Rev, theme verse

“Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen” (Rev 1:7).

This verse is set apart from all other true prophetic portions of the Apocalypse, and highlighted by the affirmative “Amen”. In fact, it might be said that the prophetic portion proper does not begin until Rev 6. So why is Rev 1:7 where it is? Perhaps because this one verse is a theme verse, or key v, for the whole of the Book. (Think of it as something of a subtitle.) If so, then what can it tell us about the terms under which the Book may be interpreted?

The first half of the verse quotes Dan 7:13:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven.”

So Revelation is surely about the return of Christ from the Father’s throne back to the earth. No surprise there!

What about the second half of Rev 1:7? It quotes Zec 12:10-14:

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great, like the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, and all the rest of the clans and their wives.”

Are we being told, then, in this “theme verse” of the whole of Rev, that the events foretold therein are designed by God to lead to the repentance of Israel. Zec 13:1, which follows immediately after 12:14, reads:

“On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.”

So… going no further into the “murky depths” of the Apocalypse, with all its symbolic and figurative language… what does a close look at the “theme verse” alone suggest?

The “arena” of the Apocalypse is the “land” of Zec 12: the land of promise, the (greater) land of Israel. (Why “earth” in Rev 1:7 and not “land”? Perhaps because the Greek “ge” best translates the Heb “eretz”, a word of ambiguous meaning, a word which — very often in the OT — means the “land” of Israel, and not necessarily the whole globe.)
The “main characters” of the Apocalypse are those who inhabit this “land”, and they are further defined in Zec 12:10-13:1 as the “house of David” and the “inhabitants of Jerusalem” (and its environs?).
In this land of Israel, a great mourning will be followed by a great cleansing for Israel… culminating in (or coinciding with) the return of their Messiah whom they crucified (Zec 12:6,7), who will deliver them from their conquering enemies (Zec 14). Then God’s Kingdom will be established…
And, of course, the “theme verse” is also telling us that, whatever earlier (preliminary?) fulfillments there might be to the Apocalypse, the Book is preeminently about the Last Days… when…

the people of Israel have come back to their land (only true in the last 50 years)…
in ignorance of their true Messiah…
to suffer great threats/setbacks from their avowed enemies…
the trials of which will lead them to turn back to their God and His Son…
which will lead them next to the waters of cleansing…
And so their Messiah will appear to them…
and will vanquish their enemies…
and will set up the Kingdom of God.

The above is a small example of letting OT prophecies (directly quoted in the Apocalypse) aid us in setting up signposts and guidelines to understand what at first glance might seem an extraordinarily complex book.

Is it really that complex?

Rev, understanding

General Study Guidelines

Pray to God for wisdom (Jam 1:5; Mat 7:7), believing 2Ti 3:16.
Read every chapter in the book for yourself, thoroughly; it is essential that you familiarize yourself with the contents.
Allow the book to explain itself; several definitions are given, and similar descriptions recur, implying the same or similar happenings.
Use clear, simple passages to aid in unraveling the meaning of less clear, more complex passages.
Be consistent in your interpretation; don’t force two different meanings upon a symbol or time period, in the same context.
Remember that any conclusions must be in harmony with known basic principles of God’s truth as revealed in the rest of the Bible.
Follow up the Old Testament and New Testament cross references, which can be especially enlightening, with due regard for context.
Consult other books and commentaries for their suggestions and conclusions, but make sure that your own research is objective and critical.
Discuss your own conclusions with others, but remember that your ideas and arguments must find solid support in Scripture.
Attend Bible classes or seminars on the subject of the Revelation; be willing to change your thinking if something better is demonstrated — after all, you are looking for the right understanding.

Some Principles of Interpretation

The Book of Revelation is understandable, because God gave it as revealed Scripture, not concealed.
There is nothing in Revelation for which God did not set up the groundwork and background in the rest of the Bible.
The meaning of any symbolism can be (indeed, must be) found in OT and NT source passages.
The text should be allowed to interpret itself, and this should take precedence over other contending interpretations.
Any interpretations should be consistent with what has already been understood or determined to be correct.
Any interpretation must be in harmony with well-established principles of God’s Truth.
There can be more than one “application” of a passage, as long as it has valid Biblical support.
Reference to history as confirmation to an interpretation is allowable, and ultimately necessary to prove the accuracy of any interpretation involving the future.
However, unless there is a plain directive from Scripture to look at any particular date or event, historical evidence must be regarded as assumptive and speculative.
Any interpretation that involves future events cannot necessarily be confirmed until such events take place; but that does not mean that one has a totally uncertain interpretation, since the Return of Christ, a future event, is very certain!
God has placed more importance, and consequently has given more details, on the coming of Christ (both first and second) than any other Biblical event. Therefore we can expect the Revelation to have a great amount of detail about events in and around the Second Coming of Christ.
Without ignoring prophetic patterns and applications to past ages, the Revelation is particularly relevant to the faithful living in “the last days” and contains information that can/will have a direct impact on the 20th century.
No one can work out an exact timetable of what God has said He would do, even though “God reveals His secret to His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). However, a general framework is both reasonable and possible.
The book is not necessarily in chronological order; it will be apparent that some events are concurrent, and may even include “gaps” of time, ie, whole periods are skipped.
Correct interpretation is not an end in itself, but the means to an end, namely, the personal preparation of the Bible student for the coming King! (NF)

Rev, you can do it!

Consider this imaginary conversation between a teenage Sunday School student and her teacher:

Student: How do you go about understanding the Book of Revelation — it’s got all those symbols and stuff?

Teacher: Well… how have we gone about understanding any of the other Bible books?

Student: By reading them, I guess.

Teacher: Good start.

Student: But what if you don’t understand what you’re reading? Or what’s going on? For example, what are the weird-looking “living creatures”? And what do the colored horses mean? Who are the “souls under the altar” and the dragon and the beast and the woman, etc.? It’s all very confusing…

Teacher: You’re right — it can be confusing. But you have a couple of things going for you. First of all, since you have a Bible with cross references, you can look up the Old Testament and New Testament source passages and determine what the symbol or event or phrase meant originally.

S: But that would take forever! Besides, I don’t know what the Old Testament passages are about either!

T: Well, there’s no real shortcut to understanding Scripture. It takes a lot of hard mental work, and it may take many years to appreciate the richness of God’s Book. As you know, the Revelation alludes to most if not all of the previous 65 books and letters. If you don’t have a working knowledge of the earlier information, comprehending the last book of the Bible is virtually impossible.

S: That’s what I thought — it’s impossible to make sense of Revelation!

T: No, that’s not what I meant! Revelation is not incomprehensible — it’s just very difficult to come to a correct understanding unless you have a solid background in the rest of Scripture. In any case, would God go to the trouble of having Revelation written only to leave it impossible to comprehend? Of course not! The book is a disclosure, an unveiling, a revealing of God’s mind and purpose — that’s what the Greek title “Apocalypse” means! God meant it to be understood!

S: Then why did He make it so difficult?

T: Perhaps because the very best way to reveal His message is to require effort on our part. We’re told that “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out” (Prov 25:2). So the difficulty is deliberate, to challenge us, to draw out and demand our best effort.

On the other hand, some of the difficulty is our own making. Three things get in the way: ignorance, laziness, and a false notion. Ignorance of Scripture is a fundamental problem, but can be overcome by daily reading and patient study. Mental laziness is another real problem. You not only have to read the text but also think about what it means. Finally, there’s the false notion that only Bible scholars and prophetic students will be able to figure out what the Apocalypse, or Revelation, means. That’s nonsense! God never intended any Scripture to be the exclusive privilege of intellectuals. God has given you a mind and a spirit equal to the task. Understanding the Apocalypse at some level is well within the capability of every person who prayerfully seeks to comprehend its meaning and to obey its teaching.

S: You said earlier that I had a couple of things going for me. The first was a Bible with cross references. What’s the second?

T: Thanks for reminding me. We older folks sometimes lose our train of thought. Actually, I’ve just told you. Your God-given mind is a wonderful gift. Use it. Combined with the right attitude, it’s just a matter of time before you discover the meanings and applications of the Revelation message.

S: I know you said there were no shortcuts… but is there any way to make the study easier? After all, you’re the teacher. Aren’t you supposed to at least give me some guidelines, tips, outlines, etc.?

T: You’re right. It’s part of my job to pass on what I know, just like my teachers shared what they knew. Over the years, I’ve been exposed to a wide variety of interpretations of Revelation. Some of the viewpoints are radically different and some flatly contradict others. How can you determine which is correct? Here are three guidelines that have worked for me:

Guideline #1: The interpretation must be Bible-based. That is, it must derive its fundamental teaching and source material from Scripture. To rely on uninspired writings such as those by a notable church leader, respected theologian or authoritative historian is to rely on the wrong source. By all means consult other writings and books, but don’t depend on them. Make up your own mind about what makes the most sense, remembering that any interpretation must be in harmony with the “first principles” of Bible teaching.

Guideline #2: Look for an explanation in the text itself. In many cases, the meaning of a symbol or term is provided in the next few verses. For example, the significance of the dragon (Rev 12:3,4,9) goes right back to “that ancient serpent” (Gen 3:1). Sometimes the meaning will not become clear until the events and details of another chapter are described. For example, the beast that makes war on and kills the witnesses (11:7) is not fully introduced until chapter 13.

Clues are also found in the repetition of numbers and settings. For example, the number 7 is obviously important. The time periods of 42 months, 3 1/2 years and 1,260 days are arithmetically equivalent and might point to the same time period. The areas hurt during the blowing of the first four trumpets are similar to the areas hurt when the first four bowls are poured out. These patterns and parallels should be taken into consideration.

Guideline #3: Visualize the contents and happenings of the book. It was very helpful for me to have an artist friend sketch her impressions of what the Apocalyptic people and things looked like, and what they were doing in the given setting. For example, when you see the pictures, the relationship of the dragon, beast and false prophet become clearer: The dragon empowers the beast, who in turn empowers the false prophet (Rev 13:1,2,11,12). Their eventual destruction follows the same hierarchy (Rev 19:20; 20:2,10). Another example: Revelation 12 opens by describing a “pure” woman who ends up fleeing into the wilderness, while Revelation 17 opens by describing a “bad” woman who just happens to be in the (same?) wilderness. This suggests a connection or comparison between the two women.

S: Okay, I get the picture(!). But what else can you tell me or show me — something to get a good head start on the reading and study?

T: If you have trouble following the 1611 English of the King James (Authorized) Version, get a more modern translation of the Bible for your study. Make sure it’s a widely-accepted translation, and not a paraphrase. I have found the Revised Standard Version (1946-1952) to be much more readable, and therefore much more comprehensible. The New International Version (1973) is said to be a good choice as well.

If you want to read what someone else has written on Revelation — just to give you some ideas — and if you want to consider a reasonable spectrum of Bible-based thinking, here are three books to try:

* Eureka (1861) by John Thomas, * Revelation — A Biblical Approach (1973) by Harry Whittaker, and * Apocalypse for Everyman (1982) by Alfred Norris.

That last title is especially interesting, for it implies — rightly — that the book of Revelation is meant to be read and understood and personally applied by every disciple of Jesus Christ.

But don’t postpone your own reading and study. Don’t wait until you digest someone else’s writing. Go right to the source and do your best. There are two good reasons for doing so: the blessing, and the urgency. For here’s what Rev 1:3 says:

“Blessed is he who reads the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.”

Rich family in church, the

I’ll never forget Easter 1946. I was 14, my little sister Ocy 12, and my older sister Darlene 16. We lived at home with our mother, and the four of us knew what it was like to do without many things. My dad had died five years before, leaving Mom with seven school kids to raise and no money. By 1946, my older sisters were married, and my brothers had left home.

A month before Easter, the pastor of our church announced that a special Easter offering would be taken to help a poor family. He asked everyone to save and give sacrificially. When we got home, we talked about what we could do. We decided to buy 50 pounds of potatoes and live on them for a month. This would allow us to save $20 of our grocery money for the offering. Then we thought that if we kept our electric lights turned out as much as possible and didn’t listen to the radio, we’d save money on that month’s electric bill. Darlene got as many house and yard cleaning jobs as possible, and both of us baby sat for everyone we could. For 15 cents, we could buy enough cotton loops to make three potholders to sell for $1. We made $20 on potholders.

That month was one of the best of our lives. Every day we counted the money to see how much we had saved. At night we’d sit in the dark and talk about how the poor family was going to enjoy having the money the church would give them. We had about 80 people in our church, so we figured that whatever amount of money we had to give, the offering would surely be 20 times that much. After all, every Sunday the pastor had reminded everyone to save for the sacrificial offering.

The day before Easter, Ocy and I walked to the grocery store and got the manager to give us three crisp $20 bills and one $10 bill for all our change. We ran all the way home to show Mom and Darlene. We had never had so much money before. That night we were so excited we could hardly sleep. We didn’t care that we wouldn’t have new clothes for Easter; we had $70 for the sacrificial offering. We could hardly wait to get to church! On Sunday morning, rain was pouring. We didn’t own an umbrella, and the church was over a mile from our home, but it didn’t seem to matter how wet we got. Darlene had cardboard in her shoes to fill the holes. The cardboard came apart, and her feet got wet, but we sat in church proudly, despite how we looked. I heard some teenagers talking about the Smith girls having on their old dresses. I looked at them in their new clothes, and I felt so rich.

When the sacrificial offering was taken, we were sitting on the second row from the front. Mom put in the $10 bill, and each of us girls put in a $20. As we walked home after church, we sang all the way. At lunch, Mom had a surprise for us. She had bought a dozen eggs, and we had boiled Easter eggs with our fried potatoes!

Late that afternoon the minister drove up in his car. Mom went to the door, talked with him for a moment, and then came back with an envelope in her hand. We asked what it was, but she didn’t say a word. She opened the envelope and out fell a bunch of money. There were three crisp $20 bills, one $10 bill, and seventeen $1 bills. Mom put the money back in the envelope. We didn’t talk, but instead, just sat and stared at the floor. We had gone from feeling like millionaires to feeling like poor white trash.

We kids had had such a happy life that we felt sorry for anyone who didn’t have our mom and dad for parents and a house full of brothers and sisters and other kids visiting constantly. We thought it was fun to share silverware and see whether we got the fork or the spoon that night. We had two knives which we passed around to whoever needed them. I knew we didn’t have a lot of things that other people had, but I’d never thought we were poor. That Easter Day I found out we were poor. The minister had brought us the money for the poor family, so we must be poor.

I didn’t like being poor. I looked at my dress and worn-out shoes and felt so ashamed that I didn’t want to go back to church. Everyone there probably already knew we were poor! I thought about school. I was in the ninth grade and at the top of my class of over 100 students. I wondered if the kids at school knew we were poor. I decided I could quit school since I had finished the eighth grade. That was all the law required at that time.

We sat in silence for a long time. Then it got dark, and we went to bed. All that week, we girls went to school and came home, and no one talked much. Finally on Saturday, Mom asked us what we wanted to do with the money. What did poor people do with money? We didn’t know. We’d never known we were poor.

We didn’t want to go to church on Sunday, but Mom said we had to. Although it was a sunny day, we didn’t talk on the way. Mom started to sing, but no one joined in and she only sang one verse. At church we had a missionary speaker. He talked about how churches in Africa made buildings out of sun-dried bricks, but they need money to buy roofs. He said $100 would put a roof on a church. The minister said, “Can’t we all sacrifice to help these poor people?”

We looked at each other and smiled for the first time in a week. Mom reached into her purse and pulled out the envelope. She passed it to Darlene. Darlene gave it to me, and I handed it to Ocy. Ocy put it in the offering plate. When the offering was counted, the minister announced that it was a little over $100. The missionary was excited. He hadn’t expected such a large offering from our small church. He said, “You must have some rich people in this church.”

Suddenly it struck us! We had given $87 of that “little over $100.” We were the rich family in the church! Hadn’t the missionary said so? Deep down, I knew that we were actually a rich family.

Author unknown

Rich man and Lazarus

It has been generally argued by Christadelphians that Jesus, in Luke 16:19-31, is deliberately using false ideas in a sort of parody. Truth be told, we are often reluctant — when preaching to others — to be drawn into a discussion of the “rich man and Lazarus.” Our reluctance testifies to the difficulties inherent in this approach, and maybe also a little discomfort at the thought of such a large portion of the words of Jesus being — fundamentally, even if ironically or sarcastically — erroneous!

In the absence of any more reasonable explanation, this approach would have to do. But perhaps there is a “better way” to read the parable.

Watch the punctuation

First of all, some background. The Greek language has a system of punctuation marks somewhat similar to ours. Originally, this was not so; there was no punctuation, and moreover, the writing was not separated into words. (“The oldest Greek manuscripts had no chapter and verse divisions, no punctuation marks and hence no separation into sentences, and not even any separation between words. All they have are line after line, column after column, page after page, through a whole book of the New Testament”: Earle, “NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation”). Punctuation marks were first introduced in the days of Jerome (c. 400 AD), who translated the Bible into Latin.

The best-known example of such “repunctuation,” at least to Christadelphians, is Luke 23:43, which the KJV translates: “Verily I say unto thee, Today thou shalt be with me in paradise,” but a much more appropriate translation might be “I say to you today (or even, ‘Today I say unto you’), you shall be with me in paradise.”

But other instances may be found. For example, the KJV translates Luke 16:22,23 as: “The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell he…” But William Tyndale (1525) translated this as: “The rich man died and was buried in hades.” Likewise, even the Douay (Roman Catholic) version (1582) reads: “The rich man died also, and was buried in hell.”

The Greek also has a “kai” (“and”) between “buried” and “in Hades.” So perhaps the most literal translation would be: “The rich man died and was buried, EVEN in Hades” (the “kai” used for emphasis, and here translated “even”). Or, alternatively, “The rich man died and was buried AND was in Hades” — i.e., “he died and remained in Hades” — until — when? The resurrection, of course!

The repositioning of this one period (English “full stop”) changes, at a single stroke, the whole tenor of the parable. Now it is no longer Jesus’ (ironic, but also false) description of what happens immediately after death. Rather, it is his description — in a perfectly Biblical fashion — of what will happen some considerable time after death and burial, when he returns to raise, judge, and either reward or punish all the responsible.

A couple of other points may clarify this:

V 22: “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side (or ‘Abraham’s bosom’).” “Abraham’s bosom” is supposedly a specific place in the underworld of Jewish mythology, where immediately after death the “immortal souls” (!) of the righteous are joined together with those of Abraham and all the faithful fathers. We know already that Jesus did not believe this. The question is: did he speak in a parable as though he did?

Consider an alternative: (1) First, the phrase could mean: “the beggar died, and (in the resurrection) the angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom.” (2) Second, to lie in another’s bosom is to occupy a special place of favor at a meal, something like a “guest of honor” — as John did with Jesus in the upper room (John 13:23). There are, in this same section of Luke, several references to eating meals (cp. Luke 13:28-30; 14:7-24; 15:16,17,23,28), so the idea of Lazarus reclining at a meal with Abraham is perfectly suitable to the overall context.

Lazarus enjoying a meal with Abraham provides a striking contrast: in his previous life, he was denied even the crumbs that might fall from the rich man’s table (Luke 16: 20), but now (ie, after the resurrection?!) he sits down to a sumptuous banquet (cp Luke 13:29! In fact, the whole of Luke 13:24-30 is remarkably parallel to Luke 16:19-31, seen in a “repunctuated” light: proud Jews cast out of the kingdom, with weeping and gnashing of teeth, while Gentiles and “sinners” are welcomed in.)

Likewise, being previously denied access to the “table,” Lazarus had been treated as a “Gentile,” an unclean “dog” (cp Mat 15:27). His closest companions were other “dogs,” who licked his sores (Luke 16:21). These sores were not bound up, as were the wounds of the man who fell among thieves (Luke 10:34). But later (v 22 here) they will be!

V 23: “In hell (Hades) — (the preceding goes with v 22; a new sentence begins here) — When he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus in his bosom.” Very significantly, the “hell” here is Hades, not Gehenna. Hades (literally, “the unseen place”) is equivalent to the Hebrew sheol, the grave! Throughout the New Testament it is invariably Gehenna that is associated with the fire of eternal destruction at the last day (Mat 5:2,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; Jam 3:6). Conversely, Hades — if we set aside Luke 16:23 for the moment — is never associated with burning and destruction, but always with the grave (Mat 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; Acts 2:27,31; 1Co 15:55; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13,14)! Therefore, to separate Hades/grave from torment/Gehenna, as is done by the insertion of a period (and an implied passage of time between death and resurrection), is to give both Hades and Gehenna their proper meanings as in other New Testament usage. First comes the grave, and only after a resurrection and judgment is there (the possibility of) the judgment of Gehenna!

“Torment” is the Greek “basanos”. It is a word the meaning of which seems to have developed, or evolved, over time: (a) first of all, it was the black rock an assayer would use to test whether gold or silver coins were real or forgeries (he did this by rubbing the coin against the stone, and then checking the color); (b) second, by implication, it came to mean checking any calculation in a financial transaction; and from thence to (c) any type of testing; and finally (d) testing by means of torture. With basanos and related words the general concept would seem to be that of judgment, with perhaps the accompaniment of pain. Here the “torment” of the rich man would be the self-inflicted bitterness and recrimination of knowing that it is too late to set right one’s past life, and the witnessing (for some brief time after resurrection and judgment) of the beginnings of God’s glorious kingdom, knowing that one will be excluded.

Also, the “looked up” of v 23 is, literally, to lift up one’s eyes. Especially, with reference to Abraham, it suggests one’s eyes surveying the land of promise, with a view to the kingdom (Gen 13:14; Deu 3:27).

A Suggested Summary

With all the above in mind, and with the suggested punctuation, the parable might now be summarized thusly:

“There was a rich, finely-robed, well-fed man — who ignored the needs of the poor, especially a beggar named Lazarus. But after the beggar died (and was resurrected!), the angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried in the grave. Then, later (after his own resurrection!) he was in torment, as he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side, reclining in his bosom.

“So the rich man called to ‘Father Abraham,’ begging for mercy. But Abraham reminded him that in his previous life he received good things, while Lazarus received only bad things, and now their fortunes were reversed. And now also, their lives being ended, it was too late to make amends!

“(Returning from this vision of the future, back to the present…) Seeing now that such is the fate of all who live their lives in ease and disregard for the mercies of God, the rich man begs that his family be warned. ‘Cannot someone return from the dead to bring them to repentance?’ But Abraham replies that even the resurrection of the dead (even, we might suppose, the resurrection of the Son of God!) will not be sufficient!”

The conclusion: While Jesus may well be referring in passing to the (erroneous) doctrine of “Abraham’s Bosom,” his own direct teaching in the parable may now be seen to be perfectly in harmony with the truth of the gospel. It is as if Jesus were saying:

“Yes, there is a place known as ‘Abraham’s bosom,’ but it will be the table (the ‘Marriage supper of the Lamb’) in the resurrection and the kingdom of God, and you Pharisees and Sadducees, unless you repent, will have no part in it.”

And, “Yes, there will be fiery torment for the wicked after death, but it will not be in a shadowy underworld. Instead, it will be the weeping and gnashing of teeth involved in seeing others –especially those whom they held to be unclean and sinners — enter into the resurrectional kingdom, while they themselves are thrust out! And then, ultimately, it will be the fire of eternal destruction — the ‘second death.’ “

Rich man and Lazarus, paraphrase

There was a certain nation (Israel) which was a privileged kingdom of priests, receiving great blessings from God. And there was a certain class around them, outside the bonds of their covenant, who desired to share God’s favor, since they were suffering from sin and death. And their neighbors, the Jews, could give them no relief. And these Gentiles died, and were later raised to eternal life with Abraham in God’s kingdom. But Israel was destroyed from being a nation, and suffered persecutions and trials. Because they had refused to hear God, God refused to hear their cries or ease their sufferings. All this happened because they refused to believe the one who was raised from the dead.

“Righteousness and peace kiss each other”

“Surely his salvation is near those who fear him, that his glory may dwell in our land. Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other. Faithfulness springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven” (Psa 85:9-11).

“Righteousness and peace kiss each other!” Like two old friends who finally meet, after too long a separation — embracing and kissing one another, so thankful for each other’s life and health and fellowship and company.

What does it mean that, in God’s own time, and under His supervision, and to His glory, “righteousness” and “peace” finally “kiss” each other?

It will be such a blessing, such a wonderful occurrence, because of this sad fact… that God’s “righteousness” (His holiness, his awesome and perfect character) and God’s “peace” (His union, or unity — His loving family communion with sinful man) are so far apart, and so unattainable to us.

And why is that? Because, usually, and in practical outworking, and due to our sins, we have been shut out from both the “righteousness” and the “peace”.

But even more so, the Almighty — who is perfectly righteous — cannot even “look upon” sin and sinners… much less have true and lasting “fellowship” or “peace” with them! Even for the Father, “righteousness” and “peace” had to be kept at arm’s length — for He could not treat as “righteous” those who are unrighteous!

Something, or someone, was needed to bridge the gap between the “righteousness” of God and the “peace” of God.

And what, or who, might that be?!

So this was the age-old question: how could a pure God, who could not even look upon sin, save a world of sinners?

But in God’s work of salvation through His Son, two disparate (one might almost say, two mutually exclusive elements) are at work together. God’s “righteousness” is declared and vindicated in the sacrifice of His Son (Rom 3:21-31), and on that basis — the recognition of His righteousness, or holiness — God is pleased also to show His “peace”, or mercy, in the forgiveness of sins.

Thus it is a wonderful miracle that, in and through Jesus, the truth of God and the mercy and grace of God are met together in one. This mercy (grace) and truth have been manifested in the Word made flesh (Joh 1:14-18). These divine attributes parted company at the fall of the first Adam, when God’s holiness decreed an exile from the “garden” of His presence. But now they have been joined together again with the coming of the last Adam! The irreproachable righteousness of God may save sinners, and bring them “peace” (joy, fellowship, and reconciliation with Himself), without any diminishing of His absolutely righteous character, because of the mediatorship of His Son: “Father, forgive them… for MY sake!”

RIGHTEOUSNESS is perfection of character, or sinlessness.

And PEACE is “shalom” — joy, fellowship, and reconciliation with God: ie “good will toward men” (Luk 2:14)! Cp Rom 5:1; Act 10:36; Mat 5:9; Eph 2:14.

“Faithfulness springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven” (v 11). The figurative and poetic meeting of heaven and earth (in vv 10,11) is an anticipation of the advent of Jesus. In him heaven and earth are met together: Son of God and seed of the woman! Like the hymn: “Thy grace and truth became… Flesh for a saving name.” The righteousness of God looked down from heaven, planted the “seed” that germinated in the “earth”, ie, the soil of human nature, and from that “earth”, that soil, there sprang up a Righteous Branch, the Word made flesh, the “faithful and true witness”, the Amen of God, the priest and mediator of the Heavenly Father’s everlasting covenant with man!

Only through that man, says Paul to the Romans, can God offer “peace” (reconciliation, justification) to sinful man, whilst not letting go (as He surely cannot!) of His own righteousness and holiness.

One of the subtle beauties of these verses is that word “kiss”. God’s offer of salvation to man may be expressed in terms of a legal contract. It may even be worked out and explained in a fairly logical manner, and we are grateful that it can be so explained. Many people need such explanations in order to accept the gospel.

But, really, the gospel of salvation as presented in the Bible bears much more resemblance to a glance of love, a tender kiss, a gentle caress… the love of a Father for a small and helpless child, the love of a husband for a devoted wife… and the love of a man laying down his life for his friends.

So… is God’s plan of salvation a legal contract, or an ongoing act of love? I think it must be both — but surely much more of the latter.

But especially, in these verses, it is a way by which heaven and earth may be brought together. And a way by which the vilest of sinners (you and I) may have the veil lifted from our eyes, put out our hands, and touch the glorious face of the pure and righteous and eternal One… who has become — wonder of wonders! — our “Father”.

Roberts on fellowship

“If men were more busy judging THEMSELVES, which they are COMMANDED to do, they would not have so much propensity for judging others, which they are forbidden to do.”

“There are divisions that are uncalled for, and therefore sinful. Paul refers to such when he says, ‘Mark them that cause divisions among you contrary to the doctrine (the teaching on unity) that ye have learnt.’ He was referring, no doubt, to the factions arising out of personal preferences, but the warning applies to all divisions that ought not to be made. There is division enough, in all conscience — division that is inevitable, division that must be, unless we are to ignore divine obligations altogether; but there are divisions that ought not to be. It is possible to go too far in our demands of fellow-believers. How far we ought to go and where to stop, is at one time or other a perplexing problem to most earnest minds.”

“If good men would adopt the rule of refusing to listen to an evil report privately conveyed, until it had been dealt with to the last stage according to the rule prescribed by Christ, much evil would be prevented.”

Sacrifice of Christ

“The blood of Jesus Christ… cleanseth us from all sin” (1Jo 1:7). “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (Joh 1:29).

The idea of sacrifice is found throughout the Bible from its beginning to its end. God clothed Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness with coats of skins (Gen 3:21). This indicates animal sacrifice. In the Book of Revelation, the saints sing their grateful thanks for the sacrifice of Christ: “for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Rev 5:9). In the Letter to the Hebrews we are told that the sacrifices offered before Christ came were foreshadowings of his perfect sacrifice. Those sacrifices were “a figure for the time then present”; “the patterns of things in the heavens”; “a shadow of good things to come” (Heb 9:9,23; 10:1).

All the acceptable sacrifices offered both before and during the time of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant pointed forwards to the Lord Jesus Christ’s offering.

The Reason for Sacrifice

The simple principle stated in Heb 9:22, “without shedding of blood is no remission”, tells us why sacrifice is necessary. Man has sinned, and the forfeiting of life shows man what sin deserves. In Lev 17:11, amply confirmed by biological science, we are told that “the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls”.

What was special about the shedding of the blood of Christ and the offering of his body? Two passages of Scripture answer this question:

“for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom 3:23-26); “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

The first passage brings to the fore the fact that Christ’s sacrifice declared the righteousness of God. This is repeated to underline its importance, along with the other feature, the grace and forbearance of God. The second passage tells us that Jesus “condemned sin in the flesh”, something that the sacrifices under the Law, and at other times, could not do.

These passages help us to understand how God could reconcile sinful man to Himself without jettisoning His principles of righteousness and justice. God was able to raise Jesus from the dead because he did no sin. He did not earn sin’s wages, but only inherited the sin and death principle by his descent from Adam. Biological science again confirms that death is programmed into our human DNA.

Consider the Scriptures:

“For He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:21)
“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mat 1:1)
“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14)
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (v 9)
“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him That was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared…” (Heb 5:7)
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned…” (Rom 5:12).

God’s righteousness upheld in Jesus’ life

For the sacrifice of Christ to be acceptable, Jesus had to live a sinless life. This was shown, for example, in the following:

His baptism “to fulfil all righteousness” (Mat 3:13-17)
His temptation, in which he repudiated the suggestions that appealed to the flesh (Luk 4:1-13)
His rejection of Peter’s suggestion that he should not go up to Jerusalem and be killed (Mat 16:21-23)
His anguish as he contemplated his “baptism” or approaching death (Luk 12:50)
His reply to the young ruler, in which he repulsed the suggestion that there was any good in the flesh and instead directed attention to his Father alone as the source of all good (Mat 19:16,17).

God’s righteousness upheld in Jesus’ perfect sacrifice

“God’s method for the return of sinful man required the putting to death of man’s condemned and evil nature in a representative man of spotless character whom He would provide, to declare and uphold His righteousness, as the first condition of restoration, that He might be just while justifying the unjust, who should believingly approach Him in humility, repentance and confession (Rom 3:24-6; 8:3; Heb 2:14-15; Rom 5:21)”.

This statement (by Robert Roberts) is an excellent summary, and explains also why other sacrifices would be in vain. In the case of unblemished animals, physical perfection was a shadowy way of pointing to the sinlessness required in the ‘substance’ to come. In fact animals have nothing to do with man’s weakness and sin, cannot be tempted as we are, and so cannot take away sin. Hence Jesus’ sacrifice pleased God more than the sacrifice of oxen (Heb 9:12-14; 10:4-9; Psa 40:6-8; Isa 53:10; Psa 69:31). Angels cannot die so cannot be sacrificed.

Though sinless, they could never satisfy God’s righteousness for the redemption of men because they could never represent man (Heb 2:9; 10:14-17). Finally, the death of a mere man would in itself demonstrate and uphold God’s law of sin and death, but resurrection could not follow, and this was envisaged by God for the Saviour of men.

The sacrifice of Christ brings before us the great love of God, which was the motive that initiated His plan of redemption. It brings us also to the great love of Christ for his disciples, without which his sacrifice would not have been possible. Father and Son together, like Abraham and Isaac 2,000 years previously, walked to Calvary in an act of boundless mercy and love, to bring about reconciliation and forgiveness. The joy of the resurrection that followed was the consummation of it all, once again declaring the righteousness of God.

Samuel, and Jesus in temple

Perhaps this lovely story of 1Sa 3 may provide the answer to a question which arises in the life of Jesus: How (and when) did Jesus come to know of his Divine parentage? It may be that Mary and Joseph revealed this to him, but then again the Bible does not say so. We do know that Mary very modestly refrained from telling Joseph of the conception of Jesus, waiting instead until God, in His own time, made matters clear. It would be in keeping with her character if she and Joseph likewise refrained from explaining to Jesus who his real father was, knowing that God would choose His own method to explain Himself.

If this were so, then when and how did God tell Jesus? The record is silent; but perhaps the story of the child Samuel provides a key. The similarities between Samuel and Jesus are many: each a special conception, each a holy child, each dedicated by a righteous mother to the service of God. A Bible-directed imagination may supply the rest:

It was night and the child Jesus, now twelve years old, lay down to sleep near the Temple of God in Jerusalem, where he had come with his family to keep the Passover (Luk 2:41,42). That night the Lord called Jesus, and he answered, ‘Here I am.’ He came to Joseph, who was sleeping nearby: ‘Here I am, father; you called me.’ But Joseph replied, ‘I didn’t call; it was only a dream.’ And Jesus went to lie down again. The Lord called yet again, ‘Jesus!’, and again he went to Joseph, only to find that he had not called. A third time the same thing happened. Finally the light dawned for Joseph and Mary, and they knew the source of the calls. ‘Go, Jesus, lie down: and it shall be, when the call comes again, you must say, “Speak, Father; for Thy Son heareth.” ‘

Thus, perhaps, in or near the courts of his Father’s house, the child Jesus (the same age, 12, as Samuel had been?) followed that voice to his first meeting with his true Father. And thus began that majestic, mysterious communion like no other. Through so many long nights, on mountaintops, by the seaside, and in crowded cities, he spoke with the Father. And Jesus grew, and the Lord was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground.