Book Review: Decision Making and the Will of God

Friesen G. and Maxson R.
25th Anniversary Edition
Multnomah, Colorado Springs, 2004
ISBN 1-59052-205-2

(This is a shorter version of a longer article from October 2008.)

The main thrust of this book is that the traditional view of God’s will for individuals—that God has a discoverable or knowable personal will for the individual believer, and perhaps cohesive groups of believers with a common problem or situation—is unbiblical and therefore false. Specifically, it is the discoverable or knowable personal will for individuals for the purpose of decision making to which the authors object. Their main point being that such a will does not exist and that in God’s moral will as revealed by Scripture is everything that a believer needs to know (Deut 29:29) and must know to live a fruitful and blessed life as a Christian. And since there is no personal will of God for the individual, searching for God’s personal will through circumstances “open/closed doors” as well as other believers, the leading of the Holy Spirit, impressions and so on is futile and can only be periodically successful at best.

Rather, their approach is to explain what they call the "way of wisdom" which they contend is in fact the true traditional approach to Christian decision making. They contend that this way of wisdom is composed of four principles, to wit:

1. Where God commands, we must obey;
2. Where there is no command, God gives us freedom (and responsibility) to choose;
3. Where there is no command, God gives us wisdom to choose;
4. When we have chosen what is moral and wise, we must trust the sovereign God to work out all the details together for good.

As well, the authors are quick to point out that divine, supernatural intervention should be considered the exception, not the norm and examples found in the Bible of such intervention should be understood in the light of very specific needs or of a very specific and purposeful working out of God’s sovereign will for His redemptive purposes. Thankfully, the author’s insistence on a complete lack of at least some degree of (apparent?) divine intervention in a person’s life has been moderated somewhat in the 25th edition, the authors acknowledging its possibility if not its ubiquity. (I believe that what a Christian often understands as God's personal will for him or her is really a demonstration of God's providential but sovereign will. It is not something that happens contigently but is an aspect of God's sovereign will in which the believer is the recipient. In this regard, placing ourselves in the midst of God's moral law—which is the expression of God's moral will—also ensures the outcomes of God's usually hidden sovereign will. But perhaps I'm just splitting hairs.)

I liked this book. I think it is a very intelligent examination of the whole “God’s will” issue in light of the objective examination of Scripture. I believe that the personal will of God for an individual (or for cohesive groups such as congregations and their leaders) is a chimera as a strategy for decision making, and should not be pursued. The personal will we are seeking, is nothing more or less than God’s sovereign will for the individual, which is only knowable after the fact. By placing ourselves squarely in the middle of God’s revealed, moral will, we can be assured of being pleasing to God, regardless of our circumstances or their outcomes.

The authors’ view also has implications for Christian liberty, as may be expected. If we are firmly planted in God’s will through our understanding and obedience to the demands of Scripture alone, we will find that—rather than having less freedom—we will in fact have much more freedom.

The book is well researched and well documented with clear and cogent arguments for the position being put forward by the authors. This is a book that should be read by every Christian.

Some thoughts on the Headcovering in Worship

The Preamble

1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Paul tells the recipients of his letter to follow him in his way of life as a Christian, just as Paul follows Christ. This and the next verse set the context for the entire chapter, not just this passage. We are to interpret everything that comes after in light of these two verses.

2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul here praises the Corinthians for being mindful of him and for keeping the teachings and practices he has given them through his apostolic authority within the Ekklesia (Church). These two verses are in keeping with instructions of his as in 1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17 and 2 Tim. 1:13-14 for example. All these verses show approval and encouragement for obedience. He wants all the congregations—regardless of their specific circumstances—to carry out His instructions to the best of their sanctified understanding and obedience. While all of Paul’s letters have specific recipients in mind, they are also meant for the Ekklesia in general. That is, Paul’s teachings are intended for and are applicable to all congregations within the greater Ekklesia or Assembly (i.e. the Church).  The teaching that begins with verse three is no exception to this rule (but see our concluding remarks below).

The Argument

3. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

This is the key verse of this passage and sets up the structure underlying the entire discussion. God (the Father) is the head of Christ; Christ is obedient and submissive to God the Father, always perfectly doing His will. Christ is the head of the man; He is the Saviour and Lord. The man is the head of his wife. Since it is the role of the head to be the one who determines the nature of a relationship, it follows that the husband as head of the family and of the wife must exemplify and model this covenantal form of relationship.

4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
Because Christ is the head of the man, for a man to cover his head is symbolically to dishonour Christ through concealing His glory. (Jewish and pagan men alike before and during the Christian era often wore a covering on their heads during worship. The coverings were not a simple hat that sat on top of the head, such as the kippah (skullcap). The covering was probably the tallit (prayer shawl). Paul is saying that during private prayers it was permissible to pull the tallit up over the head, but not so during public prayers or worship.

5. but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
She does this by symbolically announcing, through her uncovered head during public worship, that she is no longer of one flesh with her husband, that is, no longer in the covenantal form of relationship that Paul has already defined in verse three and which is based on such passages as Genesis 2:23-24. When this happens, not only is her husband dishonoured but so also is the institution of biblical, covenantal marriage. The intention is to conform to the biblical principle outlined in verse three. The rest of the passage is really just an unpacking—in terms of the accepted customs of the day—of the relationship already outlined in verse three.

6. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
Paul shows the circuitousness of the situation: if she is uncovered, she may as well be shaven, which in the context of the society in which they all lived at the time of writing, was a sign of disgrace. Generally speaking, only “loose” women or prostitutes went around in public with their heads uncovered. By this practice, the woman was “marketing” her availability. (The Greek word for covering in this verse, katakaluptomai, implies that her hair, not a garment, should cover her.)

7. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
This is a summary verse, restating the argument so far. The way for woman to show forth her proper relationship to the man is the opposite of how a man should show his proper relationship to Christ. In the context of their day, a woman’s hair was her glory and to not cover it up would put her in the position of publicly saying, “My glory is just the same as my husband’s glory.” This would detract from the proper covenantal relationship established at creation (outlined in verse three). This practice is no longer the accepted custom of our own time and society but I believe the principle or pattern of moral rectitude, of which the head covering is a specific example, is still relevant.

8. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
To authenticate his thesis, Paul gives the order of precedence according to scripture: the woman came from the man (Genesis 2:22) and is therefore related to man in a subordinate positional role just as Christ proceeds from the Father and is related to Him in a subordinate positional role.

9. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Here Paul reminds his readers of the purpose of the creation of woman (Genesis 2:18, 22) that she is to be to him a helpmate and fit companion. This logical statement adds the weight of further evidence to Paul’s argument by clarifying that what is of most importance is the proper relationship between men and women generally, and a man and his wife particularly, and all to Christ.

10. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
It is for this reason (the two parts of which are given in verses eight and nine) that the wife owes honour to the man (because of his positional authority, as per verse three) regardless of what kind of man he may be in and of himself. And too, it honours angels who are partakers, in some mysterious way, of the true worship of God. I believe that whenever God’s people are gathered together for true, biblical worship, angels are gathered to watch and listen (and perhaps enjoy and offer praise to God for the glory He receives from His supreme creation, human beings).

11. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

Here Paul reminds husbands and wives not to be independent. It is not for ourselves that we engage in the ordinances Paul has been talking about. We do not have ultimate authority in this. Men and women are equal and have the same worth (Genesis 1:27-28a). Here Paul tells us it is not a question of which is better or innately superior: husband or wife. We are both to be in obedience to God’s commandments. Both the husband and the wife are dependent on God and His ordinances. This is the core of the covenantal relationship and this is the (universally operative) principle within the Ekklesia. This principle is symbolically represented here by the custom of the head covering.

12. for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
Since woman comes from man, owing her existence partly to him (Adam provided the raw material as it were) and since all men since the Fall are born from (and nurtured by) women, so men and women are mutually dependant and of equal worth. We are to be mindful that men and women (and therefore husbands and wives) have equal value, but that God has supreme value over all His created order and so has a right to make demands upon it. All things come from God as Creator and owe allegiance to Him.

13. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
In this verse, Paul confidently asks his readers to use their common sense as well as their status as born-again Christians to discern the truth in their hearts and minds and to apply what he has told them to their own situation in the society of which they were members.

14. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
Paul introduces the argument from nature here but he seems to have something of an unspoken assumption in mind. I think by “nature” he really means the world of human social customs, prohibitions, mores and the like, not the world of the forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world. Clearly, if that is what Paul meant he would be seriously mistaken as the material world of nature teaches no such thing. It was not the custom of most Jews, before and during the Christian era, to wear long hair as we see so often depicted in popular art and film. Jewish men at the time wore short hair. The main reason being that long hair in a man of Paul’s time and place was a sign of effeminacy and (probably) homosexuality. In Paul’s mind, homosexuality was a perversion of the proper order of nature and this created social stigma. In this sense Paul can say that nature teaches that long hair on a man is a disgrace.

15. but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
The word for covering used here, (Gk.  peribolaion) indicates, tangentially, being covered by fabric or a garment that could be wrapped about oneself, such as a veil or shawl. This indicates that a woman’s hair acts as a kind of veil or shawl. The word “for” (GK. hoti) means “because of” or “because.” So Paul is saying in effect “A woman’s glory is because of her hair (her natural covering).”

In any event, showing off her long (glorious) hair in the society of which she and her husband were members was tantamount to a denial of the sanctified relationship between man and wife established by God in the Garden of Eden at the very beginnings of our world. The ordinance of the head covering for both men and women was a social recognition of the covenant nature of marriage and of submission to the purpose and wisdom of God by husband and wife, man and woman.

Conclusions

16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

If any man appears to be, or is accounted as, willing to engage in strife or argumentation, Paul says that (in his time and place, i.e. first century Palestine) there is no other habit, ordinance, custom or practice than the uncovering of the man’s head and the covering of the woman’s head during public, corporate worship.

The NET Bible translates the word “contentious” as “quarrel”, thus reading, “If anyone intends to quarrel about this (practice of the head covering)….” It could also be understood as “If anyone has a problem with this practice, too bad. This is the only practice (or custom, tradition, teaching) we have, none of the other congregations have a practice which is any different.”

I believe the word “such” (Gk.  toioutos) should be translated as meaning “this is the only custom we have” and I conclude that this (the covering of the head) was the custom (Gk. sunetheia) of other congregations besides the Corinthian.

In line with this, it behooves us to be cognizant of the overall Pauline context in all his writings. Three variants in particular stand out; the authority of Christ, the obedience, respect, and submissive attitude that wives are to display toward husbands, and Paul’s clear instructions for strong and assured believers to give way to the needs, beliefs and practices of weaker Christians, as is found in passages such as Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8. And in light of Paul’s admonishing of Christians not to turn back to the law and legalism (as for instance in Gal. 3) we perhaps may understand that each Christian married couple has a degree of liberty in regard to such issues as the head covering, so long as they recognize the creation order of first man, then woman and so act accordingly (that is to say men with respectful consideration and women with willing submission).

After considering this passage, and the greater context of Paul’s ministry as well as the underlying OT context, I’m inclined to think that Paul is recommending that husbands and wives follow local custom for the sake of order, expediency, peace and unity (in keeping with Paul’s overall concern for decency and propriety in the Assembly) and that if anyone chooses to practice something different, it is their own business so long as it doesn’t cause strife within the local body of believers.

My own, personal belief is that if the husband sincerely believes his wife should wear a covering (a shawl, mantle, veil) in keeping with first-century NT custom, then as a decent Christian wife, she should respectfully submit, regardless of her personal preferences. I do not wish, however, to give the impression that this issue is black and white, but that a mutual decision should be reached after both husband and wife have offered the matter up in prayer, asking for guidance and blessing.  As I have said, this is open to Christian liberty; it is not a practice of NT law. That would be sheer legalism, the very thing Paul is quick to warn against in many places.

Personally, I can think of no better gesture of voluntary, loving submission to Christ than for a woman to wear a covering such as a veil or shawl during public worship. (I know that if Paul had said that it is seemly for a man to cover his head with a prayer shawl during public worship, I would do it as an act of grateful submission to the will of God, regardless of what any person within the Assembly thought about my actions.

For a woman to cover her head is a beautiful act of graceful obedience and a very public announcement that she belongs to Christ—heart and soul—and is neither afraid or ashamed of the Gospel. However, done in any other attitude but loving submission, as an act of spiritual service (Rom. 12:1) or for any reasons not in keeping with the overall teachings of joy and peace in Christ, then it is done in pride, defiance and disobedience and would be best if not done at all. We must each search our hearts and arrive at a solution that is honourable and edifying for all parties in the particular context in which it takes place. This always requires sensitivity and sometimes even sacrifice on the part of the husband or the wife.  If we come to the Lord in prayer, and there find even a hint of guilt or shame because of our decision and action, then we must repent, seek forgiveness and alter our behaviours accordingly.

The Olive Tree Metaphor in Romans 11.

Dear Friends,
After a three-year hiatus because of serious illness, I find myself well enough to take on a renewed commitment to the NewVineyard blog. While I cannot promise to post every day, every week or every month, I will endeavor to post as often as the Lord permits. I intend to offer thought-provoking articles in the spirit of Semper Reformanda. I begin with an excerpt from a much longer essay on the significance of the Sabbath for the NT believer, focussing on the meaning of chapter 11 from Paul's epistle to the Roman congregation. I pray you find it stimulating and useful.

SHALOM

Jamie

“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3.6).

“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews”
(John 4.22).

To a significant degree one’s assumptions regarding the spiritual status or prominence of the church will influence what one believes about the Sabbath versus the Lord’s Day. That is to say, if you proceed from the triumphalist point of view that the church has superseded Israel as God’s people—for the reason that God has forever and irrevocably rejected Israel because of her unbelief and rebellious obstinacy and has instead bestowed the promises on the new people of God (the so-called “Church”, a word I have come to dislike)—then you will not likely be comfortable with the idea of keeping the OT Sabbath celebration, preferring instead to celebrate on Sunday, the first day of the week, as do the overwhelming majority of Christians. If however, you are willing to accept the possibility that God has not entirely written off His people Israel and that there is a degree of overlap between Israel and Christ’s ekklesia or assembly then you will probably not be uncomfortable with the idea of keeping the Sabbath in a biblically appropriate fashion (and not according to Rabbinic accretions, i.e. the traditions of the elders,
Matt. 15:3).

Most Christians today hold to one of two differing views regarding the relationship between Israel and the church. The first, replacement theology is the view that though Israel was once God’s chosen people, because of her disobedience in rejecting Jesus as Messiah God has transferred the promises of the covenants to the Christian Church. Israel forfeited all the blessings originally promised to her, which are now the possession of the church. The second view, separation theology, holds that the church and Israel are completely separate entities, with entirely different destinies. Many separation theologians maintain that Israel will inherit all God’s worldly promises (including an independent nation-state) while the church will inherit all the spiritual promises. According to Separation theologians, the church had her beginning with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Pentecost following Christ’s ascension. Before that time, they believe, the church did not exist and therefore there can be no continuity with Israel. My own growing conviction is that there is instead an overlap between Israel and the church. I arrive at this conviction from such passages of Scripture as Romans 9 and 11, Eph. 2:12-22; 3:4-6 and so forth. This understanding of the overlap is known as remnant theology.  However, this overlap in no way makes Israel and the church identical, or that the assembly (Heb. qahal) in the OT was simply the promise or type of which the church of the NT is the fulfillment or antitype. While replacement theology maintains that the church has taken prominence over Israel as the true ekklesia of God and that the remnant (believing Israel) has been grafted into the church, the opposite position is taken by remnant theology which maintains that the NT ekklesia or assembly has been grafted into the believing remnant (Isa. 10:22; Rom. 9:27) of Israel—an important distinction.

Scripture uses many metaphors and symbols to represent God’s people. One found in both testaments is the metaphor of the olive tree.  For instance, we read of God’s people in Jeremiah that “The LORD once called you ‘a green olive tree, beautiful with good fruit’” (Jer. 11:16a). Again, referring to Israel Hosea says, “…his beauty shall be like the olive [tree]” (Hos. 14:6b). King David refers to himself as “like a green olive tree in the house of God” (Psalm 52:8). (Zechariah chapter 4 also employs the image of olive trees and branches, but consideration of that use of the metaphor would take us too far off the path we are on, therefore we will not consider it in this context.) The image of the olive tree already had a solid place in Scripture as representing God’s people when Paul was inspired to use the metaphor to illustrate the “mystery” of the relationship between Israel and the ekklesia. This olive tree metaphor was a very suitable instrument for Paul’s purpose of disclosing an extremely important spiritual truth.

So with these introductory thoughts in mind, we turn our attention to Paul`s understanding of Israel and how Israel and the ekklesia are related. We then move to a consideration of the inception of the church in Matt. 16:18 and the outcome of the Council of Jerusalem only some twenty five years after the ascension of Christ.

In chapter nine of Romans, Paul begins to lay out the groundwork for the “problem of Israel.” This “mystery” he discloses in chapter 11 and by which the ekklesia of Christ should have been profoundly and humbly affected but—because of the sins of ignorance, fear and arrogance—was not.

In Romans 9, Paul begins to build an argument for the eventual salvation of Israel as well as the Gentiles by demonstrating through the metaphor of the olive tree that (with the coming of Christ) there is a kind of unity between Israel and the ekklesia. He begins his argument by lamenting that Israel, in spite of being the recipients of adoption as God’s sons, God’s glory, the covenants, the Torah, temple worship and the promises of God to the Patriarchs, from whom is traced the human ancestry of Christ (vs. 1-5) has in spite of all that, seemingly failed of salvation. His heart is burdened almost to breaking, especially as he identifies so strongly with his cultural as well as spiritual heritage (Phil. 3:4-6). He then explains that it is not because God has failed or broken His promises to Israel, but rather that Israel has collectively failed to uphold God’s promises and intentions for her.

Romans 11 is based on the figure of an olive tree. Some of the branches of this tree have been broken off, while others—from a wild olive tree—have been grafted in to the tree (the existing rootstock). The rootstock, which receives the new, foreign branches, is the remnant of Israel and the original inheritor of God’s salvation through its own root, Abraham and the other patriarchs. The branches which have been broken off of the olive tree constitute unbelieving Israel, while those branches grafted in from the wild olive tree are the Gentiles, saved by God’s gracious action of giving them access by faith to Christ as well as the “oracles of God”, the holy Scriptures, and thereby they come to “share in the nourishing root of the olive tree” that is, the covenants made with the patriarchs (v. 17).  This God has done not only to fulfill His own promises concerning the Gentiles (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 9:2; Rom. 3:29-30;15:9) but also, through these new grafted in branches, to provoke some of unbelieving Israel to jealousy, which Paul assures will lead to new faith and so to be themselves grafted back into their own rootstock. Together, the remnant of Israel with the prophesied addition of Gentiles, constitute the ekklesia of God, to which the remainder of those destined for salvation will be added. But Paul goes on to warn the Gentiles that they should not be arrogant since it is not they who support the root, “but the root supports you” (v. 18) and that if God could break off the natural branches because of unbelief, he can do the same to the Gentiles for arrogance and ungratefulness (vs. 20-22).

In the opening verses of chapter 11, Paul makes it clear that God has not rejected His people, that is, those He foreknew (vs. 1-2) but declares rather—in keeping with Isaiah, (Isa. 10:22, LXX)—that a remnant of the faithful has been chosen by grace (v. 5). “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel… and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named’” (Rom. 9:6-7).

In verses 17 and 24 Paul depicts Gentiles as branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted into a cultivated rootstock. Elsewhere—but echoing Romans 11—Paul says that Gentiles have up till then been excluded from citizenship in Israel, are foreigners (i.e. a wild olive tree) to the covenants of promise and therefore have been without hope and have been far away (Eph. 2:11-13). As idol worshippers (1 Cor. 12:2), Gentiles have been beyond God’s pale as it were, whereas Jews were entrusted with the very oracles of God (Rom. 3:2). In the development of his argument Paul stresses that there is a remnant of Israel saved by grace. This remnant is the inheritor of God’s promise of salvation made to the patriarchs, who form the root of the olive tree. In v. 16, Paul uses an additional metaphor in order to reinforce this idea. He says that “If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches”. The firstfruits and the dough both refer to the Patriarchs and the saving promises given to them, the root of the olive tree. It is the saving promises that have made salvation possible for Gentiles, not their own goodness (Eph. 2:8). The majority of Jews were removed (as branches broken off the tree) because of their obstinate disbelief, while the Gentile branches have been grafted into the tree of Israel because of their faith in God made known to them through the word of God, both written and living. It is important to understand that the metaphor of the olive tree teaches first, Gentiles are indebted to Judaism for this salvation (John 4:22) and not the reverse and second, that God has not finally forsaken his people Israel (Deut. 4:30; 28:64; 30:3; Eze. 37:11-14; Isa. 43:5-6).

This means two things. First, it means that if God has not finally forsaken His people, then they are still the inheritors of His covenant blessings. This is the meaning of the message of Jeremiah 31:30-33. The new covenant written of by Jeremiah applies directly and firstly to Israel and indirectly and secondly to the Gentiles. Let me quote David Stern on this point. “God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:30-33) through Yeshua the Messiah blesses all mankind by providing the final and permanent atonement for sin and by promising that the Holy Spirit of God will write the Torah on the heart of anyone with faith. It thus complements the earlier covenants without annulling them (Galatians 3). It was promised in the Tanakh, and the books of the New Testament elaborate on it” (The Jewish New Testament Commentary, Stern, D. Jewish New Testament Publications, Clarksville, 1992). The fact that God always had a heart for Gentiles is manifest in several places in Scripture (i.e. Gen. 12:3; Isa. 11:10; 49:6). But the covenant (and therefore the law, including the fourth commandment) applies to Gentiles only in the sense that those who receive the blessing of salvation receive it as branches grafted into the rootstock of the remnant of Israel. Not only that, but the grafting in of the Gentiles—and therefore the blessing of salvation given to them through the original covenant with Abraham—has the secondary purpose of creating jealousy (a kind of covetousness) in unbelieving, Rabbinic Judaism. According to Paul, this will cause them to turn back to the root of their faith and become children of the promise, that is, believers in Christ Jesus as the one true Messiah. The point being made here is that Gentiles have received the blessing of the covenant in a way similar to how adopted children receive their inheritance. It is not their birthright in the way it is for the natural offspring, but is theirs because it was given to them by a decision made. The inheritance belongs to the natural children by right of birth and is then shared with the newly adopted sons or daughters. So the blessings of the law, including the fourth commandment, are given to Gentiles in a similar fashion, and all the rights, responsibilities and privileges of the law are just as binding on them as on the natural children.

Now coming to consider the account of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, we will see that it offers a differing (but not conflicting) perspective than that of Romans 11 on the relationship between Judaism and the ekklesia. In the context of Acts 15:1-21, we are given James’ speech outlining his plan of concession for reconciling the Gentile believers with their Jewish brothers and sisters, particularly with the party of Judaizers. The entire account is important for two reasons. One, it acknowledges the widening rift between the two groups within Judaism at large, but specifically between Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians, polarized by the issue of circumcision [a blood sacrifice], and two, it refers to a poorly understood OT original promise later echoed by Christ in the NT that seems to indicate that Christ would rebuild or restore something that had fallen on hard times, that is, the remnant of God, including Gentiles, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”  The passage that Jesus seemed to have in mind is found in James’ speech beginning at verse 16 and which is a quote from the prophet Amos, “After this [or “in that day”] I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old” (italics added; quoting Amos 9:11-12, LXX). Thus, the rebuilding of David’s tent echoes the idea of Paul that Gentiles were grafted into something that had already existed and was the manifestation of the promise of salvation and the blessings of God. It was indeed something new and novel, never having existed before, but at the same time it was also something that God had laboured over long before according to the good purpose of His will (Isa. 55:8-9). I’d like to begin by considering the belief of many Christians that the church had its genesis on the day of Pentecost, with the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4) and that prior to this event, did not exist. This belief is contrary to the belief of covenant theologians—mostly Reformed or Calvinist—who maintain the continuity of God’s people from the OT but who nevertheless believe at the same time that the church has superseded Israel as God’s chosen people, an idea Paul found outrageous according to my understanding of Romans 11. This belief we described earlier as Replacement theology (because the church has replaced Israel as being more worthy of the favour of God). This orientation is also known as Triumphalism because supposedly the Gentile Church of Christ has triumphed over the Jewish Tabernacle of Moses.

Interestingly, the Pentecost event was revealed not to Gentiles at all, but to Jews, described as “devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5ff). The others who mocked were either worldly, irreligious Jews and/or Gentiles then residing in Jerusalem. The sermon that Peter preached that day (Acts 2:14-36) was preached to these devout men, “men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” as well as to many Jews on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from other countries. In other words, the audience of this first sermon was predominantly if not exclusively Jewish! Not only that, they were convicted on the spot by Peter’s sermon and three thousands of them came to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied Messiah. Peter targets his message by saying that “the promise [of salvation in Christ as Messiah, through Abraham and Isaac, the root of the olive tree] is one,  for you and your children and two, for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” [i.e. Jews first, then Gentiles]. Let me make the point once again that there were no Gentiles in the early, apostolic Ekklesia. The account of the coming to faith of three thousand Jews establishes Christ’s admission: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24, see also 10:5-6). Moreover, since these initial three thousand converts were described as devout people, it is reasonable to conclude that they were members of synagogues in their home communities. As well, most, if not all, were in Jerusalem in order to participate in Shavu’ot or the Feast of Weeks, a harvest festival mandated by God (Lev. 23) and which began on the fiftieth day from the Feast of Firstfruits (Lev. 23:15-21; Num. 28:26-31; Deut. 16:9-12). Remember, all these devout men were circumcised, card-carrying Hebrews who kept Torah, not only Shavu’ot but the fourth commandment as well!

So, getting back to James and the quote from Amos, we see from the prior event at Pentecost that the words of Christ—and Amos before Him, quoted by James and that corroborated the same message preached by Paul in the eleventh chapter of his letter to the Romans—were being fulfilled and carried out by His apostles, beginning with Peter. But what does the quote from Amos have to do with Jesus’ words in Matt. 16:18 and what does any of this have to do with the Sabbath? I’m working my way to it; stay with me.

“In that day [paraphrased by James as “after these things”, that is, meaning after the Destruction and Exile of ethnic Israel described by Amos in vs. 8-10, and from which a remnant will emerge] I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things” (Amos 9:11-12, LXX, Brenton, L., trans.).

            These words of Amos seem to be speaking of a renewal of the throne or dynasty of David, the throne that has been left vacant and derelict but which will be restored (Hos. 3:4-5) by the Messiah. This renewal was inaugurated by Christ but will not reach its consummation until He returns; in that sense it is “already” but “not yet.”

In light of Amos and James, when Christ said “I will build my church” I believe he meant “I will rebuild my church.” The word translated “build” in English is the Greek oikodomeo. In the LXX version of Amos (the version known and used by Jesus and all the apostles, including James) the word is anoikodomeo, to rebuild. But depending on how one reads the grammatical construction, the Greek can allow the word oikodomeo to easily take the sense of “to build again.” This option is confirmed by the words “as in the ancient days” or “as the days of old” (NETS). This qualifying statement, beginning “as in…” strongly implies that the building is not unique but is a kind of renewal or repair of what had been built before but was now in a state of decline or decrepitude. (As well, there is the possibility of scribal error between oikodomeo and anoikodomeo. The words in Greek script are hard to distinguish).

So what? Well, just this: the ekklesia, that is, the Assembly, was in some way already in existence when Christ spoke to Peter in Matt. 16:18. But not in the way that covenant theologians understand. The true Israel of God was a remnant from within larger ethnic Israel as we can see from the verses immediately preceding our previously quoted passage from Amos: “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the kingdom of sinners [ethnic Israel], and I will cut it off from the face of the earth; only I will not utterly cut off the house of Jacob, saith the Lord. For I will give commandment, and sift the house of Israel among all the Gentiles, as corn is sifted in a sieve, and yet a fragment [the remnant] shall not in any wise fall [become extinct] upon the earth” (Amos 9:8-9).

This remnant is the very olive tree spoken of by Paul in Romans 11. As such it will be saved along with all the elect Gentiles grafted into its rootstock! Christ did not create a new entity; he renewed one that already belonged to Him and had been in existence from at least the calling of Abraham.

In regard to the obligatory nature of the Sabbath for God’s people—and in light of Paul’s inspired use of the metaphor of the olive tree—it is well to keep in mind the implications of remnant theology which maintains the unity of a believing remnant of Israel and the Gentile ekklesia. If remnant theology is correct and the church has indeed been grafted into believing Israel, and if God gave His chosen people the Sabbath—as part of the moral law—then the privilege and blessing of accepting the Sabbath as part of the new covenant is binding on the church as it has always been binding on Israel, unless—and this is extremely important—under the terms of the new covenant it can be clearly shown from Scripture that the fourth commandment has been repealed (or significantly amended) by God! But nowhere in Scripture—let me repeat myself—nowhere in Scripture, is there to be found a statement of such a repeal or amendment.