There was no tolerance in the law of Moses for those who would kill innocent people:

“Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you” (Deu 19:13).

Even when it was not known who had committed the crime, the elders were called to make a sacrifice and declare their innocence:

“Then all the elders of the town nearest the body shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley, and they shall declare: ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it done'” (Deu 21:6,7).

And the one who murdered the innocent for money was under a divine curse:

” ‘Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person.’ Then all the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ ” (Deu 27:25).

But that was exactly what happened in the murder of Jesus:

“When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I have sinned,’ he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’ ‘What is that to us?’ they replied. ‘That’s your responsibility’ ” (Mat 27:3,4).

So, it was no news when Peter declared to the men of Israel:

“You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this” (Acts 3:15).

And in Acts 2 Peter pointed out that they did not do this alone — they had joined themselves with the wicked to accomplish this:

“This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” (Acts 2:23).

So it was an alliance of Israel and Gentiles that murdered the Lord Jesus. However, Jesus used an even broader brush when he held a whole generation responsible:

“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world” (Luke 11:47-50).

“And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar” (Mat 23:35).

Abel, who offered God a better sacrifice (Heb 11), as Jesus would — murdered!

Zechariah, whom the LORD sent to warn the people about their disobedience, as Jesus did — murdered!

Killing the prophets

Let’s take a closer look at the stoning of Zechariah in the temple in 840 BC:

“After the death of Jehoiada, the officials of Judah came and paid homage to the king, and he listened to them. They abandoned the temple of the LORD, the God of their fathers, and worshiped Asherah poles and idols. Because of their guilt, God’s anger came upon Judah and Jerusalem. Although the LORD sent prophets to the people to bring them back to him, and though they testified against them, they would not listen. Then… Zechariah… stood before the people and said, ‘This is what God says: “Why do you disobey the LORD’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the LORD, he has forsaken you.” ‘ But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the LORD’s temple. King Joash did not remember the kindness Zechariah’s father had shown him but killed his son, who said as he lay dying, ‘May the LORD see this and call you to account’ ” (2Ch 24:17-22).

Refining the reference to idolatry, there is a parallel to Jesus’ time:

• The Jews preferred doing evil to doing what was right.

• God sent warnings through a prophet.

• But the people would not listen.

• And so they killed the prophet instead — to silence him.

Jesus spoke of the generation that would be condemned for the death of all the righteous (Luke 11:50 above), and he said that it was “this generation”, ie, the one to whom he was speaking then. The Greek word translated “generation” is the same word as in Matthew 24:34:

“I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.”

And while there was a more immediate fulfillment, much of what he described will be at the end of the age. Whatever “generation” means here, it lasts a long time!

The Greek “genea” may signify a period, a time, an age, or a race of people possessed of similar characteristics.

And the characteristics held in common between Jew and Gentile are wickedness, a refusal to listen, and acting against those whom God has sent.

Righteous judgment

“God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Rom 1:18).

The righteous judgment about to fall on the earth will strike Jew and Gentile alike, with no partiality:

“For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last” (1Th 2:14-16).

Hearing the truth is intolerable to the wicked. When they rise up to suppress it, they bring judgment on themselves. This happened in the murder of Jesus.

Jesus saw the division of men into two camps: not Jew and Gentile so much as those who would stand with him, and those who would oppose him:

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Mat 12:30).

Those who oppose the work of God are condemned:

“By his faith, he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith” (Heb 11:7).

This last passage was written about Noah, but it can also apply to Christ:

“For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man” (Rom 8:3).

God condemned sin in sinful man, or “sin in the flesh” (KJV). When He condemned sin in the flesh, He condemned sin, the works of sin, and the people of sin. Mankind and all its works and wonders were condemned.

No condemnation

The murder of Jesus was the ultimate rejection of God’s love, allowing God to be just or righteous in bringing His judgments on the world. And yet, even so, condemnation was not why Jesus was here…

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:16,17).

How can this be? Jesus came into a world that was already condemned by the sin of Adam, which had poisoned the stream of human life, leaving the human species in an abnormal, degenerate state.

And while the condemnation of sin in the flesh means the wrath of God for the wicked, for the believer it brings reconciliation with God!

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!… when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son” (Rom 5:8-10).

Or, as it is stated in Rom 8:1,

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

In the end, there is no Jew and there is no Gentile; there are only those in Christ — and the rest. In the death of Christ, there is judgment and reconciliation in a single stroke. Judgment for the world, and reconciliation for those who are Christ’s.

So what?

What does that mean for you?

“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison” (Mat 5:25).

Make your peace with God before you go to the judgment seat of Christ — you do not know what his judgment will be! Your salvation is conditional on your willingness to listen and act upon the gospel message.

There is a story of a young soldier brought to Confederate General Robert E. Lee for his misdeeds. The young man was obviously nervous in the presence of the great commander. General Lee told him, “There’s nothing to be frightened of, son. You’ll find justice here.” To this the young man replied, “I know, sir. That’s what I’m a-skeered of!”

In conclusion, those who are in Christ stand with him in the fight against sin:

“Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24).

So, are you in Christ? Have you joined with him in the fight to the death against sin? The time to decide, and to make a commitment, is now.

(CR)

(1)	Isa 25:7,8: the glorification of the saints will take place at Jerusalem/Zion. (“This mountain” can only be Zion: see Isa 24:23.) If the righteous will be given eternal life there, what is more reasonable than to conclude that the site of their judgment will be there also?
(2)	Also, Christ speaks repeatedly of Gehenna as the scene of punishment for the responsible wicked (many refs). Christadelphians have always been quick to show believers in “hell-torments” that Gehenna is a known locality, adjacent to Jerusalem, where the bodies of criminals, animal carcasses, and other garbage were burned. Is it fair to take Gehenna as literal when convenient, and figurative at other times, only to suit our preconceived notions? If Gehenna is indeed the literal place where the responsible wicked will be destroyed after the judgment by Christ, what does this tell us about the location of that judgment? Are we really prepared to argue that Gehenna is in the Sinai desert?
	Note also that twice in Christ’s earthly ministry, the temple area was the scene of his cleansing judgment against hypocritical professors of the Truth. And the fig tree which he cursed was also adjacent to Jerusalem!
(3)	Other passages favor Zion as the location of judgment, because it will be the scene of the saints’ reward: Psa 133:3 for one: “There (Mount Zion) the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.”
(4)	Psa 87:5: The Lord’s people are counted as having been born in Zion, because all their hopes and aspirations are centered upon that place. By a similar figure, their “mother” is Jerusalem (see Gal 4:26; Isa 54:1,11-13; cp Rev 21:2). What more beautiful than the completion of the process of “rebirth” in Zion? If the saints are “born” at baptism to be prospective children of Zion, then why not truly “born” after judgment in the glory of immortal bodies, again at Zion? Common sense would suggest that “children” should not be “born” hundreds of miles away from their “mother”!
(5)	Mat 25:31-34: A careful reading indicates that the separation of the “sheep” and the “goats” takes place at the same place where Christ’s “throne of glory” is located. Again, Christadelphians argue eloquently against those of other persuasions that the throne of Christ and David can only be in Jerusalem, and not in heaven (or Rome or Salt Lake City). If that is so for purposes of first principle arguments about the nature of the coming kingdom, then let us not shrink from the implication of such a passage as this in regard to the location of judgment. Are we really prepared to argue that Christ’s “throne of glory”, where he will sit as a King (Mat 25:34), will be set up for a time on Mount Sinai?
(6)	“His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives” (Zec 14:4) — the same place where his feet last stood before his ascension into heaven (Act 1:9-12). Does it stand to reason that Christ will return first to the immediate locale of Jerusalem, and then immediately hustle off a couple of hundred miles to the southwest, for a special judgment at Sinai?
(7)	Other NT passages seem to call for the same interpretation: among them (a) Heb 12:18-24 (the context is certainly judgment: “Much more shall not we escape” — Heb 12:25); (b) Gal 4:24-28 (two covenants; Moses’ covenant at Sinai had to do with length of mortal days in the land, but Christ’s covenant at Jerusalem has to do with eternal life); and (c) Rev 5:6-10; 7:9-14; 14:1-5; and 19:1-9 (the scene of the saints’ reward is invariably the royal throne of Christ and Mt Zion).

***

The location of the Judgment is called “an uncertain detail” by RR in Xd 35:185: “Where will Christ set up the judgment seat? Will it be in Palestine, or in Egypt, or in the Arabian peninsula, in the solitudes of Sinai? We cannot be sure… An uncertain detail must not be made a basis of fellowship. We must not insist upon a man believing the judgment seat will be set up at Sinai or any particular place so long as he believes that ‘Jesus Christ will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom’.”

The traditional view that the resurrectional judgment will be at Sinai has been summarized by a number of writers. But the results are still far from conclusive. Only three passages, so far as I can determine, have ever been seriously advanced as “proof” of Sinai as the site of judgment: Deu 33:2,3; Psa 68:17; and Hab 3:3. Significantly, all three are in the Old Testament. Of course, we should interpret the Old by the New Testament, and by no means should Old Testament passages be ruled out in any study. But the resurrectional judgment, it must be admitted, is very much a New Testament doctrine otherwise — alluded to in the law and the prophets, but stated with clarity in all its particulars only in the New Testament. Then is it not a little strange that all the “evidence” for Sinai comes in the Old Testament?

First, a look at the three traditional “proofs”:

Deuteronomy 33:2,3: To Moses, Sinai was the place of God’s revelation to His people; he knew no other. The deliverance from Egypt and the wilderness trek were the focal points of his life. Therefore, when he speaks his final blessing upon the people, it is certainly fitting that “the Lord came from Sinai… with ten thousands of saints (certainly angels and not saints in this context! cp Psa 68:17)… and (with) a fiery law.” This same thing Yahweh had done before (Exo 19:16-19, etc)! So it would appear there are two reasonable interpretations of Deu 33:2,3: either (a) Moses is remembering what has already happened, or (b) the last revelation of God to Moses follows the patterns of the previous ones: ie, God coming out of the great fiery cloud atop Sinai.

Let us grant for a moment that, as some say, “the context calls for this to be a future blessing” — meaning, I take it, the distant future (from Moses’ day) of Christ’s return. (I would say this is possible, but not absolutely essential.) Then, since the words are addressed to the twelve tribes (just as Deuteronomy 28; 29, etc), is not the last-days fulfillment (if there is one) most likely to be a re-enactment of the Exodus and the giving of the Law for the remnant of the nation of Israel, imprisoned again in Egypt? To this Isaiah 11:11,15; 19:1,18-20; 63:11-19; and Micah 7:15 may well refer.

The other two passages quoted may be approached in the same way. Furthermore, as to Psalm 68:17: The context of the whole psalm is altogether concerning Zion! It was almost certainly written on the occasion of David’s bringing the ark of God to Zion at last (Psalm 24 is another with the same context). This was the culmination of an important phase in the Divine purpose which began with Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, proceeded to the giving of the Law at Sinai, and languished for several generations while the ark rested uneasily at a number of temporary locations. Now it was at last coming to its foreordained permanent dwelling place. With this background we now read Psalm 68:15-17:

* The “hill of God” is Zion (v 15), “… the hill which God desires to dwell in… forever” (v 16). These three verses contain two comparisons, ie:

* Zion is now (in David’s eye, and — prophetically — in the kingdom age) like the hills of Bashan (v 15), meaning majestic and towering and invincible. This is another way of saying that, when God dwells in Zion and His king (David or Christ) reigns there, Zion will be “lifted up”, first to rival and then to surpass the “mountains” (ie, kingdoms) of the Gentiles (Isa 2:2; Psa 48:2). This “lifting up” will be physical when Christ returns (Zec 14:4,8,10; Psa 48:2 again), but in David’s day the “lifting up” was just as real to him in the sense of Zion’s spiritual exaltation to the favor of God.

* Secondly, God is among the angels and the chariots (cherubim) there in Zion, like He was previously in Sinai (v 17). Zion is now (David’s day, and again of course with prophetic implications) like Sinai was — the scene of God’s glorious fiery manifestation.

With this understanding, v 17 may now be read, as it stands in the AV, with no need for modification: “The Lord is among them (the cherubim and angels), as (He had been) in Sinai, (but now) in the holy place (mount Zion!).” That this is the proper interpretation is borne out by such verses as 24 (“sanctuary” would be Zion) and 29 (temple at Jerusalem) and — as I have said — the whole of the psalm. So, if Psalm 68:17 proves anything in the matter of the location of the judgment seat, it proves that Zion and not Sinai will be the site!

---

Habbakuk 3:3 may be prophetic, but again the effect of the mention of Sinai must be to draw an analogy between the mighty deeds of Yahweh in Moses’ day and the wonderful deliverance expected and prayed for by the prophet. However, where in all the chapter is the resurrectional judgment referred to — or even implied? It is not. We must make a far-reaching inference to use this passage as “proof” of the Sinai location. We must set up a dogmatic sequence of events, a sequence which may appear plausible, but about which we simply cannot be positive. It would be far more reasonable to interpret Scripture with Scripture, and surmise that the Sinaitic (and Egyptian) revelations of God in the last days will be for the purpose of saving the Jews out of Egypt (as the historical allusions imply), not for the judgment of the responsible out of all nations (see references in “1” above).

***

Briefly, then, these are the scriptural reasons for the judgment seat of Christ being at Zion:

* Isaiah 25:7,8 states clearly that the glorification of the saints will take place in Jerusalem/Zion. (“This mountain” can only be Zion: see 24:23). If the righteous will be given eternal life there, what is more reasonable than to conclude that the site of their judgment will be there also?

* But this is not all: Christ speaks repeatedly of “Gehenna” as the scene of punishment for the responsible wicked (there are many references). Christadelphians have always been quick to show believers in “hell-torments” that “Gehenna” is a known locality, adjacent to Jerusalem, where the bodies of criminals, animal carcasses, and other garbage were burned. Is it fair to take “Gehenna” as literal when convenient, and figurative at other times, only to suit our preconceived notions? If “Gehenna” is indeed the literal place where the responsible wicked will be destroyed after judgment by Christ, what does this tell us about the location of that judgment? Are we really prepared to argue that Gehenna is in the Sinai desert? Note also that twice in Christ’s earthly ministry, the temple area was the scene of his cleansing judgment against hypocritical professors of the Truth. And the fig tree which he cursed was also adjacent to Jerusalem!

* Other passages favor Zion as the location of judgment, because it will be the scene of the saints’ reward: Psalm 133:3 for one: “There (Mount Zion) the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.”

* Psalm 87:5: The Lord’s people are counted as having been born in Zion, because all their hopes and aspirations are centered upon that place. By a similar figure, their “mother” is Jerusalem (Gal 4:26; Isa 54:1,11-13; Rev 21:2). What more beautiful than the completion of the process of “rebirth” in Zion? If the saints are “born” at baptism to be prospective children of Zion, then why not “born” after judgment in the glory of immortal bodies, again at Zion? Common sense tells us that “children” cannot be “born” hundreds of miles away from their “mother”!

* Matthew 25:31-34: A careful reading indicates that the separation of the “sheep” and the “goats” takes place at the same place as Christ’s “throne of glory”. Again, Christadelphians argue eloquently against those of other persuasions that the throne of Christ and David can only be in Jerusalem, and not in heaven or even elsewhere on the earth (Salt Lake City, Utah?). If that is so for purposes of first principle arguments about the nature of the coming kingdom, then let us not shrink from the implication of such a passage as this in regard to the location of Judgment. Are we really prepared to argue that Christ’s “throne of glory”, where he will sit as a King (v 34), will be set up for a time on Mount Sinai?

* Other New Testament passages seem to call for the same interpretation — among them (a) Heb 12:18-24 (the context is certainly judgment: “Much more shall not we escape” — v 25); (b) Gal 4:24-28 (two covenants; Moses’ covenant at Sinai had to do with length of mortal days in the land, but Christ’s covenant at Jerusalem has to do with eternal life); and (c) Rev 5:6-10; 7:9-14; 14:1-5; and 19:1-9 (the scene of the saints’ reward is invariably the royal throne of Christ and Mount Zion).

***

One final point: We make a mistake if we elevate the location of the judgment to the status of a “first principle”, no matter which way we believe. In the first place, it was never intended so to be by our “pioneer brethren”.

[It might be well to note the following comment: “Where will (Christ) set (the judgment seat) up? Will it be in Palestine, or in Egypt, or in the Arabian peninsula, in the solitudes of Sinai? We cannot be sure… An uncertain detail must not be made a basis of fellowship. We must not insist upon a man believing the judgment seat will be set up at Sinai or any particular place so long as he believes that ‘Jesus Christ will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.’ ” — Robert Roberts, “True Principles and Uncertain Details”, The Christadelphian 35:185.]

And in the second place, there are no Scripture passages absolutely conclusive on the matter. We may think we know the exact order of future events, and exactly how and where each one will be fulfilled. But the true purpose of Bible prophecy is not to enable us to “bat 1,000” in our predictions, but to prepare us personally and as a body for the coming of Christ. Names and numbers and places and facts have a place in the study of prophecy, but they are only the framework. The heart of the matter is the love we hold for the Bridegroom and his appearing. But before he will be the Bridegroom, he must first be the Judge. It is not nearly as important where we will stand literally when he comes, as where we will stand spiritually in his eyes. “Depart from me” or “Come, ye blessed”? This we all know in theory, but it bears repeating, often and forcefully.

Addendum

A scarcely-explored thread runs through the whole of the Bible, which provides a further rationale for the basic premise of this article. This suggestion is certainly worth an entire study by itself, but we must be content here with the suggestion alone. There are some strong reasons for supposing that the garden of Eden was located at present-day Jerusalem. If this were so, then all sorts of Biblical allusions fall into place, many “loose ends” are surprisingly harmonized, portions of Genesis and Revelation fit together like pieces of a puzzle, and the coming judgment of the responsible — “where it all began” — appears the most reasonable thing in the whole world!

When President Reagan came to see Margaret Thatcher, she went to Heathrow Airport to meet him.

The Greeks and Romans had a similar custom. When a VIP came to visit some other dignitary, the local man was expected to travel outwards with his retainers until the two parties met. Then they would reform into one mass procession, with the local bigwig escorting his honored guest to his own provincial seat of government, in triumphal procession with great pomp.

There is a special Greek expression which was always (and only) used to describe this ceremony of meeting the incoming VIP. It occurs three times in the New Testament, thus:

1. “…We went towards Rome. And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came TO MEET [eis apantesin] us, as far as Appii Forum” (Acts 28:14,15).

Here, the Greek expression is used with its ordinary, earthly meaning. This shows that Luke and, presumably, the first-century church in general were familiar with the specialized use of this Greek phrase.

2. “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven… and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, TO MEET the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1Th 4:16,17).

This presents us with a big problem that, as far as I am aware, has never been squarely faced. The Greek clearly indicates that the saints will be miraculously lifted up to meet the returning Lord at some point in the upper atmosphere, and then caused to escort him back, in joyful, triumphant procession, to the earth’s surface — there to be “ever with the Lord”. But wherever can we fit a literal judgment seat into this sequence of events? It can’t be before we are “caught up”, as this would then mean the “meeting in the air” would not be a “meeting” at all, in the sense of the Greek expression used. And it can’t be after we “meet the Lord in the air”, because there could be no joyful, triumphant meeting and procession if the wicked are still present and all concerned are still wondering whether they are destined for life or death!

3. “And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold the bridegroom cometh; go ye out TO MEET him… And while they [the five foolish virgins] went to buy, the bridegroom came, and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage…” (Mat 25:6,10).

This clinches the deduction made above from 1Th, that the unrighteous will not be present when the righteous meet their Lord. The invitation to “meet” him (in the special Greek sense of traveling outwards to meet an incoming potentate) went to both classes — but only the wise virgins were in a position to accept the invitation. The foolish virgins were left behind, and later found themselves locked out of the scene of rejoicing. It seems impossible to fit a literal judgment seat into this sequence, either.

So what are we to make of all this? Does Scripture intend us to regard the judgment seat as real in essence, but symbolic rather than literal in its nature? (Just as the Biblical devil is real enough in essence, but is a symbolic devil and not a literal one.) Or is there some other explanation that fits the facts better? (AH)

When our son Adam was baptized, a sister in our ecclesia, Julie, went looking for a card to celebrate the baptism. Julie worked in downtown San Antonio, a city which is predominantly Hispanic and Catholic. She knew there was a “religious” shop near her office, and she assumed that she would be able to find a suitable card there. So off she went at lunch.

“Yes,” said the shopkeeper, an elderly and well-meaning lady, “we have many baptismal cards!” And she directed Julie to the card display. And there were many cards for “baptisms”, but they were all cards for the parents of infants who had been “baptized”, or more properly “sprinkled”! With growing exasperation, Julie looked through card after card of beautiful babies, with sweet, sentimental words for the parents of such newborns.

And Adam was a “newborn” too. But he was a sixteen-year-old, six-foot, 200-pound “newborn”! None of these cards would work!

“Don’t you have any other cards?” Julie asked the shopkeeper. “Something for an adult who is being baptized?” Now the little lady was clearly puzzled; one could only imagine her confusion as she tried to fit a grown manchild into the Catholic stereotype: smiling parents and godparents standing around a berobed priest as he held a little 200-pound bundle of joy in his arms and made the sign of the cross with holy water on his forehead!

So while the lady rummaged around under her counter, Julie went exploring. And, sure enough, in no time at all she found just what she wanted. In another rack of the card section, a lovely card with these words: “God bless you as you enter into the Lord’s service.” And on the inside:

“In loving dedication You’ve set your life apart To serve our Lord and teach his word With an ever-faithful heart. And may his richest blessing Come to you day by day As devotedly you do his work And follow in his way.”

The card closed with the quotation of 1Co 7:22: “He that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.”

“This one will do just fine,” Julie said as she reached for her purse.

But now the clerk had a horrified expression. “No! You can’t take that card!” She was adamant. “That’s a card for the ordination of a priest!”

Julie persisted. “Oh yes, I’ll take it!” she replied. “It’s perfect. You see, when he’s baptized, he will be a priest.” And off she went, leaving behind what by now must have been a thoroughly bewildered salesperson.

What a blessing it is to know the Truth! To realize that we have no need of a specially consecrated human “priest” to see that our prayers reach heaven. To know that “there is (only) one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1Ti 2:5). And to know that all of us who are baptized into Christ, even the newly-baptized, are truly “kings and priests” (Rev 5:10), and a holy priesthood dedicated to offer spiritual sacrifices to God (1Pe 2:5), to declare the praises of him who has called us out of darkness into his marvelous light (v 9).

What does a “righteous” man do when confronted with the “obvious” sin of another? Does he “righteously” rebuke, and punish the sinner? “To the full extent of the law!”; how often we hear that cry of righteous zeal, or its equivalent, today! A wise man once remarked: “Every man wants justice for others… and mercy for himself. Sometimes God tests our reactions. Are we too quick to pass judgment? Are we eager to stand up for our rights? Are we as eager to cover a sin? We have all known the brother (maybe we see him in the mirror every morning) who is quick to judge, who relishes the role of “the righteous arm of the Lord” in dispensing His judgment, but who is aghast at the suggestion that he can dispense His mercy. “God can forgive, but we do not have that prerogative.” “We must make this sinner a public example, so others will be discouraged from doing likewise.” “God may have mercy on her, but that is for Him to say, not me.”

Joseph was not that sort of man; he was — “righteous”, with all the qualities of strength, decency, and mercy (but none of the harshness and arrogance) that that word implies.

This description seems an intended contrast with two of Joseph’s ancestors who are listed in the preceding genealogy of Mat 1:

• Judah was all for putting to death his daughter-in-law Tamar for playing the harlot. His “righteous” zeal was interrupted only by her proof that he had been her consort; that he, in fact, was guilty and she innocent. He was only lying with a harlot, but she was fulfilling the Mosaic law of succession and inheritance as best she could (Gen 38:24-26).

• David, a man after God’s own heart, was anything but “righteous” in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah, compounding adultery with murder. But, when told of the theft of a little ewe lamb in Nathan’s masterful allegory, he burned with zealous fury: “As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this deserves to die!” (2Sa 12:5) How flimsy his “righteousness” really was, he soon found out to his surprise.

If the lessons of the genealogy might be pursued a bit further, Joseph was in fact much more like two other of his ancestors:

• Salmon “covered” the past sins of Rahab the harlot by marrying her.

• Boaz married Ruth the Moabitess even though she had been rejected by the nearest kinsman.

What options were available to Joseph? The law of Moses outlined three possible courses of action to a wronged husband in Joseph’s position. All three are summarized in Deu 22:

• A betrothed wife found by her husband not to be a virgin (assuming no mitigating factors) was subject to death by stoning (Deu 22:13-21): “She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house” (Deu 22:21). Possibly this severe punishment was no longer possible in Roman-occupied Israel. At the very least, however, such a woman would be divorced and ostracized from all proper society.

• But perhaps — and it is not difficult to imagine “just” Joseph casting about for a better way out — perhaps Mary had been forced against her will (Deu 22:25-27). Perhaps it had happened during her trip to Judah, and she had been too ashamed to tell anyone until now. In which case, she was not an adulteress after all.

• Or, a third possibility, perhaps this had happened before their betrothal (Deu 22:28,29). In that case, the matter could be remedied by Joseph releasing Mary so that she might marry the father of her child.

Pursuing the first alternative was clearly out of the question. Joseph “did not want to expose her to public disgrace” (Mat 1:19). And so he considered, as the best course of action, a private bill of divorce, after the precedent of either Deu 22:26 or Deu 22:29. Such an action would need only two witnesses, and would bring the least possible reproach upon Mary. This solution would allow her either to bear her illegitimate child in private away from Nazareth, or to marry the father, if possible. Obviously Mary’s future well-being was more important to Joseph than his own vindication.

“The school of adversity is the best school possible, but its tuition fees are high!”

“…The lesson of Joseph’s life is unmistakable. It is… that God works when His hand is not apparent, and often when it would seem as if He must be taking no notice, and by means that seem to exclude the possibility of His being at work. The conclusion is comforting to those who commit their way to God. It may seem to them that God is not only not working with them, but actually working against them. Let them remember the agony of Joseph in the pit, in slavery, in false imprisonment, and learn that the darkest paths of their life may be the ways appointed for them to reach liberty and life, wealth and honor — yea, a throne in the kingdom of the antitypical Joseph, who himself had to tread the dark and tearful valley of humiliation, and who, in the days of his glory, will introduce all his brethren, amongst many bright stars, to the most interesting of Jacob’s sons” (WP 70).

Author: Joshua; perhaps with later editing by Samuel.

Time: 1406 – 1400 BC.

Summary: Joshua was selected by God to succeed Moses and lead the nation into the Promised Land. The book outlines the conquest and occupation by Israel under his military leadership. God explicitly states that all the inhabitants of the land were to be utterly driven out or destroyed in order to assure spiritual purity and complete devotion to God. Joshua is the first book of what is called the Former Prophets.

Key verse: “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve… But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Josh 24:15).

Outline:

Entrance into the Promised Land: Josh 1:1 – 5:12

• God’s commission to Joshua: Josh 1:1-9
• Joshua’s mobilization for crossing the Jordan: Josh 1:10-18

• Mission of the spies: Josh 2:1-24
• Crossing of the Jordan: Josh 3:1 – 5:1
• Renewal of circumcision and Passover observance: Josh 5:2-12

Conquest of the Promised Land: Josh 5:13 – 12:24

• Appearance of the Captain of the Lord’s Host: Josh 5:13 – 6:5

• The central campaign: Josh 6:6 – 8:29

• Israel’s covenant as the Law of the land: Josh 8:30-35

• The southern campaign: Josh 9:1 – 10:43

• The northern campaign: Josh 11:1-15
• Summary of the conquest: Josh 11:16-23
• Appendix: catalogue of the defeated kings: Josh 12:1-24

Division of the Promised Land: Josh 13:1 – 22:34

• God’s command to divide the land: Josh 13:1-7
• Territory of the tribes west of the Jordan River: Josh 13:8-33

• Beginning of the division of Canaan: Josh 14:1-15

• Territory of the tribe of Judah: Josh 15:1-63

• Territory of the Joseph tribes: Josh 16:1-17:18

• Territories of the seven remaining tribes: Josh 18:1 – 19:51

• Inheritance of Levi: Josh 20:1 – 21:42

• Summary of the conquest and apportionment: Josh 21:43-45

• Appendix: departure of tribes east of the Jordan River: Josh 22:1-34

Joshua’s final speeches: Josh 23:1 – 24:33

• Joshua’s farewell address to the leaders of Israel: Josh 23:1-16

• Renewal of the covenant commitment at Shechem: Josh 24:1-28

• Joshua dies and Israel’s subsequent conduct: Josh 24:29-33

Typical history of Joshua through Samuel: Four OT books typify first and second advents of Christ, and our duties:

• Joshua: First work of “Joshua/Jesus”: making it possible for others to enter Land of promise: Josh 24:31; typical of Heb 2:14; Eph 1:11.

• Judges: No visible king, wicked society, failure of many.

• Ruth: A small remnant (both Jew and Gentile) remain faithful in the midst of wickedness and indifference.

• Samuel: “David” establishes kingdom at Jerusalem: Typical of 2nd coming, judgment, reward, reign of Christ and saints: Rev 5:9,10.