Shepherds and hirelings

“It is unfortunate that the chapter division dissociates the shepherd allegory from the discussion reported in Joh 9. Jesus had convicted the Pharisees of blindness and incompetence in dealing with the flock of God. As bad shepherds they had cast out the healed man, but the good shepherd had found him” (CJo 119).

“And they cast him out. Jesus heard they had cast him out; and when he found him…” (Joh 9:34,35). “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Joh 6:37).

With bold actions and words, Christ dramatically set himself apart from the other teachers of his nation. They pompously dictated and threatened; he lovingly instructed and comforted. They “cast out”; he “found” and recovered. They “cared not for the sheep”; he “laid down his life for the sheep” (Joh 10:15), and in so doing became the model for all shepherds, overseers, and elders. Doubtless Peter had “the Good Shepherd” in mind when he wrote:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1Pe 5:1-3).

The true ecclesial shepherd, then, must do the works of his Master:

He must feed others first (Eze 34:2).
He must strengthen the diseased or weak (Isa 40:11; Eze 34:4; Rom 15:1).
He must bind up what is broken (Eze 34:4).
He must seek what is lost (Eze 34:4,11,16; Mat 18:12; Luk 15:4-7).
He must assume a personal responsibility in the face of a threat.
And he must be prepared to protect the flock at all costs: “Take heed to all the flock… remember that I warned you” (Act 20:28-31).

The characteristics of a true shepherd are set in contrast to those of a “hireling”:

“But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth… The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep” (Jon 10:12,13).

It is said of the hirelings or false shepherds that they “feed (or shepherd) themselves” (Eze 34:2).

“The shepherds shepherded themselves! They were prepared to sacrifice the flock for themselves, whereas they should have extended their self-sacrificing devotion to the flock and carefully pastured or shepherded it” (HPM on Ezek 30).

“From these words one would think it transparently obvious that in time of danger to the flock from false teachers (‘After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock’ — Act 20:29), a man’s duty will keep him with the flock in order that he might exert every possible effort in defence of those less able than himself to combat spiritual evil. Yet in sharp contrast to this the attitude of some seems to be: ‘There is a wolf in the flock. I have told the sheep to chase it away, but they do nothing of the sort. So now it is time for me to get out as quickly as I can.’ The incisive word of the Lord for men who act in this way is the shameful term: ‘hireling’….Without doubt those who withdraw to an exclusive ‘pure’ fellowship are hirelings in the sense in which Jesus used the term, for their separatism is solely a means of furthering, as they think, their own safety and benefit” (HAW, “Block Disfellowship”, Tes 43:340).

A hireling may seek to benefit materially by his labors, and this of course is a serious offence (1Pe 5:2; 1Ti 3:3,8). But, as the Pharisees so amply demonstrated, one may be a “hireling” even if he cares not at all for financial profit. He may be a “hireling”, for example, in caring for power and authority, or for honor and respect without responsibility. He may be a “hireling” if he abandons his flock when the “wolf” (or false teacher — Act 20:29) approaches. He thus shows his true character when he saves himself first — subjecting his employer’s “investment” to possible ruin. As members of the one Body, we should develop the mind-picture of ourselves as “partners” in the enterprise, not mere employees! The employee is nothing but “hired help”, a “hireling” who works for his “wages” and nothing else (but the “gift” of God, which we hope one day to receive, is not “wages”; our proper “wages” can only be death — Rom 6:23). The hireling is not — as he should be — a “partner” or a “partaker”, who expects to participate (the significance of “fellowship”) in the ultimate profits of the enterprise.

“The disciple of Christ who is worth his salt will not beat a hasty retreat, or even a reluctant retreat, at the signs of danger, but will persistently and courageously set himself to antagonize and expose every symptom of apostasy which may manifest itself in his own ecclesia” (Ibid, p. 341).

In the brotherhood, therefore, the brother is best off when he cares first and foremost for the welfare of his brethren.

“Let any who are troubled by current contentions and worried by vague apprehensions as to their own responsibility for ‘condoning’ evil ponder these words of the Good Shepherd again and again. He calls men to be good shepherds after his own pattern, giving themselves in devoted service and care to the harassed flock, and even laying down their lives for the sheep. How strange that it does not seem to dawn on rigorous separatists that they testify for Truth against error far more efficiently by staying where the error is and witnessing against it than by fleeing to a ‘holier than thou’ sanctuary, from which to carry on a campaign of scolding across a great gulf which they themselves have fixed” (HAW, “False Teachers”, Tes 36:212).

Is our salvation endangered by “fellowshiping” “doubtful cases”? Let the “shepherds” of the Bible — types every one of the “Great Shepherd” — give the answer:

Abraham — whose near kinsman Lot strives with him and then departs (Gen 13:6-8) — nevertheless moves swiftly to save his ungrateful nephew from bondage (Gen 14). Later he even intercedes for him with the Lord when his life is threatened in Sodom (Gen 18): Notice that his boldest approach to the Lord is to beg for the sparing of others (Gen 18:27,28), when it might reasonably be argued that they did not deserve to be spared.
Joseph — whose brothers plotted against him and would have taken his life — still found the love to forgive them and take them into his “fellowship” again when they were in great distress: “Now therefore fear not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them” (Gen 50:21).
Moses became the great intercessor for a nation which was obviously at fault. His fervent prayer needs no comment (Exo 32:32).
David, who always viewed Israel not as his kingdom but as his flock, wrote the words from his youthful experience which might well be termed “The Shepherd’s Manual” (Psa 23). When he might easily have laid the blame for shortcoming upon a stiff-necked nation, and the sword of the angel was poised to continue their destruction, David the shepherd-king pleaded their “doubtful case”: “Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? [He refuses to point out that they have done even worse!]… Let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me” (2Sa 24:17).
Daniel did not mind “fellowshiping” his “doubtful” brethren; he even went so far as to pray on their behalf, taking the sins of the nation upon his innocent shoulders: “We have sinned,” he prayed, “and have committed iniquity… neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord… therefore the curse is poured upon us…” (Dan 9:5-15).
And Paul, the greatest of the shepherd-apostles, could wish that he were accursed for the sakes of his brethren the Jews (Rom 9:1-3), who were not even in Christ! If this could be his attitude towards enemies of the Truth, how much more should we yearn for and seek unity and brotherhood with those whom we know to be in covenant-relationship with Christ? “So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd” (Joh 10:16, RSV).

The day will soon come when before the Lord of all the earth will be gathered his flock (Mat 25:31-46), his one flock — for they will then be treated as one, all the man-made barriers swept away. It is then that the true force of the King’s question will come home to each of us: ‘What have you done for my brethren? for my sheep?’ How confident would we feel to say the following?: ‘Lord, I did the best I could for a little while; but then I heard of a false doctrine somewhere or other, and I left as quickly as I could. After that I really don’t know what happened to them.’

Simon of Cyrene

There is no mark of course, but I have felt Here on my shoulder to this very day The grinding weight where that rough timber lay And left, an hour or two, its burning welt. I had no thought, no patriotic zeal, That morning there a hero’s part to play; Only, I saw his eyes which, as he lay Down in the dust, held mine in mute appeal. “A curse on you, Roman dogs,” I cried, And never felt the lash the soldier swung; Then we went together side by side, My back bent double as we climbed the hill To Calvary where on the cross he hung; And I am proud to say I feel its burden still.

(adapted, from Wadsworth)

Sin, how was Christ made?

The testimony of the earliest Christadelphians indicates how 2Co 5:21 and related passages should be read: how, in fact, “sin” can be applied to the sinless one. Christ. The brief quotations that follow are even more powerful in their fuller contexts.

“For He (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Co 5:21).

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place ‘the transgression of the law’; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust .. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh’. that is, ‘flesh full of sin’… Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature’ (JT, Elp 126,127).
“To be ‘made sin’ for others is to become flesh and blood… This perishing body is ‘sin’… ‘Sin’, in its application to the body stands for all its constituents and laws” (JT, Eur 1:247,248).
“Christ made sin, though sinless, is the doctrine of God” (JT, Xd 1873:362).
“(God) sent (forth) Jesus in the nature of the condemned, that sin might be condemned in him. Hence he was ‘made sin’ ” (RR, Xd 1873:402).
“Was he not made sin in being made of a woman, who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?” (RR, 1873:463).
“Was he (Christ) ‘made sin’ (2Co 5:21)?” Answer (RR): “Yes” (Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, Q 93).
“Christ was ‘made sin’ in being born into a sin-constitution of things” (RR, 1898:390).
“God ‘hath made him to be sin…’ Partaking thus of the flesh, he was ‘this corruptible’, though in character sinless, and so needed cleansing and redemption as much as his brethren… As to ‘hamartia’, it means sin, and not sin-offering: and we speak from a careful comparison of all the passages in the NT and the LXX (Septuagint). In all the 170 or more occurrences in the NT it is never rendered sin-offering” (CCW, 1922:222).
“…2Co 5:21… cannot be rendered ‘made to be a sin-offering’ without doing violence to the meaning of the word ‘hamartia’ and forcing upon it a meaning that it will not bear” (WJ Young. 1922:312).
“The Truth is only maintained by faithful contention, and however much we dislike contention, earnest men do not hesitate to contend for the faith… It has been sound Christadelphian teaching from the days of Dr Thomas that Jesus was ‘made sin’ by being, born a member of the human family… Jesus by birth was made sin… If he was not related to sin, in either nature or character… . then a grave injustice was done when he was allowed to suffer on the cross, and there was no declaration of’ God’s righteousness… The publishing of such teaching [ie, that which denies this doctrine — GB] reveals again the absence of that unity… without which union is not possible” (John Carter, 1940:40,41).

“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).

“…’that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of ‘death that is, the devil’, or sin in flesh” (JT, Elp 99).
“Sin… had to he condemned in the nature that had transgressed… . For this cause. ‘Jesus was made a little lower than the angels… that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is the diabolos’, or elements of corruption in our nature, inciting it to transgression, and therefore called ‘Sin working death in us’ ” (JT, Eur 1:106).
” ‘Become sin for us’, ‘sin… condemned in the flesh’… . ‘our sins… borne in his body upon the tree — These things could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of that physical principle, styled ‘Sin in the flesh’ ” (JT, 873:361).
Question: “What do you mean by sin in the flesh’…?” “Answer: “David, by the Spirit says, in Psa 51:5: ‘Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’. [Paul adds] (Rom 7:17): ‘I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.’ Now, what is this element called ‘uncleanness’, ‘sin’, ‘iniquity’, etc?… There is a principle, element, or peculiarity in our constitution… that leads to the decay of the strongest or the healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things… Because the invisible, constitutional physical inworking of death in us came by sin, that inworking is termed sin. It is a principle of uncleanness and corruption and weakness… For this reason, it is morally operative: for whatever affects the physical, affects the moral. If no counter force were brought into play, its presence would subject us to the uncontrolled dominion of disobedience, through the constitutional weakness and impulse to sin… The body of the Lord Jesus was this same unclean nature in the hand of the Father” (RR, 1874:88).
“Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death” (RR, Christendom Astray, p 172, 1910 ed).
” ‘Sin in the flesh’ will ultimately be the subject of justification through the blood of Christ” (RR, Res Resp Debate, Q 111, paraphrased).
“Sin-in-the-flesh is only the root principle that leads to the various forms of diabolism. All these forms are in harmony with the root… Judas was a devil (Joh 6:70) through the action of sin-in-the-flesh; he hanged himself; that form of sin-in-the flesh was gone; but sin-in-the-flesh survived in all the world. The devil that imprisoned the Smyrnean brethren (Rev 2:10) was a form of sin-in-the-flesh. That form passed away, but generic sin-in-the-flesh continues in all the world. So when it is said that the devil is bound for a thousand years, it is that form of sin-in-the-flesh which exists in the organized governments of the world that is bound: but sin-in-the-flesh remains an ingredient in human nature during all the thousand years, until flesh and blood ceases to exist on earth” (RR, Xd 1898:201). [Aside: It is interesting to note that Robert Roberts uses “sin-in-the-flesh” — with hyphens — eight times in this short answer. He does not always use the phrase with hyphens, but he does most often use the phrase in a hyphenated sense: that is, as though it were a unit. There are some today who refuse to use (or to allow others to use) the phrase in such a fashion, who in fact deny that the flesh is related to sin in any meaningful fashion.]
“Paul had to say, ‘sin dwelleth in me’. ‘I see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind’… Sin, as disobedience, arose in (Adam and Eve’s) case from a wrong opinion concerning a matter of lawful desire, and not from what Paul calls ‘sin in the flesh’. It became sin in the flesh when it brought forth that sentence of death that made them mortal… and implanted in their flesh a law of dissolution that became the law of their being. As a law of physical weakness and death, it necessarily became a source of moral weakness. That which originated in sin became a cause of sin in their posterity, and therefore (is) accurately described by Paul as ‘sin in the flesh’ ” (RR, 1898:343).
“Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures: it has a physical as well as a moral application… The Apostle Paul is very precise in his references to sin as a physical principle inherent in human flesh… ‘the body of sin’… ‘Sin… wrought in me’… ‘Sin revived’… ‘Sin… beguiled me’ ‘Sin… working death to me… sin which dwelleth in me’. ‘The law of sin which is in my members’… Sin as spoken of in these verses must necessarily be considered as something different from actual transgression, It is ‘sin’ within that leads to sin in action” (BHeb 181,182).

“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).

“Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin” (JT, Elp 128).
“Children are born sinners or unclean because they are born of sinful flesh; and ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh’, or sin I his is a misfortune, not a crime” (JT, Elp 129).
“Joshua [in Zec 3:3,4]… clothed in filthy garments… represents the Christ… clothed with the ‘flesh of sin’, in which, Paul tells us, ‘dwells no good thing’ ” (JT, Eur 1:58).
“His nature was flesh and blood (Heb 2:14), which Paul styles ‘sinful flesh’, or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called ‘sin’ because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression” (JT. 1873:50l).
“In what sense did Christ come in sinful flesh?… Rom 7, immediately preceding, supplies the sense of the words ‘flesh of sin’ used in Rom 8:3. Gal 5 [which defines the ‘works of the flesh’ — GB], and all New Testament allusions to the subject, teach that the flesh of human nature is a sinful thing” (RR, The Slain Lamb, p 19).
“Jesus was the sin-nature or sinful flesh of Adam… that sin being thus laid on him he might die for it” (RR, 1873:407,408).
“How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, ‘made in the likeness of sinful flesh’, if he had not died for himself as well as for us?” Answer (RR): “He could not” (Res Resp Debate, Q 715).
” ‘Sinful flesh’ is a generic description of human flesh in its total qualities” (RR, 1895:24).

“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).

“What is that which has the power of death?… It is the ‘exceedingly great sinner SIN’, in the sense of the ‘Law of Sin and Death’ within all the posterity of Adam, without exception. This, then, is Paul’s Diabolism… ‘He that committeth sin is of the diabolism, for the diabolos sinneth from the beginning’… All this is perfectly intelligible when understood of ‘Sin’s flesh’ ” (JT, Eur 1:249).
“Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death” (RR, Christendom Astray, p 172, 1910 ed). [This “sin” was not ceremonially laid upon Christ at some point during his life, or even as he hung on the cross: it was part of him from the moment of his birth, in his very nature and flesh and mind. We must appreciate this fundamental truth.]
“The release began with himself. He destroyed that hold which the devil had obtained in himself through extraction from Adam… The devil was not destroyed out of Christ. He was destroyed in him. We have to get into Christ to get the benefit. In him we obtain the deliverance accomplished in him” (RR, 1875:375).
“What is meant by the devil in those places (Heb 2:14 and 1Jo 3:8)?” Answer: “I believe it means sin in the flesh” (The Good Confession, Q 120).
” ‘The Devil is a scriptural personification of Sin in the flesh, in its several phases of manifestation…’ This old Christadelphian definition [from the Declaration — GB] is palpably true, and does not need revising; and no exception to its application can be made in Heb 2:14… Dr Thomas wrote upon the subject with a grasp and lucidity that were almost apostolic… ‘Sinful flesh was laid upon him “that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”, or sin in the flesh (Heb 2:14)’ [Elp Isr Part 1, ch 3]… Yes, ‘the Devil’ that had the power of death is ‘Sin’, and Christ has ‘destroyed’ him ‘through death’ in himself individually, and will yet destroy him from off the face of the earth” (CCW, 1913:539,541).

“(Christ) who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being, dead to sins should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (1Pe 2:24).

Notice how the New Testament passage is a citation of the Old Testament: “All we like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6).

“The flesh was the ‘filthy garments’ with which the Spirit-Word was clothed (Zec 3:3); the ‘iniquity of us all’ that was laid upon him; ‘the soul made an offering for sin” (Isa 53:6,10)” (JT, Eur 1:108).
“If the principle of corruption had not pervaded the flesh of Jesus… sin could not have been condemned there, nor could he have borne our sins ‘in his own body’ ” (JT, Eur 1:203).
“The filthy garments of flesh, styled his’ ‘iniquity’ ” (JT, Eur 2:19).
In a reference to the baptism of Jesus: “Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom 8:3), came to John as the ‘Ram of Consecration’, that his inwards and his body might be washed” (JT, 1873:501).
” ‘Iniquities laid on him’. This is a figurative description of what was literally done in God sending forth His Son, made of a woman… This was laid on Jesus in his being made of our nature” (RR, 1873:400),
“If… our sins were laid on him in the same way as… on the… animals… (ceremonial… imputativeness)… where then is the substance of the shadow? The ceremonial imposition of sins upon the animals was the type; the real putting of sin on the Lamb of God in the bestowal of a prepared sin-body wherein to die, is the substance” (RR, 1873:462).
“He kept himself from ‘his iniquity’ [RR, 18:23]… he must at all times have possessed perfect knowledge of any thought or impulse arising from the flesh contrary to the purpose of his Father, thus leading him to view his temptations as ‘iniquities’ more numerous than the hairs of his head (Psa 40:12). While the ‘iniquity’ that took hold of him was in his flesh, in which dwelleth no good thing… the character which he manifested was perfect… He could say: ‘There was no soundness in his flesh’ [Psa 38:7] because He himself said the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63). This testimony is amplified by the spirit in the apostle Paul thus: ‘In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.’ Jesus also could say: ‘There is no rest in my bones because of my sin’ when realizing fully, as he did, that there could be no freedom from temptation so long as he was of flesh and blood nature” (Henry Sulley, 1921:499,500).

“(Christ) who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb 7:27).

“(From Paul’s statement in Heb 7:27), it follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under Adamic condemnation, inhering in his flesh” (RR, 1873:405).
“If Christ’s offering did not comprehend himself… how are we to understand the statement of Paul (in Heb 7:27)?” (RR, 1873:466).
“It was ‘for us’ that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself… ‘He was made sin (for us who knew no sin), and does not sin require an offering?” (RR, 1875:139).
“As a sufferer from the effects of sin, he had himself to be delivered from those effects; and as the mode of deliverance was by death on the cross, that death was for himself first” (RR, 1875:375).
“There is no doubt Jesus fulfilled the Aaronic type of offering for himself” (RR, Res Resp Debate, Q 290, paraphrased).
“As the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary he should offer for himself…” (RR, 1896:341).
“He did these things (‘was made perfect’, ‘was saved from death’, ‘obtained redemption’)… ‘for himself’ first… for us only as we may become part of him” (RR, LM 174).
“The sacrificial work… ‘For himself that it might be for us’ ” (RR, LM 178).
“Does Heb 7:27 teach that Jesus offered for his own sins?… Yes, it says so plainly” (CCW, 1902:148).
“That Christ had to offer for himself is testified in Heb 7:27… The reason why is revealed, namely, that he might himself be saved by his own blood. See Heb 13:20” (CCW, 1910:547).
“His sacrifice… was first for himself, and then for the people… To say that it was… not for himself, is to contradict the word of God, and to take a step at least towards that doctrine of Antichrist… The salvation was by ‘the blood of thy covenant’ (Zec 11:11), by which both the ‘King’ himself and his ‘prisoners of hope’ are ‘brought again from the dead’. These things have been faithfully upheld as principles of the Truth from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated and should not be now” (CCW, 1921:313).

***

The Scriptures speak of Jesus as being “made… sin”. This statement leads inexorably to the conclusion that Jesus needed to offer for himself as well as for us. In fact it was only in offering for himself that he could offer for us. If he had not offered for himself, and obtained eternal redemption for himself, then what possible benefit could there be for us in being baptized so as to be “in him”? He only obtains for us what he has already obtained for himself. The suggestion that Christ’s death was merely a ceremony or ritual by which we draw near to God, and that there was no real benefit in it for him, is in direct contradiction to the teachings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts and other early Christadelphians. Therefore it is a theory very much to he repudiated, on that ground as well as the ground of the Scriptures.

Sisters, the role of

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Gen 2:18).

“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (vv 22,23).

“For we [brethren and sisters] are members of his [Christ’s] body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32).

“For a man… is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (1Co 11:7).

The principles which govern the relationships and responsibilities of men and women are set out in Genesis and continue right through Scripture. Neither the passing of time, nor the environment, nor social custom, can affect or change these principles or the requirements they place on the individual. They stand from Eden until Christ returns and establishes the Kingdom on the earth.

Woman was created as a “help meet [suitable]” for man. Adam allowed Eve to usurp his authority and teaching, and as a consequence sin entered the world. God then placed His pattern, by which men and women should live and worship, into the earth; and this pattern, and the principles governing it, are carried down through time into the first-century ecclesias, and should be seen in His household today.

Eph 5 shows the link with Eden clearly. As Eve came from Adam, so the saints come out from Christ and reflect His glory. The sister is representative of the Bride of Christ, the ecclesia, made up of both brethren and sisters. The brother is representative of Christ. The sisters work alongside the bridegroom, the brethren, who take responsibility for the ecclesia until the true Bridegroom comes. This does not affect the status of the sister in the sight of God, for both brethren and sisters are joint heirs of salvation; yet the pattern is clear: God — Christ — man — woman. Christ represents God, man represents Christ, and the woman represents both male and female in the figure of the Bride of Christ, the ecclesia. In fulfilling this pattern neither men nor women lose their equality in Christ, but they fulfil differing responsibilities, which for the sisters are many, varied, and extremely important.

Sisters: when the ecclesia comes together

In the formal meetings of the ecclesia (breaking of bread, public talks, Bible classes, fraternal gatherings, baptisms, etc) the sister is under the restriction of the Word of God. It counsels her not to usurp the authority of the brethren, but to display that quietness of spirit through her demeanor and head-covering that becomes one representing an ecclesia subject to Christ. Her discreet behavior reflects that disciplined mind which Scripture enjoins her to cultivate. In these gatherings the sister remains silent, but does join in the praises of hymns, gives assent to the prayers, and by her presence witnesses to the faith of the ecclesia and the love of the ecclesia for its Lord and God (1Co 11:1-16; Eph 5:22-33; 1Ti 2:9-15; 3:11).

Sisters: as helpers in Christ

There is a great deal of work for sisters within the household. Teaching other sisters, teaching children (in Sunday school, youth group and the home), pastoral work in caring for the sick and aged, visiting the housebound and lonely, helping other sisters in their family duties, caring in a maternal sense for children in the ecclesia as needed (perhaps this is a possible meaning of the expression “saved in childbearing” in 1Ti 2:15, giving a wider meaning than strictly childbirth) — all of these responsibilities are specifically listed in Scripture as the work of the sisters. To this is added the help they give in preaching activities outside the formal meetings, teaching unbelievers and helping brethren in the preaching activities (Tit 2:3-5; Rom 16; Phi 4:3; Acts 1:14; 18:24-26; Heb 6:10).

Sisters: as heirs of salvation

The fact that sisters are required to fulfil a role and responsibility within the ecclesia and family life which is different from that of brethren in no way diminishes their status and standing before God. Sisters are “heirs together of the grace of life” and “all one in Christ Jesus” with the brethren. Our attitude to one another, brethren to sisters and sisters to brothers, must be that of esteeming others greater than ourselves. Sisters through the power of prayer and the wearing of head coverings represent the Bride of Christ (male and female), and work for the salvation of those whom God has called (Gen 18:12; 1Pe 3:1-7; Gal 3:26-29; 1Ti 5:10; Phi 2:3; 1Co 11:1-16).

“Both [men and women] are to ensure that such influence as they can bring to bear on their surroundings is a Divine influence and, in the spirit of Christ, seek to make the Lord’s will paramount. The woman, however, though encouraged by Scripture to use initiative, is to work out her dominion within the overall framework of male leadership. It is the man who has the ultimate responsibility for controlling the direction of events which are to be, to the best of his understanding, in accordance with God’s ways. In turn, he is to seek and to value the woman’s counsel, remembering always that the phrase ‘help meet’ means a God-given fellow-worker in the task of understanding and implementing the Divine will” (Michael Lewis, Man and Woman, The Testimony, 1992, p 54).

Solomon, typical of Christ

Solomon’s reign typical of Christ’s reign:

Jerusalem the throne: 2Ch 9:30 (Jer 3:17).
One king and a united nation: 1Ki 4:20 (Eze 37:22).
Israel powerful: 1Ki 4:20 (Mic 4:7).
Israel chief to the nations: 1Ki 4:21 (Mic 4:8).
Gentiles bring tribute: 2Ch 9:23,24 (Isa 60:11).
Great fertility: 1Ki 4:22-28 (Isa 35:1,2).
Submissive nations: 1Ki 4:21 (Psa 72:8).
Security and peace: 1Ki 4:25 (Eze 34:28).
Jerusalem the center of wisdom: 1Ki 4:34 (Isa 2:2).
Jerusalem the center of worship: 2Ch 9:23 (Zec 14:16).
The temple built: 1Ki 6 (Zec 6:13).
Gentiles involved in its building: 2Ch 2:2 (Isa 60:10).
Zadok the priest: 1Ki 1:34 (Heb 7:11,12).
“Satan” to be bound: 1Ki 5:4 (Rev 20:2).
Israel to be a blessing to others: 2Ch 9:26 (Isa 19:25).

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”.