Scripture commands Christians to SING! Not only in our heart, or when alone, or as a family, but corporately as the gathered Church. Many Psalms begin with “Sing unto the Lord” and Eph 5:19 tells us likewise of the command and joy of singing. There is nothing like the people of God praising Him through song. It is part of who we are.

Yet, because of Covid we are being asked by the authorities to not sing congregationally. Now if we were being singled out this wouldn’t be a question of obedience but of persecution, however, karaoke pubs, concert venues, other faiths, etc, are all likewise being asked not to have group singing. Which still leaves the Christian with the gut wrenching dilemma between the command to sing and obey the authorities (Ro 13; 1 Pet 2:13). As hard as it may be, I believe obeying the authorities for the public good takes precedence. Why? Because there are other ways we can obey the command to sing, whilst cheerfully obeying the Government. Singing is really, really important, and if it was for any other reason than public health I’d happily transgress Government orders in obedience of the Law of God.

A lesson from Church history may help us. There were times in the early Roman Christian Church, for there were Christians outside of the Empire who did do this, when music didn’t really develop because Christians didn’t sing because they were persecuted and singing would alert the authorities. So they met to fellowship, pray, hear the word, celebrate the ordinances, all in relative quiet, singing in their hearts. 

So let us pray for a time when we can sing congregationally again. Let us long for it. In the meantime let us rejoice we can gather and Live-Stream and rejoice in as many ways as we may lawfully do so.

In this wider series we’ve been exploring the nature of the Church and membership in it. This post seeks to answer the following question: if church membership visibly expresses my invisible membership in the universal church, should my membership be of a geographically local church?

*Note: I am writing this post in response to someone who lives in a community without an evangelical church about my views on being a part of a local church. This post comes from my heart. It in no way seeks to drive away our own members who travel nor compel members of other churches who are closer to our church than their own to switch their membership. It is, rather, an expression of an ideal which I believe has Biblical support and which I wish Christians near and far would seriously consider as their approach to membership for the bolstering of the local church’s witness.

Nowhere in the Bible is there a “thus saith the Lord” verse to command us to be members of a faithful Gospel church within our own local community. There are, however, many principles and practical considerations, which if taken collectively provide a compelling case to this end.

Historically, until modern modes of transport made this possible, worshippers were constrained by geography to worship locally. Whether that was in ancient times or the 19th Century, one could only go as far as their feet or horse would take them (though in exceptional circumstances the faithful would travel great distances to be with fellow believers and worship). If you lived between churches then you had to make an informed decision. This, and sometimes demographics or denominational affiliations, is why historically there were many more centres of Christian worship.

But was this or is this question purely practical? I believe the closest Bible verse to a command on this subject suggest, “no.” Acts 1:8 says, “And you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem [local], Judea and Samaria [regional and national] and to the ends of the earth [international].” Yes, this is a key structure in Acts regarding the outward spread of the Gospel. Yes, it is likewise a direct commission to the 11 disciples. However, indirectly it is still a command for missions which directs us to be involved in local missions, the chief vehicle of which is the local church.

Enter the automobile, which revolutionized so much in our culture, including the Church. Now if you were of this faith and order you didn’t need to worry about relying on another church or starting one in your community, you could just drive to the next. If you got in a fight with someone you didn’t need to be reconciled, you could just drive to the next town. If something didn’t suit you or you got bored at this church you could simply drive along to that church. Transportation enabled us to defy geography but with it we also succumbed to many temptations to put self ahead of the interests of the local church.

The American President JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” That quote may be changed to say, “Ask not what your church can do for you but what you can do for your church.” Churches are fundamentally not service providers but equipping centres for discipleship (and mission). I’ve even know some Christians to be so selfless they’ve collectively moved into a community with no church in order to reach it for the Gospel. We ought not to see the church as simply a service provider to meet our needs but to contribute to its spiritual vitality so it might bring a Gospel blessing to our community. Christians are inherently other focused just as Christ Himself was selfless. We honour the head of the body by doing what it best for the local manifestation of it.

Now, there are legitimate reasons to be part of a church outside of your local community: maybe there is no Gospel church; no church of your faith and order; maybe the local church is orthodox but dead (perhaps you could be the Lord is calling to fan its flame?); maybe your temporarily seeking to bolster another church; maybe language or ethnicity is an issue (perhaps you could learn the local language?). However, I know far too many Christians who travel past several Gospel churches to arrive at their church of choice, thus wasting time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere (it also means you cannot be as involved in your church in areas like fellowship, events, outreach, etc).

What might drive this? Well, rather than a principled commitment to the ideal of the local church what about the great ways of thinking that shape our society and which have sadly infiltrated the church: individualism, consumerism and materialism. The individualistic church seeker does what they want rather than what Christ is calling them to (Is there self-will, die to self; Is there conflict, seek to resolve it even if it may be difficult or uncomfortable). This feeds over into consumerism. The consumeristic seeker is driven by personal preference: that church doesn’t have good music (Is music all a church is about? Might you be called to use your gift of music to help that church?); they don’t have any children’s programming (Might your family be called to be the seed to help initiate a children’s ministry there?); It’s tradition, it’s my family church (While that’s wonderful, there are other ways to meaningfully support a church  you have strong ties to); I’d have to leave my family or friends and make news ones (yes, what a joy—to meet new brothers and sisters in Christ that is!). The materialistic seeker likes to boast in how big or wealthy or physically beautiful or gifted their church is (Is this not pride knocking? May the Lord be calling you to devote your gifts and giftings to the support of some needy cause?).

Even though the Bible stands opposed to such “isms” in our culture, these alone are not the primary principle to illuminate this reflection. The foundational principle is Act 1:8 and how we can be part of Christ’s local mission if we’re not a part of His local body? I believe once a church has a sizable contingent coming from one community, we shouldn’t make our building bigger, but instead partner with other area Gospel churches to do a church plant (I dream of planting an evangelical church in Durham, Chatsworth, Flesherton (?) and Dundalk). If you don’t have a local church, ask your church about considering a church plant.

This is a vast subject and as such I cannot cover every consideration. It’s an area which may raise many questions and I hope will fuel further reflection.  

If you feel led to relocate what should you do? First, tell both your Elders and the Elders of the prospective church about your considerations. Ask them to pray with you. It can be difficult to the present church in terms of tithes and offerings, rotas, responsibilities and friendships to simply up and move, so if a move is decided lay out a timeline that best serves your present church and enables you to transition to your local church. Slowly get involved in the local church; seek to maintain meaningful ties with the old. Let people know why you are doing what you are doing. Godly ideals are always laudable to follow so let’s love Christ by loving the local church.

Twice now recently I’ve been confronted with this question: should we jettison the good with the bad when a Christian leader or ministry abandons the faith, swerves in their beliefs or whose morals are compromised?

One such case was a pastor of a church who had an affair with the church secretary. Neither was willing to repent. The church was devastated.

The other was a music ministry which wrote some good songs. They drifted more and more into the extreme of the charismatic movement and became closely associated with “grave soaking.” (The practice where their prophet has died and you lie on the grave to absorb the holiness or spirit which had indwelt them—not dissimilar to Roman Catholics rubbing some holy location, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem).

Many former evangelical leaders have also been known to have drifted into neo-liberalism and secular humanism. What shall we make of their writings?
​
These are all troubling situations, and many others like them. However, while one may feel the need to disassociate with their music or writings, etc, for reasons of conscience or witness, there is no inherent reason to stop using their material, if what they wrote at the time accorded with Truth. If someone spoke truth, whether as an unbeliever or a believer who strayed, what they said or wrote still has lasting value (even if we may be discrete in how we commend or use their works publically).
The old Anglican confession of faith, The 39 Articles, recognized as much. It said:

One needs to remember that even amongst faithful ministers and ministries no one is perfect. That never excuses sin or apostasy, however, it does help our perspective when we are personally shattered by the realization of some fall.
​
For Biblical warrant, consider the life of Samson and Judas:
​
·       Samson: While many esteem Samson as a great hero he was in fact a lawless scoundrel. He womanized and broke all three of his Nazarite vows, not to mention countless other commands. He only twice is recorded as crying out to God, and then only when he was desperate. Yet, he is recorded in Heb 11 as among those of faith. His actions cannot be excused, but was there some value in some of the things he did, and did God ultimately use everything for His glory and purposes, yes.

·       Judas: Did his betrayal of Jesus invalidate the Gospel he proclaimed to those who truly believed it and were saved? Did it invalidate the example of good done when he gave money to the poor even though he stole from the money purse? No. The truth displayed remains valid despite the person ultimately being discredited as an unbeliever.
​
So the next time you are deeply troubled, pray for the person or ministry—that God would save or restore them, pray that God would have mercy on you to keep your foot from stumbling and take consolation that it is the Truth spoken and done that ultimately matters and not the faithfulness of the person, however important that may also be.

​In the midst of many other current matters of concern, we’ve witnessed the complex eruption of civil unrest across the USA this week. While one may value particulars within a culture that may be linked to ethnicity, the Bible condemns racism as all humans are created in God’s image (Gen 1:27) and as Christians, many tribes, tongues and nations of believers form the body of Christ and will spend eternity together (Rev 7:9). But what shall we make of civil unrest? Closer to home I have even heard of some churches planning a prayer protest to the Ontario Governments continued emergency order that does not allow meetings of faith groups to take place (when many businesses have been allowed this freedom). What should we make of all of these responses? In the 18th Century violence erupted in the French Revolution and in the following decades of the 19th Century there were revolutions across Europe; yet Britain was spared. Why? There were at least two reasons for this: a general, albeit minimal, care for the poor that did not exist in many country; but also the Evangelical Revival. Wesley, Whitefield and others, transformed nominal Britain into a much altered Christian nation. A Biblical belief lies at the heart of why Britain did not see violent upheavals for central to the Bible is the call for Christians to obey and to submit to the authorities (Ro 13; 1 Pe 2:13) in matters where they have not transgressed God’s laws (Mt 22:21). Submission to God appointed authority is a good thing, for God wills it. As we submit to Governments we submit to God. Like any other matter of faith, we cheerfully obey in faith. If we have questions or concerns, no matter how deep seated, we bring these forward peacefully and civilly. Why, for Peter goes on to say, “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles [un-believers] honourable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.”

Antidisestablishmentarianism.

This is one of the longest words in our languages (and also very hard to say many times fast!).

It, along with its antonym, disestablishmentarianism, is what this post is about.

We live in a time of heightened individualism. Even institutions like the state are now commonly and even brazenly flouted. This tension has been heightened during the pandemic, with some heeding government orders and others protesting or even rebelling against them.

How ought Christians to respond to governments during a pandemic? During church closures?

There is certainly a wide spectrum of opinions on the matter of closures, with some radically wanting to keep things shut and others radically wanting things to open (I’m probably in the middle leaning towards cautious reopening). Wherever your opinion rests, such a reflection raises the question of how Christians should respond to government orders.

Jesus famously, and very helpfully said, in Mt 22:21: give to Caesar [the gov’t] the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God’s. In other words, there is the kingdom of this world which is ending and the Kingdom of God which has come/ is coming. There are two worlds, two cities; yet Christians live in both and so have a responsibility to God, firstly, but also to authorities whom God has set over us for our good. The general principle is that if the authorities ask anything of us that is contrary to God’s law then we are justified in thoughtfully disobeying; but if they ask us to do something that doesn’t go against God’s law we are called to submit, even when we may not like it. This is the spirit of Ro 13 and 1 Peter 2:13–5.

When it comes to the pandemic and church closures, if only churches were asked to close and not Mosques and Synagogues, then there would be an anti-Christian streak in the order that ought not to be obeyed. However, it is a level playing field with all public gatherings and though my thoughts or your thoughts may be this or that on the subject, whether we find it hard or believe otherwise, the government believes it for our good, it doesn’t contravene God’s law (for we have found creative, though imperfect, ways to fellowship by means of technology) and so we must submit.

But submission, the very word a foul stench in society’s dictionary, ought not to be for the Christian. We are called to gladly submit to God appointed authorities so long as they do not ask of us anything that goes against God’s laws (It is an act of faith/trust): I, as a pastor, submit to Christ; Christians are called to submit to their church elders; wives to husbands; children to fathers and mothers; employees to employers and all to the state; and even to fellow believers. When we are disestablishmentarians our hearts are filled with pride, rebellion, self-centredness, anger… Yet when we joyfully submit in faith to who God has called us to submit to, beginning with Himself, the Spirit produces in us love, peace, contentment and joy.

So whatever and whomever the Lord may be calling us to submit to today, may we do so as Christians cheerfully. And whether it be to governments, employers or churches, may our respect to them and God’s word enhance our reputation to the glory of Christ.[1]


[1] I’m thinking here of churches that have rebelled against government closure orders. They have lost the respect of civil leaders. When persecution comes for other moral matters, they will not be remembered favourably. However, I pray that as the vast majority of Christians have submitted to these orders, the Lord would use this favourably in our civil leaders eyes when they think about persecuting the respectful and obedient for matters which we cannot agree to their laws, laws that God against God’s laws, that they would think twice and remember how we submitted, for a long time, by forgoing our Lord’s Day and other gatherings, so dear to us, out of obedience to them and our Lord.

*Many Christians have different views on this subject so please read with care and a charitable eye.

What is the Church? Most people answer that question through the lens of the New Covenant initiated by Jesus, so they would speak of the New Covenant Church. This naturally raises the question of “what about Israel”? Many have sought to answer this in different ways[1] but I’ll answer it covenantally and seek to offer what I believe to be the argument of Paul found in Rom 9–11. In the blog series on “What is the Church” this is the highest level of answering that question, taking much more of a bird’s eye view than is usually taken. The question was anticipated by Paul after he had shared about the promises of the New Covenant, or Gospel, and the in-grafting of the Gentiles—had the promises to Israel failed and if so could the New Covenant be trusted?

I’ll define covenantalism as: That there is one chosen people of God (the elect) represented throughout history under different covenants. The Bible is a record of God’s one continuous plan of salvation under different covenants involving one spiritual people.

What does that look like?

Paul uses the imagery of grafting and an olive tree.

We all, as sinners, are by nature a wild olive tree.

God, in His grace, chose one man’s family—Abraham—through whom He’d rescue a lost world through providing a Saviour. Thus arises ethnic Israel, the physical offspring of Israel (Abraham’s grand-son) to whom God’s covenantal promises are passed down. He chooses this family and turns them into a cultivated olive tree through which He will bless all nations in His plan of salvation (Gen 3:15 and Gen 12). They were the means to the Saviour. We also know that not all of Abraham’s offspring were spiritual descendants for though the promises of the Covenant came to them they needed to trust, exercise faith, to be the recipients of its blessing (Ro 4:11–2; Gal 3:7). Thus there was always a visible and invisible Israel.

And the Old Covenant, or Testament/will as the division in our Bible declares, was not a permanent covenant. It was the guardian until Christ came (Gal 3:4), when the prophesied New Covenant (Jer 31:31–4) fulfilled the Old (Mt 5:17; Ro 10:4b; 2 Cor 1:20a; Heb 8:6). At this time the veil in the Temple was torn and later Jesus prophecy against the Temple was fulfilled with its destruction in AD 70. Thus Covenantalism speaks of fulfilment and recognizes the grand sweeping story of God’s plan across the covenants.

The Bible says that Christ is the root of all of the elect, His sheep, those He died to save (Ro 11:16b; c.f. Rev 22:16).

Ethnic Israel was the trunk of the cultivated Olive tree through which the promises of God (Christ) came.

The problem is, like many orchard trees, that there arose dead [unbelieving] branches in visible Israel. At the time of Christ most visible Israelites were spiritually dead and trusting in works rather than the Covenantal promises. Few were looking for the Messiah. These were broken off by the master pruner (God) (Ro 11:17) from the visible covenantal people of God.

Those who are described by the prophets of the OT as the “faithful remnant” where the ones who believed in their Messiah. They were the living branches built upon the trunk of their spiritual heritage, these remained faithful. Paul himself was part of this group. This was the beginning of the New Covenant Church as all early followers of Jesus were ethnic Jews (Pentecost; Acts 11:19). All along, however, it had been part of God’s plan to bring about a blessing to the nations and thus the Gentile (non-Jew) inclusion into the people of God had been prophesied through the OT and foreshadowed in Jesus’ ministry. These Gentiles could be grafted into the Covenant community of God through faith in the Messiah, not only for the ethnic Jews, but the whole world. Thus the New Covenant people of God is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles (Ro 1:17). In fact Old Testament terms are applied to this people (1 Pet 2:9–10) and many older hymns apply the term Israel and Jerusalem to the New Covenant Church. Israel is the Church and the Church is Israel, the true spiritual covenantal people of God, elect through the ages, continued in time under the New Covenant. It is therefore right to speak of myself as a spiritual Jew and the Church as Israel (The Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Septuagint/LXX, used the word “church” to speak of God’s people before Christ).

So when we speak of Israel (modern state, geographic area, ethnic Jews), they are actually not Jews at all, in the spiritual sense, but false Jews. The Church, comprised of ethnic Jews and Gentiles, one people (Eph 2:11–22), is the true Israel, the New Covenant community of God’s elect, carrying on the story of God’s people through time. It is the culmination of the cultivated olive tree.

But what of those dead branches pruned from the tree, unbelieving ethnic Israel? Paul says there is still hope insofar as they come to believe their Messiah. Many Jews since the time of Christ have trusted in Him as their Messiah and be engrafted themselves. So too, Paul seems to expect a time in the future when there will be a great ingathering of ethnic Jews into the Church/Israel.

All of this causes Paul to break forth into praise. Why? Because no one is deserving to be God’s, yet in His grace He has called many men, women and children to Himself through faith in the covenant promises of God throughout the ages, which find their fulfilment in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.
So what is the Church? At the highest level it is the chosen, elect, people of God throughout all ages who have been redeemed from sin through faith in Jesus Christ. One day, we’ll all be together as one people, one Church, one Israel, in the New Heavens and New Earth. What a glorious plan of salvation our God has!

Footnote 1- Other views:

1. Replacement Theology- That because of the failure of the Jews to accomplish His mission, God has replaced Israel with the Church.
2. Enlargement Theology- With the New Covenant God has enlarged who the people of God are.
3. Witness Theology- God protects ethnic Jews because they bear witness to the truth of Christianity.
4. Two Covenant Theology- God has a separate plan of salvation for Jews and Gentiles.
5. Dispensationalism-  That God deals with people differently under different dispensations. That in the past He dealt with the Jews and has temporarily suspended that work as He deals with people through the Church age, after which He will complete His plans with the Jews. This view is linked with a futuristic pre-Millennial view of the end times. It was popularized by J.N. Darby (1800–82), Plymouth Brethrenism c. 1875, the Scoffield Bible (1909) and Chafer’s Systematic Theology (1946).
6. There are probably others or variants of the above…

​
Below is a visual representation of what has been presented above:

This might sound like a very perplexing statement but I believe it is true; allow me to explain.
​
The Church, made up of baptized believers in Jesus Christ, ought to be an inclusive welcoming community, yet it is at the same time an exclusive, or distinct, body.

Too often Christians fail to appreciate this paradox and opt for one extreme (inclusivity) or the other (exclusivity). Let’s see how this paradox is true, and ought to naturally flow from who we are, taking as our example the teachings of Jesus:

INCLUSIVE
Jesus was inclusive, if by that definition we mean welcoming or not embracing a judgementalism. He didn’t care if the person was the vilest sinner, He sought to be inclusive of everyone, for He had come as the Saviour of the world (in fact He said that He came to save not the “self-righteous” but sinners, Lk 5:32):

• Unwanted children: Let the little children come to me (Mt 19:14)
• The Infirm (A leper): And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” (Mt 8:3, emphasis mine)
• Tax Collectors: Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today. (Lk 19:5)
• The Sexually Immoral (The Woman at the Well): The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” (Jn 4:17–18).
• The list could go on…

Jesus met people and sought to provide them welcome and love just as our churches ought to be places where people feel safe, welcomed, unjudged and loved.

EXCLUSIVE
Yet, just as Jesus met people where they were, He didn’t desire them to stay there. In fact in the same breadth in which He displayed an inclusive spirit He made some very exclusive statements. His inclusivity serves to build trust for He wants us to exclusively trust in and follow him and there find true inclusion in the exclusive body of Christ, an entry that can only come through trusting in Him alone:

• I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except through Me. (Jn 14:6)
• Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (Jn 3:16)
• So, therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Lk 14:33)
• Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again.” (Jn 4:13–14)
• The list could go on…

Do you see the paradox in Jesus’ ministry? The Church has carried on this paradox. We care for the needs of all, minister to others, yet the family dividing line, the local church body, those who we believe represent Jesus is distinctly maintain through evidence of regeneracy, the gift of the Holy Spirit, baptism, membership, discipline, etc. The Church is an exclusive community that is inclusive.
In an age that champion’s unbridled inclusivity this paradox is a paradox indeed.

In an age where Christian writers speak of people needing to “belong before they believe” the call to “believe before you belong” sounds harsh. Yet when it is matched by the inclusive spirit Jesus displayed, the latter loses much of its apparent harshness. We do need to help people feel like they belong, but through that honest welcome, to help them see they must believe if they are to truly belong, belong to Christ and be members of the local body.

That is the paradox of the Church and it is the paradox of her Lord.

*Firstly, let it be said that Job is a book that must be understood in its entirety. It is best read all at once. It should also be remembered that some things—for instance what the friends say—may not be true but serve the book in highlighting what is ultimately true. For a good overview watch this video from the Bible Project.
​
Was Job real?

Some have suggested that Job never existed, that Job is merely a fictitious story about a man meant to convey eternal truths that are real. If this were the case, Satan’s presence in the story wouldn’t raise so many questions—it would be hypothetical.

However, the rest of the Bible interprets the story as being real. This is the case with Ezekiel (Ezk 14:14) and also James the brother of Jesus (Ja 5:11). So, this doesn’t provide an answer.

It wasn’t Satan but the satan.

*For a similar incident see Zech 3.

The Hebrew word here means accuser or adversary and is generally used in these ways, not speaking of a person. It could be that this is not Satan but an angel whose role it is to accuse those on earth in the heavenly courtroom—“the accuser.” However the presence of the definitive article, along with other contexts in which it refers to a specific person make it more likely it is to be understood not as a role but a name—THE accuser. Thus, this is Satan as seen in 1 Chr 21:1 and Rev 12:9. That his appearance is out of place and his role fits that of Satan’s generally further supports this.

Did the episode take place in heaven?

Maybe the way around the natural uncomfortableness of seeing God’s arch enemy appear in heaven—a place of holiness—can be resolved by seeing the location of this court as somewhere other than heaven. This is possible. The scene is of a king’s court, where in years past the executive, legislative and judicial aspects of governance were executed through one man, the king. Usually this took place in the throne room of the castle or palace, however, it was also common for there to be an assize, a travelling court throughout the kingdom. Could this be a cosmic assize where the LORD is executing governance in one specific location other than in heaven? After all He is omnipresent.

Two things suggest otherwise. The first is that the courtroom of heaven is the normative location for such events described in the Bible. The second is that when Satan is asked where he has come from his reply is “earth.” This word clearly conveys that the LORD must in fact be holding court in heaven.

What about Satan?
Satan, likely a fallen archangel, was cast out of heaven between Creation and the Fall for leading a rebellion against God (Rev 12, et al). Since the Fall He has dominion over the earth as 'the prince of this world' (Jn 14:30). While with Christ's victory on the Cross His power has been subdued (Mk 3:27, Rev 20), he nevertheless wields great influence and is the accuser of God's people (c.f. Ro 8:1). While presently sentenced to the lake of fire, one day he'll actually be imprisoned there. Until then He is kept by God on a short leash to accomplish His purposes. 

What then?
Before we decide, two other important details can be noted:

1. He is an outsider (“Satan also came among them”).
2. His authority is not absolute for he relies on the LORD’s permission. His activity is bound by what the LORD says (e.g. “Only against him do not stretch out your hand.”). 

Still, what on earth was Satan doing in heaven? Satan is the head of the rebellion against the LORD. Satan stands for evil and yet Ps 5:4 says “You allow no evil in your presence.” Here lies the dilemma, Satan is there as the epitome of evil, yet God has said this cannot be, yet both are recorded in the Bible—what now?

I would suggest we need to understand “your presence” in the language of the courtroom, where accusers are entertained (remembering Jesus himself, as God, encountered evil, even Satan). It was common for King's to entertain the guilty in the throne room of their castle without the guilty ever being allowed to waltz through the rest of his home. 

It is clear that Satan is not dwelling in heaven, he is only in the throneroom. He is the Rebel of rebels. He does not belong there as his awkward entrance makes clear. Yet God permits his entrance and between the LORD and his fallen angel a higher battle plays out, one in which God will triumph over Satan through His servant Job.

To further help us understand, a contemporary illustration. Imagine a good employer who fires a troublesome employee. One day, the employer is having a board meeting or a meeting with supervisors on the workplace floor, and in struts the ex-employee, full of no good. The good employer’s character and wisdom is so great that he is not threatened by this ex-employee who stoops so low. The man is out of place, even permitted to enter by the employers discretion, yet for the manifold declaration of the employers justice and control, he allows even this worthless ex-employee to enter, even scheme, so that in the end it may be shown how utterly foolish he is, and how wonderful the employer is. The employer is not threatened or his goodness impinged and it is clear the incident is not normative.