of the week."  Again its not that much of a guess to assume Paul already understood this corporate meeting pattern already in progress when he writes this letter.

So with this information in mind what should we do with it.  Is there a direct command or pattern to worship on the first day of the week?  I find a lack of any chapter and verse that says Christians must (via obedience to a NT command, "assuming this is not legalism").  On the other hand I find an incredible descriptive pattern showing on multiple occasions that NT believers in two different cities (Ephesus and Corinth) met on "the first day of the week."

The most I can extrapolate from the "day" and "sabbath" references is that some people do not believe there are in any way, form or fashion principles that can be applied to "the first day of the week."  Again I am perplexed in addressing a position that finds no place for the mosaic law for believers (especially considering the vast plethora of OT texts used to draw principles, applications, and even commands for NT believers).  So I guess if you have to be dogmatic needing a chapter and verse (prescriptive reasoning) for a NT worship day of the week, your going to have struggles.  However if the NT pattern matters (descriptive reasoning) then there is great weight to say Christians should be meeting corporately "on the first day of the week."  I would suggest this is "the Lord's day" (Rev 1:10).  This is the day Christ rose bodily from the grave and the NT church met corporately for worship.

Hope this helps some.
Again comments encouraged.
In so far as interpretation errors emerge of which I am to blame (I can only hope a better more consistent option for these texts can available).

One more thread to come on Christian Liberty and the Lord's Day/sabbath issue.