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.

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity (Part Four)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity

Part one of this series focused on the passages directly related to the authority or responsibility relegated to or practiced by the local church congregation (the majority of these references were in relation to church discipline issues).  Part two of this series focused on the passages referring to the idea of having multiple pastor/elders within one local church (three from Acts, four from the epistles).  The third article focused on the interpretive struggle between identifying descriptive and prescriptive texts.

Ultimately, these concepts will have to be reconciled with each other.  As to how they are reconciled shows up more practically in our local church polities (which coincidentally appears to fall along denominational lines, but not exclusively). 

Consider the options, church polity can place some, most, or no authority with the local congregation (this option also brings into account other issues such as the priesthood of the believer and the perspicuity of scripture, or all the church discipline passages).  Another option would be to have one primary pastor/elder with no authority given to the local congregation.  Perhaps a third option would be to have some form of relationship entailing both the congregation and the pastor/elder.  But even with a melding of these two ideas, it leaves untouched the idea of how to handle the passages seeming to teach multiple elder/pastors within one congregation.  Even after solving this issue, we still have to address the role and purpose which the New Testament assigns to the elder/pastor.

It is this dilemma (if there is one) which necessitates a focus upon the descriptive and prescriptive texts.  Which texts in relation to church polity merely described what they did in the first century but are no longer binding upon local churches today (the descriptive position)?  Or which texts addressing this issues directly related to us today either by command or by principle/precedent (the prescriptive position)?  Don't forget how you relate these two texts together will shift the weight of authority to one of these two categories.

 

Let's consider the four possible options: (in relations to church polity—this seems to come close to a special pleading)

First, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are descriptive.  Second, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are also descriptive.  Third, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are also prescriptive.  Fourth, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are prescriptive.  A fifth possible option which shows how hard this issue is would be that Acts and the epistle both contain descriptive and prescriptive passages (which is probably the best option).

The title of this post tells you where I personally believe the biblical weight should be placed in understanding these five potential options.  This position enables the epistles themselves to interpret what is applicable for today.  This position also allows for keeping the authority in the text but also reaching different conclusions on this issue.  By way of digression, please understand that as you look at your NT you are not seeing the order in which the books of your NT were written.  A quick glance at the dating of the books will help the reader see that the NT epistles were individually written throughout the narrative of the book of Acts (some even after the events of Acts).

Before directly addressing the texts under debate, consider some of the options (if you were asked directly) as to how they weigh in on related issues:

1.  Should we ordain homosexuals as pastor/elders in the local church?  (I'm not asking you what your position is on this, but on what actual texts do you appeal to on this issue--where are they located?).

2.  Should we ordain both men and women as pastor/elders in the local church? (If you quickly think of 1 Tim 3 or Tit 1, what ramifications might there be if the epistles are only descriptive, or worse case only Paul's opinion on the issue, or only addressing a first century situation)?

3.  Should we financially support every pastor/elder the local church ordains?  If so on what basis do you make a distinction between paid and unpaid pastor/elders?

I would like to offer some thoughts on the key texts related to this issue of a plurality of elders within a local church (not necessarily answers, but contrary thoughts to those dogmatic on this issue):

1 Timothy 3:1-2, 8, 12

    a.  The focus on the the overseer here is for the office identified in the singular and with the article.     b.  Depending on the position you are trying to defend, this will determine the function of the article seen in the text.

    c.   Taking this into account, deacons appears in the plural twice (vv. 8, 12) in contrast to "the overseer" (v. 1).  How does this affect the article appearing before overseer but not before deacons plural?  What article usage will be applied and why?

1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

This text hinges on the function of the word "especially."  Think of these two primary options:

     a. Does it mean that all elders "rule well" and only some of these "labour in word and doctrine?"  Think as though one group is a sub-set of the whole group.  You could do a word study of how the Greek term translated "especially" occurs in the NT (this might help avoiding theological based options).

     b.  Does it mean that all the elders "rule well" and this same group are the ones "who labour in the word and doctrine?"  Technically think of an appositional relationship, "the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, (that is) they who labour in the word and doctrine."

2,  Tit 1:5 "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"

 a.  For this text to bear weight on the plurality position, the understanding would need to be there is only one local church in each city (of which there is no reason to believe there is only one church in each city, especially considering the number of house-church settings mentions in the NT).

  b.  This text only supports the idea that Titus is to ordain elders in each city (there is no reference to whether there should be one or more elders in each local church).  You would have to equate city with the word church to get help for plurality in this text.

3.  Acts, 14, 15, 20

      a.  All these passages in Acts depend on the fact that they are prescriptive and not just descriptive for the plurality of elders in each local church to have weight.

      b.  The plurality of elders position must still wrestle with the house-church model presented in the NT, the potential understanding of "church" as the universal and not local church, or perhaps even if "the church" should be understood collectively for the local churches in that particular city.

These are some general thoughts categorizing what I am seeing in print on these issues.  Some even to the point of calling congregational polity "satanic."  The last articles in this series still need to address that actual biblical function and/or role pastor/elders have in the NT.  Also if the "plurality" texts in Acts are the actual model, what would then be the hierarchy among them?  Who decides?  Unfortunately, wrestling with the prescriptive and descriptive concepts is not always easy, but to think it doesn't exist or doesn't help is not being academically honest.

Just some ideas to consider.

Hope this helps some on this issue.  More to come.

Drop a line and tell me what your thinking.