Christian Sabbath, Part 2

Hebrews 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

 

 
 

Continuing our discussion of the Sunday-Sabbath, we go on now to consider the change of the day which is based upon the change of the priesthood and covenant. We read about the change of the covenantal laws in Hebrews 8:

 

Hebrews 8

 

8 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,

    when I will make a new covenant

with the people of Israel

    and with the people of Judah.

9 It will not be like the covenant

    I made with their ancestors

when I took them by the hand

    to lead them out of Egypt,

because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,

    and I turned away from them,

declares the Lord.

10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel

    after that time, declares the Lord.

I will put my laws in their minds

    and write them on their hearts.

I will be their God,

    and they will be my people.

11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,

    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’

because they will all know me,

    from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will forgive their wickedness

    and will remember their sins no more. ”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

 

 

When Christ instituted the new and better covenant by His priestly work, the laws which were specific to the old covenant were changed to reflect the relationship between God and His people, in the new covenant.

This new and better covenant is a covenant entered into by faith, and of which the laws are written on our hearts, rather than on tablets of stone. This is not to say that our hearts will determine or tell us what those laws are. Rather, God’s law will become our delight, and by His renewing Spirit we will desire to please Him. In fact, the laws of the old covenant were to be written on the hearts of those under that covenant:

 

 

Deuteronomy 6 

4“ Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!

5  You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6  These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.

 

 

Not only are we allowed not follow the laws which pertained only to the old covenant, but we must not obey them. Of necessity, the law is changed, and of necessity, we ought not hold to the old covenant ordinances but rather those of the new.

There are only 3 possibilities in regards to what were specfic to the old covenant:

(1)The whole Law was for the old covenant alone

(2)Part of the Law was for the old covenant alone

(3)None of the Law was for the old covenant alone

Possibility (1) is refuted easily because it is still true in the new covenant, that we should worship God alone and serve Him only.

Possibility (3) is refuted because the command to remember salvation from Egypt does not relate to us, because we were not saved from Egypt, and God no longer commands us to collect manna and quail 6 days a week.

Possibility (2) is the only possibility left, which means there are some aspects of the Law which relate to Israel or the old covenant alone, and other aspects which relate to all of us who are descended from Adam.

In relation to the day of rest, as we have seen in reading Exodus 16 and Deuteronomy 6, the covenantal aspect of the Sabbath is salvific. For the Israelites, the Sabbath was a memorial of God’s rescuing them from slavery, and was the day on which they saw the manna not see corruption. By keeping their Sabbath day of rest every seventh day, as instituted in the giving of the manna and quail, they followed God as it was God who first rested from His work.

The principle of 1 day in 7 is not specific to Israel, but was part of the creation of the world itself, and as an aspect of creation, is part of the religious context for Adam and all his posterity. Because God objectively chose to bless and sanctify the day which was distinct from His 6 days of work, that day of rest has an objective religious significance – not that day only, but God blessed and sanctified a day of rest for every 7-day week:

 

 

Exodus 20

8“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.9  Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11  For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

 

 

The command to observe a sacred day unto God is no more peculiar to the Israelites, than the command to serve and worship God alone and obey Him. The new covenant Christian therefore must recognise the sanctity of a particular day of the week as set apart for God, precisely because God recognises and has set apart a day unto Himself. This new covenant Sabbath must reflect the greater salvation we have in Christ, and must reflect the fulfilment of the ‘type’ or ‘shadow’ of this salvation as shown under the old covenant Sabbath.

Because Christ saved us and finished His work on the cross, and entered into His rest on the morning of His resurrection, the Sabbath of the new covenant must be a memorial of His entering His rest, and of His saving work having rescued us from the burden of sin. The old covenant Sabbath was instituted by the giving of the quail and the manna, which were types or pointed to Christ the true bread from heaven, and His greater salvation. The fact that the ‘Sabbath-manna’ did not rot, pointed to the fact that Christ the true bread, will not see decay but will endure to eternal life. The manna of the Sabbath was special in this way, and pointed to the greater endurance or life-giving quality of the bread which is Christ:

 

 

Exodus 16

6 So Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, “In the evening you will know that it was the Lord who brought you out of Egypt, 7 and in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we, that you should grumble against us?” 8 Moses also said, “You will know that it was the Lord when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want in the morning, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we? You are not grumbling against us, but against the Lord.”

24 So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. 26 Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.” 25 “Eat it today,” Moses said, “because today is a sabbath to the Lord. You will not find any of it on the ground today.

 

 

John 6

27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

 

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

 

We know that Jesus entered into His rest, or ‘endured to eternal life’, on the day of His resurrection. The salvific, covenantal aspect of the Sabbath day is signified by the resurrection of Christ from the grave, having saved us from the slavery of sin.

The Day of Joy and Rejoicing 

John 16

17 At this, some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” 18 They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying.”

19 Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, “Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me’? 20 Very truly I tell you, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21 A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22 So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy.

 

In John 16, we have Jesus’ discourse on His ascension, and His death and resurrection.  The disciples are confused because at one point Jesus says that they will no longer see Him because he is going to the Father, and then Jesus says that in a little while they will not see Him, but then they will see Him again. For the disciples, this seems like a contradiction, but only because they did not know that Jesus was talking of His impending death and resurrection on one hand, and His ascension to the Father on the other hand.
In talking of His death and resurrection, Jesus tells them that they will grieve and mourn, and the world will rejoice. However, Jesus also tells them that their grief will be turned to joy when they see Him again. On that day when they see Him again, the day on which they will rejoice and be filled with joy, is the day spoken of in Psalm 118:

19  Open to me the gates of righteousness;

I shall enter through them, I shall give thanks to the Lord.

20 This is the gate of the Lord;

The righteous will enter through it.

21 I shall give thanks to You, for You have answered me,

And You have become my salvation.

22 The stone which the builders rejected

Has become the chief corner stone.

23 This is the Lord’s doing;

It is marvelous in our eyes.

24 This is the day which the Lord has made;

Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

 

The fact that the day on which they would rejoice and be filled with joy, was the day which they would see Him again, means that it is that day which is said to be the day which the Lord has made, and that they would be glad in it. The Psalmist regarded the coming day which the Lord will make to be special and marvellous in the eyes of believers. If the day of Christ’s resurrection is the day which believers consider to be marvellous and to be rejoiced in, the day on which we will give thanks, it seems obvious that we as Christians would continue to consider the resurrection day as marvellous, to be rejoiced in, and on which we give thanks. Because God instituted the 7 day week and set apart 1 day of rest unto Himself, we have some good reason to consider the resurrection day, or the day after the Jewish Sabbath, to be the day on which we as Christians set apart fro assembling and giving thanks to God. The covenantal ‘clincher’ though, is that the ‘Sabbath-manna’ of the old covenant did not rot but was to be eaten on the Sabbath, and was a pointer to Jesus who is the true bread of heaven which endures to eternal life. The observable fact that the manna did not see corruption, was the observable sign which set apart that day as the Jewish Sabbath. Because of the priesthood being changed, there is a change of the law to reflect the new priesthood of Christ. He is the true bread which endured to eternal life in His glorious resurrection, and it on this day we remember our salvation in Him, and give thanks for what He has done. It is the memorial of His entering into His rest, and of the life-eternal we have in Him.

 

 

Troy Smalley

Why Sunday?

Why Sunday?

Why do we go to church on Sunday? If we wish to worship God as He wants us to worship Him, then why do we prefer to go to church on Sunday?

Sadly, many of us who go to church on Sunday week after week, have no idea that this question was tackled head-on and given a definitive answer by perhaps the most brilliant English-speaking theologian to have ever put pen to paper – John Owen. Rather than going through his work, ‘John Owen, 'Day of Sacred Rest', we will focus on one particular passage in the Old Testament – Exodus 16.

To give some background context, the reason why this passage is relevant is because it is the story of when Moses instituted the Sabbath for the Israelites. We read that for six days, the Israelites were to work, and to eat quail in the evening to remember their redemption from slavery, and to eat manna in the morning, seeing the glory of God, and knowing that He is the Lord.

They were commanded to eat all the manna they collected, as that which they didn’t eat would see corruption and would grow worms. On the sixth day, the Israelites would collect twice the normal amount of manna, and store what they did not eat for the morning on the seventh day. This manna which they collected and stored away on the sixth day would not see corruption but the Israelites were to eat this bread on the morning of the seventh day, because it is the Sabbath day:

Exodus 16

Then they set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the sons of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departure from the land of Egypt. 2 The whole congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. 3 The sons of Israel said to them, “ Would that we had died by the Lord’s hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger.”

4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction. 5  On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily.” 6 So Moses and Aaron said to all the sons of Israel, “At evening you will know that the Lord has brought you out of the land of Egypt; 7 and in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord, for He hears your grumblings against the Lord; and what are we, that you grumble against us?”
8 Lord gives you meat to eat in the evening, and bread to the full in the morning; for the Lord hears your grumblings which you grumble against Him. And what are we? Your grumblings are not against us but against the Lord.”Moses said, “This will happen when the
9 Then Moses said to Aaron, “Say to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, ‘ Come near before the Lord, for He has heard your grumblings.’” 10 It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud. 11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “ I have heard the grumblings of the sons of Israel; speak to them, saying, ‘At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God.’”
13 So it came about at evening that the quails came up and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. 14  When the layer of dew evaporated, behold, on the surface of the wilderness there was a fine flake-like thing, fine as the frost on the ground. 15 When the sons of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “ It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat. 16 This is what the Lord has commanded, ‘Gather of it every man as much as he should eat; you shall take an omer apiece according to the number of persons each of you has in his tent.’” 17 The sons of Israel did so, and some gathered much and some little. 18 When they measured it with an omer, he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little had no lack; every man gathered as much as he should eat. 19 Moses said to them, “ Let no man leave any of it until morning.” 20 But they did not listen to Moses, and some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and became foul; and Moses was angry with them. 21 They gathered it morning by morning, every man as much as he should eat; but when the sun grew hot, it would melt.
22  23 Lord meant: Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the Lord. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.”then he said to them, “This is what the 24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not become foul nor was there any worm in it. 25 Lord; today you will not find it in the field.Moses said, “Eat it today, for today is a sabbath to the 26  Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, there will be none.” Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses,
27 It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. 28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “ How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions? 29 See, the Lord has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
31 The house of Israel named it manna, and it was like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers with honey. 32 Then Moses said, “This is what the Lord has commanded, ‘Let an omerful of it be kept throughout your generations, that they may see the bread that I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’” 33 Moses said to Aaron, “ Take a jar and put an omerful of manna in it, and place it before the Lord to be kept throughout your generations.” 34 As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the Testimony, to be kept. 35  The sons of Israel ate the manna forty years, until they came to an inhabited land; they ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan. 36 (Now an omer is a tenth of an ephah.)

Although the Sabbath day had been instituted by God since creation, there is a special redemptive meaning to the Sabbath for the Israelites. The eating of the quail was specially for remembering God’s redemptive salvation, and the eating of the manna was for the seeing of the glory of God. We read in Deuteronomy 5:

12 ‘ Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

In verse 15, we see explicit confirmation of the redemptive context of the Israelite Sabbath day. What this has to do with our worshipping on Sunday, is that the manna was a type, or a sign which pointed to Christ. Remember that Jesus is the bread of life which He compares with the manna. We read in John 6:

26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” 30 So they said to Him, “ What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31  Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘ He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
35 Jesus said to them, “ I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37  All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

The Old Covenant Sabbath was for the remembering of their redemption from slavery, and to see God’s Glory, knowing that He is the Lord. On that day, the manna did not perish as it did during the week, but was to be eaten because it was the Sabbath, because it was the special day on which they would remember their salvation and know that He is the Lord.
When did the true bread not see corruption, and on which morning did He reveal His Glory, and that He is the Lord? On which glorious morning did He finish His work of redemption?
So far we have not answered our question, and we will continue addressing the issue in future posts. What is being focused on at this point in time, is the redemptive significance of the Sabbath, and that obedience to the Sabbath law required a remembrance of God’s salvation. Salvation from Egypt is a covenantal aspect of the 10 commandments, which is a type or sign which points to the greater salvation from sin and death in Christ. We read in the New Testament, Paul taking the covenantal promises of the 10 commandments which were specifically for the Israelites, and showing their greater meaning in relation to the new and better covenant in Jesus Christ.
I hope to show in later posts, that the same Sabbath command is still in place for us who are in Christ, and that we can only properly obey God by ‘Sabbatizing’ on the day of His glorious resurrection.

  

God Spoke To Me

 

 

God Spoke To Me

Special Revelation and Sufficiency of Scripture

Many today, and throughout the history of Christ’s church, have sought to fadd their words to those of Scripture. We see the self-proclaimed prophets, apostles, and miscellaneous ‘words from God’, which it is said the Spirit gives apart from His word. Amazingly, many of the same people will profess loudly, the sufficiency of Scripture for God’s people. Let us take a brief look at the role of the Apostles, prophets, teachers, and evangelists, as is taught in Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus:

Ephesians 4: 1-16

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, ² with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, ³ being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; ⁵  one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

⁷ But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. ⁸ Therefore it says,

“ When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”

⁹ (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? ¹⁰ He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) ¹¹ And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, ¹²  for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; ¹³ until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the  knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. ¹⁴ As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; ¹⁵ but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, ¹⁶ from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

We see that in the beginning of the chapter from verses 1 to 6,  Paul is writing these things to teach us how to walk in unity and love – being of the one Spirit, as we are one body.

In the next 4 verses, ie., verses 7-10, we see that each one of us has received grace according to Christ’s gift, and we learn when the body of Christ received these gifts, which is when Christ ascended on high.

We next read in verses 11-12, a list of offices which were given to the church, and what their role or task is for the church. The offices listed are: apostles; prophets; evangelists; and pastors and teachers. Their role or task for the church is:

12a for the equipping of the saints for the work of service,

In the first part of verse 12, we see that these offices have the task to equip the saints for the work of service. It is clear then, that the saints have a work of service, and these offices equip the saints for the work of service. In the rest of verse 12, we read what this work of service is:

12b to the building up of the body of Christ;

In the next verse, we read how long, this ‘equipping of the saints’, is to last:

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

In this verse, we read that this equipping is to last until we have a unity of faith, and a knowledge of the Son of God – which is mature, or in its own terms, ‘to a mature man’. The term, ‘to a mature man’, attaches to all that precedes it in the verse. This is confirmed by the rest of the verse, which sums it up in entirety:

13b to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

What we learn, is that the equipping of the saints for their work of building up the church, is to last until we have a mature faith and knowledge of Christ. We then learn what the result of this equipping will have for the saints:

14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

In these 2 verses, we not only have confirmation that the task of the ‘equipping’ is to bring us to maturity, as we are no longer children, but that leaving spiritual childhood, we will no longer be carried about by every wind of doctrine. Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Christ. Until this time, the offices mentioned are to equip us for our task of building up the church in love.

How can we know then, when these offices have equipped us for our task? When we no longer have to be carried about by every wind of doctrine. How can we know that we need not be carried about by every wind of doctrine? When these offices have finished their task, then we can know that we need not be carried about by every wind of doctrine.

Most would agree that the apostles died over 2000 years ago, and so they must have completed the task of equipping the saints. Some however, entertain the idea of ‘modern-day’ apostles.  As we will see, the same apostle who wrote these things to Ephesus, also spoke to Timothy about that which equips us for every good work, and is prescribed for Timothy, so that the church would not be deceived. Compare the following verses:

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Ephesians 4: 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

In both cases, Paul tells us that there is something which equips the saints, or the man of God, so that we will not have to be deceived by deceitful men.

In Ephesians, Paul says it is the work of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers.  In 2 Timothy 3, Paul says that it is the Scriptures which equip the man of God for this task:

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷ so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The one who believes that the work of the apostles, prophets, etc, are something external to and after the delivery of the Scriptures to the church, is in the position of saying that either the Scriptures are not sufficient for equipping the saints, or that the work which the apostles, and prophets do outside of Scripture after it is received by the church, do not equip the saints anymore than the Scriptures have done so.  Simply – If the Scriptures are fully equipping, then the work of equipping the church has been completed. Therefore, there can no longer be a special word from God, or a private revelation for the church today. The Spirit speaks through the ‘theopneustos’ word of God, and are able to make the man of God thoroughly furnished for every good work.

Kind regards

Troy Smalley

Romans 9:16 -- God, not Man.

 

 

Romans 9 verse 16

 

One of the clearest texts which teach that salvation, election, and adoption are works of God alone, apart from anything we do, is found in the ninth chapter of Romans. I posted on the Catholic Answers forum, hoping to receive a clear presentation and exegesis of the passage from the Roman Catholic position. What follows is my response to them. For the full context of the discussion, here is the link: Catholic Answers forum

 

 

There seem to be 2 types of responses I am receiving:

1)       God’s grace is necessary, but man’s actions are also a determining factor.

2)       The passage is not in regard to individuals, but to nations.

 

In regard to the first type of response, I am not sure how this answers my question in that St Paul explicitly states that man’s actions are not responsible for his receiving mercy. In our example, both John and David have received the exact same grace from God, yet one comes to faith and the other does not. If David does not come to faith, we say that David’s actions were the determining factor – it is not God’s fault. The verse does not say that both man and God’s actions are necessary or important, but it explicitly says that it is NOT dependent upon the man’s will or actions, but upon God.

 

Let us add some context to verse 16:

 

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

 

Verse 15 seems to indicate that God can have mercy on whoever God wants to have mercy on, and if God wants to have mercy on a sinner, God will have mercy upon him. This seems to reflect the idea that ‘having mercy’ is something God does upon those who do not deserve mercy – that if mercy is given only to those who deserve it, it is no longer mercy. But verses 15-16 do not say this explicitly, however they do seem to teach that God having mercy upon someone is dependent upon God, and not the man.

 

I understand that The Catholic Catechism teaches that both God’s and Man’s actions are necessary, but my question was regarding Romans 9:16. Does verse 16 teach that it also depends on man’s actions? If it does, what does St Paul mean when he says, “It is NOT of him….”?

 

 

Only Children of the Promise, Are really of Israel

 

 

In regards to the view that it is in regards to nations and not individuals, the context of the passage seems to indicate the nation of Israel:

 

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

Not everyone who is of Israel, is really of Israel(verse6), and being of the seed of Abraham is not what makes one a child thereof, but being a seed called in Isaac(verse7). That is, it is not because we are naturally Israelites, or children according to the flesh, which makes us children of God, but being children of the promise, are we counted for seed(verse8).

 

In these 3 verses, we see that St Paul is not abrogating the importance of Israel, but is revealing that to be truly of Israel, one must be a child of the promise in order to be a child of God. The verse does not seem to indicate that all nations everywhere are Israel, as it limits being of Israel to those who are children of the promise, and it explicitly says that not everyone who are naturally of Israel, are of Israel – in other words, some people are of the true Israel, and some people are not. Nor do the verses seem to indicate that Israel is no longer favoured by God, but it seems that St Paul is explaining who are truly of Israel – the children of the promise. In the next 6 verses, St Paul explains that the promise is:

9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
 10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
 11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
 12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
 13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
 14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

 

 

The Promise

 

The promise St Paul was referring to in verses 6-8, are explained in the next few verses – that Sarah will have a son, and not only is this the promise, but when Rebecca also conceived by Isaac(verse9-10). The when in verse 10, begins to set the context for the rest of the promise that St Paul was referring to. Paul further details the context in the first half of verse 11: Rebecca’s children not having been born yet, and have not done anything good or evil. In the second half of verse 11, St Paul explains why God chose to act in that context: that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth. The reason God acted in that particular context, is so that the promise might be according to God’s purpose, and not because of any person’s works. In verses 12 and 13, St Paul tells us what God actually did in that context: It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. St Paul elaborates verse 12 with verse 13, in that the way God loves Jacob is having his brother to serve him, and the way God hates Esau is by having him to serve Jacob – and this not in accordance to good or evil works, but in accordance to God’s purpose according to election.

 

Does Election Make God Unrighteous?

 

So St Paul teaches us that if one is to be truly of Israel, to be a child of God, to be a child of the promise, it is not according to good or evil works, but according to Him who calleth. Immediately, we see what seems to be a form of unrighteousness. If God is righteous, should not God take into consideration the good works and the evil works of people? Furthermore, if God is to make one a child of the promise, should He not also make the other also a child of the promise – If God is righteous, should He not show the same love to both Jacob and Esau? St Paul in verse 14, asks the rhetorical question: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

 

In verse 14, we see that St Paul explicitly denies that there is unrighteousness with God. Although it may seem unrighteous that God loves one and hates the other, St Paul tells us that it is not unrighteous for God to do this. Also, if we are to understand what St Paul is teaching here, this verse helps us to understand that we can not reject an interpretation of this passage, just because it seems to make God unrighteous – and that St Paul is writing this verse precisely because the correct interpretation does seem to make God unrighteous, although God is not.

 

In the next 2 verses, we have the verse in question, and St Paul’s preliminary remarks on why it is not unrighteous of God to have love for one, and not for the other, according to His own purpose and not according to any good or evil works:

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

  

 

The Promise Also For Gentiles

 

In all this, there is no indication that those who are children of the promise, are anything but also naturally of Israel. In this passage, no mention is yet made in regards to Gentiles. In verse 6, it says that not all who are of Israel are of Israel, which means that only some who are of Israel, are truly of Israel – it does not say that any Gentiles are of Israel. This comes later in verse 24 and 25:

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

 

 

Not Everyone is a Child of the Promise

There may be some temptation to say that what St Paul is saying, is that we are all children of God, both Jews and Gentiles, and not because any nation is better than the other. Remember however, that in verse 6, not all who are of Israel are of Israel, and in verse 7, not all who are of Abraham’s seed are children, but only those of the promise. Verse 6 explicitly says that not everyone is a child of God, or a child of the promise, verse 8 says that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, and in verses 9-13, we learn on what basis one is a child of promise, ie. God’s purpose according to election.  

The context after verse 16:

 

17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
 19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

I understand what the Roman Catholic position is on both man’s and God’s work being necessary, but my question is not about any person’s position, but on their understanding of Romans 9, verse 16:

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

We can sum up the passage with these points:

• Only children of the promise, are really of Israel.
• To be a child of promise, is to be a child of God.
• To be a child of promise, depends on God's election.
• Election may seem to make God unrighteous, but God is the potter and we are the pots. God can do with us as He pleases.
• The promise is for Gentiles too.
• Not every single person is a child of promise.

Romans 9, verse 16 clearly teaches that election depends on God and not man. Praise God for His sovereign love given to us.


Kind regards

John 6 and Rome's Eisegesis

 

 

John 6 and Rome’s Eisegesis

Listening to Rome’s apologists on the doctrine of transubstantiation, one does not have to wait too long before the ‘Bread of Life’ passage in John 6 is invoked to substantiate their claims.

Before giving an analysis of what Jesus is teaching here in John’s Gospel, let us first see how Rome has understood the passage by looking at 2 Roman Catholic commentaries on the passage.

Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, as translated by the late Henry Newman:

 Aquinas' Catena Aurea as translated by Henry Newman

And, Haydock’s Catholic Commentary 1859:

 Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary

In both sources, a distinction is made between what may be referred to as the ‘figurative verses’, and the ‘literal/real verses’. In both sources, the following verses are to be understood in a primarily figurative sense with respect to the ‘bread of life’:

John 6:22-51a (NASB)

22 The next day the crowd that stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was no other small boat there, except one, and that Jesus had not entered with His disciples into the boat, but that His disciples had gone away alone. 23 There came other small boats from Tiberias near to the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves got into the small boats, and came to Capernaum seeking Jesus. 25 When they found Him on the other side of the sea, they said to Him, “ Rabbi, when did You get here?”
26 “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” 28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” 29 “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”Jesus answered and said to them, 30 So they said to Him, “ What then do You do for a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work do You perform? 31 He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘ 32 “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.Jesus then said to them, 33 For the bread of God is [i]that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” 34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”Jesus answered them and said,
35 Jesus said to them, “ I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37  All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
41 “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 ‘ I have come down out of heaven’?”They were saying, “ Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 43 “Do not grumble among yourselves.Jesus answered and said to them, 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.It is written in the prophets, ‘ 46  Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48  I am the bread of life. 49  Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50  51a I am the living bread that came down out of heaven;This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said,

Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Catena Aurea’, and ‘Haydock’s Catholic Commentary’ interpret only the following verses literally in regards to eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh:

51b if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52  Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.So Jesus said to them, 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

Catena Aurea quotes Chrysostom while commenting on verses 47-51a:

CHRYS. He then gives them a strong reason for believing that they were given for higher privileges than their fathers. Their fathers eat manna and were dead; whereas of this bread He says, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. The difference of the two is evident from the difference of their ends. By bread here is meant wholesome doctrine, and faith in Him, or His body: for these are the preservatives of the soul.

 Haydock’s Commentary says on verses 41 and 47 - 51:

Ver. 41. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. These Jews did not believe that Christ was the true and eternal Son of God, who came down from heaven, and was made flesh, was made man. He speaks of this faith in him, when he calls himself the living bread, the mystical bread of life, that came to give life everlasting to all true and faithful believers. In this sense St. Augustine said, (trac. xxv. p. 489) why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? only believe, and thou hast eaten; but afterwards he passeth to his sacramental and real presence in the holy sacrament. (Witham)

…

Ver. 47. Thus Jesus Christ concludes the first part of his discourse: "Amen, amen, he that believeth in me, hath everlasting life;" which shews that faith is a necessary predisposition to the heavenly bread.
Ver. 48. Because the multitude still insisted in begging for their corporal nourishment and remembering the food that was given to their fathers, Christ, to shew that all were figures of the present spiritual food, answered, that he was the bread of life. (Theophylactus) --- Here Jesus Christ proceeds to the second part of his discourse, in which he fully explains what that bread of life is, which he is about to bestow upon mankind in the mystery of the holy Eucharist. He declares then, in the first place, that he is the bread of eternal life, and mentions its several properties; and secondly, he applies to his own person, and to his own flesh, the idea of this bread, such as he has defined it.
Ver. 51. Christ now no longer calls the belief in him, or the preaching of the gospel, the bread that he will give them; but he declares that it is his own flesh, and that flesh which shall be given for the life of the world. (Calmet) --- This bread Christ then gave, when he gave the mystery of his body and blood to his disciples. (Ven. Bede)

We see that in verse 35, one is nourished by coming and believing:

35 Jesus said to them, “ I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

The context gives no indication of a break from speaking figuratively to speaking literally, so do Romanist apologists take these later verses to be indicating a physical eating of Jesus flesh? The question then is, why should we take these later verses to be referring to a physical eating and drinking of Jesus’ flesh and blood, when it is agreed that the earlier verses speak of eating and drinking, but do so figuratively?

‘Phago’ and ‘Trogo’

There have been a number of reasons given by Rome’s apologists. The most common and well-known argument put forward is that Jesus transitions from the use of the word ‘phago’, to the word ‘trogo’, which can indicate a more carnal or physical act. Interestingly, the word ‘phago’ is used all the way until verse 54, which is where the word, ‘trogo’ is then used. If the words ‘phago’ and ‘trogo’ are the indicators of when Jesus is speaking figuratively or of a physical act, then Jesus must have been speaking figuratively all the way until verse 54:

.

50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51  I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
52  Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.So Jesus said to them, 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
Let us assume though, that ‘trogo’ must indicate a physical and carnal act, no matter what the context – verse 54 teaches that the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood was a present possibility for them and this before the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Transliterated, verse 54 says:

“The one chewing of me the flesh and drinking of me the blood is having life..”

If this passage teaches transubstantiation, then this verse teaches that one can eat Jesus body and drink His blood, outside of the Mass – ofcourse, no Roman Catholic apologist would want to say such a thing. If we hold onto and read the passage contextually, without divorcing particular verses from the body of the passage, then we can agree with Augustine who understands the passage figuratively. Earlier, we saw that Haydock’s Commentary considers Augustine’s words only to refer to the earlier ‘figurative verses’. Let us read Augustine’s words in context, noticing which verse he is commenting on:

NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16 (section 24).

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Augustine is referring to verse 53. Remember that according to these Roman Catholic Commentaries, Jesus is speaking literally after verse 51? Not according to Augustine. In fact, the reason Augustine gives for believing Jesus to be speaking figuratively, has nothing to do with the words ‘phago’ or ‘trogo’, but because a literal interpretation seems to enjoin a crime. In verse 54, Jesus only restates and elaborates on the salvific reality of what He had been teaching. If this is where Jesus uses the word ‘trogo’, which is placed so much emphasis upon by modern Romanist apologists, then the word ‘trogo’ is not the reason why the listening Jews grumbled in verse 52, which brings us to the next Roman Catholic argument in defence of transubstantiation.

The Grumbling Jews

Another argument in favour of a transubstantiation reading of John 6, is the fact that when the Jews grumbled and doubted Jesus ability to give them His body, Jesus did not clarify or correct their ‘literal’ interpretation.

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic commentaries we have been looking at actually agree, that the primary issue was not eating or drinking Jesus’ body, but their unbelief. How can this man do this thing? Consider the words of Chrysostom as referred to in Haydock’s Commentary:

These words which call in question the almighty and incomprehensible power of God, which hinder them, says St. Chrysostom, from believing all other mysteries and miracles: they might as well have said: How could he with five loaves feed five thousand men? This question, How can he do this? Is a question of infidels and unbelievers.

IFurther, after Jesus replies to them by confirming His previous statements is stronger terms, we read that the Jews grumbled again. Notice how Jesus responds:

52  Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.So Jesus said to them, 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “ This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 “Does this cause you to stumble?But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63  It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Now that the Jews have grumbled again, Jesus responds with, what if they saw Him ascending back to where He was before? Jesus’ mentions his coming ascension to where He was before, says that it is the Spirit who gives lie and not the flesh, but there still some who don’t believe. How do these words of Jesus address the issue of physical or figurative eating of His flesh?  They don’t. What they are addressing, is the identity of who Jesus is, which is what the Jews first grumbled at in verse 41:

41  Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.”

Jesus understands their main problem, to be their unbelief in who Jesus really is. Their problem is that of unbelief as Chrysostom is mentioned to say in Haydock’s Commentary, and even if they saw Jesus ascending back to heaven, they would still not believe because it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. In fact, in both instances of their grumbling, Jesus responds in the same way by teaching the inability of man to come to Him, without God. Compare verse 44 with 63:

44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
63  It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

One begins to wonder then, where it is in John 6 that Jesus teaches that we must physically eat His flesh and drink His blood. If the Bible is insufficient to teach us truth, then the Roman Catholic should agree that the doctrine of transubstantiation can not be learned by examining the Scriptures alone. If it can not be read out from Scripture, and we need some words found external to Scripture, then a Roman Catholic reading of John 6 is only possible if we perform some ‘Magisterial eisegesis’.

Kind regards

Troy Smalley