Why Do Christians Worship on Sunday?

Christians of numerous denominations consider Sunday as their day of rest and worship. Many, out of reverence for it, name Sunday the “Lord’s Day.” By such confession, they openly acknowledge that Christ owns the day—He has made it His own. This is a foundational belief of almost all Christians the world over. In fact, most Christians consider a deviation from it almost heretical. In this Christians have accepted unchallenged the reasons for Sunday rest and worship given by the Church, believing that the resulting practice is a mark of faith, piety and obedience. Notwithstanding, are the reasons for Sunday rest and worship in fact true and legitimate? Do they explain not only why Christians are to rest and worship on Sunday but also act together as an implied command to do so?

In chapter 67 of his work, First Apology, the early church father Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) provided two reasons to explain and justify Sunday as the Christian day of rest and worship. The early Church wholeheartedly adopted Justin’s explanations and has since incorporated them into her official catechisms and statements of faith (e.g. the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the London Baptist Confession of Faith and others). But even though by Justin’s day, many—if not all—Christians were accepting the practice of Sunday rest and worship—as we learn from early church documents like the Didache—Justin, one of the first Christian apologists, merely provided an explanation or justification; he did not invent the practice.

Now the first reason given by Justin for Sunday as the Christian day of rest and worship is that “it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world” (italics added). The second reason given by him is that “Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day [Sunday] rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things.” Both of these explanations appear legitimate and for a Christian to doubt their validity would seem more a result of an underlying apostasy! But wait a minute. What has God to say about these reasons?

As to the first, we must ask, “Where in the Bible does God announce this?” Where does God command us to worship and rest giving His beginning act of creation (Gen. 1:1-5) as the reason or justification? And we answer, “Nowhere.”  Well then, what does God actually say about resting and worshipping? “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation” (Gen. 2:3, italics added).

Rather than saying that the beginning of creation on Day One is the reason Christians should rest and worship, God in fact makes it plain that Christians should rest and celebrate through worship because after He had finished and completed His work of creation, He rested and celebrated. (In Gen. 1:31, God “celebrates” His own handiwork by acknowledging and proclaiming its goodness). The Bible makes it plain that it is because of the end and completion of creation that God commands commemoration and this accordingly on the last or seventh day of the week, the Sabbath, not the first, Sunday. For Justin to give any other reason for this is—speaking generously—to spin the Word of God.

And as far as the teaching that a second reason is in consequence of the resurrection, again, where is this found in the Bible? And again we answer, “Nowhere.” It sounds pious and holy to say such a thing but this is exactly how Satan operates in the world—by twisting, perverting and corrupting our understanding of the Word, using our own ignorance, envy and pride to “lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Rather, we are to remember that God’s essential act of redemption and reconciliation was deliverance of His people from slavery, first (typically) out of Egypt (Deut. 5:15) and consequently out of the world of sin (Rom. 6:22). This deliverance from the old fetters of sin into the new fetters of righteousness (Eph. 3:1) is the essential reason for Christ’s foretold life and sacrificial death (Gen. 3:15). In the sense that Christ has delivered all God’s people, the true Ekklesia, from the curse of death, this deliverance through Christ leads us to abide in Him through devotional gratefulness and the certain trust that removes every shred of doubt and fear. In other words, Christ has given us rest through the cross. By Christ’s death—not His resurrection—God removed our record of debt that stood against us, by nailing it to the cross (Col. 2:4). This is the second reason provided by God in His Word.

Nevertheless, is not the resurrection important? It is, of course, but not as a reason to rest and worship. One must ask why then was Christ resurrected? What purpose or function does it serve? Well, it stands as the final guarantee of the truth of the Gospel.  It vindicates Christ and gives us surety. Because of the validation it gives to Christ and His euangelion, we have an eternal hope (Heb. 6:19; 10:23; 1 Peter 1:3). However, there is another—not well understood—reason why the resurrection is important and necessary and it has nothing to do with that given by Justin. Very briefly, the resurrection occurred so that Christ could present Himself as the “first fruits” of a redeemed humanity. Even as the first fruits of the barley harvest were being dedicated to God through the “wave offering” by the priests in the Temple, so too did Christ—the fulfillment of the OT “law and the prophets”—offer Himself to God as a kind of wave offering at the celebration of the Feast of First Fruits which occurred on the first day of the week, Sunday.

But Justin further maintains in his Apology that, “on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things [i.e. the reasons given above].” But where in the Bible does Christ teach these things? The answer, as you’ve probably guessed already, is “Nowhere.” 

It is apparent from his context that Justin is referring to Christ’s post resurrection appearances to the disciples, the first being on Sunday evening—which means parenthetically that this appearance occurred very likely on Monday, since evening for the Jews was the beginning of a new day. (John 20:19-20). Although He had opportunity, there is absolutely no indication in John that Jesus gave the disciples any reason to change the Sabbath. (This is not an argument from silence.) It is also true of the other appearances recorded in John (20:26-27; 21:4-6, 15-19). Likewise, as far as the Synoptic gospels are concerned, the same holds. In fact, we find the golden opportunity for Christ to teach what Justin claims for Him, in Luke’s account of one of Jesus’ final appearances (24:13ff) where Lord teaches two disciples He has met on the road to Emmaus. In the episode, Christ refers to the teachings of the OT prophets, “beginning with Moses” (who brought the Ten Commandments to God’s people at Sinai!) and how it was necessary to “suffer these things” (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22) in order to fulfill (i.e. teleos, the goal or purpose) God’s will. Among His final words given by the pen of Luke via the Holy Spirit, Christ says “that everything written about Me in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled, then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45).

We see from the these accounts that Christ was teaching some final lessons (from the OT!) to His disciples before His ascension, but again, nowhere in these final moments does He teach what Justin claims. If He had in fact taught them, it would only prove that His teaching was false and contrary to the Word of God. He could then be justifiably accused of dividing His own kingdom (Matt. 12:25).

The bottom line is that Christians have been sold a bill of goods, and this probably not by accident, given the anti-Semitic stance of the early Church. The Church’s reasons for resting and worshipping on Sunday are in fact unbiblical; they are not part of God’s purpose or intention and might even be understood as a form of idolatry. “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). In accepting the justifications for Sunday rest and worship given by men like Justin, Christians “leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). If we are truly obedient to the Lord (John 14:15) and desire to honour our relationship with Him through rest and worship, shouldn’t we at least do it for the reasons God Himself considers important?

SOLI DEO GLORIA

If you have found this post challenging or rewarding, read this related essay on the importance of the Sabbath for the true disciple of Christ.

The Four “Levels” of Biblical Interpretation

It is of vital importance to understand that the Bible needs to be interpreted; it cannot be understood if read according to face value alone.

In our context, to interpret means to explain and elucidate the meaning of a text; to construe the significance of a text. The word derives from the Latin interpres, a negotiator, that is, one who is able to find the resolution (or truth?) of a matter. This is of fundamental importance in understanding the Bible. If one takes the historical-grammatical approach—literalism in other words—as do the Dispensationalists, (or so they claim) one will never fully understand the Bible. This is why we need both the witness of the Ekklesia, which is the historical Church, and more importantly the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order to fully comprehend the true and intended meaning of Scripture. This is not to deny that most of Scripture is plain and clear—of course it is. It is rather simply to acknowledge the same truth as that mentioned by Peter, “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters, i.e. NT scripture] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16, italics added. See also Heb. 5:11). Nor is this to deny Sola Scriptura. We are not adding to or changing God’s Word by interpreting His meaning, otherwise the Holy Spirit would be a liar!

In this specific regard I believe that tradition, both Jewish and Christian, has much to teach us. And according to this tradition, there are actually four “levels” of Biblical interpretation. According to the post-apostolic church fathers as well as the Rabbis of Judaism, there are four potential levels of meaning for any given passage. The four levels are:

Simple (literal, plain, ordinary, obvious) At this level, the Bible uses words in the ordinary, everyday sense. We read for example in 2 Kings 6:1, “Now the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, ‘See, the place where we dwell under your charge is too small for us.’” In other words their quarters were too cramped. A huge portion of Scripture is this simple and straightforward. And no passage of Scripture loses the basic, simple meaning. If we eliminate this level, we are then interpreting Scripture according to our own biases and assumptions. The plain and simple meaning provides the context of the passage. Without context, our interpretation is cast adrift and we will often end up creating our own meaning instead of discovering the underlying revelation. This is the level known by Biblical scholars as the grammatical-historical. It is important to recognize that the grammatical-historical method of interpretation recognizes different kinds of language including the figurative, the symbolic and the allegorical. This level does not mean the commonly understood notion of literalness.

Hinted (oblique, secondary, implied) The next level includes more meaning, but often the meaning is not obvious. Nevertheless, the meaning of a hinted passage is based firmly on the simple and is empirical and experiential. We see this throughout Proverbs, as in 20:10, “Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” The simple meaning is a straightforward declaration for merchants to be honest in their economic activities because God hates dishonesty. But the hinted meaning implies that in all our dealings in life, we should be fair and honest, not just in economic transactions.

Comparative or conceptual (allegorical, symbolic, abstract)
The dictum “Scripture interprets Scripture” becomes important at this level. Here, one passage of Scripture is compared with one or more others in order to obtain clarification or elucidation of meaning or to see how the original meaning has been expanded or augmented. It now also becomes important to remember that one cannot justify a novel interpretation at this level by ignoring the meaning and context of the simple level. The simple level is never irrelevant; it is always applicable as the beginning of the interpretive process. To understand the Bible, one begins at the simple level, always. The conceptual or comparative level is the allegorical level. Allegory is defined as a statement of abstract ideas or principles through the use of representational language. It is symbolic in that one or more things including people, objects, places, actions, and events represents or stands in for another. A prime example of this is found in Exo. 12:5ff where the lamb takes the place of God’s people (v. 13). Another (related) example is the re-enactment of the Passover Seder in the rite of the Lord’s Table, (Mark 14:22-24, Matt. 26:26-28 and pars.) where the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In fact, these instances are good examples in that not only is each symbolically self-contained, that is, the symbolism embedded within the passage explains the deeper significance of that particular passage but as well the first passage helps to explain why the second is so important. The second passage from the NT is a kind of unfolding of the first. In theological terms, the OT passage is a “type” of which the second is the “antitype” or fulfillment. It is a case of scripture interpreting scripture. However, this level is also dangerous because it is so tempting to fallen human nature to “invent” meaning in a passage that simply does not apply. We want the Bible to teach what we think it should. Beware!

The Mystical or Spiritual level

In our examples from Mark and Matthew, the physical elements described really existed. At the Passover Seder—that He would fulfill in the celebration of Lord’s Supper or Communion—Christ broke real bread and poured real wine, the simple level. However, these actions (and their elements), because tied ritualistically with the Jewish Passover, were also suggesting a deeper significance, the hinted or implied level. But the bread was also symbolic of His body and the wine of His blood, hence the conceptual, comparative, allegorical, or symbolic level. More than this, the broken bread of His body and poured wine of His blood were pointing to Christ’s atoning death in order to fulfill Scripture, thereby reconciling His elect (i.e. the true remnant spoken of by Jeremiah in 31:7 and 50:20). This is the mystical level. At this level, our minds and hearts are illuminated by God’s Holy Spirit—the Ruach ha’ Kodesh or Ruach Elohim—and are enabled to gain a glimpse of God’s ultimate plan of redemption embedded within His sovereign (and consequently hidden) will. Without the fourth and ultimate level of interpretation, revealed by the ministry of the Holy Spirit (who guides us into all—that is, ultimate—truth), we will be like those chained to a wall in Plato’s famous cave who are able to see only passing shadows of things as they move across the opposite wall, and not the things in themselves (The Republic).

While interpretation at the simple and hinted levels is available to any reasonably intelligent person willing to make the effort to investigate and understand, such is often not the case at the symbolic or allegorical level. And at the Spiritual or Mystical level, we are entirely dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit to illumine us with the reality of which all others are but passing shadows (John 3:8). But again, this level of interpretation will in no way do violence to the previous levels. It is not a case of one level being true—or truer—than any other is. All levels are true in their context, one building upon the other. If the Spiritual or Mystical level is true, it is axiomatic that the Simple and Hinted levels are also true, else God would be doing violence to and causing confusion by His own Word—an impossibility!

SOLI DEO GLORIA

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.

Why Does God Allow Suffering? Part 2

In our last post (Part One) we looked at the problem of suffering and ended with the question, “What is God’s solution (the Bible's answer) to the problem of suffering?”

It is our intention now to try and answer the question as truthfully as we are able, but that briefly.

God’s solution to suffering is twofold. One, he has called to himself a particular people (the King James’ version of the Bible calls them a “peculiar” people) whom he has redeemed from the penalty of their sin; these are known as the elect or remnant (“So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace”; “And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved’” (Rom.11:5; Jer. 3:14) and only God knows their number. We’ll talk about them in a minute.

Second, because of his eternal and infinite holiness, justice and righteousness, God’s judgement against sin and rebellion must stand (somebody must pay the price). In the same way that God could not make a square circle or a four sided triangle, so he cannot change the judgement against sin, as that would be contrary to his very nature and being. But as we’ve seen from Genesis, God can and did find a way to mitigate the harm done by our disobedience. In the genesis account, God made coats of skin for Adam and Eve. But in the ultimate fulfillment of this mitigation we are told by the apostle John, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). This same message or “good news” is found variously throughout the entire Bible. It is God’s promise that because He still loves us He will find a way that will entirely undo the harm while still allowing just punishment for the crime of disobedience to his holy will and his just laws.

But first however, I can hear someone saying, “Hey, I wasn’t even around then, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Why should I be punished for his crime?” While it might be true that you were not around then, Adam was nevertheless our representative before God. That is, Adam was the first human who had a personal, intimate relationship with God, as God’s first born human offspring. Adam was the first to know God personally and experientially. Whether or not you believe that Adam was the first human being and sole progenitor of the human race does not alter that fact, made clear in the first few chapters of Genesis. Adam, because of his personal relationship with God (almost like that of a high priest, who represents the people before God) was by default our representative (even while we were in his loins, so to speak). Because of that, what he did, we do. In the same way that a nation is represented by its government and its ambassadors, and must live under the consequences of decisions made by the government, or in the way that a family must live under the consequences of the parent or parents, so too must we live under the consequences of decisions made by Adam. Moreover, because we inherited our human nature from Adam (as well as being made in the image of God) we inherit the very same qualities, traits or characteristics resident in him (and Eve—the biological inheritance) that create such strong tendencies to feel, think and act in the ways we do. In the face of such argument, there is no room to deny our involvement, even in our ignorance of the true state of affairs.

So all these of whom we have been speaking—Adam’s offspring—are guilty of the same crime as their father Adam. This includes the entire human race—every single human being who has ever lived or ever will live (Christ excepted). But we should remember from our first post that suffering is the result of our disobedience and cannot be blamed on a perfectly just and righteous God. It was caused as a result of an affront to God’s holiness and glory—his very nature—not to mention his laws, and because God is eternal in himself, so must his judgment. God is perfectly just and fair in condemning us and punishing us for our rebellion against him who is our creator and sustainer. The consequence of his justice we experience as suffering.

In the first part of this post we used the illustration of a judge. We said, “That once the judge had declared the one in the dock to be guilty, he suddenly came down from the bench and into the dock himself. There, he releases the guilty party, accepts the punishment on the prisoner’s behalf and newly declares the one charged to be justified, that is, found no longer GUILTY, as there is now someone else willing to take the guilty verdict and who is able to pay the entire price of the crime, to the very last penny. Now let’s add a slight but very important change to the illustration. Let’s say that instead of one lone criminal, there were a gang of criminals, all accused of the same crimes. After a fair and just trial, the judge is forced, because of the stipulations of the law, to find these men guilty of the crimes and pronounces the binding penalty, “Death.” But then the judge gazes over the criminal gang, resting his attention on one in particular. He removes himself from the bench, going instead down into the dock to join those he has just condemned. He points to the man he had previously looked at and tells the bailiff to release him and to set him free as the judge himself has decided to accept the guilt and to pay the penalty for the crimes and who then changes his previous declaration of “Guilty” to that of “Not guilty.” The condemned man is set free and his record expunged while the judge joins the others on the gallows and pays the ultimate price.

In this parable, the gang is the mass of humanity; all without exception. As such, all are found guilty of rebellion and subject to God’s punishment and wrath for their crimes. (It is important to understand at this point that God does not go out of his way to punish this gang. He merely leaves them to the perfectly fair and just outcome of their self-chosen rebellion.) The one selected or chosen by God represents God’s elect or remnant. These God foreknew from before the foundations of the world in a special way. They are the recipient's of God's saving love and for whom God is willing and able to make a sacrifice. The condemned criminal did not seek forgiveness, did not think to ask to be released. Rather it was the sole, sovereign and completely unconditioned choice of the judge to do what he did. In theological terminology this is “grace.” Grace is the unmerited favour of God toward those who, in fact, deserve condemnation as much as anyone else. They are the guilty declared innocent and made so by the substitutional sacrifice of a Saviour.

Now, admittedly this illustration is not perfect. It raises as many issues and questions as it attempts to resolve, nevertheless, taken as a kind of parable, it helps us to understand God’s solution to sin and suffering.

God’s solution to suffering is this: to permit it, because he must since it is a consequence of disobedience to his immutable nature and laws, but to provide a select number—and those he forms into his church, his elect—the wherewithal to accept suffering with a good heart and the assurance that they have a reward waiting for them, partially in this life—their freedom from eternal condemnation—as well as a promise of redemption and reward in a world remade in God’s true and original image.

The bible does not promise surcease from pain or suffering while being in the world. Indeed, in the OT, Job affirms the predicament of Adam’s race when he says, “But man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward” (Job 5:7). And Christ adds weight to this when he tells his disciples, “In the world you will have trouble” (John 16:33b). So it would seem that even for God’s chosen people, his elect, those he loves with a special love, there is no complete relief from the circumstances that cause suffering. And this is certainly true, as we can see from history. God’s people have fared no differently—in terms of their circumstances and experiences in the world—than others, “Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:4-5).

But yet we have this promise “that God loved the world and gave his son (as the payment for our sin) so that all those who come to believe in Him will be saved.” We are saved, not just from something—sin and death, “For the wages of sin is death”—but also for something—God’s glory and our enjoyment of him forever; “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom.6:23).

In the verse quoted earlier (John 16:33b) there is more than the bare statement. There is yet another promise. Let me quote the entire well-known verse: “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33, italics added).

These words were addressed to Jesus’ church, God’s elect, “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word” (John 17:6). These people include others from different times as well as places, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20-21).

So what do God’s elect get that others don’t? The promise is not the eradication or abolishment of any experience that may culminate in suffering. In order to make that happen, God would have to disregard not only his will as revealed to us in scripture, but also his very nature, which cannot be. For God’s people, those who come to believe in him as Saviour and Lord (John 3:16), do not seek to escape suffering, knowing, as we have seen, that it is not possible to do so in any event, because of God’s justice and eternal purpose. Rather, the Christian (and the church as a whole) is not to escape from suffering but to be able to bear suffering with the dignity and the hope that assurance of faith will bring. God (in such verses as John 16:33; 15:4 among many others) has given us His promise that just as Christ has overcome the world, and has prepared a place in Heaven for us as his friends and disciples (John 14:2) and is eager to welcome us home (Matt.25:21) so we too, in Christ as God’s adopted sons and daughters, may overcome the world by being faithful (to him) to the end (2 Tim. 4:7; 1 John 5:4). This is our hope and assurance in faith. It is not by our own strength that we are able to overcome and bear our burdens, with dignity and patience, but rather it is the work of God who enables and empowers us to do so. On our own we would not have any such ability whatsoever, “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts” (Zech. 4:6); “’My grace [Christ’s] is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I [Paul] will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

Moreover, as an added “benefit” or as a partial compensation, God’s elect have the assurance that God’s strength will be used by God for their continuing growth in grace as a way to build character, “It is good for me that I was afflicted, that I might learn your statutes” (Psalm 119:71); “Behold, it was for my welfare that I had great bitterness; but in love you have delivered my life from the pit of destruction, for you have cast all my sins behind your back” (Isaiah 38:17); “According to his great mercy, he [God] has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3-8). “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed...for it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (1 Peter 3:17-18)

So, hopefully, we now come to understand that suffering is a consequence of having a fallen nature in a fallen world. While it is unavoidable it is neither God’s will nor God’s fault, but our own. Hopefully we have also come to understand that there is a partial reprieve in the here and now from the painful effects of these circumstances which so often result in varying degrees of suffering—but only for those who, as God’s elect, have come to believe the promise or “good news” and who repent, turning away from all that displeases God, “Zion [God’s people all together] shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness” (Isa. 1:27). “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). “Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25). “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

Although we cannot hope to completely escape God’s punishment for our sin and the consequence of that sin which is suffering, yet we have a certain hope that there awaits a partial reprieve here and now, and eventually a complete and total redemption from all sin and suffering for God’s people and this by God’s revealed and eternal will, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’ And he who was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment’” (Rev. 21:1-6).

Soli Deo Gloria.