1. Men may have a knowledge of God from general revelation, and thus all men are in some sense guilty, since they have rejected this revelation.

2. The Jews are guilty of rejecting God’s law as well, and thus are doubly guilty.

3. Since no man can be saved by his own righteousness, justification can only be by faith in the work of Jesus Christ.

4. The chief Old Testament example is Abraham, who was saved by faith.

5. The fruit of this justification is peace with God.

6. Free grace gives no license for sin, but rather provides resurrection power for a new life of righteousness.

7. Nevertheless, our regeneration introduces a struggle, within our own natures, against indwelling sin.

8. Christ works with us in the war against sin, and guarantees us our final victory in the resurrection.

9. Our security in Christ is grounded in God’s choice of us, not our choice of Him.

10. God brings His elect people to Himself by means of the preaching of the gospel.

11. God has taken the gospel to the Gentiles now, but there will come a time when Israel will also be gathered back to Him.

12. Paul shifts from theological exposition to practical application. The appropriate response to such a great salvation is to present ourselves as living sacrifices and transformed people in the ecclesia.

13. Believers should live in submission to the civil authorities.

14. Weak and strong believers need to live in harmony, understanding each other.

15. The apostle to the Gentiles hopes to visit Rome soon.

16. Paul sends greetings to the saints, and gives warnings against “wolves”.

Author: Paul.

Time: AD 57.

Summary: Paul first demonstrates that Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners in the eyes of God and therefore worthy of death. That is the “bad news” that gives power to the “good news” (Rom 1:16,17), in which Paul explains that Jesus Christ is able to provide a covering for our sins. Further, he shows that Israel too, though presently in a state of unbelief, has a place in God’s plan of redemption. The letter concludes with an appeal to the readers to work out their Christian faith in practical ways.

Key verses: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:23-24).

“An epistle which, for sublimity and truth of sentiment, for brevity and strength of expression, for regularity in its structure, and, above all for the unspeakable importance of the discoveries it contains, stands unrivalled by any mere human composition, and as far exceeds the most celebrated productions of the learned Greeks and Romans, as the shining of the sun exceeds the twinkling of the stars.”

Outline

1.	Introduction: Rom 1:1-17
2.	The unrighteousness of all mankind: Rom 1:16–3:20
	a)	Gentiles: Rom 1:18-32
	b)	Jews: Rom 2:1-3:8
	c)	Summary: all people: Rom 3:9-20
3.	Righteousness imputed: justification: Rom 3:21–5:21
	a)	Through Christ: Rom 3:21-26
	b)	Received by faith: Rom 3:27–4:25
	c)	The fruits of righteousness: Rom 5:1-11
	d)	Summary: man’s righteousness contrasted with God’s gift: Rom 5:12-21
4.	Righteousness imparted: sanctification: Rom 6-8
	a)	Freedom from sin’s tyranny: Rom 6
	b)	Freedom from the law’s condemnation: Rom 7
	c)	Life in the power of the Holy Spirit: Rom 8
5.	The problem of the rejection of Israel: Rom 9-11
	a)	The justice and cause of the rejection: Rom 9:1-10:21
	b)	The restoration of Israel: Rom 11
6.	The gospel in practice: Rom 12:1–15:13
	a)	in the body — the church: Rom 12
	b)	in the world: Rom 13
	c)	among weak and strong Christians: Rom 14:1–15:13
7.	Conclusion and greetings: Rom 15:14–16:27

• Jesus is led from Caiaphas to Pilate’s palace very early morning, but Jews could not enter in — because they would be “defiled” (Joh 18:28). Jesus was led inside to Pilate, who has now been informed by wife of her dreams, and is beginning to waver on previous agreement, ie to consent immediately to findings of Jewish court. (Note his hesitancy from now on.)

• Pilate goes out to Jews, asking, “What accusation?” (Joh 8:29). This is, of course, perfectly legal, but is nevertheless surprising to the Jews. (Probably Pilate had previously agreed to waive “Accusatio”.) The Jews resent this new inconvenience; time is important.

• “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have brought him to you” (Joh 18:30). They are obviously reluctant to produce a charge; they had not expected this. They are angry and affronted that Pilate would actually open the case.

• Pilate: “Take him, and judge him according to your law.” Jews: “It is not lawful to put any man to death” (Joh 18:31).

• Pilate’s unexpected response: determined to have nothing to do with this man. Jews are just as determined that he will have a part — so that Jesus will be executed.

• They begin to accuse him: “Pervert nation… forbid tribute… saying he is king” (Luk 23:2). Priests’ hasty charges, designed to appeal to Romans. No proof offered.

• Pilate returns to Judgment Hall, asks Jesus, “Are you king of Jews?” Answer: Yes (Joh 18:33-37).

Time: c 1100 BC.

Summary: The book of Ruth is dated during the latter part of the period of the Judges, and shows that in a time of national decline and immorality, God preserved a remnant that could serve as the seed for a future revival. This would be accomplished through Ruth’s descendant, David, from whom the Messiah would come. Ruth is one of four women listed in the genealogy of Christ in Mat 1, and one of two women to have Bible books named after them.

Key verse: “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will me by people and your God my God” (Rth 1:16).

Ruth’s noble choice: Rth 1:1-22 a) Naomi’s family dies: Rth 1:1-5 b) Naomi returns from Moab: Rth 1:6-22

Ruth’s faithful service: Rth 2:1-23 Ruth and Boaz meet in the harvest

Ruth’s virtuous appeal: Rth 3:1-18 Ruth goes to Boaz at the threshing floor

Ruth’s blessed reward: Rth 4:1-22 a) Boaz arranges to marry Ruth: Rth 4:1-12 b) Naomi is blessed with a new family: Rth 4:13-22

1.	Introduction: Rev 1:1-20
	a)	Prologue: Rev 1:1-3
	b)	Greeting and doxology: Rev 1:4-8
2.	Letters to the 7 churches: Rev 2:1 – 3:22
	a)	Jesus the author: Rev 1:9-20
	b)	To Ephesus: Rev 2:1-7
	c)	To Smyrna: Rev 2:8-11
	d)	To Pergamum: Rev 2:12-17
	e)	To Thyatira: Rev 2:18-27
	f)	To Sardis: Rev 3:1-6
	g)	To Philadelphia: Rev 3:7-13
	h)	To Laodicea: Rev 3:14-22
3.	The throne, the scroll and the lamb: Rev 4:1 – 5:14
	a)	The throne in heaven: Rev 4:1-11
	b)	The scroll that no-one could open: Rev 5:1-4
	c)	The lamb who would open the scroll: Rev 5:6-14
4.	Opening the seven seals: Rev 6:1 – 8:1
5.	The seven trumpets: Rev 8:2 – 11:19
6.	Various portents and beasts: Rev 12:1 – 14:20
	a)	The woman and the dragon: Rev 12:1-17
	b)	Two beasts: Rev 13:1-18
	c)	The lamb, 144,000 redeemed and harvesting the earth: Rev 14:1-20
7.	The seven bowls: Rev 15:1 – 16:21
8.	The judgment of Babylon the great prostitute: Rev 17:1 – 19:4
9.	The triumph of the lamb: Rev 19:5 – 20:15
	a)	Hallelujah: Rev 19:6-10
	b)	The rider on a white horse: Rev 19:11-21
	c)	The 1,000 years: Rev 20:1-10
	d)	Judgement of the dead: Rev 20:11-15
10.	New heavens and new earth: Rev 21:1 – 22:21

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY SAY ABOUT RUSSIA IN PROPHECY?

Our attention is centered upon Eze 38. This chapter, which is often linked with Dan 11, has been a particular focus for Bible students in all ages. And no wonder, for it is one of the most dramatic chapters in the Bible. It portrays God’s people of Israel gathered back to their own land in the latter days, and then being attacked by a large confederate army led by Gog of the land of Magog. The main invading force comes from the north. The AV says they come from “the north parts”, but more recent translations render this as “far north” or “the recesses of the north” or “uttermost parts of the north”. This undoubtedly encouraged Dr John Thomas in his conclusion, stated in Elpis Israel, that this power could be identified with the “King of the North” in Dan 11: 40-45, since both are to meet their doom in Israel in the end time, with other nations in support.

Over the last 400 years, as printed Bibles became more readily available in many languages, there has been enormous speculation as to the identity of Gog, and the nations he would lead into this conflict, and the other nations that would be aligned with him. The level of Bible interest was perhaps at its highest in the western world in the 18th and 19th centuries; this coincided with the time of the powerful czars that ruled Russia from the time of Peter the Great, who came to power in 1689. From then on Russia was a country to be reckoned with. It is natural that Bible scholars of the period should consider Russia as a prime candidate for the “King of the North.” Historical and Scriptural evidence was adduced and a lively debate followed. Bible commentaries in the 19th century reflect this debate and the differing conclusions.

The aim of this article is to revisit this debate. We are particularly interested in the evidence on which the conclusions were based. It may also be that there is clearer evidence today, at least historically, than early brethren had available to them. They were understandably very keen to arrive at a conclusion about such a key chapter on prophecy, especially since they thought it was likely to be fulfilled in their lifetimes. It is natural that, in efforts to reach their conclusions, they would have assessed and taken into account the most current political situations and policies of the nations, giving very considerable weight to those immediate circumstances. We might not like to admit that this was (and is) done, but rather that the Bible only is the basis for prophetic interpretations; however, the evidence is compelling. In the case of the return of Israel to their homeland, by contrast, the scripture testimony was plenteous and unambiguous, and so, despite the lack of outward signs of such a return, our brethren of 150 years ago were confident in their expectations. But the identification of the King of the North was and is a different matter!

Gog of the land of Magog

Eze 38 reveals the final time when the prophet is to set his face against a power and to utter words which signal Yahweh’s pending judgement. Gog is the object of that judgement, he is “of the land of Magog”, and he is a prince. This is the first reference to Gog and Magog in the Bible. There is only one other reference, Rev 20:8, describing the nations that rebel against Christ at the end of the Millennium. In Eze 38 and 39 there are 8 refs to Gog, making it clear he is an individual, the leader of the Host. Magog probably should be seen as a collective term to describe the enemy lands from which the host comes, which is its probable meaning in Revelation although it also carries the implication of being a person. The fact that Magog is one of the sons of Japheth (Gen 10:2) adds an odd note and causes speculation. It may be there was a land named after him as with others from the beginning of history, but the Bible makes no reference to it, so it is wisest to discount it as a factor in our research. However, we should note that Josephus (Ant 1, 123, vi. 1) refers to the land of Magog as the land of the Scythians. But where is that? Scythian appears to be a term covering a multitude of different nomadic peoples of no fixed abode. I have not seen a Bible Atlas that attempts to place Magog on a map, although I found it in the back of one 19th century Bible!

The key factor is that Gog is a prince, captain or ruler! But the Bible versions differ. Some say he is a “chief prince of Meshech and Tubal”, others that he is “prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.” This difference in translation arises from the fact that the LXX (Septuagint translation, from Hebrew into Greek in the 1st/2nd century BC) translated the word “rosh” as a proper name — as though there were a country by that name. In every other place (nearly 600) in the Old Testament it is indisputably a common noun meaning “chief, head, etc.” The Hebrew text (called the Masoretic) has vowel accents which indicate it is a common noun. Some argue that the sentence structure in the Hebrew is different, and that that justifies making rosh a proper noun. However, rosh occurs within similar sentence structures elsewhere in the Bible, eg, Isa 7:8-9, where it is obviously just a common noun. Today we have some English versions which render it as chief (ie, New Jerusalem) and some as Rosh (i.e. NIV, mg only). Jerome lived in Bethlehem, in the third century, in order to make a new translation of the Bible into Latin from the oldest manuscripts available; he refused to follow the LXX translation of Rosh as a proper noun because there was no existing nation by that name. Jerome’s translation, which became known as the Latin Vulgate, influenced the early English translations, including the AV, to all render rosh as “chief.”

Can Rosh be identified?

There have been many efforts to identify this country in ancient history. None are particularly convincing. The tendency is to quote authorities, selecting the ones who support our line of thinking. A favourite is the historian Bochart; Dr Thomas referred to him as “celebrated” but the Encyclopaedia Brittanica devotes just a few lines to Bochart. He wrote about 350 years ago and viewed Rosh as being Russia. Cook’s voluminous Commentary notes, “Traces of the name (rosh) have been found by Bochart and Frahn in ‘Ar-ras,’ the Arabian name for the river Araxes, and the people who inhabit its shores … from which the Russians are thought to have derived their name.” Is this really appropriate and sufficient evidence to prove such a major point? Even if there might be some connection between Ar-ras and rosh, this river, later called Araxes and now Arak or Aras, flows into the Caspian Sea and forms the northern border of Iran. It rises in the mountains of eastern Turkey after forming the southern boundary of Azerbaijan and Armenia. How would the name of such a river contribute to the name of a people that would be centred on Moscow 2,000 km north and emerge from the 10th century AD onwards?

So much has happened since Dr Thomas wrote his original work over 150 years ago. Archeology was in its infancy then; all the major finds of Layard and others were still in the future. Dr Thomas had to base his investigations on the comments of historians who were forming opinions on very sketchy evidence. With a better knowledge of the times, the evidence is still far from concrete when we go back into prehistory, for there was no real history of the land, the land which is now occupied by Russia, in the era before Christ. We need to realise that this type of historical research leads to very tentative evidence. But some people just have to be dogmatic! The classic case in recent history is Germany. A Cambridge University Professor of History observed that the Germans “harnessed prehistory to their racial mad chariot and did so because they felt somehow that history must be, or must be made to be, on their side…. ‘The one and only thing that matters to us,’ Himmler is supposed to have said, ‘and the thing these people (the State-employed historians) are paid for by the state, is to have ideas of history that strengthen our people in their national pride.’ ” The writer concludes by observing, “And here of course, pre-history, where we really know so little and guess so much, came into its Germanic own.” (Prof Glyn Daniels: The idea of pre-history, p 115)

If Rosh is the name of a country, it is more likely to be the people known as Rash or Rasu. “The land of Rash, on the western border of Elam, is mentioned in the cuneiform inscription (see Delitzsch, Paradies 322),” says Hastings Bible Dictionary (vol 4, page 314), commenting that this is an area further east than the prophecy seems to require. It adds, “Gesenius actually thought of the Russians, but this is impossible.” The recent IVP Illustrated Bible Dictionary (vol 3) refers to the same thing in its entry on Rosh, saying, “Most follow Delitzsch in identifying Rosh with Assyria. Rasu on the NW border of Elam (ie, Media).” Is it too far east? We will look at that later when we consider what is “north”!

Some confidently assert that Rosh is identifiable with Russia; others, like the dictionaries just referred to, equally confidently deny this, saying it is “impossible” or “unlikely,” and the New Bible Commentary Revised (p 682) declares it is “unsupportable.” What is the background to this drastic difference of judgement? We have come to the conclusion that expositors are looking for evidence to support an emotional conviction that Russia must be Rosh, and the result is not dissimilar to the search for scriptural evidence by some who are convinced they have an immortal soul. There is little doubt that the people of Russia in the Moscow region were first called Rus, and this led to the land being called Russia and the people Russians. But where did the term Rus come from? A chronicle of the history of Russia, written in the 12th century AD, says that “Varangians were known as Rus… on account of these Varangians, the Russian land received its name.” The Varangians were Scandinavian migrants from the north. The word, it is suggested, is derived from Rousti, the Finnish name for Sweden, in particular the people of today’s Roslagen area, roosmen, rowers who travelled south down the large Russian rivers. It is said that “north central Russia is full of place names derived from Finno-Ugrian.” (Cultural Atlas of Russia and Soviet Union, p 37) This development occurred in the 8th to 10th centuries AD. There is one source that suggests the name could have been in use as early as the 6th century. But some suggest that earlier the Greeks called the people “Rhos”. It is true Greek colonists before the time of Ezekiel established trading posts on the shores of the Black Sea. We know this because the historian Herodotus has left a record of a visit to the area. But the origins of the evidence that shows the name Rhos or Ros was in use then are never quoted. And even if Ros were so used, it would need to be demonstrated how that led to the name of Russia 1,400 years later. In books like the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Russia and the Cultural Atlas of Russia, both of which have lengthy sections on the earliest history of the area, there is not the slightest hint of how this might have come about. A number of ancient history sites on the internet offer no answer either.

In the days of Ezekiel, and for more than 1,000 years afterwards, nearly all the land known today as Russia was open steppe country and, further north, forests, roamed by nomadic tribes generally referred to as Scythians. The Scythians themselves left no written records, they were not settled people, their language was not committed to writing, and the historians’ attempts to understand something about them is based almost entirely on the contents of tombs that date from the period. One interesting insight is their apparent appearance in Assyrian records and inscriptions. Kings Sargon and Esarhaddon had battles with these northern neighbours in the times of Judah and Israel. But the area in question in Bible times was that of northern Iran and Azerbaijan, not Russia. Later the Medes and Persians had to contend with the Scythians. (Ency Brit; the World Atlas of Archaeology, p 216) The Assyrians called them the Saka and, because the cuneiform inscriptions refer to “Sariti and Pariza, sons of Gaagi, chief of the Saka,” (History of Assurbanipal from cuneiform inscriptions, p 94, Cook’s Comm); some speculate whether Gaagi was a prototype of Gog! Indeed there are a number of speculations about this name, but they all seem so vague that we have not considered them.

The Nations of Ezekiel 38

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that Rosh might be a proper noun, then there is something particularly odd about the nations listed in Ezekiel 38. The names given, not only Meshech and Tubal, but also Gomer, Togarmah, Cush (Ethiopia) and Phut (Libya), are all grandsons or great grandsons of Noah. They existed from ancient times as peoples mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis — and peoples live in lands and give their names to their lands. But Rosh is the odd one out. There is no other mention of this Rosh in Scripture and no mention in secular history. Seeing that Ezekiel spent much of his life in Babylon where examples of ancient writing have survived in great abundance, the absence of any inscriptions referring to Rosh raises extreme doubt. The one possible piece of evidence is Rash or Rasu, a people lost in ancient history, who may have lived near the border of Elam.

If we accept the argument, against all the evidence, that Rosh refers to Russia, then we have another hurdle to get over. Although the other names are ancient peoples widely known as much as 1,500 years prior to Ezekiel, Russia was not to come into existence for another 1,400 years beyond Ezekiel’s day. There is no other example of God’s prophets anticipating a modern name long before it came into being. Such an approach is without parallel elsewhere in Scripture.

Those who link Rosh with Meshech and Tubal cannot explain why these two countries already warrant a mention twice in Ezekiel (Eze 27:13; 32:26) as nations that traded with Tyre and are later destroyed for their sins. Some see Meshech as being the same as Moscow. As proof they offer the word “Moschi,” but where did this word originate? Nobody has advanced any evidence. How the descendants of a grandson of Noah developed into a people about 4,500 years ago is not difficult to believe, but how they then eventually became the people of a far-distant city four millennia later, defies all but the most elastic imagination. Meshech, Tubal and Togarmah exist in Bible Atlases. But I suspect there is a lot of guesswork involved, as there is so much variation in their placement by different publishers. It may also be noted that none of the major publishers of non-Biblical history atlases place these names in their maps, although they have maps covering the same period of history, ie, the Assyrian/ Babylonian and Greek Empires.

The Russian name for Moscow is Moskva, which is one of the words of Finnish-Ugrian origin referred to earlier. Similarly, Tubal, a people which Nebuchadnezzar destroyed along with Meshech (Eze 32:11,26), surely cannot now mean the inhabitants of Tobolsk! We need more evidence than widely-separated names with similar sounds, which is the most common of occurrences across languages and time. The atlases just referred to always place these names in some part of Turkey. We also have to be consistent in our interpretations. With the ancient people of Moab, Edom, Elam etc, about which there are latter-day prophecies, we look at the areas in which they existed and understand the prophecies concerning these peoples as referring to the same areas today and the nations occupying them. We do not speculate as to where the peoples may have possibly migrated over the many centuries since the prophecies were given.

How far north?

The one remaining point to be considered is the question of “north.” On the surface the geographical evidence looks powerful. Gog will come from the “far north” (Eze 38:15), says the NKJ version. Certainly, as we look at a map, Moscow is just about due north of Jerusalem. But is this proof conclusive? Does it stand close investigation? The Hebrew for “north” has the sense of northward, as when God told Abraham to look northward, southward, eastward and westward, signifying a directional arc; northward (same word) doesn’t just mean due north. In Eze 26:7 we read, “For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings from the north.” But Babylon is almost due east of Tyre! We find several passages that speak of Babylon as being north of Israel, when strictly speaking it is east! (At any rate, the issue might well be as much the direction from which Gog and its allies attack, as their physical location in relation to the land of Israel. It is well known that those who traveled from even the far northeast on their way westward and southward — such as from Persia or Babylon to Egypt — would have entered the land of Israel from the north, due to the prevailing trade routes and best available roads of the times.)

How far north is “far north”? What does the Hebrew mean by the words which the AV renders as “north parts” and “north quarters” in Eze 38:6,15? The Hebrew word basically means border or coast and is usually rendered “side” in the AV. It first occurs in Gen 49:13 concerning “Zebulun… his border shall be unto Zidon.” So the word has the sense of outer boundary. What is the boundary of the north? The ultimate boundary is the North Pole! But surely the prophet means the boundaries of the known north. Zidon and Damascus were cities north of God’s land, but the nations over which Gog was prince were beyond these, and the indications of ancient history concerning the location of Meshech, Tubal and Togarmah fit the picture. It may be that the reason we cannot identify the areas of these nations today with absolute confidence is the outworking of the purpose of God. In the days of the prophet the vast areas of Russia were peopled by wandering nomads who rode horses and herded cattle, who left no written records, and only touched upon known history when they briefly came in contact with ancient civilisations. On the other hand, Ezekiel was writing of known peoples, some of whom were nations that traded with Tyre, even though they were nations remote from Israel.

Gog’s hidden identity in the other prophets

In conclusion, there are no genuine grounds for believing that Russia is mentioned in Bible prophecy. Yet undoubtedly there will be an end time attack on God’s people, and it will come principally from the north. It may well be that Russia will support and aid the attackers, but we cannot believe on Scriptural grounds, that Russia is the leader Gog. There is additional proof of this point in Eze 38 itself. After stating that Yahweh “will be sanctified in thee O Gog, before their eyes.” The prophet continues, “Thus saith the Lord GOD: Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?” (vv16,17 — a rhetorical question with an affirmative answer). So we can surely find in former prophets more passages that speak of Gog’s attack upon Israel. And we find many of them, and while the name “Gog” is not used, the message of warning is the same. We have Dan 11 of course, but may also consider Jeremiah, Joel, Obadiah, Zephaniah and Zechariah. Ezekiel is blessed with being able to give more detail of the course of events.

Finally there is Isa 14 which, when seen in its proper light, has a compelling impact. Many know this chapter because of its reference to Lucifer. V 4 tells us it is a proverb against the King of Babylon, and we might presume it refers to Nebuchadnezzar or his predecessor — or perhaps to the king of Assyria, which bore rule over Babylon in Isaiah’s day. But while this chapter certainly had an initial application close to Isaiah’s time (whatever that was, exactly), the first 4 vv make it plain that the most important application of this prophecy is to the time when Israel finally rules over its oppressors. This strongly suggests that, in a last days context, Lucifer is Gog!

The apparently never-ending feud between Jews and the Moslem Arabs, could easily see the Moslem nations of the former USSR join the fray in the near future. Turkey is the odd one out, but how quickly things can change — let us remember Iran when the Shah was in power!

We strongly suspect that if Dr Thomas were alive today, he would revise his prophetic anticipations considerably. In his preface to the 4th edition of Elpis Israel, written 17 years after the first, he acknowledges that in the third part, which deals with prophecy, he found it necessary to make the most alterations. And now, 134 years later, the scene is so totally different. His vision was wonderful for the age, but as the age changes, there is a sense in which each generation needs fresh pioneers, and a fresh look at the old interpretations. In saying this, we also most readily acknowledge the fundamental fact that Truth never changes, that there is “one hope, one Lord, one faith…” But in revisiting the question of Russia we have not been talking of fundamental truth. For 30 years the writer lectured following the traditional understanding, but then became uneasy as he saw more and more weaknesses in the evidence — compelling a complete reappraisal. This article shares the substance of that reappraisal.

Let me finish with a very telling example. The brotherhood was faced with a particular crisis of understanding the signs of the times in 1940. England stood alone against the might of Germany, which had made a pact with Russia. The U.S.A. refused to officially enter the war. France fell. (In Elpis Israel, Dr. Thomas had written about Ezekiel’s prophecy and its application of Gog and Magog to Russia and Germany.) But then Germany turned on Russia. There was confusion in the minds of many, a confusion that demonstrates the unwisdom of being dogmatic about the details of prophecy when those details are based on interpretations and not clear-cut statements. The Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ Magazine made some very pertinent comments; after surveying the course of war as against prophetic expectations, he said, “What conclusion can we reach from these seeming contradictions? Only at present there is no conclusion: we must let events interpret prophecy. The words of the prophets are given not to make us clever but to make us humble: to reveal God’s working, not our superiority.” (May 1941)

It seems to the writer that we need to reflect on these wise thoughts again. It has been said that those who will not learn from history are destined to repeat it. Let that not be said of Christadelphians.

David Caudery

A great theme of Rev is that “the time is near” — these things were about to happen (Rev 1:1,3; 2:16; 3:10,11; 22:6,7,10,12,20). The relationship between the letters and the rest of Rev cannot be overlooked; what was to happen to them in judgment was bound up with what was to come upon the land of Palestine in AD 70. Mat 21:40 parallels the coming of the Lord with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. This is exactly the sequence of events we expect in the last days, according to Zec 14. There are many links between the trumpets, seals and the Olivet prophecy; and also many links with Josephus’ descriptions of what came upon Palestine in AD 66-70.

Rev 6:1,2	Mat 24:14
Rev 6:3,4	Mat 24:6,7
Rev 6:5,6	Mat 24:7
Rev 6:7,8	Mat 24:7
Rev 6:9	Mat 24:12
Rev 6:11	Mat 24:14
Rev 6:12	Mat 24:7
Rev 6:13	Mat 24:32
Rev 6:14	Mat 24:35
Rev 6:16	Luk 23:30
Rev 6:17	Luk 21:36
Rev 7:1	Mat 24:31
Rev 7:3	Luk 21:18,28
Rev 7:14	Mat 24:19,21
Rev 8:3	Luk 21:36
Rev 8:5	Mat 24:27

  It is clear enough that the Olivet Prophecy has application both to the “last days” of AD 70 and also to our last days. Rev is the Lord’s expansion upon His words on Olivet — and therefore we should use this as a framework for interpreting the book. See notes in the following verses, which trace some leading features of the AD 70 interpretation. The most powerful proof is in private reading of Josephus’ Wars Of The Jews — it reads like a running commentary on the seal and trumpet judgments upon Israel:

Rev 5:1; 6:2,3,9-11,14,15,16; 9:5; 11:2,8; 13:5-7; 14:20; 16:19; 17:7.

In the same way as the 1st century believers could not have accurately predicted how all this would come about, but would have been wonderfully encouraged as they saw it all happening, and perceived then the interpretation — so we will see the Rev come true, rather that be able to predict its precise fulfillment, in our final “last days”.

The first principle of reconciliation is that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ” (2Co 5:19). Therefore reconciliation begins with God. Yet it isn’t only that God was “in Christ”, but also that Christ is “in us”. If so, then the process that began with God in Christ, is continued with Christ in us, giving us the same “hope of glory”. If we are also “in Christ”, then God’s reconciliation is continued in us. Reconciliation is manifested in oneness with Him and with each other.

Yet somehow, in spite of the prayer of Jesus that we “be one”, dispute, discord and divorce still produce differences in brethren that are rationalized as being irreconcilable. The flesh still capitalizes on “doubtful disputations” and indulges in “stupid controversies”. Where differences are reconciled, the Light shines. Grudges evaporate. False accusations are displaced by forgiveness. Disputes about “greatness” are set aside for service. Marriages regain their warmth. Ecclesias survive their dilemmas. Positions defer to Scripture. And wasteful divisions, “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Act 15:10), are ended for good.

The following principles have been compiled to show specific aspects of reconciliation as God sees it, as Christ practiced it, and as it must be evinced in us in our “ministry of reconciliation” (2Co 5:18). What follows is only a selective list of principles on reconciliation. They are those that stood out to me as being particularly relevant to division between brethren during an eight-month consideration of reconciliation. By selecting principles that apply to attitude, I have not meant to imply that reconciliation in the truth is not dependent upon sameness of mind around doctrine. Faith begins with doctrine. This series is directed toward conflict that originates from flesh and functionally separates true brethren.

Principles:

1. “He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation” (Exo 34:7).

Time doesn’t change the importance of reconciliation.

It is a disconcerting realization that the sin of discord can be passed to the fourth generation. Although God is merciful, His punishment of guilty fathers visits the sin upon their children to the third and the fourth generation. As children of division, we have the choice to make or break the cycle. We can offer the necessary sacrifice to save our children from growing up with the stigma of a community separated from another of “like precious faith,” or we can perpetuate it. We are compelled to end division for the sake of our children.

2. “[Caleb] follows me wholeheartedly” (Num 14:24).

Reconciliation requires following God fully.

When God commanded Israel to take the land, the congregation was in an emotional uproar. There were two spirits. Most people wanted to do the wrong thing. Driven by fear, they said “we are not able to go.” But Caleb had said, “we are well able to overcome it.” Motivated by faith alone, Caleb ignored human reasoning and focused on the fruit of obedience. The Lord asked of the fearful, “How long will they despise me, and how long will they not believe in me?” Of Caleb he said, “He has a different spirit, and has followed me fully.” That spirit was the Spirit of Christ, always deferring against human reasoning to the will of the Father. Reconciliation commands us to let there be no schism among brethren. How can we follow God fully? As we consider how to close an unrighteous schism, perhaps there are two spirits — that which says “we are not able,” and that which says “we are well able,” because it is the Lord’s command.

3. “How long will you waver between two opinions?” (1Ki 18:21).

Halting between opinions stifles reconciliation.

This is especially noticeable when the opinions are “certainly should” and “certainly should not”. Two opinions, two judgments, two positions in controversy; or matters too hard — ambivalence stops us in our tracks. In the Law, when matters too hard emerged, they were settled by the judgment of the priests in a place where the Lord chose. We have only one priest, and the place he has chosen is below the Table, in humility serving one another. Dispute overrides service; yet the Lord made humility a priority over bread and wine. When the years of controversy are prolonged, what might have been accomplished in works is wasted in indecision. Reconciliation isn’t accomplished in a halt. Schisms are ongoing, self-canceling cycles of unproductive consumption.

4. “…Because it was done so quickly” (2Ch 29:36).

When God works reconciliation, it doesn’t need a lot of time.

It didn’t matter how long the doors of the temple had been stuck shut from disuse, and the Passover ignored. When Hezekiah determined to reconcile Israel, it took only eight days. All those of a “free heart” brought a sacrifice to the Lord. Their hearts were not bound up with personal considerations or fettered with fear. When the Passover was finally restored it didn’t take very long. “Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced at what God had brought about for his people, because it was done so quickly.” But it only involved the immediate company of Hezekiah. Israel remained to be convinced. So a proclamation was made throughout all Israel that they should come and keep the Passover. When the couriers went out with the message, they were scorned and mocked. Only a few responded at first, “humbled themselves” and came to Jerusalem. Others from Judah came when the hand of God gave them “one heart to do what the king commanded… by the word of the Lord.” Afterward “many people came together… a very great assembly.” Likewise, it doesn’t matter how long our communities have been held apart by contention, all those of a “free [or willing] heart” can be of “one heart” and do what the king commands.

5. “You are right! We must do as you say” (Ezr 10:12).

It doesn’t matter what is required; reconciliation leaves no option but to do it.

When the priests of Israel realized they had disobeyed God, sinned and led all Israel astray, it wasn’t a question of what should be done, or how it should it be done. It didn’t matter to them that it seemed impractical, imposing, or even inconceivable. Knowing that the sin was the same as their fathers, they did what was required to repent. Their repentance accounted for the fact that Israel’s “ekklesial” relationship to God was dependent on familial repentance. God had commanded them to refrain from admixture with the surrounding nations. When they realized they had sinned, they did what the Lord commanded without consideration of an option, or regard for themselves. It was reconciliation by self-sacrifice and obedience.

6. “And they sent them away with their children” (Ezr 10:44).

Even if reconciliation requires setting personal feelings aside, it is still right.

It was almost an incomprehensible act of faith for the priests of Israel to put their wives and children away in reconciling Israel to God. They had abandoned the Law. They intermarried with the nations around them. Jesus echoed this weakness when he said: “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields — and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life” (Mar 10:29,30). For believers, this principle is perfectly acceptable on occasions where people are converted to the Truth from conventional Christianity. Beyond that, the principle becomes unthinkable. Yet the Lord tells us that there will be times when we will be called upon to sacrifice a personal relationship, or a rote tradition, in order to follow him. Thus on several occasions, it appeared to the Pharisees as if Jesus was violating the law, when in fact he was keeping it.

7. “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him…” (Pro 6:16-19).

Reconciliation is blocked by discord that mutates into tradition.

The seventh abomination that God hates is “a man who stirs up (or sows) dissension among brothers”. But what of those who cultivate it? And how is it that the same God who “loved the world” hates the sower of discord? Why so strong? The answer may lie in the word “sow.” It has been God’s intent from the start to sow the seed of faith, reaping its fruitfulness in the world. Anything that reverses this process runs against the very purpose of God. In addition to spreading discord in the field around him, the sower also propagates it for future generations. The seed of discord then spreads still further in the “wind of doctrine.” The traditions of men are not only contagious; they are socially genetic. We inherit wrong attitudes as easily as we inherit false doctrine. Discord mutates into family or church tradition, and tradition can be taught for doctrine as it was in Israel and has been for two thousand years in the apostate church. Every Christadelphian recognizes the tendency for schism to be sown from generation to generation. We know that contentions are passed from fathers to children. And we know that it is a legacy unforgiven if unrepented of, when it is between brethren. As God hates the sower, he surely hates the discord. Reconciliation converts discord to fruit.

8. “Pride only breeds quarrels” (Pro 13:10).

It follows therefore that only by humility comes reconciliation.

Pride is like fault. It only seems to lie in others. Everyone recognizes that there has been contention among Christadelphians for a hundred years. Yet mysteriously, the fault can’t be isolated. Or it is always somewhere else. When the finger is pointed, the blame itself is divisive. Yet the pointed finger is the very thing God says ruins worship. So “let a man examine himself.” Each of us should examine only ourselves to discover how in all this we might be contributing to contention, by pointing the finger, or by holding to opinion in the name of doctrine. When we are humble enough to admit our part of the problem without insisting on isolating the part of others, reconciliation naturally follows.

9. “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Pro 26:12).

Reconciliation is impossible when a man is right in his own eyes.

No man has ever been more right than the Son of God. How easily he might have suggested crucifying the world, and saving himself. How persuasively he could have argued his own position. Yet it would have been impossible for God to reconcile the world unto Himself if Jesus had stood on his own rightness. Reconciliation was achieved only because Jesus knew that the Father was more right than himself, so he laid himself upon the cross to declare God’s righteousness, claiming none for himself. In other words, because he was flesh, even the Son of God was not wise in his own eyes. How much more should we, in our relative ignorance and weakness, remember to assign rightness to God alone, never thinking more of ourselves than we ought to think? Reconciliation is dependent upon humility. Self-rightness nullifies it.

10. “The fire which never says ‘Enough’ ” (Pro 30:16; Jam 3:5).

In every place where reconciliation has been set aside for a century, the fire of controversy has never yet said “Enough”. Fire spreads. The tongue is a fire. When contention spreads, “the tongue stains the whole body,” and so there is a stain on the garment. At what point do we say “Enough” to the “unrighteous world among our members?” It is time to say “Enough”, and end divisions wherever they are, lest the Lord returns to find us burning the forest instead of the lamp.

11. “I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats” (Isa 1:11).

God doesn’t delight in tradition or ritual. Reconciliation operates on the heart.

Wouldn’t you think that Israel could have realized that there was more to worship than sticks, stones, animals and fire. Burnt offerings were a commandment of the Law, and yet the prophet Isaiah still had to remind Israel that the commandment was only there to teach the lesson of real obedience from the heart. Samuel clarified the distinction when he asked, “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams” (1Sa 15:22). When we make the ritual the religion, we are in danger of making a bull or a goat out of the sacrifice of Christ. Surely, in the same sense, the Lord does not delight in bread and wine, but in One Body, crucified flesh, and newness of life.

12. “Confessing my sin” (Dan 9:20).

Reconciliation is impossible without the confession of personal sin.

No one would question the faith and stellar character of Daniel at the time he received word of God’s intent to “make reconciliation for iniquity”. He was “greatly beloved”. How is it that he is found in the same context confessing his own sin in addition to the sin of his people? What was his own sin? To him the mystery of the Kingdom had been revealed. He was fearless and faithful in prayer unto death. An “excellent spirit” was in him. What iniquity did he present in supplication before the Lord that elicited a personal visit from the angel Gabriel? Was it perhaps that he had grown accustomed to Israel’s separation from God? Was it that his favor and position in Babylon had made him complacent about the initial conditions in Israel by which she was brought into captivity? Could it be that he had begun to regard the word of the Lord as a “burden”? We can’t know, but what we do know is that it was not until he confessed his sins, that the Lord hearkened to his prayer. On the other hand, accepting a condition of sin obviates its confession and stultifies reconciliation.

13. “I hate divorce” (Mal 2:16).

Divorce and discord are the same. God hates them both. Reconciliation cures them both.

“Irreconcilable differences” is a term of humanism — a term of breech — an accommodation of the flesh. No follower of Christ should ever be found using the reasoning of the world to justify a sin that degrades the glory of God as much as disunity among brethren. God’s “hatred” of human wickedness is utter enmity against it. Hatred is the strongest opposition cited by God against various forms of evil. For God to say that he hates discord and divorce means that they directly and entirely violate his righteousness. It also means that for us to disregard his command to reconciliation is an unacceptable level of indifference to his word. If we love God, we hate the things he hates. If we love righteousness, we love reconciliation.

14. “Leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift” (Mat 5:24).

Reconciliation is a priority over the breaking of bread.

The only reason Jesus would command us to reconcile before offering our gift at the altar is that atonement is meaningless if it is selfish. For sacrifice to God to be regarded as unselfish, it should be drawn from personal reconciliation. Were we to accept the covering of our own sin at the altar without providing for the covering of sin with our brethren, we would miss the point of the atonement. “Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful” (Jam 2:13). This simple idea is at the heart of every lesson Jesus taught about transgression and forgiveness. “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us” (Luk 11:4) is another way of making reconciliation with God dependent on reconciliation with one another. The one gift we know we can bring to the Lord at the altar of his covenant is the gift of reconciliation. If it is to be done first, then it is urgent.

15. “Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery” (Mat 5:32).

What if reconciliation is related to the second coming of Christ?

There is an eerie implication in this statement from the Sermon on the Mount. But it is not realized unless marriage is considered in its larger context of the second coming of Christ. The Lord will take the role of a Bridegroom in order to fulfill His father’s promise that He would betroth us to Him forever. The faithful will be the Bride. We can’t know what the proportion of the faithful raised will be to the faithful living at the time of the second coming of Christ. All we know is that he said it is adultery to marry a divorced woman. If we are the Bride, or part of the Bride, and we have divorced our brethren in our heart, will he marry us?

16. “That they may be one” (Joh 17:22).

Reconciliation follows regard for this prayer.

When the Lord faced his death, he knew that it meant the final conclusion to God’s reconciliation in him. Once Jesus was obedient unto death, His father had succeeded in reconciling the world unto himself. The mystery was not only revealed, it was also accomplished. It was a turning point in God’s very existence, in that when the seed was “planted” (buried) in righteousness, an immortal son would be “born” (resurrected) to God, and as an effect the world would be saved. What then was the one thought, the single priority, the most earnest desire on the Lord’s mind as he prepared his disciples for his obedience? It was that they would “be one”, even as he was one with his Father. It was that they would make a testimony of love and righteousness, by which the Truth could be proclaimed to a dark world. It was that they had every reason to continue the reconciliation he demonstrated. It was that reconciliation was in effect the last will of the Lord before he gave himself for us. It was that unity was at the heart of the Body of Christ. Can we disregard his prayer and nullify in ourselves the Glory he shared with his Father?

17. “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me” (Joh 17:23).

Reconciliation isn’t much of an issue where there is no preaching.

According to Jesus, our “being one” is important because of the world’s perception. Jesus knew that the ministry he was appointing would be dependent upon the unity of his followers. Our relationship with each other is part of our testimony to the world. Jesus specifically states this when he prayed that we “be one”. His reason was “so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Joh 17:21). In other words, the importance of unity is that it affects the perception the world has of Christ by the testimony of our beliefs and behavior. Furthermore, the implication made by Jesus is that the world may not know that he is “the son of the Living God” to the extent that there is schism among us. Having a desire to preach the Truth, we cannot accept the stigma of division in the background of our testimony.

18. “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1Co 1:10).

Sameness of mind isn’t an accidental consequence; it is an act of spiritual will.

In several places the apostles give us a simple command to those within. “Be of the same mind”, “speak the same thing”, “agree in the Lord.” This is not the wisdom of the world. The world teaches that affinity is happenstance — that agreement is more an influence of chance than deliberation. Deliberate agreement can seem like mindless capitulation where independent thinking is viewed as the ultimate self-fulfillment. But for brethren in the Lord nothing could be further from the truth. Agreement comes first as a result of having the same faith based upon God’s word — of letting his mind be in us. Then it comes from a deliberate intent to agree. “Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace” (2Co 13:11). In Rom 12:16, we are told, “Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited” — that is, avoid sentiments or opinions about lofty things, and avoid dependence upon intelligence or intellectual attainments. When the intellect is strong, humility requires deliberate discipline. Intellectually challenging brethren with debate is contrary to a spirit of reconciliation. It is at this very point that knowledge puffs up when, instead, love should be building up.

19. “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos” (1Co 1:12).

Reconciliation is in obvious need where brethren group under names.

Christadelphians have more exposure to this reproof than they should, given their knowledge of God’s word. I am of Thomas, and I of Andrew, and I of Williams — or whoever else. The context is an earnest appeal that “all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you.” What exactly do we think he means by this in the context of our identification with books written by men as if they came from God? Books may be good, but if they become banners of schism, the identification is wrong. It is a misappropriation of the intent to edify. Paul implies that if we are divided, we are not in Christ, since Christ is not divided. He accentuates the exhortation by asking in whose name we are baptized — in men, or in Christ. The force of his exhortation is that reconciliation is dependent on agreement with Christ, and agreement with Christ is not dependent on the eloquent treatises of men.

20. “I have no need of you” (1Co 12:21).

This thought obviates reconciliation.

To ignore reconciliation is to reject the body of Christ. If the Lord had been content with his own righteousness, his spiritual caliber, his distinction from sin, his position with God, or his understanding of the Truth, he might have said, “I have no need of you” to all the rest of us. But if he had, we would be yet in our sins. Though he was perfect, he recognized that he was to be the head of a much larger body — a body composed of thousands of interdependent parts, with a variety of purposes, in which “all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Col 2:19). By enabling the flesh of that body to be covered with the robe of his righteousness, “he did not count their trespasses against them.” Neither should we, lest we be found not needing the Body of Christ, and by implication, not being a part of it ourselves.

21. “So that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1Co 12:25).

Discord confuses reconciliation.

In the figure of the one Body, Paul tells us that God has made greater and lesser parts — parts with greater and lesser honor. He further says that God has adjusted the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part. What does this suggest about the prominent, the dominant, the eloquent, or the vocal? Where is the honor in the debate? What is the value of complex disquisitions? Where is the “simplicity that is in Christ” found in the pompous machinations of intellectual particle physics? Without any uncertainty, Paul says that “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable” (v 22). Who are the weaker among our members? Are they the women who keep silent? Are they the quiet doers of those complex exhortations? Are they the visitors of the sick? Are they the innocent younger, or the wearied elder? Are they the washers of feet, or the poor and the maimed? Who are they — the leaders or the servants, the scribes or their readers? Was it the meek and lowly who made division that has torn families in half and separated the beloved of the Lord? The spirit of reconciliation demands that there be no schism in the body, because the body should be nourished, not torn apart.

22. “Its parts should have equal concern for each other” (1Co 12:25).

Reconciliation places equal value on both communities.

How can we have the same care one for another, if we don’t associate with one another? Can we all suffer together if we are disjoined? What kind of body is disjoined? Is the body of Christ disjoined? Is it dystrophic? Is it atrophic? Can we all rejoice together if we are out of touch with the honor that would otherwise give us cause to rejoice? If we place value on one part and none on another, or if we associate with one part and ignore the other, then we miss the mark of impartial care for one another.

23. “Love is not self-seeking” (1Co 13:5).

Insisting on our own way obstructs reconciliation.

This is very easy to understand, but so very difficult to put into practice. It is difficult because we are inherently proud. Non-insistent love cannot come from emotion because it is so unnatural. In fact, emotion prevents it. Emotional guile manifests itself in intransigence, anger, and factionalism. It quickly subverts the discipline of deference to brethren. The flesh asserts itself in relentless contention, arrogant dominance, or hardness of heart. When we don’t insist on our own way, reconciliation is easy.

24. “He has given us a ministry of reconciliation” (2Co 5:18).

Reconciliation is our primary work in the truth.

The reason reconciliation is a priority is that the reconciling work of God in Christ can only be continued through the work of his body. If God’s reconciliation “didn’t count their sins against them,” we are charged with the same in our “ministry of reconciliation”. It is a message of restoration through forgiveness. “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2Co 5:20). And what is that appeal? What is at the root of reconciliation? It is the covering of sin. Reconciliation only works inasmuch as sin is covered. Where there is discord there is sin. Although it may have been sin that divided us in the past, it is only in its covering that we can be reconciled in the present.

25. “Dissensions, factions (party spirit)… works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19).

Party spirit always argues against reconciliation.

Why is it that there are clearly defined parties, party platforms, party explanations, and party terms, but no one seems to want to assume responsibility for “party spirit”? Do you have it? Or is it always in someone else — there on the other side of a pointed finger? Or perhaps it is nowhere, since judgment is required to identify it, and none of us can judge. But there is an ominous warning attached to this devious work of the flesh. And the warning is only useful in self-examination. Not only does Paul enumerate the works of the flesh for us, but he says they are plain. What he means is that they are publicly manifest, or externally apparent. That means party spirit shows. The warning is plain enough too: “Those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Party spirit is dangerous disunion. Reconciliation dissolves it.

26. “His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility” (Eph 2:15,16).

Reconciliation breaks down dividing walls and preaches peace.

We were once separated from Christ, being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. But now since Christ has broken down the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile, making us both one — making us all one in Christ — you would think that we would understand the importance of keeping a dividing wall of hostility from being set up in yet another way — between brethren. When Jesus came and preached peace, he preached it to brethren who were “far off”, so that the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. The temple of the Lord has no walls of hostility, and is not built upon division. Reconciliation removes the stones from the walls of pride that divide brethren.

27. “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21).

Submission is the means of reconciliation.

It may not be readily apparent how dependent reconciliation is upon submission. Submission runs against the human grain. But it was the submission of Jesus, even to the cross that enabled the world to be reconciled to God. Without his submission, we would be yet in our sins and without hope. Submission is the means by which reconciliation can be achieved. It is an extraordinarily simple idea, and an extremely difficult thing to concede. Everything in us defies authority, and especially as it might be embodied in another human being, or worse, a consensus. But if ever there was an opportunity to take a stand against submission it was when the world brought the son of God to trial in a Roman court. Yet, he was as submissive as a lamb brought to the slaughter. Opening not his mouth, he proved that the way of reconciliation is through submission. Ultimately, it relinquishes all control to God, to whom it really belongs. The passage also says, “Submit to one another.” This has been used to argue that submission is dependent on mutual observance. That is, the flesh says, if you aren’t submissive, then I don’t have to be. But the Lord still kneels below us at his own table, saying “I am among you as one who serves.” This is the way of reconciliation.

28. “In humility consider others better than yourselves” (Phi 2:3).

Reconciliation works when we treat our brethren as if they are better.

This statement immediately follows one of Paul’s most earnest appeals. He says, “If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose” (vv 1,2). “In humility,” he continues, “consider others better than yourselves.” What claim can be made of esteem at the table of the Lord if we meet on the other side of a shameful schism? What is the same love, if it isn’t the love shown us in humility by the Son of God, who, though he was the King, esteemed ignorant, selfish, disputing disciples as being better? What others are there to esteem, if they are not those brethren we might not naturally esteem in the spirit of Christ? Reconciliation follows esteem.

29. “An unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions” (1Ti 6:4).

Reconciliation calls for a certain treatment of overstressed controversy and dispute.

We know that Paul argued daily in the synagogue. He was forced to debate with heretics. So it is in the understanding of the need to contend (that is to struggle, not strive) for the Faith that he pleads with brethren not to debate one another. He commands brethren to suppress intellectual contention, because in the extreme it incites heresy. He says, in effect, that when strife manifests itself in debates about trifles or quarreling about words, that this does not agree with the sound words of the Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness. He says further that such behavior even defrauds “the truth”, though it may pretend to defend it. If “party spirit” is a work of the flesh, then, like the wrath of man, it cannot work the righteousness of God. When to contend and when to “do… service” is dependent upon whether they are “brethren… faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit”. We are commanded to avoid controversy with brethren, and to “teach and exhort” one another to service. According to Paul, to teach otherwise is proud and ignorant (v 4) It defies the spirit of reconciliation.

30. “Love the brotherhood” (1Pe 2:17).

If we love the brotherhood, we will reconcile for the sake of its strength.

It is so simple. Love the brotherhood. What is love of the brotherhood, but love of the one Body? The brotherhood is the whole body of Christ. We don’t know it on any other basis than its composition from faith. There is only One Faith. That Faith is the assurance of the Kingdom, and the conviction that God’s own Son is the living savior of this world. Those who believe in the gospel, its promises, its diligent seeking, its accountability, and its reward, are brethren. They compose the brotherhood. All are beloved of the Lord. They love his word. They believe the Truth. Love the brethren who love the Truth. Love the brotherhood in reconciliation.

31. “And the Bride has made herself ready” (Rev 19:7).

No man knows the day nor the hour. Nor does the Bride. We don’t even know the specific conditions that will initiate the final departure from heaven, the blast of the trumpets, the expanse of light, the feet on the mountain. All we know is that they will precede the marriage of the Lamb to His Bride. That great union of Heaven and earth will herald the entrance of Christ into a world damaged by disunity in nations, disunity in families, and general disunity with God. But in all the disparate admixture of weak and strong influences, there will be one Body of people who had the might of faith to go the other way — to build up instead of break down. They were those who had heard the impassioned appeal of the Lord to be one, and made it their gift at the altar. They were those who never let the flesh separate them from their service and their love of one another. They were the faithful. They were the Bride who, clothed in fine linen, found a way to make righteousness out of relationships. How was it that the Bride had made herself ready? What did she do? Did she fulfill the prayer of the Lord to be one, reconciling herself in unity, perfecting her beauty in purity of faith and in one spirit? Was it the deliberate creation of “one spirit” that made her ready for marriage?

(Mark Giordano)