CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS FUTURE
VOLUME I
THE
KING’S GENEALOGY
by
W. E.
Best
Copyright © 1992
W. E. Best
Scripture quotations in this book designated “NASB” are from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, and 1977 by the Lockman Foundation, and are used by permission. Those designated “translation” are by the author and taken from the Greek Text. All others are from the King James Bible.
This book is
distributed by the
W. E. Best Book Missionary Trust
P. O. Box 34904
Houston, Texas 77234-4904 USA
Christ’s Kingdom Is Future—An Overview
VOLUME I
THE
KING’S GENEALOGY
Section I
The Unconditional Aspect
Of God’s Covenants
Of Promise Was Emphasized
From Abraham To David
2 Patriarch’s Names Recorded In The King’s Genealogy
3 Women’s Names Recorded In The King’s Genealogy
Section II
Spiritual Decline Was
Emphasized
From David To Babylonian Captivity
5 Theocracy—God’s Ordained Form Of Government
6 Kings Preceding The Division Of The Kingdom
7 Four Good Kings In Judah Subsequent To The Division Of The Kingdom
8 A Short Revival Under Zerubbabel
This is Volume I of an extensive series on the subject of Christ’s future Kingdom. Subsequent volumes will be released periodically. Volume I covers only the King’s genealogy. Future volumes will comprehensively cover all aspects of Christ’s future Kingdom as revealed in the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS FUTURE—AN OVERVIEW
There is no subject of Scripture about which there are so many conflicting views as the doctrine of eschatology. The word eschatology comes from the Greek adjective eschatos, which means last or final. Among the many views espoused, two major conflicting opinions, which may be called “confusion twice confounded,” are outstanding. Many who embrace the unconditional covenant with reference to soteriology (the science of salvation) reject the unconditional covenant as it relates to eschatology (the science of last things). On the other hand, others embrace the unconditional covenant as it pertains to eschatology, but they reject the unconditional covenant as it relates to soteriology. Therefore, the inconsistency of both those who believe in free grace and those who believe in free will is manifested.
The foundational problem in the study of eschatology lies in the misunderstanding of God’s covenants. A definition of the Greek noun diatheke is important. It means a disposition, arrangement, compact, covenant, will, or testament. The word covenant is used as eternal and temporal; unconditional and conditional; and soteriological and eschatological. In order to properly handle the subject of covenants, one must be able to distinguish between covenant and covenant.
God made legal, ceremonial, and national conditional covenants with Israel in time, but His covenant of grace is eternal. Therefore, the covenant of grace reached up to God’s chief attributes and down to man’s deepest needs. Nothing can alter the disposition of God who gave it because He foresaw changes, overrules all events, and provides for all circumstances. In studying the covenant of grace as it relates to Israel, the lessons typified by the tabernacle are important. For example, the ark is a symbol of God’s throne from which all blessings descend. The mercy seat was placed upon the ark, and it was the same size as the ark, signifying that God’s saving grace reaches no further than the eternal covenant. The eternal covenant has the God of peace as its Author, the great Shepherd of the sheep as its fulfillment, and the sheep for whom Christ died as its recipients (Heb. 13:20,21).
Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the sheep, fulfilled all the obligations of the eternal covenant. He is great in His person, power, work, and exaltation. Furthermore, Christ shall be great when He comes the second time to establish His kingdom (Titus 2:13; II Tim. 4:1). The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty of sin by His death, satisfied the righteous demands of the law, and gave assurance of peace to the elect of God on the basis of satisfied justice. Since Jesus Christ was raised by God, the eternal covenant proves that His redeeming work has been accepted by God the Father and the security of salvation for His people is assured (Matt. 1:21).
The new covenant is connected with restoration promises. It is no longer revealed by shadows but by the Lord Jesus Christ who fulfilled all the obligations and promises of the eternal covenant. Its blessings are for all of God’s elect. Those who spiritualize the kingdom ridicule the idea of a restored Israel. They accuse futurists of pinning their whole hope for the future on a castaway (Israel), thus proving their forced and unscholarly method of Biblical interpretation. Contrary to this accusation, Christians who embrace the Biblical teaching of the Scriptures concerning Christ’s kingdom are fastening their hope on the promise of Christ, not on Israel: “Looking [prosdechomenoi, present middle participle of prosdechomai, which means to look for, to expect, or await] for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). Hope is the expectation of something good or excellent to its highest degree. The personal unmediated presence of Jesus Christ is the object of this hope, and the eternal kingdom is its conclusion. What can excel the personal unmediated presence of Jesus Christ, in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily, in the eternal kingdom?
“Confusion twice confounded” becomes evident when one begins considering the works of men on the subject of eschatology. Many “theologians” believe God’s promise to save the elect is unconditional, but they reverse their position on a promised consummation of soteriology in what they call a conditional kingdom. Thus, they make the covenant of grace unilateral, but they inconsistently make the covenant concerning the Kingdom bilateral. The “I will” and “I shall” of God are stressed in the first, but the “if” and “unfaithfulness” of men are emphasized in the second.
One must understand that the fulfillment of God’s purpose is not limited by conditions outside the Person having purposed:
"For what if some did not
believe? shall their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? God forbid
[absolutely not]..." Romans 3:3,4 (translation).
"God is not a man, that he
should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and
shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19).
The unfaithfulness of neither the Jews nor the believers in the body of Christ can nullify the faithfulness of God concerning the fulfillment of His eternal purpose in regard to the kingdom:
"...I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure" Isaiah 46:9,10 (NASB).
A literal promise spiritualized is exegetical dishonesty. Theologians are guilty of this when they spiritualize the promises of salvation’s completion in the coming kingdom to mean its completion in the assembly Christ is building. How can salvation be completed in the assembly, since the assembly Christ is building is only one of the preparatory stages for the future kingdom? Scripture records not only Israel’s historical past but also her future and the future of the nations of the world subsequent to the assembly which Christ is presently building (Rom. 11; Rev. 7). How can the kingdom exist in the heart or be the church/kingdom since Christ has gone to receive it from the Father (Luke 19:12)?
Jewish and nonjewish believers of the Old Testament constitute one order of God’s elect. Jewish and nonjewish Christians of the New Testament—the assembly which is Christ’s bride—form the second order of God’s elect. The 144,000 Jews and the innumerable multitude of nonjews of Revelation 7 make up the third order of God’s elect. Hence, believing Jews plus engrafted believing Gentiles of all three orders constitute the heirs of the kingdom. There is nothing symbolical about either the unconditional covenant of grace or its consummation in the kingdom.
Affirming God’s free grace in salvation while denying God’s freedom to complete that salvation in the kingdom does not make sense. On the other hand, denying God’s free grace in salvation while affirming God’s freedom to establish His kingdom is heresy. Although the latter is more heretical than the former, by God’s grace, believers do not have to make a choice of either/or. While the latter is distasteful to the spiritual nature of the Christian, the former is antagonistic to his hope.
Christ’s kingdom which He has gone to receive from the Father is not limited to a period of one thousand years (Luke 1:32,33). It is unfortunate that the word “millennium” has been substituted for the Biblical term “the kingdom of the heavens,” “the kingdom of God,” or “My [Christ’s] kingdom” (Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15; John 18:36). The Greek adjective chilioi, which means a thousand, is used six times in Revelation 20:2-7. This cardinal adjective which expresses amount is distinguished from an ordinal adjective that expresses degree or position in a series, such as first, second, or third. The adjective chilioi is used only to express one thousand, but the noun chiliades signifies thousands (Rev. 7:4-8; 11:13; 14:1,3; 21:16). Christ’s kingdom is one in which He shall reign not only a thousand years but also forever. (See Dan. 2:44; 7:13,14; Luke 1:32,33; Rev. 11:15.)
A true concept of the kingdom involves the total message of the Bible. Hence, the subject of Christ’s kingdom casts light upon the covenants, types, shadows, and prophecies of the Old Testament. Moreover, the study of the kingdom in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles in the New Testament makes the light that shone in the Old Testament brighter. There is no explanation for either the past light or the present brighter light without considering the ultimate light as it is displayed in the coming kingdom. Therefore, there is a sense in which the light of truth shines brighter and brighter until it reaches the endless light of the eternal kingdom. There is progression of light in time, but progression gives way to perfection in eternity.
The predicted kingdom is never declared to be a kingdom either in heaven or from the world, but it is a kingdom from heaven and not from this place (the world). Therefore, the kingdom is “the kingdom of the heavens [he basileia ton ouranon, genitive of description]” (Matt. 3:2—translation); “the kingdom of God [he basileia tou theou, genitive of description]” (Mark 1:15); “the kingdom which is mine is not from this world [he basileia he eme ouk estin ek, ablative of source, tou kosmou toutou]” (John 18:36—translation). Therefore, the hope of the Christian is not for something that remains in heaven, but it is the fruit of grace which shall descend from heaven in blessed reality to him on earth. Furthermore, the hope that has its source in heaven will never disappoint its recipient. Thus, the hope of the kingdom has its foundation in the covenants of eternity and time. It is presently confirmed by Jesus Christ and the apostles, and faith looks to Jesus Christ’s second advent for its realization. As the first advent of Christ brings regenerating and saving grace to the elect, the second advent shall perfect the elect in the kingdom.
The light of prophecy concerning the kingdom was not obscure in the Old Testament. The kingdom described by Daniel cannot be the rise and spread of a mere spiritual kingdom in the midst of earthly kingdoms. It will be a kingdom which shall break in pieces and consume all earthly kingdoms. Christ did not do this at His first advent:
"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever" Daniel 2:44 (NASB).
Fifty years subsequent to Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, recorded in Daniel 2, the prophet himself had a vision that harmonized with his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision (Dan. 7:13,14). The kingdom given to the Son of Man is the same kingdom symbolized by the stone that was cut out of the mountain without hands (Dan. 2:45). Christ did not attack the kingdoms of this world when He came to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. On the contrary, the Lord Jesus was apprehended by the Jews and handed over, according to the fixed counsel and prearrangement of God, to be nailed to a cross and killed by the hands of lawless men (Acts 2:23). Thus, the image of Nebuchadnezzar smote the Son of Man, instead of the Son of Man smiting the image.
Daniel described the kingdom as being given to the Son of Man by the Ancient of days:
"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13,14 NASB).
His description is explained by Jesus Christ in Luke 19:11-27. The Ancient of days cannot be both the Father and the Son. According to Luke 19:12, the Son has gone into a distant country “to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” The kingdom given to Christ by the Ancient of days (the eternal Father) must be distinguished from Christ’s sovereignty. The kingdom belongs to Christ as the Son of David (Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:30-33), but sovereignty is the Son of God’s eternal endowment. Christ’s kingdom is never promised to Him as the Son of God, but it is promised to Him as the Son of Man or Son of David. Hence, Christ’s sovereignty is not His promised reign. Christ’s all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18) differs from His visible unmediated presence bringing all things into subjection to Himself on earth as the Son of David (Acts 1:11; Rev. 1:7; Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32; Rom. 1:3,4; Phil. 1:9-11; Rev. 5:10; Matt. 5:5; James 2:5). Furthermore, Christ can never share His sovereignty with His people, but He will share His reign in the kingdom with them (II Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 22:5). Who would be so foolish as to say we are presently reigning with Christ in His spiritual kingdom as we behold Him in His unmediated presence?
The kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament is the same kingdom that was taught by Jesus Christ and the apostles in the New Testament. There is no clearer reference to Christ’s future kingdom than the record of the model prayer Christ taught His disciples to pray (Matt. 6:9-13; Luke 11:1-4):
"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" (Matthew 6:9-13).
Christ never intended that believers should repeat the model prayer as a mere religious formality. The disciples had referred to John the Baptist’s teaching His disciples to pray, but they evidently thought something was lacking in that teaching. The Lord Jesus had already given a warning about how to pray (Matt. 6:1-8); but now in answer to the disciples’ request, He described the correct method of praying. Paul characterized the heart of the prayer:
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15).
Christians must not overlook the proper order in the model prayer: (1) God’s interests and (2) His people’s need. Christ gave the method, and the Holy Spirit gives the utterance of prayer (Rom. 8:26,27). The desire to pray is the fruit of grace, but the manner of prayer is a matter of instruction.
The model prayer, like the decalogue, was given twice (Matt. 6; Luke 11) and taught that responsibility to God precedes personal need. Obedience to God qualifies believers to pray for personal need. The greatest mistake made in prayer is the tendency to look first to one’s need. But God will not be used like a wrecker service for a wrecked or malfunctioned automobile. He has first place or no place at all in the life of an individual. Hence, a person is dependent on the sovereign God to supply his need. God the Father’s attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence must be recognized by the person praying.
“Our Father [pater hemon, literally means ‘Father of us’]” proves relationship, but we must understand that there is more than one form of relationship to God: (1) The Father’s relationship to Jesus Christ, His eternal Son, is one of transcendent glory. This is the reason Christ, after His resurrection, said to Mary:
"...Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17).
Unlike our bodies, the body of Christ, which God had prepared for the Son’s incarnation, was not subject to corruption. However, one phase of His mission must be completed before His earthly body took on “another form [hetera, adjective, locative feminine singular of heteros, which means a different form rather than one of the same form]” (Mark 16:12). This different form is explained:
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39).
The unfulfilled part of His mission is explained in Hebrews 9:11-12. (2) The Father’s relationship to all mankind is one of creation and providence. Paul declared before the Athenians that all human beings—elect and nonelect—are living, being moved, and having their existence in God. Furthermore, Paul quoted some of the poets among them who had said, “we are also his offspring” (Acts 17:28). Religionists can take little comfort from this verse because reprobates are included. (3) The Father’s relationship to the elect is one of grace. This grace was first given to the elect in Christ before the “times of ages” (before the world began) (II Tim. 1:9). It was then given in time when we were made alive in Christ (Eph. 2:4-10). Therefore, Christians are indebted to God the Father for not only the grace of election but also life and likeness.
The person who approaches God in prayer has reverence for the Father’s name, interest in the future kingdom, and concern for the will of God. Hence, the order of Christ’s model prayer for His servants must not go unnoticed. The prayer’s proper reverence for God the Father is evidenced by interest in the kingdom of God’s Son. Assurance of a future kingdom not only comforts persecuted and suffering believers, but it also dispels the present darkness. There is no explanation for the present imperfection in the Christian life without considering its perfection in the coming kingdom. As important as instruction to the assemblies of Christ is to the present, salvation will not be complete until the subjects of the assembly which Christ is continuing to build are perfected in the kingdom. Considered as a whole, the main idea in the model prayer is the saints’ longing for Christ’s kingdom in which God’s will shall be done on earth. While the politicians’ work is worthless and their hope is hopeless, Christians work, hope, and pray with assurance of faith. Furthermore, while society’s aims are aimless and its anticipation is never realized, Christians set their affections on Christ and His kingdom with the assurance of their present foretaste becoming a reality.
Christ’s instruction in the model prayer stressed something that lay ahead: “Let your kingdom come [elthato he basileia sou]...” (Matt. 6:10—translation). This petition emphasized eschatology. Luke’s account of the model prayer in Luke 18:1-8 follows Christ’s discourse on His second advent in Luke 17:22-37. Thus, our Lord encouraged praying without fainting during the long interval between His first and second advents. The time of suffering and persecution of God’s people occurs between Christ’s two advents (I Cor. 4:8; II Thess. 1:3-10; II Tim. 2:10; 3:12). Luke portrayed perseverance in prayer by the parable of a friendless widow who obtained justice from a wicked magistrate by persistent solicitation. Christ applied the parable by showing that if importunity obtained so much from a wicked magistrate, how much more will persistence obtain for the elect from the righteous Judge. The elect alone persevere in prayer.
The heavenly kingdom will have an earthly existence—let your kingdom “come” (elthato, aorist active imperative of erchomai, which means to come, to come from one place into another, or to appear). The kingdom is the Father’s to give, and it is the Son’s to receive. When Christ receives the kingdom from the Father, He will return (Luke 19:12). Will He return to the earth with the kingdom? “Let your will [thelema, will or desire] be done [genetheto, aorist passive imperative of ginomai, which means to be done or to take place] as in heaven [hos en ourano], also on earth [kai epi ges]” (Matt. 6:10—translation). God’s will done on earth as it is in heaven will never take place until the son of Man establishes His kingdom on the earth. In fulfillment of prophecy, in the kingdom “...the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9). (See Ps. 72:19; Hab. 2:14; Zech. 14:9; Rom. 11:26; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1.)
The will of God that shall be done on the earth as it is now being done in heaven brings up some important questions that must be addressed: (1) What is the difference between the “secret things” which belong to the Lord our God and the “things revealed” which belong to us? (2) How can Christ’s reign with His saints for one thousand years be considered to be forever, or how shall it have no end? (3) How can the glorified saints come back into time during the millennium?
1. God’s will is a great sphere with two hemispheres—revealed and unrevealed. Man cannot see the sphere of God’s will, but he is responsible to know the hemisphere of God’s revealed will. There are some things concerning God’s will (purpose) that are secret. His eternal purpose is not a matter of prayer. No believer can question the fact that God’s purpose on earth is being fulfilled, and the time is fast approaching when it will be completed. However, one cannot say that the revealed hemisphere of God’s will is being done on earth as it is in heaven. That will not take place until the kingdom is established.
2. There is much confusion concerning the duration of Christ’s kingdom. The first phase of the kingdom will be in time; therefore, we are told that it will continue for one thousand years. During this time period, Christ the King will be ruling with a rod of iron (Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). Why will a rod of iron be used if God’s will is being done on the earth during the kingdom? Since there will be unsaved people during this time period of the kingdom, the rod will be necessary for a righteous government. Scripture proves that unsaved people will be present during the one thousand years (Rev. 20:7-10). However, Revelation 21 and 22 show that the power of opposition will have been completely subdued by the superior force of the King of kings. All the judgments will then be over, including the one at the close of the millennium. Therefore, the difference between the millennium and the eternal reign of Christ is His reigning with a rod of iron during the millennium and His reigning without a rod subsequent to the millennium.
3. The glorified saints will come back into time to reign with Christ in the same way Christ came back into time. The glorified Savior came back on several occasions between His taking “another form” and His ascension.
“Let your kingdom come” is a petition for one distinctive future kingdom that shall be given by the Father to His Son for its establishment on the earth. The aorist active imperative Greek verb of request does not suggest that we pray for a gradual coming but for a sudden social and moral change due to the unmediated theocratic rule and reign of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the imperative of entreaty, which carries the idea of urgency or request, can be linked with the petition of Revelation 22:20. “The one witnessing these things is saying, Yes indeed I am coming soon. Amen, Come Lord Jesus” (translation). Who can deny that this prayer is for a future kingdom? A theory is hard pressed for argument to change “Let your kingdom come” into a present kingdom in the heart, the spread of the gospel, Christ’s rule in His assembly, the kingdom of grace, success of the gospel, etc.
One who is already in the kingdom cannot pray for its coming. Therefore, the request “let your kingdom come” points to the future, and it is an expectation as much as a petition. It is a desire uttered by the kingdom’s heirs that expresses faith and hope in a distinctive kingdom whose place of establishment will be the earth.
The duration of the kingdom cannot be restricted to a millennium. Even the word “duration,” which means the length of time during which something continues, is out of place when speaking about the endlessness of Christ’s kingdom. The millennium refers to the time of Satan’s being bound, but there is no thought of Christ’s reign being terminated. Such an idea of cessation is contrary to the true conception of Christ. Luke’s statement with reference to Christ’s kingdom was that there shall not be an end (Luke 1:33). This teaches that His kingdom extends into eternity when time shall be no more.
VOLUME I
THE KING’S
GENEALOGY
1
Matthew is the author of the genealogy of the King. Matthew’s Gospel is the transitional book between God’s dealings with the Jews in the Old Testament and His actions toward them at the time of and subsequent to the incarnation. This explains the reason for the order of David and then Abraham rather than the chronological order. Matthew was more concerned about Christology than he was about chronology, but chronology must be complete enough to satisfy the Jews. This pedigree contains Christ’s relationship to Israel as their Messiah and rightful King. Matthew gave the presentation, principles, powers, and parables of the King, but the Jews rejected the message of the King. Therefore, Jesus Christ left them and departed (Matt. 16:4).
The Gospel of Matthew was written before 70 A.D., but Mark’s Gospel was written some time before Matthew’s. Nevertheless, the Gospel of Matthew precedes Mark’s because Matthew was stressing the Jewish concept. The Biblical order of proclaiming God’s message is to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. A detailed study of the pedigree recorded by Matthew will enable a Christian to have a workable knowledge of the entire Old Testament.
Matthew stated the King’s lineage in the first verse:
"The book [biblos—book, scroll, or record] of the genealogy [geneseos, genitive of genesis, which means origin, descent, or lineage] of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1 NASB).
David and Abraham were the two with whom God made covenants which had unconditional and conditional aspects. (See II Sam. 7:9-16; Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:18-21; 17:1-8; 22:17,18.) The name “Jesus” is the human name of the King, but the context of Matthew 1 proves He is more than human: “...and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). There is no other name by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Mark said of Him that God alone can forgive sins (Mark 2:7-10).
The word “son” used in connection with David and Abraham is from the Greek word huios. The flexibility of the use of this word is disclosed in the Scriptures. Jesus Christ was not the son of David and the grandson of Abraham. Being the “son of David, the son of Abraham” signifies that Jesus Christ was identified with David and Abraham. For example, sons of thunder were identified with thunder (Mark 3:17); sons of disobedience are identified with disobedience (Eph. 2:2); sons of God are identified with God (Rom. 8:14). Matthew emphasized the son of David because he was writing to Jews, and Jesus Christ as the son of David would fulfill the unconditional aspect of the covenant that God made with David. Jesus Christ was not the son of David in the immediate sense, but He was the son of David in the ultimate sense. There were many generations between David and Jesus Christ.
The lineage of Jesus Christ contains an important link in the understanding of the future kingdom. Since Matthew portrayed Jesus Christ as King, the King must have a lineage that was known to the Jews. Although David appeared before Abraham in our text, Abraham is the first in the historical chronology. Mark omitted a genealogy because he presented Christ as a Servant, and a servant does not need a record of his genealogy. Luke introduced the Lord Jesus as the perfect Man; therefore, he gave His lineage. John revealed the eternal son of God who was manifested in the flesh, and God can have no lineage.
Since the Son of David shall be the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and promises, the Holy Spirit began the genealogy with the Son of David. If the Savior was to descend from David for merely the purpose of redemption, why place so much emphasis on the royal line? Furthermore, if David’s throne is God’s throne in heaven, no satisfactory reason can be assigned to something that is merely symbolical. The throne of David is not typical, representative, or symbolical; it is actually and really covenanted to the Heir, Jesus Christ, the Son of David.
Three things that were made sure to David were a house, throne, and kingdom (II Sam. 7:13). In these are portrayed posterity, royal authority, and sphere of rule. The unconditionality of the covenant was dependent on the faithfulness of God, not on the faithfulness of Israel. Unfaithfulness by men never prevents the fulfillment of God’s purpose set forth in the unconditional aspect of God’s covenants in time. The unfaithfulness of the first generation of Jews (Num. 32:13) did not keep the nation of Israel from entering Canaan (Josh. 14:1). Furthermore, the Jews’ rejection of Christ during His first advent did not nullify God’s promise that “all Israel shall be saved [sothesetai, future passive indicative of sodzo, which means to save or deliver]” (Rom. 11:26). Hence, the salvation of Israel was future when Paul wrote the Roman letter by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the passive voice signifies that Israel will be passive (have no part in her deliverance) when God delivers her, and the indicative mood is the mood of reality. Israel’s past and future are based on God’s election of Israel, not on Israel’s choice of God. Therefore, Israel’s election does not rest on her merits but on God’s choice and faithfulness (Deut. 7:6-11; Rom. 11).
God made provision for any sin or failure in the unconditional aspect of the covenants made in time:
"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; and your throne shall be established forever" (II Samuel 7:12-16 NASB).
Verse 15 was inserted in the Davidic covenant to cover not only Solomon but also his erring descendants until the true and perfect King came from David’s seed. Paul spoke of the Son who came from the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). David’s life was not all conquest and success. He had his weak moments, and he was not always kinglike in his heart. However, he felt his weakness, and that was his strength (Ps. 32; 51).
David’s understanding of the promised kingdom was stated in his own language (Ps. 132:11; also study Ps. 89:34,35). The prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah had the same understanding of the kingdom.
"The LORD has sworn to David,
A truth from which He will not turn back; Of the fruit of your body I will set
upon your throne" (Psalm 132:11 NASB).
"There will be no end to the increase
of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To
establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and
forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this" (Isaiah 9:7
NASB).
"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, When I shall raise up
for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do
justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, And
Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, The
LORD our righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:5,6 NASB).
All the terms of these Old Testament prophecies were not fulfilled at Christ’s first advent. The Jews not only rejected Jesus Christ, but they also said, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15). Although the kingdom of the seed of David is the subject of Old Testament prophecy, that prophecy was only partially fulfilled at Christ’s first coming. A child was born, and a Son was given. But the government was not upon Christ’s shoulder, and He did not rule in peace at His first coming (Matt. 10:34). Furthermore, when He finished the work the Father sent Him to perform, He did not sit on the throne of David; but he sat on His Father’s throne (Rev. 3:21).
David’s name not only appears first in the genealogical record of Matthew, but it also concludes the first of three divisions of the generations from Abraham to Joseph in Matthew 1:1-17. The three divisions are as follows: (1) The generations from Abraham to David emphasize the promise in the unconditional aspect of the covenants. (2) The generations from David to the captivity in Babylon stress spiritual decline. (3) The generations from the Babylonian captivity to Joseph describe a period of darkness which concluded with four hundred years without a recorded witness. The division of promise concluded with David and began with Abraham because Jesus Christ is the seed of both David (the royal line) and Abraham (the line of promise). (See Rom. 1:3,4; Gal. 3:16.)
Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham as the chosen Head of the elect of God. Thus, Paul showed that the promised salvation by grace is concentrated in one Person, namely, Jesus Christ. The prominent feature of the Abrahamic covenant is grace. It is unconditional because it looks forward to Jesus Christ in God’s fixed purpose. Thus, we see the reason for Matthew’s beginning with David and then going back to Abraham. The Jews during Christ’s first advent never questioned the descent of the Messiah from David, but they lacked the understanding of grace promised in the seed of Abraham. Therefore, Matthew mentioned David first to get their attention, and he then went back to Abraham to show that the election of grace is the foundation of hope for the promised kingdom for both Israel and the assembly Christ is building.
SECTION I
THE UNCONDITIONAL
ASPECT
OF GOD’S COVENANTS
OF PROMISE WAS EMPHASIZED
FROM ABRAHAM
TO DAVID
2
PATRIARCH’S NAMES RECORDED IN THE KING’S GENEALOGY
There are some marvelous examples of God’s grace and the working out of His eternal purpose in the first division of the generations from Abraham to David. The division of promise concluded with David, but it began with Abraham. Now we know why Matthew 1:1 gave prominence to these two patriarchs. Paul was speaking of the Abrahamic covenant when he said:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Galatians 3:16).
Jesus Christ, therefore, is the seed of Abraham and of David. In a far higher sense than Isaac, Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham as the chosen Head of the elect of God. Paul was showing that the promised salvation by grace is concentrated in one Person, namely, Jesus Christ. This comment by Paul has given rise to much discussion, but there is no real basis for such controversy. The prominent feature of the Abrahamic covenant is grace; therefore, it is unconditional. It clearly looks forward to Jesus Christ. In the Davidic covenant, the promised seed was Solomon in the immediate sense and Jesus Christ in the ultimate sense.
The names of some of the persons included in the first division of the genealogy are recorded for several reasons: (1) The proud Jews who gloried in their ancestry should be cut to the very heart by learning that lineage is not a guarantee of salvation. (2) All Christians must be reminded that not one believer is without sin. (3) Christians should not only consider the condescension of Jesus Christ but also understand that the Lord Jesus was born of impure parentage without being contaminated. How wonderful that the eternal Son entered the human race through such a sinful channel without being contaminated with depravity.
Abraham occupies a special place in Scripture due to his effectual call (the fruit of electing grace) and as the founder of a nation that would bless all nations. He was the beginning of the nation of Israel because he fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob who became Israel:
"...Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed" (Genesis 32:28 NASB).
Although Jacob received a new name at Peniel (the name means “turn thou, God”), it was at Bethel (the name means “house of God”) that God revealed His name. Thus, the covenant God made with Abraham was confirmed with both Isaac and Jacob:
"And God said to him, Your name is Jacob; you shall no longer be called Jacob, But Israel shall be your name. Thus He called him Israel. God also said to him, I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a company of nations shall come forth from you, And kings shall come forth from you. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, And I will give the land to your descendants after you" (Genesis 35:10-12 NASB).
The covenant God made with Abraham was rooted in the electing grace of God. Its three main features were the seed, the land, and the nations (Gen. 15:5,7; 18:18). The seed is stated to be his son, Isaac, and his descendants are described by the figure of the stars. As to the land, Abraham asked, “O Lord God, how may I know that I shall possess it?” (Gen. 15:8 NASB). God condescended to a covenant sacrifice, and Abraham’s faith was tested as it would again be tested in the case of Isaac. When Abraham’s faith was tested, he was assured that God would sustain the covenant relationship. The patriarch’s question is answered in the record of the centurion who came beseeching the Lord for his servant who was ill (Matt. 8:5-13). The Lord Jesus marveled at the centurion’s admission of his unworthiness when He told him he would heal his servant. He told the multitude that had followed Him from the mountain (Matt. 8:1) that He had not found such faith in Israel. He said to them:
"...I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 8:11).
The mercy extended to the centurion had direct reference to the purpose of Jesus Christ according to Christ’s foreknowledge of His rejection by the Jews and His introduction of Himself to the Gentiles.
The record of the healing of the centurion, a Gentile, proves that both elect Jews and Gentiles shall inherit the kingdom. How shall we sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom if these patriarchs do not personally inherit it (Matt. 8:11)? Christ predicted His rejection by the Jews and the subsequent call of the Gentiles in Matthew 8:12 and 13. The believing Gentile, who had become a “Jew inwardly” (Rom. 2:29) and had received a place in the kingdom, was contrasted with the unbelieving sons of the kingdom by natural descent who were not the children of God and were cut off from the covenanted kingdom (Rom. 9:8).
As the purpose of God the Father is seen in Abraham, in Isaac is seen a great type of Jesus Christ, who is the heir of His Father’s wealth. Abraham’s servant acknowledged that Isaac was the heir of all that Abraham had:
"Now Sarah my master’s wife bore a son to my master in her old age; and he has given him all that he has" (Genesis 24:36 NASB).
The writer of Hebrews declared that Jesus Christ is the heir of all things:
"GOD, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things...." (Hebrews 1:1,2 NASB).
Isaac, like Christ, came into his possession after passing through the figure of death (Heb. 11:19).
One of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible is Genesis 24. It is as though the books of Ruth and The Song of Solomon were rolled into one great love story of redemption and of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His own. The following are five great features of the chapter:
1. The Father’s purpose is typified in Abraham. As the Father’s purpose centered in His Son, Jesus Christ, Abraham’s purpose centered in his son, Isaac. As the thought of the bride of Christ originated with God the Father, the thought of the bride for Isaac originated with Abraham.
2. The Bridegroom of the bride of Jesus Christ is symbolized in Isaac. Isaac became the heir of all that Abraham possessed, and a bride was to be effectually called for him.
3. Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, is typical of God’s messengers operating under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. He was obedient, zealous to fulfill his commission, and discerning. He revealed the things of Isaac rather than the things of himself. He was a faithful guide in his preparation of the bride he had betrothed to one husband, Isaac. Thus, the servant who is in subjection to proper authority has the right message for the right person at the right time. There is a ministry of the gospel that is indiscriminate from the minister’s point of view, but there is also a ministry that discriminates from the Spirit’s point of view. The first is general, and the second is particular. Abraham desired (purposed) the bride; Isaac wanted her; and the servant by the leadership of the Spirit was committed to Abraham and Isaac.
4. Rebekah typifies the assembly Christ is continuing to build. As Rebekah was presented to Isaac, the assembly, upon her completion, will be presented to the Bridegroom. Isaac’s bride was thought of before she knew anything about it (Gen. 24:4,14). The servant did not go and find someone unsuitable and make her suitable, but he found someone already prepared by grace who received his message. She was suitable to the servant, because in figure she was of Divine origin. The secret to all response to God’s gospel is grace. Although Rebekah’s mind and heart were on Isaac, there was room in her heart for the servant who had betrothed her to Isaac and was preparing her for the wedding. The servant knew her, and she knew the servant. (See I Thess. 5:12,13.)
5. The wedding of Isaac and Rebekah is a figure of the future blessing and hope of Christ’s assembly. As all the trials and hardships of Rebekah’s pilgrimage were forgotten with one glimpse of Isaac, all our wounds and scars will be forgotten when we see Jesus Christ.
The son of Isaac and Rebekah was named Jacob, which means supplanter (Gen. 27:36). He represents the elect of God; therefore, his heart was set on the blessings. He had a great mixture of human infirmity, expedience, and unbelief; but he had true faith that caused his desire to be in the line of the birthright and blessing. God was pledged to Jacob from the beginning. We must not become so occupied with Jacob’s faults that we fail to observe his qualities that manifest Divine election and God’s confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant in him. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel. His sons and the meaning of their names are separated into the following divisions: (1) Representing what Israel was in Egypt were Reuben—you see, Simeon—hearing, and Levi—joined (Gen. 49:3-7). (2) Portraying the wilderness influence that led to departure from the blessing were Zebulun—dwelling, Issachar—reward, and Dan—judging (Gen. 49:13-18). (3) Symbolizing the power and effect of deliverance from indwelling sin subsequent to the passover were Gad—a company, Asher—happy, and Naphtali—wrestling (Gen. 49:19-21). (4) Typifying Jesus Christ in different ways were Judah—praised, Joseph—addition, and Benjamin—son of the right hand (Gen. 49:8,22,27). The order in which we have mentioned the names in this last division is very important. In Judah, the Lordship of Jesus Christ must be acknowledged; in Joseph, the answer to the believer’s living out of Christian character is found in Jesus Christ; and in Benjamin, the hope of the Christian’s present suffering is portrayed in Jesus Christ.
Judah learned the hard way that the infection of sin led to defection from truth, and defection from truth resulted in the infliction of punishment (Gen. 38). First, he took a wife from Canaan without his father’s consent. His wife Shuah gave him three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord took his life. Since levirate marriages were customary, Judah told Onan to take his deceased brother’s wife, Tamar, and raise up offspring for his brother. (See Deut. 25:5-10.) Knowing the offspring would not be his, Onan refused. His crime was not so much self-pollution as his refusal to raise up offspring for his brother. What he did was displeasing to the Lord; so the Lord took his life as He had taken the life of Er. Following the death of Onan, Judah told Tamar to remain a widow until Shelah became a man.
After much time had lapsed, Judah’s wife died. Having lost two sons and his wife, Judah was on his way to Timnath (Timnah) when he saw a woman he thought was a harlot. Tamar had been told that Judah would be passing through on his way to Timnath. Furthermore, she knew that Shelah was a man now, and she had not been given to him to bear offspring for his deceased brother, Er. Therefore, she disguised herself as a whore and waited for Judah. Judah was wrong for lusting, and Tamar was wrong for disguising herself as a harlot. Judah promised Tamar a kid from his flock for her services, but she would not submit until she had received an earnest. She asked for his seal, cord, and staff which he gave to her, and she conceived by him.
After some time, Judah sent the kid he had promised Tamar; but she was not to be found. Three months later word came to Judah that Tamar, his daughter-in-law, had played the harlot and was with child by harlotry. He wanted her brought forth and burned; but when he learned that she was bearing his child, he said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah” (Gen. 38:26 NASB).
Of all the children of Jacob, Judah was singled out to continue the Messianic line. God, in His sovereignty, passed by Reuben, the firstborn, and chose Judah, the fourth child. Judah’s sin with Tamar did not prevent the sovereign God from choosing him to manifest His purpose and grace:
"Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s sons shall bow down to you. Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh [the bringer of peace and prosperity] comes, And to him shall be the obedience of the peoples" (Genesis 49:8-10 NASB).
The twins brought forth by Tamar are both mentioned in Christ’s lineage (Gen. 38:27-30; Matt. 1:3). Pharez (also spelled Phares and Perez) precedes Zarah (also spelled Zerah and Zara), but Zarah was the eldest. In Jewish tradition, the eldest son is mentioned in the books of lineage, but this instance is unique because it carries a prophetical lesson in this first division of the genealogy of Jesus Christ. While Tamar was giving birth, Zarah put out a hand; and the midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand saying, “This one came out first” (Gen. 38:28 NASB). As Zarah drew back his hand, his brother Pharez came out. The midwife said, “What a breach [a breaking in upon or an overthrow] you have made for yourself!” (Gen. 38:29 NASB). Hence, he was named Pharez (the name means “a breach”). In like manner, the Jews first put forth their hand, but they fell through unfaithfulness. However, subsequent to the gathering in of the Gentiles, the Jews shall rise again. This is prophesied by the fact that after Pharez was born, Zarah (the name means “an arising”) came forth, showing that Zarah shall rise again.
The prophetical message of Judah’s twin sons by his daughter-in-law, Tamar, is reinforced in prophecies given by Isaiah in the Old Testament and Simeon in the New Testament:
1. In the year that King Uzziah died, Isaiah had a vision of God, of himself, and of a remnant from among the Jews that would constitute Jehovah’s tithe (Is. 6:9-13). Isaiah was commissioned as follows:
"Go, and tell this people: Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand. Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And repent and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9,10 NASB).
The prophet’s question that followed, “Lord, how long?” (Is. 6:11), was not a cry of despair. It was an expression of hope by one who knew that somewhere down the long passageway of time there would be a kingdom on earth. In Isaiah 6:13, the answer to his question is given:
"Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump" (Isaiah 6:13 NASB).
Therefore, as a living seed does not perish when buried in the ground, Israel shall never perish from among the nations of the world. (See Ps. 89; Rom. 11; Rev. 7.)
2. Simeon, a just and devout man, was in Jerusalem for the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25-35). The Holy Spirit revealed to Simeon that he would not see death until he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Simeon’s name signifies “one who hears”. He lived at the close of the four hundred years when there was no prophet of God. Nevertheless, he heard God by the Holy Spirit, and he went into the temple. His vocation was awaiting (expecting) the consolation of Israel. His character is described as being just toward men and devout toward God. His companionship was the Holy Spirit “upon (epi, the accusative of relationship) him” (Luke 2:25). The Holy Spirit’s being “upon him” is Old Testament terminology. This Old Testament believer went to the temple and greeted Jesus Christ in His incarnation.
Simeon’s inward grace did not allow him to neglect the outward visible signs appointed by God. He was faithful in attendance in the temple. Month after month and year after year when no message was given by the prophets, this just and devout man went to the temple. There is no substitute for God’s people being in God’s appointed place at God’s appointed time. The temple was to Simeon what the sanctuary was to Asaph. Asaph’s questions concerning the deprivations of the people of God and the abundance of the wicked were answered when he went into the sanctuary of God (Ps. 73:1-17). As the temple was a sanctuary scene for Simeon, the assembly of Jesus Christ is the sanctuary for us. As Simeon went into the temple awaiting (expecting) Jesus Christ before His first advent, how much more should Christians, acting in the knowledge of His first advent, wait expectantly for Christ’s glorious second advent.
There is only a short biography of Simeon recorded. Short biographies, like this one, denote true character. Devout men want the Lord and not themselves to be exalted. The context of Luke 2:25-35 proves that Simeon was an old man when he saw Jesus Christ the infant. Regardless of circumstances, a Christian’s last days should be his best. Simeon was not occupied with events but with the Person of Jesus Christ. Although Jesus Christ had not occupied David’s throne, Simeon’s affection for His incarnation made his last days his best. Simeon’s faithfulness was rewarded by his holding the infant Jesus Christ and by God’s using him to give us a prophecy:
"Lord [despota, vocative masculine of despotes, which means Lord or Master] now lettest thou thy servant depart [apolueis, present active indicative of apoluo, which means release or dismiss] in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to [eis, accusative of purpose] lighten [apokaluphin, accusative singular of apokaluphis, which means a revelation] the Gentiles [ethnon, genitive plural of ethnos, which means nations, nonjews, or Gentiles], and the glory of thy people Israel.... Behold, this child [one] is set [keitai, present middle indicative of keimai, which means appointed or destined] for [eis, accusative of purpose] the fall and rising again [anastasin, accusative singular of anastasis, which means a raising or rising up] of many in Israel; and for [eis, accusative of purpose] a sign which shall be spoken against [antilegomenon, present passive participle of antilego, which means to object or oppose]" (Luke 2:29-32).
Simeon’s prediction has two important purpose phrases introduced in each instance by the accusative case of the preposition eis. In the first instance, Jesus Christ would be a light for a revelation of the Gentiles (nonjews) (Luke 2:32). Since Israel is associated with the Shekinah in the Old Testament, no more fitting description can be given of her than Simeon’s reference to the “glory” of Israel (Luke 2:32). Christ spoke of having sheep other than those of the fold of Judaism (John 10:16). (See Acts 9:15; 11:1-18; 13:42-48; 18:6; 28:28.) In the second instance, the Lord Jesus would be the cause of both Israel’s fall and her rising, in that order (Luke 2:34).
3
WOMEN’S NAMES RECORDED IN THE KING’S GENEALOGY
The list of women in the genealogy of our Lord is a wonderful display of not only God’s unmerited favor on sinners, but also a miracle that His human nature was not contaminated by depravity. The women’s names were included not for the purpose of genealogy but for the manifestation of God’s grace.
Tamar (also spelled Thamar) was one of the women whose characters were far below average who were included in Christ’s pedigree, and yet the Lord of glory was not disgraced by them. Tamar’s name was the first listed in the division of the generations that stress God’s promise. After the death of her husbands, Er and Onan, Tamar disguised herself as a harlot and tricked her father-in-law into an incestuous relationship by which she brought forth twins. Since we have already discussed Tamar in connection with Judah and the twins, Pharez and Zarah, we will proceed to the second woman named in Christ’s pedigree.
Rahab (also spelled Rachab), a prostitute saved by God’s grace, became the mother of Boaz, fathered by Salmon. It was Boaz who purchased Ruth and married her. The harlot Rahab became an unexpected ally of God’s chosen people (Josh. 2). Like Cornelius before Peter was sent to give him words whereby he could be saved, Rahab had already been quickened by God’s grace before the spies came from Jerusalem. Joshua’s sending two spies to secretly observe Jericho was not by chance. In God’s providence, the spies must go to Rahab’s home, as the Lord Jesus Christ must go through Samaria because one of His sheep was there (John 4). The former harlot needed the message of the spies to convert her and give her assurance of her salvation. By Rahab’s choice, she became a whore; but by God’s choice, she had been quickened by Divine grace (Ps. 65:4; Eph. 1:4). Although saved by grace, Rahab carried the stigma of harlotry into the New Testament record (James 2:25).
The sending of the spies by Joshua was not from his lack of trust in God, but it proves that faith does not preclude the use of proper means. God’s promises intensify affection, induce caution, and prompt obedience. The effect of God’s promises is to stimulate zeal. Hence, to expect the fulfillment of promises without working is to test God, and to work without expecting their fulfillment is to dishonor Him. The promise that Israel would possess Canaan caused Moses to send spies to view the land (Num. 13), and Joshua followed the example of his predecessor. God promised success to His ancient people, but possession is impossible without dispossession. This is a lesson all Christians must learn, regardless of the age in which we live.
Although the men Joshua sent forth were spies, they were also messengers in relation to Rahab. Saving faith cannot exist with deadly sins. Therefore, the gift of faith which Rahab possessed could no longer permit her to be employed in the trade of prostitution. The context gives evidence that at the time the Jewish spies came to her home, she was employed in the preparation of flax. She “hid them [the spies] with the stalks of flax” (Josh. 2:6). The outstanding characteristic of faith is that it is always inclined to salvation. Rahab had both hearing ears and seeing eyes. The confession of her faith is revealed in her statement to the men:
"I know that the LORD hath given you the land.... For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea...and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt...." (Joshua 2:9-11).
Since faith is always put to severe tests, Rahab’s faith was no exception. The crucial question is, how could she lie about the spies? A long list of those who lied could be added to her name. Why did Abraham, the father of the faithful, lie before Abimelech about his wife (Gen. 20)? Why did Peter lie before the damsel about being one of Christ’s disciples (John 18:15-18)? The question about Rahab’s lying has given rise to several false views. Some think the end justifies the means; therefore, anything goes if you get results. This view is employed by religionists in general today. Others say circumstances alter certain cases; therefore, in the case of Rahab, she was justified in what she did. It was better to lie and save the spies than to tell the truth and have them killed. Such reasoning leaves God out altogether. People who advocate this view would call Rahab’s falsehood a white lie, believing that a white lie is not criminal. The truth is that Rahab, like Abraham and Peter, sinned by lying. However, she was not as well-informed as either Abraham or Peter.
James mentioned Abraham and Rahab together. They were different vessels, but the same treasure of grace was placed in each. Whether the vessel is reputable or disreputable, what God puts in the vessel is important and not the vessel itself. The grace of faith distinguishes a person with God. Grace sanctifies the vessel. (See James 2.) The only bounds known to grace is the one limited by the eternal covenant.
Rahab’s falsehood, although it was for the purpose of saving life, did not vindicate her on that ground. As there were mixed actions in Rahab, in a moral sense, there are mixed actions in all Christians. For instance, one may take a conglomerate mineral and single out one ingredient for discussion, thus drawing attention away from the other ingredients. One aspect of a complex Christian life may be singled out for either admiration or condemnation; but continual actions, not occasional actions, determine the Christian’s character (I John 2:29-3:10). A person’s genius may be emphasized without approving his principles or his skill praised while disapproving of his policy. Hence, Scripture commends Rahab’s faith without approving of her falsehood. The New Testament speaks of Rahab’s faith and works without mentioning her sin:
"By faith the harlot Rahab
perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with
peace" (Hebrews 11:31).
"Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by
works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?"
(James 2:25).
Saving faith always manifests itself by works. Rahab tied the scarlet cord in the window as she had been instructed by the spies. She said, “...According unto your words, so be it” (Josh. 2:21).
Both God’s blessing and His curse are represented by cities. Jerusalem is called a place of blessing (Ps. 48:1-3), and Jericho is called a place of curse (Josh. 6:17). Rahab represents one who has been delivered from a place of curse—“shall be accursed” (Josh. 6:17), and she was destined to a place of dual peace—“peace of heart and peace of society.” Heart peace is a present enjoyment. Society peace will be enjoyed in the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21). Although she was destined for Jerusalem, she was left in Jericho for a time. As Christians, we have been delivered from this evil age; but we are left in it for a time of training, testimony, and work.
Rahab’s life had sunk to a level lower than most others in Jericho, but by grace she had risen higher than all. Although Rahab was a harlot, the Lord told the religious Pharisees that the harlots would go into the kingdom before them (Matt. 21:31). She did not perish with those who did not believe. There is no more saving merit in faith than there is in works. One is not regenerated because he believes, but he believes because he has been quickened. Rahab’s faith caused her to live a lonely life in Jericho, but that is the testimony of all Christians in every age. The gift of faith cuts us off from the world, which is lying in the lap of the Devil (I John 5:19). However, the believer knows that he will be rewarded for his faith and obedience. Rahab was rewarded in time by becoming the mother of Boaz (Matt. 1:5).
Rahab’s faith can be summed up in the following ways: (1) Its nature was that it was God-given, and she did not continue as a harlot. (2) Its confession was that as soon as she heard the message of the spies her heart melted. (3) Its imperfection was that she lied about the spies. The Psalmist said, “If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps. 130:3). (4) Its reward was that her name is eternally inscribed on the imperishable scroll of Scripture not only in the hall of faith (Heb. 11) but also in the genealogy of Christ.
The book that bears Ruth’s name is a literary and spiritual classic. There is nothing in human literature more beautiful than Ruth’s address to her mother-in-law:
"Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus may the LORD do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me" (Ruth 1:16,17 NASB).
Ruth is the only book in the Bible which is wholly devoted to the history of a woman. Therefore, it is not surprising that Ruth’s name is found in the genealogy of our Lord. The chief purpose of the book is to trace the genealogy of David and David’s Lord. Ruth was a Gentile who married a Hebrew, Boaz, the son of Rahab. He was the kinsman redeemer who lifted Ruth from the ash heap of Moab to sit as a princess with himself. There are thirty references in this short book to the redeemer or kinsman. Boaz declared that in redeeming the property of Elimelech and his sons, Chilion and Mahlon, he had also purchased the widow of Mahlon—Ruth—to be his wife (Ruth 4:10). What the nearer kinsman was unable to do, Boaz performed. This describes what Jesus Christ has done for the elect:
"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 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" (Romans 8:2,3).
The book of Ruth (the name means “satisfied”) begins with a story of wanderers from God. Elimelech (the name means “my God is king”) took his wife Naomi (the name means “my pleasantness”) and his two sons Mahlon (the name means “sickness”) and Chilion (the name means “consumption or wasting away”) and went to Moab. Famine had made their home in the area of Bethlehem (the name means “house of bread”) uncomfortable. Elimelech did not patiently endure God’s will for his life; therefore, he departed from God’s land, God’s company of people, and the privilege of God’s revelation. God sent temporary trouble, and Elimelech fled from it. But how mournful are the consequences of wandering from God. The “house of bread” is better in a time of famine than the land of Moab in the time of plenty.
Elimelech was a Hebrew whose inheritance was in the area of Bethlehem. Because of the sins of the Israelites, tolerating idolaters and public monuments of idolatry (Judg. 1-3) and the Israelites themselves falling into idolatry (Judg. 2:11-13,17), God sent a famine to chasten them (Lev. 26:18-20). When God chastens by famine, the duty of His people is to submit with contentment. God’s people are to bear the rod of Him who appointed it. Elimelech, however, went to Moab because abundance was in that land.
Moab was a doomed country. Before Ruth’s birth, Balaam issued a prophetical statement about Moab:
''I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star our of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth" (Numbers 24:17).
Balaam’s prophecy reminds one of Caiaphas’ prophecy to his own condemnation, but he declared the truth of God (John 11:50-52). God often uses extraordinary means of awakening men to a sense of sin. Christ is not viewed in the prophecy of Balaam as coming out of heaven but out of Jacob. The Sceptre will rise out of Israel. This is the same Jacob and Israel seen in the other parables spoken by Balaam, but they are now seen as those out of whom Christ will come to reign. The Star is a symbol which is evidently in the night period. The Star coming out of Jacob and the Sceptre rising out of Israel portray that Christ, as He is presently known to His saints, is coming to introduce the day and to reign. Shall we, like Elimelech, go down to a condemned world to seek help? It may seem strange that Christians should suffer famine when worldlings wallow in plenty (Ps. 17:14; 73:4,12), but one must not lose sight of God’s chastisement of Christians. Elimelech sought livelihood in enemy country but forfeited life itself. He sought bread apart from the house of bread but found a grave (Ruth 1:3).
The sons of Elimelech married strange women. Mahlon married Ruth (Ruth 4:10), and Chilion married Orpah. After ten years in Moab, Mahlon and Chilion died. Naomi was left a widow with two daughters-in-law in enemy country. There was death for those so dear to her and solitude for herself. Her losses made her think more about Canaan, the land of promise. News also came to her about the Lord giving bread to the famine-stricken people. During her ten years absence, Naomi had a rest and reality of spiritual strength that never departed.
Naomi began her journey back to the land of Judah. God’s providential dealings with Naomi brought recovery. A broken and contrite heart is the result of God’s judgment, which is absolutely necessary for all recoveries. Without a sense of departure, there will be no desire for recovery. This lack is the spirit of our age. Mercy is rich in affliction which brings us from worse to better, from Moab to Canaan, and from being afar off because of sin to being near the Lord again because of repentance.
The two daughters-in-law said to Naomi, “Surely we will return with thee unto thy people” (Ruth 1:10). Orpah promised but did not purpose to go. Ruth promised and purposed to go. A person who merely promises may manifest religious zeal, but for want of a regenerated heart his promises come to nothing. Promises of the mouth often proceed from passion and not from principle. The bud of a mere promise will not ripen into precious fruit. It is like the seed that was cast on stony ground. It grew rapidly, but withered when the sun began to shine. This was Orpah’s experience. She kissed Naomi, but turned back to her people and to her gods. (See John 6:66,67.) Conversely, Ruth promised and also purposed by cleaving to Naomi. Ruth persevered because she made the following choices with a purposed heart (Ruth 1:16,17 NASB): (1) She chose Naomi’s path—"where you go I will go." (2) She chose Naomi’s habitation—"where you lodge I will lodge." (3) She chose Naomi’s people—"your people shall be my people." (4) She chose Naomi’s God—"your God shall be my God." (5) She chose Naomi’s death and place of burial—"where you die I will die, and there I will be buried." The strength of Ruth’s purpose was manifested when she said, “...If anything but death parts you and me” (Ruth 1:17 NASB). The bond of faith is so powerful that it makes believers desirous and resolute to live and die together. When Naomi heard Ruth’s confession, she was convinced of her sincerity. She had been tried and proved. Failure to try a person before trusting him is want of wisdom, but refusing to trust him after he has been tried is want of love.
The backslidden Naomi returned to the place from which she had departed. She and Ruth arrived in Bethlehem at the time of barley harvest. Naomi’s good reputation among the Jews was manifested by the people being stirred by the couple’s presence in the city. The question was asked, “Is this Naomi?” (Ruth 1:19). Naomi expressed her regret by saying, “Call me not Naomi [pleasantness], call me Mara [bitter]” (Ruth 1:20). She knew from the promise of Scripture that she was guilty of distrusting the Lord: “Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed” (Ps. 37:3). The humbled Naomi came back empty. Many people are humbled but not humble; they are made low but not lowly. Naomi went out full not because of desire but from fear of want. Although in the strict sense Naomi did not come back empty, she must not assume the credit for Ruth’s accompanying her. God had overruled her disobedience; and because of her repentance, He gave her a traveling companion. Only a restored backslider can be a blessing to others. Upon returning, Naomi found a well-spread table and the precious blood of the paschal Lamb, because it was the time of barley harvest—the passover. This is what the backslider finds when he returns to God.
The book of Ruth belongs to the time of the Judges. It stands in relation to a time of failure and departure. There had been repeated departures by God’s people and God’s gracious interventions to raise up deliverers. However, there is no account in the book of Judges of recovery to the normal enjoyment of the inheritance. The judges were all marked by defects. Not one of them was able to reinstate the people to the enjoyment of the inheritance according to God. This is where the book of Ruth stands out like an oasis in the desert. The inheritance was recovered. One appeared who was great enough to exercise the right of redemption, redeem the inheritance, and secure a seed to enjoy it. Naomi had a kinsman of her husband, a mighty man of wealth. His name was Boaz (the name means “in him is strength”), the son of Rahab, who was able to redeem what Naomi had lost through poverty. This redemption involved his marriage with Ruth. Therefore, Ruth would be wise to abide with the maidens of Boaz and seek no other field in which to glean.
The law opposed Ruth because she was a Moabitess, a Gentile, which prevented her from entering into the congregation of the Lord (Deut. 23:3). The law can only condemn. Boaz must purchase Ruth from a kinsman who had a prior claim but could not redeem her lest he mar his own inheritance. This left Boaz free to do what the kinsman nearer than himself could not do. Therefore, Boaz purchased the inheritance of Elimelech. Thus, he bought Ruth the Moabitess to be his wife to “raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance” (Ruth 4:10).
The nearer kinsman represents the law (legal principle). He could not redeem the inheritance for himself (Ruth 4:6); therefore, he plucked off his shoe in token of giving place to another, namely, Boaz. Since the law cannot redeem, it must give place to Him who is full of grace and truth (John 1:14-17). Christians have become dead to the law by the body of Christ in order that we might be married to another, even to Him who was raised from the dead (Rom. 7:1-6).
Estates fall into litigation in court when there is no heir whose title can be established. Without heirs the inheritance would go into the hands of the state. However, God’s purpose cannot be invalidated because “he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth” (Job 23:13). Hence, a seed who was capable of enjoying the inheritance was secured through Boaz and Ruth. A son was born (Ruth 4:13) who had the right of redemption (Ruth 4:14). They called his name Obed (the name means “serving”). Obed was the father of Jesse (the name means “my subsistence” or “God exists”), and Jesse was the father of David (the name means “beloved”). As to the flesh, Christ is the son of David (Matt. 1:1; Rom. 1:3,4). We are tracing the genealogy of David and David’s Lord. Ruth is connected with the Messianic line.
In Christ’s humanity, He is our nearest kinsman. In His Deity, He is able to supply our needs and defend us from all danger. As the promised Redeemer, the Lord Jesus has a special relation to Israel and a particular personal relation to every regenerated and converted person. He is the kinsman Redeemer of Israel. He is the seed of Abraham in whom all nations are blessed. Furthermore, He is the seed of David and is therefore the ultimate Son who shall sit on David’s throne.
The following are qualifications the Redeemer must meet: (1) He must be willing to perform the work of redemption. (2) He must be absolutely free from sin. (3) He must possess the ability to redeem. (4) He must have the price of redemption. (5) He must be a near kinsman. In Christ’s humanity, the first and fifth qualifications are met. In His Deity, the second and third are fulfilled. In Jesus Christ as God-Man, the fourth is fulfilled.
The list of women’s names concludes with Bathsheba. She is not specifically named in Christ’s genealogy; but her second son, Solomon, is referred to as being fathered by David “from the wife of Uriah [ek tes tou Ouriou]” (Matt. 1:6—translation). Bathsheba was an adulteress who exploited her beauty by bathing in a place where she could be seen. As she made her body available to David’s eyes, she made her heart available to the King’s desire. A woman who dresses immodestly to arouse the passions of a man is as sinful as the man who looks upon her until he commits heart adultery. Bathsheba’s exploitation of her body led to an adulterous relationship between David and herself. David, a man after God’s heart, committed adultery in his heart before he committed the act. The sin of adultery is the Devil’s nest egg which causes many sins to be laid one after another.
Fashion designers today are bold to say their fashions for women are designed to attract the sensuous nature of men. There is no doubt that present day dress codes have contributed to the rising crime of rape and other crimes. Christian women must in good sense dress modestly. The Bible explicitly describes the modest apparel with which women should clothe themselves:
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest [aidous, genitive singular of aidos, which means a sense of shame or modesty] apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety [sophrosunes, genitive of sophrosune, which means soundness of mind, self-control, or sobriety]; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works" (I Timothy 2:9,10).
David’s sinning went from seeing the woman to sending for Bathsheba to climax his act of adultery. David was enticed by his own lust; and when his lust conceived, it brought forth sin (James 1:14,15). Although Bathsheba stood naked before David’s eyes, the real sin could not be attributed to providential circumstances. Bathsheba was only the occasion for David’s passion to be inflamed. Christians are presently subjected to things almost as bad as that which David saw three thousand years ago. Every Christian is thankful for restraining grace. Bathsheba was not free from fault in the adulterous act with David. She prostituted her beauty near the King’s court for the purpose of enticing him. The prostitution of herself was followed by her willingness to respond to the King’s first invitation. When any woman goes as far as Bathsheba did, she is a push-over for man’s first advance. Like David, Bathsheba was guilty of adultery in her heart before she committed the act.
David’s sin went from adultery to an attempted cover-up of his sin. Under the Jewish law, adultery was a capital offense. Therefore, David contrived to conceal his sin by having Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, brought home from the battlefield. The King thought that by Uriah’s lying with his wife, he might believe her conception was of his own fathering. In his conference with Uriah, David inquired about Joab, the people, and state of the war. David’s attempt to appear interested in the importance of a firsthand report from his trusted servant reveals how deceptive a Christian’s heart can be in devising a cover-up. David used his office of kingship to appeal to Uriah. The King instructed Uriah to go home and refresh himself. Surely he would take the opportunity of rejoicing with the wife of his youth (Prov. 5:18). After Uriah’s departure from the King’s house, David sent a present to him. After all of this, David’s scheme failed. While trying to hide his sin, his deceitful heart overlooked the providence of God. Uriah did not go home, because his loyalty to the King led him to sleep at the King’s door with the servants.
David was informed that Uriah did not go home, as he had instructed. The King was dissatisfied with Uriah’s reply to his inquiry as to why he did not go:
"...The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing" (II Samuel 11:11).
Tenderhearted David became a monster. This shows what sin will do to a Christian when passion gets the upper hand. If David would take advantage of Uriah’s absence to commit adultery with his wife, Uriah’s expressed loyalty would not affect the King. Hence, the failure of his first plot only caused the King to invent a new one.
David’s next step in trying to conceal his sin was to make Uriah drunk, hoping that by intoxication Uriah would break his vow of not lying with his wife. But this also failed:
"And when David had called him, he did eat and drink before him; and he made him drunk: and at even he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house" (II Samuel 11:13).
However, David refused to give up; and he pursued a more deadly course. King David framed a letter to have Uriah killed and sent it to Joab by the hand of him who was to die. Thus, he involved another man in an unjust and atrocious act to cover his own crime. The letter instructed Joab that Uriah should be placed where he would be most exposed in battle that he might die by the hands of Israel’s enemy. The record states that Uriah died in battle, which proves that no sin stands alone. The little break in a dam widens until the whole dam gives way, and a little speck of rot slowly spoils fruit of its useful character. Scripture states that the little foxes spoil the vine (Song of Sol. 2:15).
When Bathsheba heard that Uriah was dead, she mourned for her husband; but her mourning was short-lived because the next day she became David’s wife. The hasty marriage of widows and widowers manifests the hypocrisy of such sorrow. Those who consider hasty remarriage may not be guilty of the act of adultery or murder, but they evidence lust in the heart. They seek to cover their lust with the excuse of desiring companionship.
SECTION II
SPIRITUAL
DECLINE
WAS EMPHASIZED FROM DAVID
TO BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY
4
The second division of the generations of Jesus Christ is portrayed as the decline of Israel. God’s ordained form of government was a theocracy. Therefore, Israel’s decline began with her demand for a king and concluded with the Babylonian captivity.During the declining years of Israel’s history, David, Solomon, and Rehoboam reigned over Israel. The kingdom was divided into the northern (Israel) and the southern (Judah) kingdoms under Rehoboam. Subsequent to Rehoboam, there was not one good king in Israel (the northern kingdom). However, among the kings of Judah (the southern kingdom), there were eight good kings, four of whom are mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The last three kings of Judah—Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah—did evil in the sight of the Lord (II Kings 23:37; 24:9,19).
5
THEOCRACY—GOD’S ORDAINED FORM OF GOVERNMENT
In the genealogy of the King, Matthew goes from Jesus Christ, “son of David,” to “David the king” (Matt. 1:1,6). The royalty of David’s family was established according to God’s eternal purpose of electing grace. Therefore, the perpetuity of this royalty is dependent on the faithfulness of God. Although God stressed the responsibility of man in the conditional aspect of the covenants of time, the accomplishment of the covenants is according to God’s grace and power. Failure is written over man in every age of human history. As in the days of the Judges when every man did that which was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25), in the days of the apostles all sought after their own interests and not those of Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:21). In view of man’s failure, it is wonderful that we can look to the faithfulness of God. Thus, we look from the changing world to the unchanging covenant of God. Informed Christians are able by God’s grace to leap from the tempest-tossed vessel of this world and stand on the terra firma of the unconditional aspect of God’s covenants in time, because we have our foundation in the eternal covenant of God’s purpose.
Theocracy must be defined and explained in order to have a correct concept of the future kingdom of Jesus Christ. The term “theocracy” means a form of government in which God is recognized as the supreme Ruler. God did not reign over Israel as Elohim, the Creator, but as Jehovah, the covenant God. Jehovah descended to reign over Israel. Hence, they had a supernatural form of government. Theocracy is neither a republic nor a democracy, because both forms are exercised by men. In theocracy, God is Ruler in the highest sense, because the supreme power of sovereignty resides in Him.
The theocracy during the time of Moses was not a government by priests as opposed to kings, but it was a government by God Himself as opposed to government by priests and kings. Theocracy exalted Israel above all other nations, thus causing the nations of the world to hate the people who claimed God as their supreme Ruler. God chose Israel not only to be a holy people to Himself but also with a view to the kingdom: “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation...” (Ex. 19:6). This is the first reference to the kingdom as it is related to God. God in His sovereignty and election raised up the descendants of Abraham in their associated capacity (Rom. 9:4; Deut. 7:6-11). This associated capacity of the natural descendants of Abraham does not indicate that every individual in it had been elected to salvation in Jesus Christ, because there were some in the associated capacity of national Israel who were not, in reality, of Israel (Rom. 9:6-8). The nation in its corporate capacity may reject the truth, but God had an election of grace within a national election. The unbelief and sinfulness of Israel in her corporate capacity shall cause God to remove His blessing, but His national election is never affected (Is. 6:12,13; Luke 2:34; Rom. 11).
The following ten things should be considered with reference to Israel and the future kingdom:
1. God as Jehovah, the covenant God—not God as Elohim, the Creator—chose the Jewish people with a view to the kingdom.
2. Their election embraced a nationality—the natural descendants of Abraham in their associated capacity.
3. This election was unconditional, according to God’s eternal purpose. Matthew addressed his Gospel primarily to the Jews. He spoke to them of a future kingdom:
"When the son of man shall
come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the
throne of his glory...." (Matthew 25:31).
"Then shall the King say unto them on
his right hand, Come, ye blessed [eulogemenoi, perfect passive participle
of eulogeo, which means having been blessed] of my Father, inherit
[kleronomesate, aorist active imperative of kleronomeo, which
means inherit at once] the kingdom prepared [hetoimasmenen, perfect
passive participle of hetoimadzo, which means having been prepared] for
you from [apo, ablative of time] the foundation of the world" (Matthew
25:34).
These two verses must be considered together. When Jesus Christ comes in His glory to establish the kingdom, He will tell those who have been permanently blessed to enter at once into the kingdom that has been permanently prepared for them from the foundation of the universe. This applies to national Israel, but this same truth is for every child of God. National Israel has not come into possession of the kingdom, and neither have we because we will possess it through Israel.
Two perfect passive Greek participles are found in Matthew 25:34. The perfect tense looks at not only the beginning but also the conclusion of the action. It represents a present condition or state as a result of a past completed action. The sheep had been eternally blessed, and the kingdom had been eternally prepared concurrently. The kingdom is permanently prepared because the sheep are permanently blessed. The sheep could not be permanently blessed apart from “the Lamb slain [esphagmenou, perfect passive participle of sphadzo, which means having been slain] from [apo, ablative of time] the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). Without the Lamb having been permanently slain, the names of the sheep would never have been “written [gegraptai, perfect passive indicative of grapho, which means having been written] in the book of life from [apo, ablative of time] the foundation of the world...” (Rev. 17:8).
4. The unbelief and sinfulness of the nation of Israel may remove the favor of God from them, but this does not affect Israel’s election.
5. The same elect nation, chastened and scourged, scattered and dispersed, shall be recalled and exalted.
6. While the nation comprising the national descendants of Abraham are thus chosen, it does not follow that every individual in it is personally elected to salvation (Rom. 9).
7. God has made provision for the elect Gentiles by grafting them with preceding believers (Rom. 11).
8. Israel under theocracy was a type of a future kingdom.
9. The root stump that remains is a holy seed.
10. The kingdom is given to the natural descendants of Abraham in their corporate capacity.
The book of Judges covers the period between Israel’s conquest of the land of Canaan and the death of Joshua to the judgeship of Samuel and the people’s choice of a visible king. This period was one of theocratic regime in which Jehovah Himself was Israel’s “invisible King.” However, there were many departures from God by Israel during this period which concluded with their desire to have a king like all the nations to judge them (I Sam. 8:5). This took place during the judgeship of Samuel when his sons, Joel and Abiah, walked not in the ways of their father.
The change from theocracy to what Israel would call monarchy, “a king to judge us like all the nations” (I Sam. 8:5), was what people today call “the right of self-determination.” The following verses were Samuel’s words to Israel and Israel’s response:
"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king...." (I Samuel 8:18-22).
Therefore, God gave Israel a king of their choosing in the same manner that He gave them flesh to eat (Num. 11:20; Ps. 106:15).
Israel wanted to be like the people from whom they had been delivered. This sounds like modern-day Christendom. The religious world is saying that a religion is not true without denominations, associations, conventions, conferences, forms, ceremonies, programs for such maladies as AIDS, addicts, the homeless, battered wives and children, and other social programs, professional choirs, musicians, hierarchies, and a peccable savior to sympathize with men when they are seduced by the world’s evils. Therefore, they must conclude that a religion which has only a sovereign God, an impeccable Savior, a regenerating Holy Spirit, a Bible, and a song book cannot be the true religion of our day of intellectualism, socialism, and humanism.
The first thing man does when God sets up something of His own on the earth is to either counterfeit it or substitute something for it. Thus, man has another Jesus, a different spirit, and a different gospel (II Cor. 11:4). However, as God has Jesus Christ who is the Son of the living God, the Holy Spirit, and the gospel which was settled in heaven before the foundation of the world, He also has a remnant in the corrupted nation of Israel.
Israel’s real reason for wanting a change in government was not the degeneracy of the sons of Samuel. Although Samuel was a godly man, his sons were a disappointment. His grief was the same as that experienced by Isaac, Aaron, Eli, David, and other Biblical individuals. Neither Eli’s softness nor Samuel’s firmness gave character to their sons; grace alone gives character. This strikes across the grain of the cliche, “A man’s character is reflected in his children.” When children without grace leave the enclosure of a godly home, they have no principle of restraint.
Three things should be observed concerning Israel’s demand for a king like all the nations: (1) Israel’s reference to Samuel’s sons was the most evident thing the people could mention because his sons walked not in the ways of their father, Samuel. Therefore, they “turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment” (I Sam. 8:3). (2) Their inner motive was that the people might be like other nations. (3) The true reason was that Israel had now rejected the theocracy:
"And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (I Samuel 8:7).
Israel had rejected the Lord’s invisible reign, and the Israelites were making Samuel’s age and his sons an excuse for their rebellion. The people had forgotten their covenant relation with God, and they wanted to have a “say” in their government.
Although God allowed Israel to choose their king, God safeguarded the principle of kingship in a monarchical government under King David (Deut. 17:14-20). The king was directly responsible to God, and the people were no less responsible than their king. Israel’s king, therefore, was to be a monarchical king (an earthly king under God’s rule), not an autocratic king (an earthly king vested with absolute authority). Government was to be a kingly power in the hands of men who acted in obedience to the written law of God. Theocracy instituted by God is the introductory form of government which shall be perfected not in imperfect men, such as Solomon, the immediate son of David, but through the perfect One in the royal line, who is “the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). This perfect King shall reign eternally over His perfected people.
Since the time of Israel’s rejection of God’s theocratic rule, they have declared, “We will not have this man [the Jehovah of I Samuel 8:7] to reign over us” (Luke 19:14). The Jews have been scattered throughout the nations of the world. This scattering will continue until both “the times of the Gentiles” (various forms of Gentile government from Nebuchadnezzar to the establishment of Christ’s kingdom at His second advent) (Lk. 21:24) and the “fulness of the Gentiles” (Christ’s visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name—Acts 15:13-17) may come in (Rom. 11:25). The kingdom of Christ has not been manifested because God’s purpose was that the Son of Man would be honored and glorified in heaven before He shall be honored on earth. Therefore, according to Christ’s own teaching, His kingdom will be assumed from the heavenly rather than the earthly realm.
Theocracy is not the same as sovereignty. It may be premised that Jesus Christ, in His oneness with the Father, is exercising His dominion over all things at the present time. Nevertheless, when Jehovah withdrew His kings in the Old Testament, He did not cease to be Israel’s sovereign. Furthermore, the kingdom belongs to Jesus Christ as the Son of David, and sovereignty is His as the Son of God. The kingdom is never promised to Jesus Christ as the Son of God but as the Son of Man or the Son of David. While sitting at the Father’s right hand, Christ has not laid aside His sovereignty. All power in heaven and in earth was given Him (Matt. 28:18), but something will be added to that when He comes to establish His kingdom as the Son of Man. At that time, He will manifest His power openly and will visibly bring all things into subjection to Himself on the earth.
The theocratic form of government is never represented as a type. When Israel rejected this form of government, all the prophets with one voice proclaimed its restoration. No wonder depraved men, including depraved religionists, hate the theocratic form of government.
Christ rules now through the “powers that be” (Rom. 13:1-7), but the “powers that be” do not constitute a theocracy. The Greek text of Romans 13:1, Pasa psuche exousiais huperechousais hupotassestho, is translated “Let every soul be subordinate to governing authorities.” The participle huperechousais is a present active form of the verb huperecho, which means to have power over, be highly placed, those in high position, or governing authorities. The imperative, hupotassestho, is a present passive form of hupotasso, which means to be in subjection or subordinate. Peter spoke of submitting to “every ordinance [ktisei, dative feminine singular of ktisis, which means human authority] of man [anthropine, dative feminine singular of the adjective anthropinos, which means human or belongs to man]” (I Pet. 2:13). Human authority does not mean that it is any less God’s authority; but it is delegated authority, unless it is opposed to God’s revealed will. The word “human” denotes the means through which the authority operates. An example of this is the delegated authority of elders in local assemblies (I Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7,17,24).
Obedience to human authority has its limits. Parental authority and civil authority are responsible to God, whether the ones occupying those positions are Christians or nonchristians. As an alien in this country is not free from subordination to our laws, one’s spiritual inability as an unregenerate person does not nullify his responsibility to God. Man is responsible for his own depravity by his solidarity with Adam in the fall, and he lacks spiritual ability to do the will of God. Nevertheless, he is accountable to God.
God has two governments during the age of the assembly, the time between the first and second advents of Jesus Christ. There is a spiritual government for Christ’s assembly which He is building; and there is a civil government for the protection of society, which is made up of both elect and nonelect. Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7 to Christians in Rome to inform them concerning their relationship to the civil government where they resided. They were to be subordinate to the authorities of the civil government of Rome. The only exception to such subordination occurs when man’s authority contradicts God’s supreme authority. What did the “certain Jews” do when Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold and commanded all the people to come to the dedication of the image (Dan. 3:1-25)? Although the King issued a mandate for all the subjects of Babylon to worship the image, the faithful Jews knew the mandate was directly opposed to God who said:
"I am the LORD thy God.... Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them...." (Exodus 20:2-5).
The lesson in Paul’s instruction to the Roman Christians teaches Christians of all time that believers are to be subordinate to governing authorities because there is no authority except from God. However, Christians must not be subordinate to false gods established by governing authorities. To embrace a false god established by a governing authority would be to deny the true God who gave the ruler his authority. Hence, our answer to such authority must be the same as that given by the faithful Jews:
"...our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up" (Daniel 3:17,18).
Christians must be willing, like the “certain Jews,” to suffer the consequences of refusing to obey the demands of civil authorities when they set themselves above the supreme authority of God. Three principles are established with respect to the “certain Jews” that Christians must consider: (1) They did not defile themselves by partaking of that which Babylon provided (Dan. 1). The King gave them a tuition-free three-year course in a false religion, but they had a meat to eat that Babylon did not understand. Biblical principles remain unchanged regardless of where God’s people live (Dan. 1:4-8). (2) God gave the young men of Israel knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom, thus enabling them to resist false teaching designed to lead them astray. The King knew that the religious nature of men, apart from grace, is easily carried away by anything that stirs their religious feeling. Therefore, as false religion is doing today, the King used Babylon’s music for persuasion. Who can deny that music plays a role in the spread of false religion? False religion inspired by false music works on false emotions to respond to a false peace that shall be offered by a false prophet. This indicates that things are speedily shaping up for the manifestation of the antichrist (Dan. 3:1-7). (3) The young men faithfully refused to acknowledge any god other than the true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Dan. 3:13-18). Likewise, Christians in every age will be faithful to God and say with Peter and the apostles that we must be obeying God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Doing the will of God denotes character. Unawed by the presence of King Nebuchadnezzar and unseduced by the terrors of the burning fiery furnace, the faithful remnant refused to bow down and worship the image. In like manner, Christians who purpose in their hearts to please God act in the light of eternity.
The miracle recorded in Daniel 3 is a type of the remnant of Jews preserved by God during the great tribulation of Revelation. Some who profess to be theologians are as confused about the great tribulation as the pastor who preached the funeral of one of his assembly members and referred to him as one who came out of great tribulation. Since the Greek does not have an indefinite article comparable to the English, the absence of the article from the Greek is the equivalent of the indefinite article “a” in the English. The presence of the article in the Greek identifies; the absence of the article qualifies (makes less strong or positive). Therefore, the presence of the Greek article in Revelation 7:14, “...These are the ones who come [coming] out of the great tribulation...” (NASB), distinguishes it from the ordinary tribulations experienced in life.
A correct estimate of human government cannot be formed apart from the Biblical teaching of the future kingdom of Jesus Christ. While one political party will praise and magnify democracy as a Divine institution, another political party will condemn democracy and advocate socialism. There are others, however, who condemn all human government; but this must be denounced because any form of government is better than none. There are those who speak about “the rights of the people,” “all people being created equal,” “the sovereignty of the people,” “the supreme power resting in the body of citizens instituted to vote,” etc. The promoters of different political philosophies are trying to influence the world with their ideologies. Therefore, the political battles become so heated that they turn into political wars. All human authorities must realize that authority does not rest in the policeman’s badge, the judge’s robe, or the king’s crown. It goes back of these symbols to the sovereign God who says to all authorities what Jesus Christ told Pilate: “You could be having no authority against me except it was being given to you from above” (John 19:11—translation).
The different forms of human government in society must be distinguished from the one established form of Divine government for Christ’s assemblies. Nothing is stated in Romans 13 or I Peter 2 concerning forms of government. The emphasis is on some established order for the protection of society, which includes both Christians and nonchristians. On the other hand, believers have a Divinely established order of government for Christ’s assemblies which cannot be altered regardless of the different forms of human government under which the assemblies exist. During the absence of Christ’s theocratic kingdom, the Divinely established government of Christ’s assemblies cannot make the state which is composed of regenerate and unregenerate people subordinate to their principles. However, the assemblies with their one established form of Divine government should be subordinate to different and changing human authorities, except when they oppose God’s established will, because Christianity is not controlled by human authority that is opposed to God’s revealed will.
The voice of Christianity must not remain silent before civil and political corruption. As the voices of the prophets were heard in the Old Testament, the voices of the elders must be heard proclaiming the same principles and giving the same warnings in New Testament times. Consider the calling and work of such prophets of the Old Testament as Samuel (I Sam. 3:1-21; 7:3-15; 8:6-18), Shemaiah (II Chron. 12:1-12), Micaiah (II Chron. 18), Elijah (I Kings 16-22), the major and minor prophets, and concluding with John the Baptist. John, like Elijah before him, knew he was asking for trouble when he rebuked the one who sat on the throne: “...It is not lawful for thee to have her [his brother Philip’s wife]” (Matt. 14:4). John the Baptist was not the last messenger to die for the cause of Christ. (See Matt. 24:9; John 16:2; 21:19; Acts 7:59-60; 12:1-2; Rev. 2:13.) The messengers of God must never compromise the principles of eternal truth regardless of the consequences.
The assembly of Christ should never be affiliated with any political party. However, this in no way exclu