The names of Korah the Levite and Dathan and Abiram of Reuben stand high on any list of the troublers of Israel. Much can be learned, however, of a negative nature from these men, for their sins were such as (in lesser degrees, one would hope) are common to most of us. Indeed, it might even be said that their sins — rebellion, pride, and jealousy, leading to a divisive, condemning spirit within God’s people — are among the most prevalent in the latter-day development of the brotherhood.

The jealous feeling entertained by Aaron and Miriam against Moses (Numbers 12) culminated in the punishment of leprosy upon the prophetess. Even this striking lesson does not seem to have quelled the rebellious spirit among several prominent men in the congregation of the Lord. Korah, a leading Levite, and two princes of the tribe of Jacob’s firstborn son, leading a formidable delegation, strode boldly before Moses and his brother. “Wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?” (Num. 16:3). The challenge was the offspring of ambition; these were men who aspired to leadership but did not possess the required qualities. The Truth has suffered much from such as these: men who to gratify their own whims of self-importance rend apart united bodies, blind leaders of blind followers who can in one day destroy the work of years of patient building.

“And when Moses heard it, he fell upon his face” (v. 4). He must have realized, this man of God, what havoc their presumption would work among an impressionable nation. He naturally feared that the catastrophe he had personally averted on the summit of Sinai, when Israel had rebelled against God’s authority, would now break forth afresh and bring to ruin God’s work in the wilderness.

“Tomorrow the Lord will show who are his” (v. 5). There is no suggestion that the man of God knew what would transpire on the following day. But he must have been confident that in some way God’s will would be made known. The test proposed by Moses was an arraying of the rival leaders with their censers on one side, and the meek Moses and his family on the other. It seems that Korah was eager and confident, feeling that in such a show of numbers, headed by his dignified and impressive self, the easily swayed congregation could not help but choose him and his allies as their new rulers.

“It would seem that this apostasy of Korah had already brought into existence a rival system of worship to that centred in the Tabernacle. Two hints in the narrative point to such a conclusion. The leaders of Korah’s company — two hundred and fifty of them — were already each equipped with a censer for the burning of incense, which was the morning and evening duty of the priest only and never of the Levite or the layman. So the organization of another system of worship must already have proceeded to a dangerous extent. There is also repeated reference to ‘the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.’ This is the technical word ‘mishkan’, used of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and quite distinct from the ordinary word for an ordinary tent (Num. 16:27)” (H. Whittaker, “The Rebellion of Korah”, The Testimony, Vol. 32, No. 381 — Sept. 1962 — p. 306).

After Moses had issued his great challenge, the ground heaved beneath their feet. A great chasm like the mouth of Leviathan opened suddenly and engulfed the partisans of apostasy among the nation as they stood arrogantly at the doors of their tents. Simultaneously God’s wrath burned like fire and consumed Korah and his self-appointed priests. One moment they stood there, an impressive assembly of human pride; the next moment they were but charred and unrecognizable corpses. A stunned silence enveloped the camp as the survivors struggled to grasp the implications of these marvelous Divine judgments.

Even now judgment was not at an end. The children of Israel now turned upon Moses and Aaron as though they personally were to blame. “YE have killed the people of the Lord” (v. 41). So again the glory of the Lord appeared, this time threatening the destruction of all the congregation. Only prompt action by Aaron at Moses’ direction stayed the plague of God before it could finish its gruesome work. Nevertheless, 14,700 died in the plague (v. 16:49). It was a sad day for Israel.

Brother Islip Collyer has written an excellent article, keynoted by the question, “What are your aims, agitator?” Therein he has this rather pointed comment:

“If we were to make a parable out of the rebellion of these ancient Levites — if we were to write of brethren M. and A. as the most prominent members of a little community, and brethren K., D., and A. as disaffected members of the same ecclesia — if we were to put the words of rebellion into modern style, it is to be feared that the circumstances might be recognized in several centres as a sarcastic account of their own local trouble. The parable might even be extended for the benefit of the country as a whole. The man who agitates for the sake of agitation, and changes the nature of his complaints as soon as any attempt is made to pacify him would be recognized by many observers” (“Wayside Letters”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 52, No. 613 — July 1915 — p. 308).

Brother Collyer in this article leaves any conscientious reader with this unsettling thought: Many of those things for or against which he has agitated were, after all, not nearly so important as they first seemed, and the total effect of the turmoil was more bad than good. Many agitators in fact have had as their predominant aim, though perhaps only subconsciously, the satisfaction of self. A gardener finds that he must once in a while turn over the soil and remove the weeds from his little plot. But if he is always “stirring”, the plants will not grow at all. If we find such a gardener in exasperation one day pulling up plants right and left because they are disappointing to him, we might well ask, “What is your aim in so doing?” And he would, no doubt, reply, “To make this the best garden in the community.” “But how does this particular destructive work accomplish that worthy goal?” And if the gardener is true to himself he will have to admit that his fit of temper has accomplished no good, but only left a mess to clean up. Let us weigh our motives carefully before we agitate the vineyard of the Lord, as did Korah and his followers.

“One of the most serious threats to the unity of the nation… was the affair of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. It arose directly because a purely fleshly reasoning caused the men concerned to press their personal importance to the detriment of the good of the nation as a whole. They fell into the error of ‘not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God’ (Col. 2:19). Their action was based upon premises that seemed sound enough: ‘All the congregation is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them’ (Num. 16:3). These were the words on the lips of the ‘250 princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown’, men who according to the record, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ‘took’. Much lies concealed behind those words! One can imagine the secret meetings, the passing on of information from mouth to mouth, the fomenting of trouble, the sowing of discord, and all because Korah, being a son of Levi, desired to play the part assigned to others of his tribe, and Dathan and Abiram thought their tribe, the tribe of Reuben, deserving of greater pre-eminence than that to which God had called them!

“What is the relation of all this to ourselves as a community?… Our heritage is no less [than that of Israel], for the same God is working towards unity in Christ in the Ecclesia, which is both a body and a commonwealth….The people of Israel had a history of fragmentation and division which began in the wilderness and for which there are two principal reasons: Firstly, they had no sense of devotion to the Lord, whose Name was revealed in His mighty acts of power and compassion on their behalf….Their loss of the vision of the Divine glory caused them to yearn for Egypt, and ultimately to refuse to believe that they were the people whom God would bring into the land of His promise. They fragmented because they had no faith in the purpose of their calling.

“The other reason for their disunity was their failure to keep in mind, much less to comprehend the concept of the unity of their people, or to realize that the purpose of God was not with individuals or with tribes as such, but with ‘all Israel’, to whose wellbeing individuals and tribes contributed by playing each their several and necessary parts. Any fellowship other than that which acknowledges that one is our Head and all we are brethren is still, as it has always proved to be, a fellowship of opposition which leads to further fragmentation within the dissident group itself. As far as we can tell from a survey of our own history and that of Israel, there is no exception to this principle” (A. Nicholls, “The Whole Family Which I Brought Up From the Land of Egypt”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 115, No. 1364 — Feb. 1978 — pp. 42,43).

The fugitive David was beset both by persecutions from without and trials from within. The less-than-spiritual advice that he must often have received from such as Joab is the subject of Psalm 11. This psalm opens with a profound “statement of faith”, as it were: “In the Lord put I my trust.” For David there was no other repository of trust; king and council had turned against him who was the anointed of the Lord. Those whom he sought for succor were caught within the spell of destruction. Eighty-five of the Lord’s holy priests, with their wives and children, lay dead at the hand of a blasphemous Edomite because he, David, had asked for bread. From pillar to post he fled, scarcely able to find a place to lay his head, as the cruel and vengeful Saul breathed down his neck.

But now, worst of all, his friends were working against him — advocating a plan of action that would cause him to abdicate his trust in God. “How say ye this to my soul?” he asks — and then follow the words of David’s counselors, which he quotes back to them:

‘Flee as a bird, David; go to the mountains. Leave this ‘land of promise’ behind you. All it promises you is a criminal’s death. The wicked — like Saul and Doeg — have their bows and arrows primed for action. They’ll kill you and us and say they are doing God service. If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?’

Such words have always been the sound of retreat for those among God’s people who found the going rougher than they expected. We have all heard such cries of despair in the brotherhood. ‘The foundations of the Truth have been undermined. Let us flee to the “mountains”. Only there can we be safe. There is nothing left in which we can trust.’ It is to David’s everlasting credit that he holds such cowardly advice up to the contempt that it deserves. His courageous words give life and meaning to the statement which opened the psalm: The Lord was indeed his only trust, so much so that external situations could not undermine that faith.

And as for the “foundations” being destroyed, no, never! Perhaps if men trusted in human institutions to perpetuate righteousness, to glorify God’s Name, perhaps then it might be said that in Saul’s Israel the foundations were no more. But, no, neither the judges nor the laws nor even the Tabernacle itself was the “foundation” of Israel. God is the foundation of the upright; He cannot be destroyed — even if all those in authority lose sight of Him and His demands. The tangible manifestations of God’s rule may crumble and fall, or be pulled down by evil men, for they are temporal; but that which is not seen is eternal. The Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven; His eyes behold and try the children of men (Psa. 11:4). Nothing escapes His notice. At the proper time, in God’s own way, He will deal with any threatening situation. In this simple promise men must put their trust, waiting upon the Lord.

Many centuries have elapsed since the rebellion of Korah and the tyranny of Saul, and we find the imprisoned Paul concerned for Timothy his beloved son in the faith. How should he discharge his responsible duties in the household? Already men like Hymeneus and Philetus were undermining the doctrine of the resurrection and destroying the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17,18). It seemed as though the foundations of the truth were crumbling all around. Was it time to give up hope, to flee like a hireling from the wolves of rebellion and pride and error? No, the answer of the old apostle was clear:

“Nevertheless [i.e. despite all the difficulties and problems you see on every side]… nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure” (v. 19).

How do we know this, Paul?

‘You have this seal — this guarantee: Men may attempt to subvert, to destroy, and to corrupt God’s Truth, but they cannot succeed. The Lord knoweth them that are His! In the proper time the others will be dispensed with.’

Paul’s words echoed those of Moses — “In the morning the Lord will show who are his, and who is holy” (Num. 16:3) — and David — “His countenance doth behold the upright” (Psa. 11:7).

“If we can bring ourselves to realize that all is at all times in the unerring and almighty hand of God, and that we are but a small cog in a vast machine, we shall not be trapped into that self-important anxiety that leads to hastiness and harshness.

“When we see worldliness gaining ground in an ecclesia; when we see modern customs making a mockery of Scriptural ordinances…when we see attendance gradually diminishing and worldly things interfering even on Sunday morning; when we see… that shallow and self-important little minds introduce new crotchets and speculations — we are apt to become despondent and panicky.

“But why should we? Did Paul? No! He says:

‘The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: The Lord knoweth them that are his.’

“And the apostle, far from despondency, sounded out from his prison-cell inspiring words of courage, and patience, and glorious hope. Without bitterness, but with terrible significance, he points out (2:20) that in a great house there are not only vessels of honor, but also vessels of dishonor. If a man will purify himself, he shall be among the vessels of honor.

“This may seem a strange way to give encouragement, but it would help Timothy to realize that ecclesial disappointments and difficulties do not necessarily mean an abandonment by God, but are rather a part of the divine wisdom of trial and probation” (G.V. Growcott, “No Man Stood With Me”, The Berean Christadelphian, Vol. 57, No. 4 — April 1969 — p. 114).

The apostle continues his exhortation to Timothy: “Flee also youthful lusts” (v. 22) — but do not flee the ecclesia! “Avoid foolish and unlearned questions” (v. 23) — but do not avoid the foolish and unlearned brethren who need your counsel now more than ever. Be patient and meek; do not despair. It may be that by your longsuffering instruction some will be brought to repentance who would otherwise have perished in a general apostasy.

In Christadelphian circles, there will probably always be some who agitate for division and subdivision by an appeal for precise interpretations upon “words” and “phrases” that are far beyond the grasp of the average brother or sister. In their hands the gospel is in danger of becoming the province of “experts”, while the ordinary believer must in his confusion choose which of the “expert” disputants to follow. (In that case, however, how can such disputes — even if it be presumed one side is right and the other wrong — be matters of foundation truth, relevant to fellowship, when the ordinary majority can hardly make heads or tails of the arguments?) Such men as these will accuse others of slackness and toleration when they decline to go to the same lengths in denouncing and excommunicating “error”. Paul says, in effect: ‘Never mind such criticism. God knows the feelings that motivate your actions. God knows who are truly His, and He will reveal them in due time.’

The parables of Christ are beautifully polished jewels, which present an infinite variety of sparkling views. Many lessons both broad and subtle may be suggested from their reverent contemplation. For our purposes one lesson stands out in the parable of the pounds.

Brother John Carter has incisively noted (Parables of the Messiah, p. 258) that, in contrast to the talents of a similar parable (Matt. 25:14-30), the pounds were distributed evenly to a large company — indicative of the gift of the gospel itself, bestowed equally upon all who hear. Each recipient was instructed by the nobleman to occupy himself by making gain of his gift. What concerns us especially is the subsequent attitude and actions of the unfaithful servant, of whom we read in Luke 19:20,21:

“And another came, saying, ‘Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.’ ”

This servant no doubt had the cleanest pound of all, but it had not grown! He had not been totally indifferent to his lord’s gift, but his fear of failure had compelled him carefully to “protect” his pound. So he had wrapped it in a cloth and laid it up in some safe place, perhaps checking it from time to time, maybe even bringing it out, like some housewives do with fine silver, to polish and admire it.

Our attitude toward the Gospel truth that we have received can be similar to the attitude of this man. If we are fearful that we may “lose the Truth” and conscious only of “keeping the Truth pure”, then we are in danger of forgetting what we are told to DO with it! The gospel is not a frail greenhouse flower that must have just the right temperature and humidity, and just the correct amount of light and water in order to survive. The gospel is very hardy; it is meant like the pound to be carried into the “market” of life, to the highways and byways, and to make gain for its user. We need have no fear for the Truth itself — it springs from God and is impervious to corruption. We must only be careful that we put it to the use for which it is intended.

This same point is subtly made in other parables of Christ — for example, the parables of the sower and the wheat and tares (see Chapter 4 of this book). Is it enough that we as husbandmen of the Lord’s “field” be concerned with the uprooting of “weeds” or “tares”? Is it enough that we keep the field “pure”? There must be at least as much effort — and more, much more — directed toward the positive endeavor of sowing the seed. The farmer expects some imperfection in his field, and he puts up with it, knowing that his paramount interest must be in the production of grain. The harvest is soon enough for the last weeds or tares to be separated from the good grain.

It is so simple when we see it this way. But how many frustrated “sowers” have consumed their lives in the Truth in worry and agitation about the “purity” of the “field”, so to speak, and never gotten around to their real duty? Let us strive for a proper balance in our service in the Truth, lest our intolerable and unbalanced attitude condemn us outright before our Judge (Luke 19:22).

Many lessons of a very practical nature might be gleaned from the inspired diary of “the king’s cupbearer” (Neh. 1:11). For the present purposes, however, we shall concentrate on the qualities of character that constituted Nehemiah “a wise masterbuilder” (1 Cor. 3:10) and give us guidelines to do likewise.

Having learned from his brother Hanani (Neh. 1:2) that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and the gates burned (v. 3), Nehemiah pleaded with Artaxerxes for permission to travel to the land of his fathers to promote a reconstruction program (2:1-8). After a long and rigorous journey he finally arrived at Jerusalem; within only three days, ever the tireless worker, he was up and about on an inspection tour of the city and its fortifications. Nehemiah found many adversaries ready to hinder the work (v. 10), while very few were willing to help in the building.

After viewing the desolations, he called the nobles and the priests together and explained his purpose, and how the king had supported him. They were so impressed that their response was immediate, concerted, and sincere — “Let us rise up and build” (v. 18). The work was well organized by Nehemiah, and construction began without delay.

But it did not go perfectly; the characters of Nehemiah and his brethren, like ours, must be tempered by adversity and hardship. There was opposition from the neighboring Samaritans and Gentiles, who used both guile and physical threats in an attempt to intimidate Nehemiah and impede his work. Most troublesome yet, there were internal dissensions: the Tekoite nobles would not “put their necks to the work” (3:5), and the men of Judah were prophets of pessimism (4:10). But Nehemiah did not despair, or lose hope; he maintained his impressive example and cheerful disposition at all times. It was characteristic of this man (and typical of Christ!) that he prayed for the forgiveness of the sins of the people as though they were his sins too! “We have sinned”, said he, and he was willing to share in the guilt of his nation, his “ecclesia” (1:6,7). The knowledge of the sins of his brethren did not discourage him, nor impel him to disassociate himself from the work, but only to redouble his efforts to bring the nation to repentance and finish their task. His enthusiasm was infectious, and the great work of repairing the wall was completed in only 52 days (6:15), “for the people had a mind to work” (4:6).

“ ‘The people had a mind to work.’ When that is condensed into one word, it spells cooperation. The same idea was expressed by the apostles in such terms as ‘one mind’, ‘like-minded’, and ‘with one accord’. This thought should impress us deeply, because it is the only way possible for an ecclesia to succeed.

“If we do not work together, our love will grow cold; bitterness and evil speaking will be generated, and if this is augmented by the continual agitation of some crotchet which has been developed by our desire to have our own way, the foundations of our ecclesia will disintegrate and the whole structure will collapse. We must be on our guard at all times, and examine our purpose and motives….” (G. Gibson, “The People Had a Mind to Work”, The Berean Christadelphian, Vol. 59, No. 12 — Dec. 1971 — p. 354).

Chapter 3 of Nehemiah enumerates 44 teams who begin work on the wall. Each team is assigned its own portion to build. Did some complain about the quality of their brethren’s work at other stations? Did others grumble because they could not be everywhere and do everything and supervise? Did some sit down and refuse to help?: ‘We just are not sure that we can approve of all the details of this operation.’ In the divine retrospect on the work of Nehemiah, all such petty hindrances and worries are put to one side. “Let us rise up and build” was the mandate; this call to the men of the city did not admit of any paltry quibbles. The work was too great to let personalities and prejudices and pride stand in the way.

It is the same with us as we strive to fortify God’s “city” today. There may be fears without, fightings within; but each brother, each individual ecclesia has pressing responsibilities near to home. Each of us has his portion of the “wall” to build. No matter what we think of our neighbor’s building, or that “shoddy bit of work” way across on the other side, when the True Masterbuilder comes to inspect the work, each of us will be judged on his own portion!

“Every unit of the body must do its part by — ‘….speaking the Truth in love,…growing up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto edifying of itself in love’ (Eph. 4:15,16).

“This is the only formula of a true ecclesia. What we do for our brethren and sisters, is what we do to God. If what we do is dominated by love, all will be well, but if we are not truly motivated by love and kindness in all we say and do, there will be no edification, and no bodily growth, and we will be brought into condemnation, and will never enter the kingdom of God. For, said Jesus,

‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me’ (Matt. 25:40)”

                                                                                                (Ibid., p. 355).

The following is a condensation and revision of the article “Conflict of Loyalties”, by H. Whittaker (The Testimony, Vol. 38, No. 454 — Oct. 1968 — pp. 377-380).

It was the time of the great reformation that the zeal of Hezekiah had set going. The appeal had gone out to all the tribes of Israel, regardless of boundaries or political loyalties, that they come up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover after the manner of their fathers. And although the messengers of the king had met with much derision and contempt, there were also many in the region of Galilee who responded and came with gladness to join in their new surge of godliness.

But there were hindrances of many kinds, with the result that it was not found possible to hold the Feast at the normal time — the fourteenth of the first month. However, the Law of Moses provided for a second celebration a month later (a kind of supplementary Breaking of Bread!) for the benefit of those who were unclean through contact with the dead or who were away on a journey when the proper time came round. Strictly speaking, neither of these “exceptive clauses” applied to these latecomers from the north. Even less were they a valid excuse for the people of Judah and Jerusalem.

Nevertheless the Feast went forward in the second month with zeal and rejoicing. It was not that king or priests or people were ignorant of what the Law lay down. There was no disposition to cover up or evade the technical infringement with any kind of clever argument. Rather, the issue became quite simply this: ‘Is it better for us and more to the honor and glory of God that we keep the Passover with an irregularity of procedure, or that we do not keep it at all this year?’ Faced with this alternative — especially in such circumstances — the proper decision was obvious.

Yet it was not to be denied that some commandment of the Law was infringed. Had they desisted altogether, still the Law said that the Passover must be kept. Had they kept it in the second month, then they were found guilty of appropriating to themselves the concessions of Numbers 9:10 which clearly did not apply in their case. Also, many of those coming from the north were not ceremonially purified to keep the Passover (2 Chron. 30:18). Here the Law was infringed again in unmistakable fashion. Yet the Feast was kept,

“for Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary’, and the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.”

None would dispute that, infringements and irregularities aside, Hezekiah and the people did the right thing — or, rather, the best thing possible — in the circumstances.

This kind of tension between two conflicting laws and principles of God’s appointing, both of which apply in a given case, is not uncommon. It happened under the Law of Moses, as for example the dilemma of circumcision on the eight day when it chanced to fall on a Sabbath; Jesus entered into several controversies between the traditional interpretations of the Sabbath law and his own greater law of loving service to mankind.

Similar situations are not unusual in the life of the disciple today. If a young Christadelphian is commanded by his unbelieving parents to miss the Breaking of Bread so as to accompany them on a visit to an aged relative, which commandment does he break: “Do this in remembrance of me”, or “Honor thy father and thy mother”?

Is it right to buy some magazine which will further one’s study of the Signs of the Times if this means giving indirect support to some unrighteous cause which that publication happens to advocate?

Should an ecclesia spend thousands of dollars on the purchase of a fine organ to enhance its worship and praise of God if a quarter of its members believe that this money should be devoted instead, say, to the Bible Mission?

We begin to see now the bearing of the foregoing considerations on the vexed question of fellowship. Without any doubt, division and fragmentation arise because brethren resolve in different irreconcilable fashion yet another conflict of principles:

‘Here is the beginning of apostasy,’ says one; ‘I cannot with clear conscience belong to a community which tolerates such denials of truth; no matter what the cost, the Faith must be kept pure.’ And he gathers round him some of like persuasion and goes away to make a fresh, clean start — until the day when a like situation recurs once more, and then the process begins all over again.

Says another: ‘Here is teaching which grieves me very much and which may well show itself ultimately to be destructive of our Faith. I do not like it. I am worried by it. Then I must do all in my power to counteract it. Since my brethren who are in a better position than I to exercise a good influence do nothing about it, ought I not to withdraw for the sake of purity of the Faith? But then, there is also my responsibility to the rest who do not assess the situation as urgently as I do. These sheep, what shall they do? Have I no duty to them, to nurture and guide and warn them?’

Thus the conflict rages in the minds and hearts of faithful men. Undefiled separateness? Or love of the brethren in time of difficulty? This is the great issue. How is it to be resolved? Some have one solution, some another, and the outcome is mutual recrimination and division. Stark tragedy!

What, then, is the right way, and therefore the best way, to resolve this greatest of all spiritual contests for the loyalty of the believer? Whatever decision is reached, it is almost certain that a serious disadvantage will be involved. One evaluation, however, seems quite suitable in facilitating our choice, and this is the test of Jesus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Apply this test, then, to the “purity-at-all-costs” school of thought. What fruits have been gathered from this tree? The largely unchallenged assumption that root-and-branch disfellowship en masse is demanded by the Bible has left a phenomenal trail of Christadelphian wreckage scattered across the past century. Even at the present day several small boats toss on the waves, when united effort to manage one adequate vessel and keep it seaworthy would be an obvious policy of sanity. More than this, an invariable result of every crusade of every secessionist has been a long-sustained campaign of harsh criticism and self-righteous censure against those from whom the separation has been made. “By their fruits ye shall know them!” What a contrast with Daniel who, belonging to a nation hardened in apostasy and riddled with guilt, prayed for them and for himself as though he shared their sin and their condemnation.

So the “separatist” solution has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. But the more “broad-minded” school of thought may also be lacking when “fruits” are considered, for false teachers if allowed to run wild do damage to others as well as themselves, and the lines of demarcation between Truth and Error may become blurred.

Is there an alternative to either of these extremes? As long as an ecclesia holds to a true foundation of faith, that ecclesia should not be abandoned. There may be unfaithfulness latent in any ecclesia, but if the formal basis of fellowship is sound, then as long as faithful brethren exist there, they should continue an unfaltering witness against error. This was the function of the prophets in a decadent Israel, and the counsel of the apostles to ecclesias with doctrinal and moral problems in the first century.

Such an attitude of mind and the solution here proposed can hardly be altogether satisfactory to the out-and-out idealist, but like Hezekiah he must learn to make the best of imperfect situations. The great evils are schism and apathy. Let us shun both, and choose instead the middle road, of loving, careful, unceasing entreaty and witness for truth. If we do this then we have the assurance that Hezekiah had, that God will pardon the failings of those who prepare their hearts to serve Him, even though their service may prove less than perfect.

In a broad view of the brotherhood in the first century, one point becomes very clear. Newly baptized brethren and even entire ecclesias in the formative stage were treated by the apostles with a great deal more patience and sympathy than is customary in these days. Even extreme errors and gross misconduct were the subject of careful explanation and entreaty, not broad and summary excommunication.

The best example of this is the Corinthian ecclesia, which seemed to lack a comprehensive grasp of one of the greatest of first principles — the resurrection (1 Cor. 15)! Can we imagine the reaction of many Christadelphians today? ‘Why, these people are obviously not in the Truth at all! How can we have anything to do with them?’

In contrast to this attitude, the apostle Paul strives mightily and tirelessly to reclaim those who have been misled — while at the same time strenuously repudiating the false doctrine. Obviously, as far as he was concerned, these Corinthians were brethren. Admittedly, they were brethren who very much needed assistance, but they were brethren nevertheless.

In a similar vein are Paul’s words to his Galatian brethren, who were sorely beset by error:

“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?” (Gal. 3:1).

Paul does not consider the false teachers and those brethren who are falsely taught to be in the same category. He bluntly exposes the wrong, attempts to isolate the perpetrator of the wrong, but still patiently and lovingly instructs the ones who are misled. This is a theme which will recur time after time in this survey, and it would be well to watch for it.

“An important distinction is made — between the urgent need to disfellowship the circumcisers and their advocates and the treatment urged upon those Galatians who may have been gullibly led astray: ‘Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.’ They were to remember that self-examination, not self-conceit, is required of all who would thus assume the role of ecclesial monitors and shepherds. Such are not free from temptation themselves! (Gal. 6:3)” (A. Eyre, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, No. 1281 — March 1971 — p. 106).

It must not be contended from such passages that we (either as individuals or ecclesias) are at liberty to overlook error when we encounter it. And yet an enlightened view of the first-century ecclesias as presented in the New Testament must encourage a substantial measure of restraint in our actions. Perhaps there is less reason for patience and latitude today (it may be argued), since Christadelphian doctrines and practices are so solidly established. Yet human nature never changes, some brethren will always develop slowly or erratically or not at all, and some ecclesias will always be in formative or turbulent periods. Consequently, those who are most firmly grounded in the Truth will always be building, always desiring maturity (yes, even perfection) for themselves and their brethren, but never quite attaining it. And so it must be until Christ returns.

Again, with regard to the Corinthians, Brother Roberts adds:

“There were men among the Corinthian brethren who denied the resurrection; did Paul charge the [other] brethren with complicity with that heresy because of the presence of such among them? Doubtless their rejection of the resurrection nullified their claims for that place [i.e. among the brethren], but still it did not make the true brethren guilty of their false doctrine while merely tolerating it, pending an appeal to Paul” (“True Principles and Uncertain Details”, p. 417).

Some of the other above-mentioned examples of error and misconduct in the first-century ecclesias are listed below:

1. There is no resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12; 2 Tim. 2:18).
2. Suing at law (1 Cor. 6:1,6).
3. Fornication, incest (1 Cor. 5:1).
4. Drunkenness at the “love feast” (1 Cor. 11:21).
5. Women speaking (teaching) in the ecclesia (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11).
6. The Great Heresy: “Circumcision is essential to salvation”, or (in its milder form) at least preferable (Acts 15:1; Galatians, esp. 2:12,13).
7. Jesus was merely a man, and not the Son of God (1 John 2:22; Luke 1:35).
8. Jesus was “God”, not man (1 John 4:2,3).

We notice that in latter times Nos. 2 and 3 have, on a local level, been the cause of many ecclesial problems; and that No. 5 has been the basis for numerous local problems. Also, that the questions of the precise nature of Christ (Nos. 7 and 8) and details about resurrectional judgment (No. 1) continue to bother Christadelphians.

But also, the “Great Heresy” of the first century (No. 6) is quite interesting, in that it practically reproduces the “fellowship” viewpoint of some groups of believers even today. If we simply substitute “cutting off doubtful brethren” in place of “cutting off the flesh” (in circumcision), the parallel becomes obvious. The unwarranted division is described as follows:

“Perhaps news of this (Peter’s reception of the Gentile Christians in Antioch) reached Jerusalem and encouraged the ‘ultra-conservatives’ to make investigations. Perhaps the death of Herod encouraged Judaean brethren to go and fetch Peter back to Jerusalem. Whatever the reason, a disastrous visit was made by some ‘from James’…. These visitors to Antioch forced a division in the ecclesia by demanding that circumcision be made a matter of fellowship.

“We have very sparse details of the actual course of events, but there is no doubt that it took a very serious turn. Peter, challenged by those from his own ecclesia, afraid of conservative reaction and failing to face up to the implications of the vision in Joppa (Acts 10), crumbled under the attack of the Jerusalem bigots. He ‘stood aside’ and withdrew his fellowship from his Gentile brethren. The Jewish members of the Antioch ecclesia, faced with this lamentable lapse of one so prominent, had little alternative but to follow suit. Paul says they ‘acted insincerely’ (Gal. 2:13), the implication being that they viewed the division as being expedient, with fellowship to be resumed perhaps when Peter and the others had gone. Even Barnabas was carried away and met with the ‘circumcision fellowship’. Perhaps it is something of a comfort in our own problems to know that for a time two great apostles were not in the same fellowship!

“How the division was resolved we do not know, but resolved it must have been, for shortly afterwards an apparently united Antioch ecclesia sent Saul and Barnabas forth together on their first sponsored missionary journey. Probably, Paul’s forthright yet sincere stand on the matter may have helped; in any case, in God’s providence such a disastrous division was not to be” (A. Eyre, Vol. 108, No. 1280 — Feb. 1971 — p. 60).

And so, in the first century, there existed for a time a second or “elite” “fellowship”. No doubt, like similar associations today, it included the most radical — who urged that their peculiar viewpoint was essential to salvation — as well as the more moderate element. These moderate ones did not deny to the “others” the possibility of acceptance at the judgment seat, but merely wished to remain separate either for expedience’s sake or for fear of personal “contamination”. How little the ecclesial world has changed from that day to this!

This writer, with the uninhibited zeal of youth, felt for a number of years that he knew all that was worth knowing about “fellowship”. But changing circumstances provoked a serious and prolonged re-examination of the foundations of his “pure fellowship” position, and he was led at last to conclude that there is a “better way” consistent with the commandments of Christ. He now holds a different understanding of “fellowship”, with not quite the certainty of earlier times, but rather what he believes is a more realistic awareness of the imperfection of all things human (including this book!).

Some of the results of those studies are now offered to the brotherhood, with the prayer that they might somehow encourage brethren of all “fellowships” to embrace the true “purity” that is never distinct from “peace”. May the Lord when he returns find his disciples endeavoring, in all humility, to keep the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Certain chapters in this study were first published as articles in The Christadelphian, The Testimony, The Logos, and The Tidings. They are now somewhat modified for inclusion here.

I wish to express my gratitude to the many brethren whose thoughts and expositions appear herein. I have tried always to give references, so that verification and further study may be possible.

Several articles are worthy of special citation:

1.	Robert Roberts: “True Principles and Uncertain Details; or, The Danger of Going Too Far in our Demands on Fellow-Believers”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 35, No. 407 (May 1898), pp. 182-189. This article has been reprinted at least twice in the same magazine: by C.C. Walker (Vol. 60, No. 708 — June 1923, pp. 248-256) and by John Carter (Vol. 92, No. 1097 — Nov. 1955, pp. 414-418).
2.	Robert Roberts: A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias (commonly referred to as The Ecclesial Guide), published in several editions. Of particular relevance are Sections 32 and 36 through 42.
3.	Islip Collyer: At least four articles are extremely important:
	a.	An Appeal to Christadelphians, published in booklet form by the Christadelphia Newsletter.
	b.	“True Principles Governing Fellowship”, The Christadelphian Vol. 61, No. 721 (July 1924), pp. 294-299.
	c.	“The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 722 (Aug. 1924), pp. 342-345. These last two articles are also reproduced in the book Principles and Proverbs.
	d.	“A Pure Fellowship”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 68, No. 807 (Sept. 1931), pp. 408-410. This article was reprinted in Vol. 95, No. 1128 (June 1958), pp. 258-260.
4.	Alan Eyre: “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, 1971. This is a series of five articles commencing in the January issue.
5.	The Committee of The Christadelphian: “Fellowship: Its Spirit and Practice”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 109, No. 1291 (Jan. 1972), pp. 7-13. This is also available separately in pamphlet form from The Office of The Christadelphian.
6.	H.A. Whittaker: “Block Disfellowship: Is It Taught in the Bible?”, The Testimony, Vol. 43, No. 512 (Aug. 1973), pp. 310-313, and No. 513 (Sept. 1973), pp. 340-345.

The above articles, as well as all the others cited in the body of this book, should be read in their entirety if possible.

In truth, however, we must realize there is only one authority in spiritual matters; it is only insofar as the writings of brethren illuminate the principles of God’s Word that they are useful. Otherwise, they may become a snare; today, we are confronted with a sad spectacle: We see almost a dozen mutually exclusive “pure” fellowships, each appealing to the names of the same “pioneer” brethren almost as though they were inspired prophets. Thus they seek to justify their separation from the other eleven “groups”, but especially from the “Central” or “Reunion” Fellowship.

In arbitrarily choosing the Scriptures to be emphasized in any study, the writer leaves himself open to the criticism of being less than objective. This charge may be inescapable in a subject as volatile as “fellowship”. How does one walk the “tightrope” between an intolerable leniency on the one hand, and the vehement censure of any and every deviation on the other — a habit that has become all too common among us? I ask you, the reader, to give due weight to every relevant passage, and balance all arguments according to their Biblical evidence. Perhaps if we approach the Word of God as we should, humbly, prayerfully — and with just a hint of godly fear — then we will achieve that balanced approach where justice and mercy, goodness and severity, patience and action walk hand in hand.

I have attempted to consider, as far as possible, only the Scriptural aspects of “fellowship”, and not the circumstances of the many previous divisions. These would themselves constitute material for a sizeable volume, but in my estimation this would not be nearly so profitable a study. No “fellowship” of today is precisely what it once was. And experience shows us the impossibility of judging perfectly even present-day situations. How much less can we be certain of all our “facts” (i.e., motives and circumstances) in a 50- or 100-year-old controversy? It is next to impossible to know the circumstances as they truly existed at the time of these divisions, or the minds of the brethren involved. Therefore, it would be very difficult for us to make an unbiased judgment as to the particular fellowship issues as they may have existed in their days. A little more Christadelphian humility in such matters might very well be the wisest course for all of us.

What does require further investigation is the very concept of “first principles”: What precisely are “first principles”? And how can they be Biblically determined? These are important questions because, no matter how well Biblical principles of fellowship may be understood, there is still the matter of where and how they should be applied. And being able to draw clearly defined and consistent lines between first principles and matters of lesser importance is crucial in this process. It is my hope to deal with these important but difficult matters in a further work — to be published, God willing, within the next year or so. [This has since been published, as What Are The First Principles?]

It is to the Bible that we turn, then, to determine the responsibilities of true “fellowship”, both individual and ecclesial, in our present-day circumstances. And yet is not “fellowship” distinctly more than a mere responsibility?

“Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you, that your joy may be full” (1 John 1:3,4).

                                                                                                George Booker

                                                                                                May 1990

Please see also the special addendum to Biblical Fellowship, at the end of this work, entitled THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ONE BODY. The author feels this statement is necessary, to provide a necessary corrective and corollary to the general thesis of Biblical Fellowship. To put it another way, whereas Biblical Fellowship stresses our duty, individually and collectively, to recognize in fellowship, and to treat as brethren, those who share our fundamental beliefs — The Implications of the One Body stresses our obligations toward those whose fellowship we do share.

This writer, with the uninhibited zeal of youth, felt for a number of years that he knew all that was worth knowing about “fellowship”. But changing circumstances provoked a serious and prolonged re-examination of the foundations of his “pure fellowship” position, and he was led at last to conclude that there is a “better way” consistent with the commandments of Christ. He now holds a different understanding of “fellowship”, with not quite the certainty of earlier times, but rather what he believes is a more realistic awareness of the imperfection of all things human (including this book!).

Some of the results of those studies are now offered to the brotherhood, with the prayer that they might somehow encourage brethren of all “fellowships” to embrace the true “purity” that is never distinct from “peace”. May the Lord when he returns find his disciples endeavoring, in all humility, to keep the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

Certain chapters in this study were first published as articles in The Christadelphian, The Testimony, The Logos, and The Tidings. They are now somewhat modified for inclusion here.

I wish to express my gratitude to the many brethren whose thoughts and expositions appear herein. I have tried always to give references, so that verification and further study may be possible.

Several articles are worthy of special citation:

1.	Robert Roberts: “True Principles and Uncertain Details; or, The Danger of Going Too Far in our Demands on Fellow-Believers”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 35, No. 407 (May 1898), pp. 182-189. This article has been reprinted at least twice in the same magazine: by C.C. Walker (Vol. 60, No. 708 — June 1923, pp. 248-256) and by John Carter (Vol. 92, No. 1097 — Nov. 1955, pp. 414-418).
2.	Robert Roberts: A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias (commonly referred to as The Ecclesial Guide), published in several editions. Of particular relevance are Sections 32 and 36 through 42.
3.	Islip Collyer: At least four articles are extremely important:
	a.	An Appeal to Christadelphians, published in booklet form by the Christadelphia Newsletter.
	b.	“True Principles Governing Fellowship”, The Christadelphian Vol. 61, No. 721 (July 1924), pp. 294-299.
	c.	“The Scriptural Principles Governing Controversy”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 61, No. 722 (Aug. 1924), pp. 342-345. These last two articles are also reproduced in the book Principles and Proverbs.
	d.	“A Pure Fellowship”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 68, No. 807 (Sept. 1931), pp. 408-410. This article was reprinted in Vol. 95, No. 1128 (June 1958), pp. 258-260.
4.	Alan Eyre: “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 108, 1971. This is a series of five articles commencing in the January issue.
5.	The Committee of The Christadelphian: “Fellowship: Its Spirit and Practice”, The Christadelphian, Vol. 109, No. 1291 (Jan. 1972), pp. 7-13. This is also available separately in pamphlet form from The Office of The Christadelphian.
6.	H.A. Whittaker: “Block Disfellowship: Is It Taught in the Bible?”, The Testimony, Vol. 43, No. 512 (Aug. 1973), pp. 310-313, and No. 513 (Sept. 1973), pp. 340-345.

The above articles, as well as all the others cited in the body of this book, should be read in their entirety if possible.

In truth, however, we must realize there is only one authority in spiritual matters; it is only insofar as the writings of brethren illuminate the principles of God’s Word that they are useful. Otherwise, they may become a snare; today, we are confronted with a sad spectacle: We see almost a dozen mutually exclusive “pure” fellowships, each appealing to the names of the same “pioneer” brethren almost as though they were inspired prophets. Thus they seek to justify their separation from the other eleven “groups”, but especially from the “Central” or “Reunion” Fellowship.

In arbitrarily choosing the Scriptures to be emphasized in any study, the writer leaves himself open to the criticism of being less than objective. This charge may be inescapable in a subject as volatile as “fellowship”. How does one walk the “tightrope” between an intolerable leniency on the one hand, and the vehement censure of any and every deviation on the other — a habit that has become all too common among us? I ask you, the reader, to give due weight to every relevant passage, and balance all arguments according to their Biblical evidence. Perhaps if we approach the Word of God as we should, humbly, prayerfully — and with just a hint of godly fear — then we will achieve that balanced approach where justice and mercy, goodness and severity, patience and action walk hand in hand.

I have attempted to consider, as far as possible, only the Scriptural aspects of “fellowship”, and not the circumstances of the many previous divisions. These would themselves constitute material for a sizeable volume, but in my estimation this would not be nearly so profitable a study. No “fellowship” of today is precisely what it once was. And experience shows us the impossibility of judging perfectly even present-day situations. How much less can we be certain of all our “facts” (i.e., motives and circumstances) in a 50- or 100-year-old controversy? It is next to impossible to know the circumstances as they truly existed at the time of these divisions, or the minds of the brethren involved. Therefore, it would be very difficult for us to make an unbiased judgment as to the particular fellowship issues as they may have existed in their days. A little more Christadelphian humility in such matters might very well be the wisest course for all of us.

What does require further investigation is the very concept of “first principles”: What precisely are “first principles”? And how can they be Biblically determined? These are important questions because, no matter how well Biblical principles of fellowship may be understood, there is still the matter of where and how they should be applied. And being able to draw clearly defined and consistent lines between first principles and matters of lesser importance is crucial in this process. It is my hope to deal with these important but difficult matters in a further work — to be published, God willing, within the next year or so. [This has since been published, as What Are The First Principles?]

It is to the Bible that we turn, then, to determine the responsibilities of true “fellowship”, both individual and ecclesial, in our present-day circumstances. And yet is not “fellowship” distinctly more than a mere responsibility?

“Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you, that your joy may be full” (1 John 1:3,4).

George Booker

May 1990

Please see also the special addendum to Biblical Fellowship, at the end of this work, entitled THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE ONE BODY. The author feels this statement is necessary, to provide a necessary corrective and corollary to the general thesis of Biblical Fellowship. To put it another way, whereas Biblical Fellowship stresses our duty, individually and collectively, to recognize in fellowship, and to treat as brethren, those who share our fundamental beliefs — The Implications of the One Body stresses our obligations toward those whose fellowship we do share.

After Jesus had been scourged, he was handed over to the execution squad by Pilate. He had known what to expect for a long tine — the terrible climax of all his physical sufferings. For hours, as dark gave way to dawn, and as the crowd gathered, he had already endured humiliating insults and cruel buffetings. A “crown” of thorns had been brutally forced down upon his head. (And these were real thorns, an inch long, if the traditional plant of the crown of thorns is the correct one!) So it was with scarred face, and lacerated back and shoulders, that he followed the Roman soldiers, bearing his cross and stumbling as he went. Before and behind and on either side, they clear a path and keep the excited crowd at bay. In their midst he stumbles and shuffles his way under the weight of the cross, his face a mask of patience and pain.

Jesus, the express image of the Father’s person, is reduced to the state predicted by Isaiah:

“His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” (Isa 52:14).

And further:

“There is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa 53:2).

Growing weaker, he stumbles one last time and falls prostrate under the burden. The impatient soldiers compel a witness to bear his cross, and rudely wrestle him to his feet again. Soon they are at Calvary, where a hole has been dug in the ground. The cross-piece is laid on the ground and he is placed upon it. Spikes are driven through his wrists and ankles and into the rough wood. Then with its human burden the cross is lifted and jolted down upon the stake, where it is made fast. There, for ceaseless hours, he hangs — his whole body a raw nerve of pain, his senses dazed by the shimmering heat and the clouds and the dust.

“They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet” (Psa 22:13-16).

He suffered the shame, the physical agony, the draining away of his strength, and a raging thirst. There was dizziness, cramps, fever, and torment. Every movement, no matter how slight, would signal new anguish. Truly might it be said, “His visage was so marred more than any man.”

Isaiah 52:13

“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.”

This verse is an overview. The four main stages of Christ’s work are referred to:

1. His ministry (“deal prudently”);
2. His crucifixion (“exalted” — cp John 3:14; 12:32);
3. His resurrection (“extolled”); and
4. His ascension, mediation, and coming kingdom (“very high”).

This outline is clearly parallel to Paul’s outline:

1. “The form (Greek ‘fashion’) of a servant” (Phi 2:7);
2. “Obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (v 8);
3. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him” (v 9); and
4. “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (vv 10,11).

“Behold” — A trumpet call, demanding careful attention to all that follows.

“My servant” — The Hebrew “ebed” is a slave, as opposed to a hired servant. Unless released, a slave serves for life. The example for all such slaves is Exo 21:5,6:

“If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master… I will not go out free… then his master shall bring him to the door… and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.”

To this the Psalmist refers: “Mine eyes hast thou opened” (Psa 40:6), a passage cited in conjunction with the perfect obedience of the Perfect Servant of Yahweh in Heb 10:5-9, where this phrase is translated “a body (ie, a slave) hast thou prepared me”!

The prophecies relating to Yahweh’s servant are found in Isaiah, from Isa 41 through this section. In these prophecies, Isaiah has been continually contrasting the “national” servant, Israel, with the “individual” servant, the Messiah, much to the discredit of the former. Israel the multitudinous servant has been called to an honorable position of service, but has despised the privilege and failed miserably (Isa41:8; 42:19; 43:10; 44:1,21; 43:4; 43:20). For this they are sharply rebuked (Isa 42:17-20). Meanwhile, Israel is called upon to “behold My Servant” (Isa 42:1); God’s individual “Servant” would accomplish what the national “Servant” could not. Through him the works of the Father, the greatest of which is the redemption and glorification of a portion of mankind, will be accomplished.

Strangely at least from the contemporary Jewish perspective, God’s purpose of redemption requires the suffering and finally the sacrificial death of His obedient servant. This point is reached by stages in the progressive revelations about Isaiah’s “Servant”. First, there is a mere hint of temporary discouragement (42:4); second, a lament over “failure” (49:4); third, personal abuse (50:6); and finally, here, misrepresentation, injustice, and a violent death!

“Deal prudently” — Hebrew “yaschil” signifies “to prosper” (RSV, NEB). The same word is used of Joshua (Jos 1:7,8) in regard to achieving the inheritance of the land of Canaan for himself and his flock; and also of the “righteous Branch” (Jer 23:5) who will reign as a king and save Judah and Israel, and who will be called “The Lord our Righteousness”.

“Exalted” — “Rum”: to be high. Several passages in John’s Gospel equate crucifixion with being lifted up (Joh 3:14; 8:28; 12:32,33), most directly alluding to the brazen serpent lifted up on the pole (Num 21:1-9).

“Extolled” — “Nasa”: elevated as a banner or an ensign. The victory of the children of Israel over Amalek through the lifting up of Moses’ rod (Exo 17:9,11) was commemorated “by the building of an altar called “Yahweh-Nissi” — “He who shall be lifted up”, or “The Lord my banner”.

In a glorious “kingdom” prophecy, the “root of Jesse” (cp Isa 53:21) will stand for an “ensign (“nes”) of the people”, to which even the Gentiles will seek (Isa 11:10).

“And be very high” — Thus the three similar phrases may be differentiated: Jesus was lifted up on the cross. He was then lifted up out of the grave. And finally he was lifted up to heaven, to sit on the right hand of God, from whence he will return to sit on a glorious throne, ruling over all kingdoms!

Isaiah 52:14

“As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.”

The “as” beginning this verse is matched by the “so” beginning v 15. As many individuals were astonished at the Messiah, so shall “many” nations be sprinkled (ie, cleansed) by him! Here is the multiplying effect of the work of Christ: what a comparatively few witnessed in person, in the streets of Jerusalem and on the brow of a little hill, will ultimately bring blessing to multitudes scattered from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth! And the marvelous irony is this: that which appalled and repelled those who witnessed it will at last be embraced joyfully and thankfully by humble and obedient believers. That which appeared tragic and senseless will be seen to be lovely and wise. Paul speaks of the rationale of the crucifixion, and this irony of the cross, to the Corinthian brethren:

“Hath not God made foolish the things of this world?… We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1Co 1:20,23,24).

That which “the world” saw as scandal and weakness was actually righteousness and power. Paul leads us surely to the conclusion that the salvation of mankind is specifically designed by God to run counter to proud and vain man’s expectations; hence the “astonishment” of Isa 52:14 (and the despite and disesteem of Isa 53:3). His purpose in so doing is undoubtedly to lend man to renounce his “worldly”, materialistic, natural attitudes, and to see salvation on God’s terms, and to see himself in God’s eyes. In the words of Paul again, this was done so “that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1Co 1:29).

“Many” — Not only were “many” astonished, but “many” will finally be cleansed (v 15) by the “sprinkled blood” of Christ. This is further amplified by the “many” who will be justified (Isa 53:11) “by their knowledge of him”, and the “many” whose sins he bore (v 12).

“Astonied” — “Astonished” (RSV), a state of mind manifested by some as early as Jesus’ twelfth year, when he sat in the Temple with the doctors of the law (Luke 2:46,47). The sense of astonishment, however, reflected by this picture of Isaiah is best captured by the alternate renderings “appalled” (NIV and NEB: “aghast”).

“His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” – “Visage” is translated “appearance” (RSV) and is the same word as “beauty” in Isa 53:2. “Form” appears also in Isa 53:2. The latter portions of each of these two phrases are practically identical. The literal is “from being a man”; other versions read “beyond human resemblance” (RSV) or “beyond human likeness” (NIV). This description is comparable to Psa 22:6:

“I am a worm, and no man.”

Indeed, there are many such comparisons between this Servant Song and Psalm 22.

The literalness of this description, as connected with Christ’s trials, is easily grasped. The Temple guard and the Roman soldiers had no regard for delicate sensibilities; and this man — though markedly different from others — was nevertheless a condemned criminal. It is probably correct, then, to think of the Suffering Servant as ending up not only with a lacerated black eye (Mat 27:20), but also with a mass of cuts and bruises on his face, teeth knocked out, and a long red scar across his cheek (Mat 27:30; 26:67; John 18:22, mg; Mic 5:1). Truly “beyond human resemblance”!

Although the imagery of this section is that of a suffering leper (and probably well described the appearance of the typical Hezekiah when ravaged by that disease), it is obvious upon reflection that Jesus could not have literally suffered leprosy. It was prophesied of him that, as “the holy thing” (Luke 1:35), he should not see corruption (Psa 16:10; Acts 2:27). If he were not to partake of corruption even in death, how unlikely that he would so partake during his lifetime! Furthermore, an appearance of leprosy during his ministry would have prohibited him from preaching in the synagogue or in the Temple, and would of course have been inconsistent with the magnetic effect he had upon many, including small children. Finally, there is also the ritual of the Passover, of which Jesus was the perfect fulfillment (1Co 5:7), a lamb necessarily without spot and blemish. We must come to the conclusion, then, that the marring of his countenance and figure must have been effected only in his last trials and crucifixion.

Isaiah 52:15

“So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which. they had not heard shall they consider.”

One who is leprous (Isa 53:4), or is made to appear leprous — that is, an outcast and a criminal — becomes, in a fantastic turnabout, the “priest” to cleanse “leprous” Gentiles! Paul and Peter speak of “the blood of sprinkling” (Heb 12:24; 1Pe 1:2) by which forgiveness is obtained. The “sprinkling” of the blood of Jesus is the fulfillment of the typical sprinkling of water of separation (Num 19), water containing the ashes of a heifer offered “without the camp” (Num 19:3; Heb 13:12), and effective in cleansing those who have come into contact with the dead (Num 19:13). Paul puts this cleansing on a moral plane when he describes the “blood of Christ” as able to purge us from “dead works” (Heb 9:14; cp Heb 10:22). The agency of sprinkling, or cleansing, will extend into the Last Days and the Kingdom Age, when a fountain for sin and uncleanness will be opened in Jerusalem (Zec 13:1; cp Eze 36:25).

The imagery also recalls the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts of the houses of the Israelites in Egypt (Exo 12:7,22; Heb 10:19,22; Psa 51:7).

“Sprinkle” – The RSV has “startle”, but the Hebrew word (“nazah”) occurs elsewhere 19 times, always in the sense of sprinkling for ceremonial purification (ie, Lev 4:6; 16:14,19; Num 19:18,21). It is difficult to see why modern translators should replace the AV rendering.

“Many nations” – The blessing of all nations through the special seed of Abraham (Gen 12:3) will involve the forgiveness of sins as a prelude to the enjoyment of the peace and plenty of the kingdom. All this is comprehended in Isaiah’s previous prophecies about Yahweh’s righteous Servant bringing judgment to the Gentiles (Isa 42:1-4) by being a light and the embodiment of Yahweh’s salvation (Isa 49:1-6).

“The kings shall shut their mouths at him” – The LXX of this expression is used to describe the “marveling” of Pilate (Mat 27:14; Mark 15:5) at the patient silence of Jesus in the face of accusations (cp Isa 53:7!).

We see then from these opening verses, that Isaiah is dealing with one who is going to be exalted and enthroned; who is going to be a King and a Priest; who will endure great sufferings in the process of his work. But the glorious outcome of it will be that many nations will come within the scope of that redemptive work.

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 13 — Phi 2:7,9: This has been outlined above.
2. Verse 13 — Acts 3:13,14: At the healing of the lame man in the Beautiful Gate, Peter testified of Jesus, the “servant” (Acts 3:l3, RSV) whom God glorified. In his speech he made several other statements easily connected with this prophecy: ie, “whom ye delivered up” (53:12); “why marvel ye?” (52:13,15 LXX); and “that Christ should suffer”.
3. Verse 15 — Rom 15:20,21: Paul uses this verse to explain his efforts to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and even to Gentile kings. His work, however, must be seen as only the initial fulfillment of the prophecy. The time is coming when the kings of the earth will all fall prostrate and amazed before the glorified Christ, the one who was first a lamb for the slaughter, but who will then be seen as the Redeemed and Glorified One, and the Redeemer of his people.

Passing on from the general overview of the Messiah’s sacrificial work (52:13-15). This next section (Isa 53:1-3) shows his appeal to his own nation and their rejection of him. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (John 1:11).

Verse 1

“Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?”

“Who hath believed our report?” — “Shemmah” signifies something heard, an announcement. That is, ”who hath believed the report to us, not the report from us?” “What we have heard” (RSV, NEB). (The parallelism of the next phrase proves this rendering.) Isaiah classifies himself amongst the nation that failed to appreciate and believe in the Messiah when he appeared. Especially was this true of the elite class of Israel. “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48).

“And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?” — “Arm” is “zeroah”, a word quite similar in the original to “seed” (“zera”), which does double duty in Scripture as both planting seed and descendants. The fundamental idea is that of “stretching out”. In those days seed was sown broadcast (cp Jesus’ parable of the sower — Mat 13); the farmer stretched forth his arm to cast the seed across the field. Likewise, the begettal of children was a way of stretching one’s influence, or one’s “arm”, forward into succeeding years.

Jesus Christ was both “arm” of Yahweh (Isa 40:10; Luke 1:51) and “seed” of Yahweh (ie, Gen 3:15). Through him would come the stretching out of the Almighty’s “arm” — ie, the extension of His purpose. Through him, a “tender plant” (v 2), would also come the final harvest of a multitudinous “seed” (Isa 53:10; Psa 126:5,6; John 12:23,24).

Moses had been the “arm” of the Lord to cut and wound “Rahab” (Egypt), and to dry up the sea that the ransomed would pass over (Isa 51:9,10), as a flock following its shepherd (Isa 63:5,11,12). It is to be noticed also that this “arm” of Moses was made “leprous” (Exo 4:6), as is the “arm of Yahweh” in Isa 53! Jesus, the “arm of Yahweh”, because of his “leprous” nature, and by his sacrificial death — the Lamb/Shepherd (vv 6,7) for his flock — provides the true and perfect ransom, and the final and absolute deliverance out of Egypt.

Verse 2

“For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.”

“For he shall grow up before Him” — That is, he shall grow up before God — but, by implication, not before men; not in the “public eye”. His childhood home, Nazareth, was a city of meager reputation, a despised place. It was a proverb in Israel: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). His family was poor in Israel, despite its royal ancestry. His “father” was but a lowly carpenter. All the circumstances of his early life were contrived by the Heavenly Father so that His Son would grow up in secret, far away from the prying eyes of the nation.

“As a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground” — “A young plant” (RSV), “parched ground” (NEB). “Plant” and “root” draw attention to the “seed” aspect mentioned already; they also call to mind the prophecy of Isa 11: the Messiah as a “branch” sprung up from the old root of Jesse. (The word “netzer”, “branch” in 11:1, is the basis of the rather obscure citation in Mat 2:23 — “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Nazareth was the “Branch-town”, the “dry” and despised place out of which the “Branch” of Yahweh grew up!)

Nazareth and Galilee — indeed, all of Israel — was a “dry ground” politically and spiritually. This term is reflective of the Roman domination of Canaan, the eclipsed monarchy of Judah, and the dry and cold and sterile Jewish formalism. From such a soil how could a divine plant like Jesus grow and prosper? It was as if the loveliest and most fruitful tree were to spring unbidden out of the desert sand. But the “young” and “tender” plant which was Jesus, appearing outwardly feeble to men, had hidden stores of strength. His strength was in the Lord; his “roots” were sent deep into the life-giving word; he was planted by the hidden “rivers of water” (Psa 1:3); even in the intense heat of trial and persecution he “prospered” (Isa 52:13, RSV; Jer 17:8).

“He hath no form nor comeliness” — “Form” is the same word that appeared in Isa 52:14. “Comeliness” is “hawdar”, which signifies magnificence or splendor; it is translated “majesty” in NEB and NIV.

“And when we shall see him” — This should be translated, as in the RSV, “that we should look at him”, and linked with the previous phrase — thus producing a parallel with the last phrase of v 2.

“There is no beauty that we should desire him” — “Beauty” is “marek”, translated “visage” (AV) and “appearance” (RSV) in Isa 52:14. This is a further reference to the less-than-human appearance of Jesus as a result of his last terrible trials (Isa 52:14).

Perhaps, in a broader sense, we may find exhortation in this. For those who look for the realization of their hopes and ambitions in this life the outward appearance, the form and the beauty are everything. They desire only that which appeals to the natural eye and the natural mind. But to those who have a deeper understanding of life’s true values, these things are of little consequence. They know that such qualities will fade and perish with time, leaving behind a vacuum of discontent and futility. So they look instead for the enduring qualities of heart and mind, qualities that fit men and women for eternal fellowship with their Creator.

“For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2Co 4:18).

Verse 3

“He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”

“He is despised” — “Bazah” signifies “disesteemed”; it is used in Gen 25:34 and 1Sa 2:30. Because he appeared to be something much less than what he really was, Jesus was looked down upon and scorned:

“Is not this Joseph’s son?” (Luke 4:22). “We know this man whence he is… for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John 7:27,52).

“Rejected” — “Chadel”, destitute, without friends or help.

“A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” — He knew an unsettled, transient existence (Luke 9:58). He was opposed and menaced (Luke 4:29). He suffered the indifference and the maligning of his own kindred (John 7:5; Mark 3:21). He was sensitive to pain, often working himself to exhaustion (Luke 8:46; John 4:6; Mark 4:36). While others slept, he spent whole nights in agonizing prayer. He felt the pain of others as though it were his own (Mat 8:17). He grieved over a mission that failed (Mat 23:37-39). He was betrayed by a close companion (John 13:18). And finally, he suffered indignity, torture, and a cruel death.

“We hid as it were our faces from him” — The margin has, which is plausible, “he hid his face from us”. This suggests several ideas:

1. An allusion to the leper covering his upper lip and crying “Unclean, unclean” (Lev 13:45).
2. The withholding of his “glory” from the eyes of a disbelieving people.
3. Shame and humiliation: “he emptied himself” (Phi 2:8).

If we accept the AV rendering, however, it is possible also to see significance: “We hid our faces from him.” We esteemed him smitten of God; we lost what faith we had as we saw him dying a criminal’s death. We today have the advantage of hindsight. But if we had been there, our reactions would have almost certainly been those of the believers of that day. We too would have looked aghast at a suffering “Saviour”. The “we” of Isaiah 53 spans the ages of time; it includes Martha and John and Peter and Thomas; it includes us all.

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 1 — Rom 10:16: This verse is quoted by Paul to show that very few could be expected to believe the gospel of Christ.
2. Verse 1 — John 12:38: Although Jesus worked great miracles before the nation of Israel, “yet they believed not on him, in order that the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled.”
3. Verse 2 — Luke 20:13: The parable of the vineyard. The lord at last sends his beloved son to the disobedient husbandmen. “It may be they will reverence him when they see him” is an echo of Isaiah’s “when we shall see him”. Sure enough, Isaiah’s prophecy foretells how the beloved son would not be reverenced, but rejected at his coming.
4. Verse 2 — Rev 22:16: The two seemingly paradoxical ideas “root” and “offspring” are taken from Isaiah’s “root” and “plant” here.

The heart of the matter is reached in this section, as the realization comes to the onlookers that the sufferings of this man were for their sakes! Of the twelve assertions that Christ suffered for others, no less than seven are found in this one group of three verses. The middle verse of this small section, which is in turn the middle verse of the whole section, and the middle verse of the whole second half of Isaiah’s prophecy, has four such assertions all by itself!

Verse 4

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.”

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows” — The “surely”, or “verily”, is for emphasis. “Borne” is the word “nasa” (“lifted up”), the same word translated “extolled” in Isa 52:13. The word recalls John 19:17:

“And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull.”

“Griefs” and “sorrows” are repeated from v 3. The spectators realize with shocked amazement that all the varied griefs of this man’s life were endured lovingly, on behalf of others, even themselves!

“Yet we did esteem him stricken” — The word signifies “to touch” or “to smite”. It is translated “plague” over fifty times in Lev 13 and 14, in relation to leprosy. This loathsome disease required special cleansing and purification procedures. The sufferer was forced to dwell outside of the camp, and was pronounced unclean and avoided by all people. This, then, was the Jews’ estimation of their Messiah; an unclean man to be shunned, lest they also become “defiled” by contact with him.

“Afflicted” — A state of deep and lasting humiliation; the same word as in Exo 1:11,12.

This is another impressive irony. The one who was treated as a leper by his “pure” countrymen, was all the while bearing the abuses they themselves deserved because of their sins. And he was approved by God as a righteous and faithful servant! They had stood at the foot of the cross and scorned him:

“He saved others; himself he cannot save” (Mat 27:41,42; Mark 15:31).

And it was true! He could not possibly have spared himself from the tortures of the cross if he hoped to fulfill the Father’s purpose in the salvation of his brethren. How significant in the light of this figure of leprosy in Isa 53 is the healing of lepers by our Lord. His miracles are parables of the healing of sin, of which leprosy is a type.

Verse 5

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

“But he was wounded for our transgressions” — “Chalel” signifies “pierced” (NEB), recalling Psa 22:16:

“They pierced my hands and my feet.”

It was not just Christ’s death that made atonement for us, but also his dying! His blood was shed — by the scourge, the thorns, and the nails — while he was still alive. He was, as our example, a “living sacrifice” (Rom 12:1,2)!

“He was bruised for our iniquities” — Literally, “crushed”. Though not the identical word, it certainly calls attention to Gen 3:15, the first great promise of salvation:

“I will put enmity between you (ie, the serpent) and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (RSV).

The bruising, or crushing, of the Messiah also shows his sacrifice to be the antitype of so many of the provisions of the law of Moses; the lampstand of pure beaten gold (Exo 25:31); the beaten oil of the daily sacrifice (Exo 29:40); the two cherubim of gold beaten out of one piece (Exo 37:7); the grain of the firstfruits beaten out (Lev 2:1,14); pure olive oil beaten for the light (Lev 24:2); etc. The beating or crushing in every case speaks of careful preparation and affliction, as necessary to fit the finished product for service to God. So it was with Christ, and so it must be with us:

“We must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).

“That I may know him… and the fellowship of his sufferings” (Phi 3:10).

“The chastisement of our peace was upon him” — “Upon him was the chastisement that made us whole” (RSV). This “peace” of reconciliation and renewed fellowship with God comes through our cleansing” — healing or being made whole — of the “leprosy” of sin that afflicts us. This we may have only through Christ. Of this Paul speaks;

“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition… that he might reconcile both (ie, Jews and Gentiles) unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Gen 3:15 again!): and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh” (Eph 2:14-18).

“And with his stripes we are healed” — “Scourgings” (NEB). The “healing” reminds us of the experiences of Israel in the wilderness, when they cane to the bitter waters of Mara (Exo 15). The Lord showed Moses a tree and commanded him to cast it into the waters (v 25) He did so, and the waters were healed or made sweet. Thus by this miracle God declared His name to be “Yahweh Ropheka” — “I will heal thee” (v 26)!

This healing was only the pattern of that greater “healing” to come in the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus Christ. During his ministry, every act of healing served to identify him with his Father’s character and purpose:

“They that be whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31,32).

The only logical conclusion of such an undertaking was the cross. And Peter, reflecting in later years upon that dread but wonderful day, could write that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree… by whose stripes ye were healed.” (1Pe 2:24). By his reference to the tree he was linking together the miracle at the waters of Mara, the prophecy of Isaiah, and the cross of Calvary.

Verse 6

“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.”

“All we like sheep have gone astray” — The prophet Zechariah declared:

“Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered” (13:7).

To this Jesus alluded when he told the disciples on the night of his arrest:

“All ye shall be offended because of me this night” (Mat 26:31).

And so it was that they all forsook him and fled (v 56). Peter, recalling those same events, quoted Isa 53:6:

“For ye were as sheep going astray” —

but added the final thought that, after the resurrection;

“(Ye) are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls” (1Pe 2:25).

Let us, as we view the cross, remember that even the apostles, who accompanied Jesus for more than three years, were weak and fearful as sheep in the time of their testing. Let us, therefore, not be unduly cast down by our failures; but let us return to our Shepherd to be healed:

“I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Thy servant; for I do not forget Thy commandments” (Psa 119:176).

“And the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” — As Peter wrote, he “bare our sins” (1Pe 2:24). This is an evident allusion to the ritual of the scapegoat, who bore or carried away the iniquities of Israel to “a land not inhabited” (Lev 16:21,22) — that is, “outside the camp” (Heb 13:13). This was certainly fulfilled in Christ’s bearing of our sin-nature, as Paul expressed it:

“For he made him to be sin for us, who (personally) knew no sin” (2Co 5:21).

Possessing Adam’s nature, the same nature as ourselves, he carried it outside the gate of Jerusalem where he was nailed to the cross and lifted up; thus symbolically was destroyed that which has the power of death — the “devil” (Heb 2:1,14,15), or “sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

But let us not simply lapse into the “technical” aspects of Christ’s sacrifice. It is true that Christ did not bear the guilt of our sins, and that he did not die in our steads. But if we stop at that, do we not still miss the point? Call it what you will, hedge it about with exceptions and careful definitions, when all is said and done, HE DID DIE — and that is the important issue! Let us be careful here; let us examine ourselves. In our zeal for “truth”, are we so caught up in the theory that the fact is almost ignored? Do we suppose that when we have explained, in man’s imperfect language, why Christ died — that our conception of the cross is complete? No; this man died because he loved to the uttermost his brethren. Here is the lesson. And here, also, the example and exhortation for us.

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 4 — Mat 8:16,17: To those who have been accustomed to read Isaiah 53 as related only to the last day or so of our Saviour’s mortal life, this quotation comes as quite a shock:

“When the evening was come, they brought unto him many demoniacs… and he healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.’ “

Surely these verses are telling us that Christ’s sympathy for poor suffering humanity was an intensely personal feeling. We can imagine no stronger words to convey the closeness, the unity, the fellowship of suffering. Here is not theoretical transferal of guilt or sin-effect; there is no ritual, no ceremony about it — it is real! This man was one of us. He stood before the tomb of a friend and shed real tears. Our weaknesses were his, and our sufferings, and our sorrows. Our Lord’s conquest of sin was not lightly achieved. It was by bitter hardship and sore travail, in a character of the tenderest sensibilities, that reception was achieved. And the sane was true when Jesus healed the sick, working those lesser “salvations” by which the greater was typified. At every step along the road that led to the cross his identity with burdened, mortal humanity was absolute.

2. Verse 5 — Heb 12:11: “No chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness.” Certainly this recalls “the chastisement of our peace”. Paul has carried forward the lesson of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant to apply to us all. We must follow on after our master and experience in our lives “the fellowship of his sufferings” (Phi 3:10). because these things will, by God’s grace, make for our “peace”.

3. Verses 5-7 — 1Pe 2:22-25: Peter gives a long series of allusions to this prophecy, most of which have already been considered above.

4. Verses 5-7 — John 1:29: When John the Baptist acclaimed Jesus with the words, “Behold the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world”, he was surely expressing a Biblical idea — but which one? Possibly the Lamb of the Passover, or perhaps the lamb of the daily burnt-offering. But, in light of Isaiah’s great stress upon the fact that the Servant of Yahweh was suffering, lamb-like, for the sins of others, it seems most likely that John had this passage uppermost in mind.