Lord's Day Worship: Remembrance of Christ's Bodily Resurrection from the Dead (Series part Six)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four

New Testament Lord's Day Worship

The first reason Christians worship on the Lord's day is a remembrance of Christ's bodily resurrection from the dead.

The first of four main passages addressing why Protestant Christians worship on Sunday and not Saturday is out of remembrance for this specific historical event.  This event is record in all four of the gospels (though there is quite a variance of views on when Jesus actually died during the passion week, ranging from Wed. thru Fri.).

Please note the text references:

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,..." (Mt 28:1)

"And very early in the morning the first day of the week" (Mk 16:2)
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared to Mary..." (Mk 16:9)

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning" (Lk 24:1)

"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early," (Jn 20:1)**

**(Technically the Greek gloss for the word the English word "day" does not appear.  However, every translation I can find supplies this idea which the context surely commends.  This will be key in the book of Acts where the disciples worship on the "sabbath" in the synagogue and then gather for worship on a different calendar day, "the Lord's Day).

 These women went to tomb, found the stone rolled away and Christ was not there.  He had bodily risen from the dead.

I am referencing this text first to establish a textual basis for worship on what we call the Lord's Day (Rev 1).  We gather corporately for worship based on a biblical text.  Please note there is no command in any of these four texts to worship on this particular day.

Strict Sabbath-keeping denominations still gather for corporate worship on the Sabbath (our calendar day of Saturday, "the seventh day").  Quickly to be fair, they do so out of what they believe is obedience to the Decalogue, believed not to be abrogated in any way, a lack of command to worship otherwise, this is when Christ went to the synagogue, and a multitude form of genetic fallacies.

By way of reminder, a "genetic fallacy" put simply is to say an argument is wrong based on the source of the argument not necessary the argument itself.  Import Roman Catholicism or Seventh-Day Adventists.  If Rome or the SDA said something erroneous elsewhere then it must be wrong here too (sorry just don't have time to deal with every issue, well at least not in this series, maybe elsewhere).

As a Protestant Christian (a Baptist in particular), I worship on the Lord's day corporately.  I do not do it solely based on this historical narrative event.  This event provides the the memorial or remembrance focus for this particular day of the week (similar to the Lord's Table, 1 Cor 11).  There are other reasons too.  When the multitude reasons are combined the weight surely points to the fact that in the NT believers worshiped on the Lord's Day (as distinct from the calendar Lord's day) and this is both instructive descriptively (this is what they were doing) and prescriptively (commands and principles that don't contradict what they were doing) for Christians today in 2016.  It is these other reasons found in the NT which we will address in future articles.

May this article help those struggling with this issue.

Comments and suggestions encouraged.

Christ's Bodily Resurrection: Prescriptive or Descriptive reason for Christian Worship? (Part Five)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four

Three primary issues are yet to be addressed in this series concerning the Sabbath/Lord's Day issue (well at least till I'm done writing about it).  Each of these following issues has a direct correlation to the prescriptive/descriptive discussion.

First, I will address the five main texts related to the Lord's day (the resurrection texts in the gospels, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:1, Rev 1:10, Heb 4).  I will try to add in the associated issues with each of these

Second, I will address the passages related to Christian liberty and the law (Rom 14, 1 Cor 8-10, and several other epistle references to the sabbath).

Lastly, I will make some concluding comments on morning and evening worship.  This issue in particular weighs in heavy on the descriptive nature of OT observance.  This is a sad trend in the almost pandemic disappearance of evening worship services within evangelical churches.

Let's be honest here if one has to have a prescriptive command for Sunday morning and evening then at least be consistent: throw out Wednesday night prayer meetings, Sunday evening, and even Sunday School (sorry no direct commands for any of these).  Then again if descriptive patterns, practices, and principles do matter, then the discussion is more complex than simply quoting a verse.

I would love to spend time commenting on the beliefs and practices throughout church history.  However, each period in church history had their own issues and confrontations.  Let's be honest for every possible protestant position you can extract someone in church history who agrees with you.  This is all too common today to take the words of a person, creed, confession, and/or denomination and try to make there position on the issue what is correct for today.  On the other hand, exegesis and theology are not practiced in a vacuum.  We are not left today to reinvent every doctrine under the sun as if church history never addressed these issues.  Unfortunately, this idea of questioning and making changes is a current trend in evangelical circles.

We will address these issues in a later thread.

Till then keeping worshiping the Lord corporately and individually on the Lord's day.

Hope this helps some.
Comments encouraged.

Jesus and the Sabbath/Lord's Day issue (Part Four)

Jesus and the Sabbath/Lord's Day Issue (Part Four)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three   

We will take for granted that it is on the Lord's day Christians set aside a day for worship out of remembrance for the Lord's bodily resurrection from the dead, therefore we will focus on how Jesus himself observed the sabbath (technically at this point in history his bodily resurrection will not have happened yet).  This being said, what Jesus did is important for at least some of the following reasons (descriptive/or prescriptively is another matter):

1)  Many within evangelicalism function as though the "red letters" by the publisher are actually more authoritative than the surrounding "black letters."
2)  Many withing evangelicalism extract a great deal of their proof-texting for mercy and healing ministries, kingdom-now views from the gospels (well at least not the raising the dead part).
3)  Related to (number one), what Jesus actually did and said is exactly how God (in-flesh) would respond to these issues (we must remember Jesus is the second-person of the Godhead, John 1:1, 14).
Whether these views are right/wrong is not the point. The fact that people (in the church age) draw commands and/or principles from the four gospels does at least demand some attention be given to how Jesus handled the sabbath observance.

Are there principles and/or practices that are applicable for how we govern our activities on the Lord's Day?  We will consider one text in the gospels: Matthew 12.  Matthew 12 focuses on an issue of hunger and healing on the sabbath.  In a similar fashion, John 5 relates to Christ healing a man on the sabbath.  We will focus on the context of Mt 12 and hopefully extrapolate principles from this text (none of which are unique to me or to our current church situation in 2016).  No matter which text is the focus, the point is the same, Jesus actually did something on the sabbath and the Jewish leadership did not like it at all.

First, from a broader context, the gospel of Matthew neatly breaks down into five distinct discourse sections.  The most famous of these discourses being the sermon on the mount (ch. 5-7) and the olivet discourse (ch. 24-25).  Our text under consideration is found in one of the narrative sections (ch. 11-12).  We know this because the previous section ended with Mt 11:1, "when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples."  Our concern is the first thirteen verse which breaks down into the two topics of discussion: plucking grain (vv. 1-9) and healing a man's hand (vv. 10-13).

The first section, (vv. 1-9) highlights what is commonly called "works of necessity."  Eating is a necessity to continue living.  The scenario is simple.  The disciples were hungry and plucked some corn to eat on the sabbath which was noticed by the Pharisee to be in violation of their own practices (tradition) (vv. 1-2).  Jesus responses to their question with two distinct Old Testament examples: David eating food (not explicitly forbidden but only when for profit, Dt 23:25), when he was hungry (vv. 3-4) and then the activity of priests on the sabbath (v. 5).  Jesus changes the focus with a contrasting conjunction "but" switching the focus to higher and more internal heart matter.  Jesus claims deity in this passage, "the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (v. 8).  This directly relates to the two previous verses: one, he is the "greater" one present and two, the changed heart condition had priority over external worship.  What needs to be noted is that Christ does not abolish the sabbath as a day of rest but instead declared himself to be it's Lord.  In this first example, works of necessity is the focus under Christ's authority over this day.

So if we draw in principles what could they be?

1) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath?
2) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus healed sick people on the Sabbath?
3) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus pointed people to himself on the Sabbath?

Historically, when people mention works of mercy or necessity, do they have fair ground to do so?

Compare this to today: (any number of illustrations will make the point)

1)  Should we go out to eat at a restaurant on the Lord's day?
2)  Should I mow the grass, hunt, fish, or trap, on the Lord's day?
3)  Should I spend hours of time involved with sporting adventures on the Lord's day?

Rarely are people actually concerned about working on the Lord's day.  Yes we could even talk about heart issues and motivations as well.  Personally, I'm glad there are police officers, firemen, and doctors who care for others seven days a week.  They are doing works of mercy and necessity for you and me (give them your thanks for it).

Are these liberty issues?  You decide.  Not matter what the example.  Someone and somewhere will always have a name to call you for anything you choose to do or not do?

May we enjoy a good Lord's day of worship each week (another topic for another thread).

These issues will have to be addressed later in liberty issues.
Hope this helps some in this issue.
Comments encouraged.

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive order among elders? (Part Five)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three       Series Part Four

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive case for an order among elders/pastors?

Ever heard the terms senior pastor, youth pastor, assistant pastor, college and career pastor?  If you have heard of these terms, were they of equal pay and authority?  Was one of them over the others?

How about among those who have some form of lay/paid elders in their local church.  Are they all of equal authority?  Are some more authoritative than others or do they all get one equal vote when decisions are made?  Ever wondered why?

Before covering some of the basic scriptural texts addressing this issue so comments are needed.
First, some use the above terms simply in a pragmatic way.  Allow me to elaborate.  A church may reach a size where either the one pastor or the congregation feels that more help is needed.  They therefore "call" another individual to fill/serve in another "pastoral" position.  Well, you can't just call them both pastor.  So one becomes the senior pastor and the next what is called his assistant.  If given an age category perhaps youth, college/career or senior citizen pastor.

So in essence, they actually have a "plurality" of elders within their local church, however in this case they both are normally "on staff" or "paid" elders as opposed to a "lay" elder who has a full/part-time job to help pay the bills (it must be noted that in some churches even the senior pastor is technically a "lay" pastor since he works a full/part-time job to meet his family's financial needs).  Normally, but not always the second or third pastors are also ordained by the local church (but not always).  Or add in another variable his wife works a full/part-time job so that he can pastor a local church (I'm sure there is a broad array of views on this one, including paying the "hubbies" way through seminary).

Second, some use the above terms as part of a church hierarchy.  This means that some church leaders are actually in a position above other church leaders not part of their local congregation.  This means that leaders outside of that local church (or a group of them) can make decisions that are then placed upon other local churches.  This is no small matter.  Sometimes the group outside of the local church actually owns the building the people are meeting.  Think of the consequences of this.  If the local church does not submit to or obey the rules/laws/decrees of the higher governing body they can and have actually lose their church (sometimes pastor/elders have been removed from their pulpits).  We will have to address the one main text for this concept in a later thread (just for a hint: try reading Acts 15 and think in prescriptive/descriptive terms for local churches today).  Many entire denominations function within this structure (note your KJV still retains the church structure of "bishops" and "elders").

Third, some simply have a combination of the above two positions,  But is there any biblical precedent either descriptively or prescriptively to have some church leaders more authoritative than others, both of which are identified as "elders" or "pastors."

There are mainly two ways in which this question is answered.  You decide whether the texts are actually teaching the relationship of pastors to other pastors in the same local church.  Or on the other hand, are we looking for any hierarchy found in scripture and using it for justification?  Is this being descriptive, prescriptive or neither one?

First, is the relationship among the twelve apostles.  From this concept, two items are extrapolated.  Peter always appears first in the listing of the twelve.  This is determined to mean he is more authoritative creating an ecclesiastical hierarchy.  Within this grouping Peter, Andrew, James, and John appear together at the top of the list (Mt 10).  Acts 1 keeps the top four but changes around the order "Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew."  Unfortunately, the listing breaks down for the mount of transfiguration (Mt 17), Andrew is nowhere to be found.  So this position has to rely entirely upon the listing of the twelve exclusively or simply that Peter appears first each time or that he answers first on a regular basis (Mt 16).  If I'm not mistaken, didn't Rome do this already with him?

Second, as has been discussed in an earlier thread in this series 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is a key text in this issue.  Do some elders teach and other elders rule?  Do all elders rule and some teach?  Or is it the same elders doing the ruling and teaching?  Is it the grammar of the passage that actually produces a pastoral hierarchy or are there outside factors?  You make the decision.

Comments encouraged.  Hope this helps anyone in these areas.
I have tried to accurately represent each position through probably not every possible caveat.

Post-Exile Sabbath Observance (Part Three)

Series Part One     Series Part Two

Post-Exile Sabbath Observance and the Sabbath/Lord's Day Issue

So if you had the law again after 70 years of captivity and were free to practice (obey) it again, which parts would you extract as most important?  Which parts would you be most zealous to reinstate (I am assuming they did not observe the sabbath in any form during captivity)?

Would you reinstate the sabbath?  Or would you be glad to throw off the law under the guise of legalistic oppression?  Again as reminder, does this text only apply to that time period or..... Consider Nehemiah 10: 28-33.

Two keys items were highlighted: relation to culture (v. 30) and sabbath observance (vv. 31-33).

First in relation to culture there is a clear reference for believers not to marry unbelievers.  So is the descriptive or prescriptive?  Three chapters later Nehemiah (13:23-31) this idea of intermarriage with the surrounding culture is brought up again.  Here Nehemiah actually calls it "sin" and "evil" (v. 26-27).  So even if this is only descriptive, the people still refused to obey explicit commands (prescriptive) given to Israel in Deut 25 related to intermarriage without the surrounding culture.  Is it possible that the NT would repeat this concept of not being "unequally yoked" with unbelievers?  Even if you don't believe this applies to marriage, you have to at least acknowledge there is a command to limit interaction between the two.

Second in relation to the sabbath there is a clear reference not to be entangled in unnecessary business on the sabbath.  Even if this does not apply to the Lord's day, I'm still glad Chick Fil A is closed on the Lord's Day.  I applaud any business that chooses to do so.

This issue is obviously a concern to Nehemiah.  He brings it up in 13:15-22 (same as the intermarriage issue).  Again he describes their practice of business on the sabbath as "evil" (v. 17-18).
So same question needs repeated: Is this merely descriptive or prescriptive for today?
They obviously still tried to apply it after being in captivity for 70 years.  I am convinced that even if it was commanded of us Christians would still find a way to avoid obeying it.

We could test case tithing, it still finds ways to be ignored (Abraham received them before the law was given)?

We could test case the sabbath as well (of course the connection with the Lord's day is needed), this is where we will turn our attention?

We still will need to address the passages related to not being under the law and liberty/conscience issues.

I'm afraid with the infatuation that even Christians have with sports on the Lord's day, dropping Lord's day evening attendance, and even pastoral lack of concern will never allow this issue to get the weight it once had when we still had "blue laws."  I am certain our Christian churches are not a Plymouth plantation.

Hope this helps.  More to come.
Comments encouraged.

The Lord's Day/Sabbath and the Ten Commandments (Series Part Two)

Series Part One

The Lord's Day and Sabbath Issue.  What does the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) teach us in relation to this issue?  I find it ironic in this issue that many complain about their removal from court house lawns and public places and then turn around to find multiple ways not to follow them anyway.  

By way of review, the previous article began this discussion with the seventh day of the creation week (Genesis 2).  Some Christians place the bedrock for the Sabbath as a creation ordinance.  Other start here in the Ten commandments.  So how would these two options relate to the prescriptive/descriptive discussion?

First, if the sabbath observance is attached to creation and not the Mosaic law, then it like other concepts rooted in creation still has weight today (think marriage, family, etc...).  On the other hand, if the sabbath observance depends upon a prescriptive command rooted in the mosaic law, then their is a greater likelihood it could be laid aside as a "civil" or "ceremonial" portion of the law, in some fashion removed through Christ's sacrificial death on the cross for our sins.

What is the command under discussion?
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, they manservant, nor they maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within they gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is them is, and rested the seventh day wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11).

Deut. 5: 15 applies the fourth commandment to the nation's actual exodus from bondage and not to the creation itself, "And remember that thout wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."

Let's consider the background.  This is fourth of the ten commandments given to the nation of Israel following the nations exodus from bondage in Egypt.  But what people want to know is how much if any applies to me today?  When Jesus died how much of the law did he fulfill?  Is there NT precedent to answer or at least help to think about this issue?  Even if we can't agree as to any NT applications, perhaps at a minimum if sola scriptura means anything, we can find at least in principle, applications to help with the sabbath day/Lord's day issue.

With that stated I would at this time like to consider two NT examples before later discussing other related texts and issues.

First, what was the Messiah's view of the Decalogue?  Let's consider Mat 19:16-22.  An individual comes to Christ asking about "eternal life" (v. 16).  We are concerned with Jesus' response.  He actually quotes five of the ten commandments (vv. 18-19).  Although he did not quote the one in question here, it is interesting that Christ still believed the law was applicable to his time in the first century.  But perhaps your thinking that was before the cross.

Second, consider another example (after the cross and directly given in imperative form to a local church).  Consider Eph 6:1-2 (Col 3 repeats the command but makes no connection to the decalogue).  In this context Paul directly applies the fifth commandment to children in the local church.  In verse one children are given an imperative, "Obey your parents in the Lord."  He directly follows this by quoting the fifth commandment,"Honour thy father and mother," as though it still applies and is a motivating factor for believers in the church.

What are some take away's from this idea:

First, if sola scriptura means anything (not just a phrase to make us sound "Cool, Trendy, and Reformed"), we need to be able to find commands and/or principles to govern every issue in life.  If not then stop using the phrase sola scriptura because you really mean "mostly scriptura."

Second, both Jesus and Paul believed the ten commands can and should be quoted and/or applied to NT situations.  What is at questions is must the fourth command be repeated in the NT (as a command) not just an observance throughout the gospels and Acts to be applicable today?  This question is actually a huge deal.  Check out the literature on this one.  This is a huge hurdle for this particular command to the NT church.

Third, name calling (think ad hominem) will not help in this issue.  It certainly is not an exegetical or theological argument (sabbatarian, legalist, antinomian, liberty, license, etc...).

At the end of the day, does the Lord's day mean anything to us in 2016 at all (assuming any kind of parallel can be shown in days ahead)? In closing I would like to quote from one of my professors concerning this day, "Tragically, it is all too common that the only difference in practice between Christians and the ungodly on Sunday is the couple of hours spent in church." (p. 104, The Beauty of Holiness by Michal P. V. Barett).  Does this describe us?

If your respond is "but I have liberties," then you've already decided.

Just some thoughts to consider.
Thoughts and comments encouraged.
More to come concerning this issue of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day.

The Temple Tax: The Priority of Avoiding Offense over Personal Liberty (my rights)

The Temple Tax: The Priority of Avoiding Offense over Personal Liberty (my rights)

(Small digression from Sabbath/Lord's Day series on related topic of Christian Liberty)

Ever wondered how this text could apply today in 2016? 

Is freedom really more important that not offending others?

Are my rights (personal liberty) more important?

In broader evangelicalism, is this simply a matter of grace versus law (in relation to Christian living)?

Consider Jesus' teaching on this issue from Mt 17:24-27.  I came across this text in my M'Cheyne Daily Bible Reading schedule.

The question is asked of one of Jesus' disciples, namely Peter, "Doth not your master pay tribute?"

What is this tribute?  Multiple study Bibles agree that it was an amount paid by males over 20 years of age (equivalent of two days pay) (ESV Study Bible, MacArthur, Ref. Hert., and Ryrie).

More important than the amount was the focus on who was required to pay this temple tax.  Jesus responds to Peter focusing on who should pay this tax (v. 25), "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of strangers?"

Peter answers Jesus' question correctly, "Of strangers" (v. 25).  All four study Bibles agree to Jesus' second statement, "then are the children free."  Jesus is stating, "Jesus is the Son of God and therefore exempt from the temple tax" (Ref. Herit. Study Bible).  The other three agree with similar wording focusing on Christ's deity.

This being said, it is Jesus' follow up statement that bears weight on this question, "lest we should offend them," (v. 27).  Jesus' focus is not on a person's rights or liberty.  Don't forget all three study Bibles even made the connection to his own deity in relation to the scenario.  Jesus focused on not offending them, not his rights, privileges, or liberty. This term "offend" is a verb with a very similar root to the term used in Rom 14, "stumbling block."  This something Christians are not supposed to cause other brethren to commit through their own actions.

Lets import some present day scenarios into this equation:

1.  What actions might you be doing (which may be your rights/liberty) but are causing other believers to stumble?

2. What good intentions might you have in some endeavor but are causing other believers to fall into sin?

3. Think of all the things people do which may be their liberty/right (again it might not be), music, Bible translations, entertainment choices, sports, etc... and it is causing another brother to stumble?

Is your liberty really that important?  Obviously, Jesus Himself did not think his own rights were more important.

Hope this helps someone.  Comments encouraged.