Grim language and violence dominate Isaiah 13 and 14. The prophecies it contains mix references to “the day of the Lord” and comments about the conquest of Babylon by the Medes – two tough times. We can see these prophecies as partly about letting suffering people know God is paying attention, and that their situation will change.
The day of the Lord has been described as about judgment for the wicked, and rescue for the oppressed. It is discussed in several Old Testament texts. One way we may easily think of this event is that it comes like a thief in the night (2 Peter 3:10). We link it with Christ’s return at the end of this age.
Babylon’s defeat is a classic example of ‘the mighty fallen,’ which involves Babylon being treated terribly by its conquerors – much like Babylon treated the peoples it conquered. I need to remind myself that Isaiah’s message for Babylon isn’t
“now this, and this, and this will happen to your people”
But
“now this, and this, and this will happen to your people.”
Or, perhaps more clearly:
“now these things you have done to others will happen to your people.”
As part of this process Babylon also loses the power to keep harming others. However, perceiving this doesn’t remove all the discomfort I get when reading these chapters.
It also is helpful to recall that God saying a thing will happen doesn’t mean God approves of the event / how it happens. In 2 Kings 8:7-15, Elisha informed Hazael that he would become king of Aram, and almost immediately Hazael betrayed and murdered the king. (Which raises the question: did Elisha’s message prompt the murder?) Aram went on to behave in ways similar to those carried out by the Babylonians and Medes. Elisha wept over what was coming; he explained his tears by saying “I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel” (v. 12). For God’s prophet to describe a thing doesn’t demonstrate approval.
“Wail, for the day of the Lord is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Therefore all hands will fall limp, And every human heart will melt. . . .
I will also put an end to the audacity of the proud And humiliate the arrogance of the tyrants.
I will make mortal man scarcer than pure gold.”
(Isaiah 13:6-7, 11-12a)
The emphasis with the “day” is on the wicked, tyrants, the proud, etc. But multiple texts also say that hardly anyone survives the “day.” (Perhaps the more people are in the world when it starts, the more survivors there can be from it and still give this impression.)
The presence of such tough issues in the chapter, both related to the “day” and to the fall of Babylon, may connect to the oracles acting as warnings. These words were not simply for the benefit of the suffering; they gave sinful people at risk an opportunity to understand their risk and repent. It would be nice to think that some saw the warnings and did repent. In a similar way Deuteronomy 28 warns the Hebrew people of the dangers in abandoning their commitment to God. And among that set of warnings we can see many of the practices Babylon later engaged in against those it conquered – had Deuteronomy been heeded the conflict with Babylon could have been avoided in the first place.
PRAYER
Lord, help us to be cleansed from all that would hold us back from you, so that we can be ready in whatever circumstances arrive, including for your day. Not knowing when that day will be, please aid us in maintaining ourselves, examining the state of our hearts, being honest with ourselves in what we find, and having compassionate openness with another. Amen
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
Paul tells us that God wants to provide a way out when we are tempted (1 Corinthians 10:13). Do you think that statement is directed only to Christians?
God is compassionate, slow to anger, and loving in many other ways, but will not leave the guilty unpunished (Exodus 34:6-7). Have you ever thought God was punishing you for unrepented sin? If so, do you still think that was the case?
In a situation of ongoing sin, how would we distinguish God punishing from God allowing us to experience the results of the wrong behavior? Or how would we distinguish it from the Spirit trying to prompt us to confess and be freed from what is harming us? (Recall, God always wants the best for us – and sin is always harmful.)
I found it difficult to produce a devotion for Psalm 110. I realized that it is hard, anymore, for me to look at this text without considering its uses in the New Testament, and in theology (accurate and inaccurate), and start working out its links with other Old Testament passages, and so on, and on. That may be nothing like your experience. (O.k., I hope for you that it isn’t like your experience.) But it is mine, at least it is at this point in my life. I find that having studied theology a fair bit is helpful in some situations, and not as much in some others, like when I find it difficult to see a text as a “whole” piece of thought.
I could produce several paragraphs on the psalm’s heavy use in the New Testament (most quoted verse, here is how it was used by Jesus, Peter, Hebrews, etc.). I used up over an hour (o.k., maybe two) tracking down Hebrew word usage because I wasn’t sure if it would lead me anywhere helpful. (I found some interesting things about the “day of wrath” I may use for something sometime, but not today.)
I did try reading a commentary that covered the text. It was Derek Kidner’s, Psalms 73-150, published in the Tyndale Commentaries series in 1975. I went on out to the garage and pulled it from “Box 45” of my books. (Yeah, I’m not kidding. I’m fortunate to now have a list showing which box has which books; a year ago I didn’t.) It’s not bad. Kidner makes an interesting suggestion about verse 7, that it pictures the psalm’s king-priest in similar terms to Gideon (Judges 8:4), after a victory, but having continued in a pursuit of his enemies and just pausing at the stream. I like the image, but I’m not sure it is accurate. And did it inspire me with devotional ideas? No.
Eventually I recognized that in all my notes I didn’t have a devotional. Not even an outline for one. May as well dump it all.
Blank.
PRAYER
Lord, please help me to see this text anew. Please free me from the blinders on my eyes, or mind, or wherever they are, that sometimes prevent me from viewing your scripture with emotion, be it joy or conviction, resolution or guilt, pride or shame. Soften my heart, Lord, if that is what is needed, and let me see within your scripture more than words.
Let me try again.
The people of Israel knew things about the Torah, and the kings in David’s line, that you or I will never even attempt to know. And all too often they were locked-in to perspectives on what their knowledge meant about God’s intentions, and which options were available. Dozens of places in the Hebrew Scriptures align with general expectations: kings and priests were separate. They died and needed to be replaced. And quite often kings and priests didn’t serve God well, but because of God’s mercy the system kept going.
In a few places, like Psalm 110 for instance, God let people know that the general expectations were not enough. Things were not going to stay as they had been. I don’t know how many people put these facts together before Jesus came on the scene, and how many of those then acted on what they understood.
Is anything ever guaranteed to stay as it has been? Not the business you work at, or the school you attend. Not the country you live in. Not me. Not you. God is permanent; some things God has decided on we know won’t change, either. Jesus interceding for us with God is a “forever” thing. Please, figure out the things God intends to last, and put more care into them than some of the other stuff. You may end up more prepared for when things change.
I wish you well.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
Have you been unable to connect with a passage of scripture (due to over-intellectualizing; comprehension – language, background, etc.; inattention)? Were you able to overcome the issue?
Do you see yourself as mainly expecting what you experience to remain as it is, or are you expecting changes? How does that expectation relate to efforts you are making to preserve and/or change things around you?
If you could lock-in one thing about yourself to remain the same throughout your life – an attitude, perhaps a personality trait or a passion – would you? And, if so, what would you choose?
Isaiah eight and nine are sometimes seen as part of a bigger chunk in Isaiah, between his commissioning (six), and a set of oracles against nations (from thirteen on). During this time King Ahaz ruled in Judah (2 Kings 16). In 734 B.C. Judah was attacked by King Pekah of Israel (capital, Samaria) and King Rezin of Aram (capital, Damascus), who were allied against Assyria. Judah had not joined their alliance, and they may have been trying to force Judah to do so, or to remove a potential local threat. They failed to take Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1), and afterward Isaiah met with Ahaz. Isaiah tried to convince Ahaz that if he was calm, and stood firm in faith, all would go well. In that talk Isaiah predicted the birth of Immanuel (meaning “God is with us”), as a sign related to the fall of Samaria and Damascus. We tend to think more about the second fulfillment of that prophecy which has been revealed to us, in the birth of Jesus. Ahaz simply ignored the sign, and became Assyria’s vassal.
Chapter eight predicted the birth of a son for Isaiah whose name meant “Quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil,” referring to Assyria’s soon-coming attack. In this case Isaiah said the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria before the child could say “my father” or “my mother.” The name of the boy’s brother, which meant “A remnant will return,” offered hope that a remnant would return to the land, but it was only hope for those who first accepted the prediction of being exiled. Isaiah knew that in all this God was using his family as illustrations, he even commented: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel” (8:18). Isaiah kept on giving a mix of messages about current issues, and ones for centuries down the line – even prophecies that are not yet fulfilled. The fulfillment of his short-term predictions gave added weight to his words about later issues.
Several verses in the chapters are more familiar due to being quoted in the New Testament, but I want to key in on some of the best known, in Isaiah 9:6-7: “For a Child will be born to us, . . . And His name will be called . . . ” It is hard for us to imagine how the original recipients of this prophecy would have felt about it. They were being offered a ruler who would establish justice and righteousness. Someone who would be known for bringing peace. Perhaps they knew about the promise of David’s throne, and the rule of his family, lasting forever (2 Samuel 7:16) but now they are hearing that a single descendant will be able to fill that role. Through the history of Judah, the Bible’s descriptions of its kings only show about a fourth of them coming out as basically positive. The rest get negative judgments, sometimes abysmally bad. (The northern kingdom had it worse, not one of their kings ended up with a positive description. Though while kings are influential, their influence is not complete. In Elijah’s time, with very poor leadership of Israel, God reported having seven thousand in the nation who hadn’t worshipped Baal; 1 Kings 19:18.) But here we are told of a king who would be as positive as these verses declared and then never need to surrender his role.
These are beautiful, and astonishing, promises to receive in any time. They make a huge contrast with men like Ahaz, who even looted the Temple to help him pay tribute to Assyria, and busted apart its furnishings. How would all of this come about? “The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.” (9:7b) Actually that statement appears twice in Isaiah, here and in 37:32, where it refers to the restoring of a remnant in the land of Judah. What is this zeal? My Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon tells me this word means “ardour, zeal, jealousy,” apparently it can be somewhat negative when used about human behavior, but has a different feel when applied to God’s actions. The definition also says “from colour produced in face by deep emotion”; we are talking about someone getting worked up about things. I like that.
How is it that the world was changed, for Isaiah 9:6-7 to come true? Because God is passionate about the Messiah.
How is it that a remnant always is restored, maintaining continuity and carrying forward the work of God’s servants? God is passionate about the people of the Messiah.
How is it that you can trust in forgiveness, renewal, being given purpose, and placed in the family of God? God is passionate about you.
Prayer
Lord, thank you for the passion you have shown in reaching out to us. You took the first step – and you probably took the second as well, and maybe on through the thirtieth. There were so many things that had to be set in place for us to get to where we are, and you zealously saw to it. You put in the effort, took the time, and made the plans. You even gift us with strength to help us do our parts. You are such a blessing. Help us to approach you with freedom, and confidence. Please help us to feel a proper zeal in those areas of our lives where that is appropriate, to be strengthened with your power, guided by your wisdom, and always encouraged in your love. In the glorious name of Jesus, Amen.
REflection Questions
Do you find that it adds meaning for you to consider Old Testament prophecy alongside the history it relates to? Can you imagine receiving a similar message about current situations, and how it might be treated?
For hundreds of years many people, who knew Hebrew quite well, read texts like Deuteronomy 6:4 alongside Isaiah 9:6-7 and apparently were unfazed. For them not to see a conflict does not prove what meaning any text has, but we should be able to pause before rushing into (or trying to rush someone else into) a position. What possibilities do you normally consider when confused about a scripture? (I would include even looking at multiple versions of the Bible.) Are there methods you think you should consider incorporating? Others you consider less justifiable, or off limits? In what situations would you feel that you must seek someone else to think about the text alongside?
Are there areas in your life where you think you need the gift of God’s zeal? Are there any changes you need to make so that you are more ready to receive it? Who are you prepared to cooperate with, zealously?
Revelation four shows John’s vision-state resuming. He sees an open door in the heavens, and hears the voice like a trumpet which marked the launch of his vision in chapter one. It says “Come up here,” which sounds like a summons. It doesn’t seem like this was meant to convince John to do anything, though, as he doesn’t get an opportunity to. Rather, John simply passes into the next scene, which he then describes. The impact of John seeing the open door, and hearing the words, is that he thinks of the new scene as positioned “above” where he had been, in heaven. Really John hasn’t moved, since all of this is in a vision. (Seeing something like that “open door” might be a somewhat normal part of visions about heavenly matters. They say things like “the heavens were opened,” I think we just don’t normally ask what that looked like; Ezekiel 1:1, Acts 10:11.)
The new scene John enters often is referred to as “God’s throne room,” but we aren’t even told if it has walls. We do know that it centers on a throne. We are sure it is God’s throne, but the vision refers to “the one on the throne.” Later the vision sometimes describes individuals and objects as “in front of God’s throne,” but it never says “God” is in “God’s throne.” (In 21:5-8, “the one on the throne” at last speaks and acknowledges being “God.”)
The scene introduced in chapter four is the dominant one for John’s vision. Much of the activity in Revelation takes place or begins near the throne, and many announcements also come from there. John doesn’t spend the whole vision in one spot, but when he does move it seems that often this central location remains in his view.
Everything else in the scene is positioned relative to the throne. Twenty-four elders and their thrones encircle it. Four creatures covered in eyes, with six wings each, are also around the throne (similar to ones described in Ezekiel 1 and 10, with faces like a man, an eagle, a lion, and a calf/cherub). Before the throne there is something like a sea of glass, clear as crystal (see 1 Kings 7:23ff, especially v. 38; the “sea” expanded on the bronze basin used when there were few priests, in the Tabernacle, Deuteronomy 30:17ff). Also before the throne are seven burning lamps which are “the seven spirits of God.” That is the only detail in the chapter John offers any explanation for, but it isn’t extensive (1:4; 3:1; 5:6).
I haven’t addressed the description for “the one on the throne,” but seeing that figure would certainly grab your attention (well, in a vision – in person that would kill you). God seems to be a glowing, jewel-toned figure, surrounded by a halo with rainbow qualities. Lightning, thunder, and rumbling roll out from the throne. And any question one might have about the significance of that figure is shoved aside by seeing the attention paid from all else present. Elements of the vision seem to mirror other scenes in the Bible, like Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1 and 10 (including the crystal sea, 1:22ff), Daniel 7, and God’s manifestation at Sinai in Exodus 19:16-18. This scene intensely shows God’s majesty and power – John speaks of how everyone present repeatedly sings praise to God, most of them after falling on the ground. And we hear nothing about John’s response to the scene. Over the whole vision we learn that John fell to the ground three times (twice to angels, by mistake; 19:10, 22:8) and wept once. He was not a stoic; I think what he experienced in his vision brought many responses from John which he simply did not record for us.
Of great significance is something absent from this text. Jesus. Spoiler alert, if you have not yet read Revelation, Jesus will be on the scene soon, and his presence changes things. I’m not sure how long John watched before the events of chapter five began, perhaps it was only a few seconds. John wrote about the pattern of praise offered by the living creatures, but probably not based on watching them for days. It might be through the kind of dream-logic knowledge that lets people “just know” certain things. Chapter four does not portray a particular moment in history, it reflects the idea of God, enthroned in majesty, receiving praise. But my mind wants to balk at the idea of separating out the glory of God from God making plans to save the world through Christ.
The scene, cut off where it is, strikes me a bit like a practice problem in a physics text which, in order to simplify issues, tells you to ignore the effects of friction, and also place all the events at sea level, so that the calculations you work out can focus on just one rule. In this case – God is great. But trying to picture heavenly matters without Jesus’ involvement, in the Church age, feels like this scene wants to show God’s majesty unaffected by God’s merciful plans for humanity, not having them come into play until chapter five.
Well, in my personal physics God is the mass of the universe (God is even more than that, still, grant me my metaphor, please). And if God is the mass of my universe, Jesus is the gravity by which I relate to all that is around me. Pulling them apart simply will not do. (Although the further you go from a center of mass, the less you feel the influence of gravity.)
Prayer
Lord, please open my eyes to your glory. I say I respect and honor you, and sometimes my mind is set on you, but at times I veer off and take my own course. If I were to see you, once, how great a difference that might make (if I survived). Help me to commit myself more closely to you without that step. Open my eyes, and let me recognize more fully the true importance of things I have not seen, but someday will. Thank you for your son, who has been such a help to me, and allow me to be of better service to him, and to you. Amen
Reflection Questions
The book of Revelation contains several passages of praise, from angels, creatures, saints – declaring how mighty and worthy they found God and Christ to be. Have you ever tried using these in your private worship?
We should be careful about basing a deep discussion of the relationship of God and Christ on a metaphor (a fully accurate metaphor wouldn’t be a metaphor). But you might use the following texts to consider how close you think John viewed God’s relationship with Christ as being:
“Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:10b)
“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)
“Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 who had His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. . . . These have been purchased from mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 14:1, 4b)
“I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” (Revelation 21:22-23)
“And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Revelation 22:1)
3. John was recording this vision while an exile, and relaying it to people in churches at risk of persecution – some at risk of death. Do you think they had a different view on the practice of offering worship to God than we normally do today?
Devotion by Daniel Smead (MN) – originally posted for SGL on Nov 25, 2022 on Revelation 10
After the sixth trumpet we have a break when John is prepared for what comes next, which mirrors the break after the sixth seal when the 144,000 were sealed. We are reminded that all through this vision John has been writing what he sees, as Jesus told him to do back in 1:19 (10:4). I wonder if he started the vision in front of a blank scroll and finished with a completed work. Or was the writing part of his vision, and he needed to rewrite it all afterward? And I wonder, again, how often what he wrote came to him as part of the vision and how often his words are his efforts to convey what he experienced. For example, did John make the distinction of a “strong angel” himself, based on experience in this vision looking at different angels?
It wasn’t pointed out at the time, but in chapter 5 it was a “strong angel” that proclaimed the question about whether anyone could open the seals of the book in God’s hand. And now a “strong angel” holds the small book John will eat. Perhaps this is setting up transitions in the vision for us, as the book John eats seems to establish his personal involvement in the next part of the vision. (There is one more “strong angel” reference, in 18:21, punctuating and concluding the section on Babylon.)
When our strong angel in chapter 10 cries out like a lion roars, seven peals of thunder respond – these may refer to the peals of thunder that come from God’s throne (4:5). But John is told by a voice from heaven not to write down what the thunders said. Among all the details in Revelation this lack of information can be one of the most interesting things for us. What secret is left out here? I have sometimes suggested it might have been a self-unfulfilling prophecy (my own phrase), something we can’t be allowed to know because knowing it in advance would make it awkward for it to still take place. Like “tomorrow [fill in the blank date] king [fill in the blank name] falls.” In the context it is hard to expect a minor statement – the strong angel is just about to swear an oath by God that the mystery of God is on the verge of being completed.
The same voice from heaven tells John to get the book and eat it, which he does, but first he is warned by the strong angel that it will be sweet in his mouth but bitter in his stomach. This is interesting, because in Ezekiel 2:8–3:3 we get a similar story of eating a scroll that tastes sweet but there is no mention of bitterness. This is more like comments in Jeremiah 15:16-17 about him eating God’s words and finding them a joy and delight, but then being filled with indignation. What John ate was easy to take in but would result in him needing to “prophesy again concerning many people and nations and tongues and kings.” The phrase “prophesy again” is sometimes taken to mean that the next part of the vision will revisit ground, duplicating some parts of the story to get at new aspects of it. And not all of that prophecy would be a joy and a delight. But God will be revealing what He recognizes needs to be shown.
It may be worth recalling that John is in exile when he sees this vision. He will emerge from it to send his letters, his warnings and encouragements and predictions, and continue in exile. We don’t really know how bringing more attention to himself this way during a time of persecution affected his situation. Maybe not positively. But John was God’s worker and working for God isn’t always pleasant for the one working, at the time. But I trust that John absolutely knew the job was worth it, and I hope that he found the experience of his vision encouraging.
Lord, forgive me the foolishness I sometimes experience of wanting to know what you aren’t interested in telling me, and showing too little interest in what you have made plain for me. You have shown me things that are good, help me to act on that awareness. You have shown me things that are not good, help me to act on that awareness as well. If at times I have found your words bitter in my stomach I have little right to claim I have been cheated, for they were sweet on my tongue. And I acknowledge you have given me far more than I ever can give you. Help me to serve you as I ought to, even if I feel I am in the valley of the shadow of death. Your light can never be overcome. I will trust in you. Amen.
Reflection Questions
What are your thoughts and feelings when you read verse 7, “But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.”
What words of God might be sweet in the mouth, but sour in the stomach?
Have you ever read a description of an imagined society, perhaps Plato’s utopia ruled by philosophers, or some other example? Or, going a different route, has a child ever drawn a city and shown it to you, perhaps with a single hospital and a block of farmland off to one side – in fact, often most things set up as blocks right next to each other, rarely with any attention given to parking or railway stations.
Reading the last four chapters of Ezekiel, the third part of his final vision, reminded me of both these things. In today’s text the vision’s focus shifts to zoning: land set aside for the Temple, priestly and Levitical residences, the city of Jerusalem, property for princes, and land for the regular people. And in the last part of the book, land for each tribe. This is laid out down to the cubit, with right angles, like it might be in a child’s drawing. And the social groups are assumed to remain separated and balanced, as in proposals for utopian societies. Perhaps it isn’t meant to be treated as a practical description, but more to say “God has not forgotten anyone, and all will get what they need.”
The description of Israel’s society here emphasizes improvement, with comments like:
“My princes shall no longer oppress My people, but they shall give the rest of the land to the house of Israel according to their tribes” (45:8b). The powerful will not act for their own benefit, and all of the tribes would get what they needed, though in Ezekiel’s time most of the tribes were scattered – so the vision itself is promising the regathering of the tribes.
“You shall have just balances, a just ephah and a just bath. The ephah and the bath shall be the same quantity” (45:10-11a). This comment rebukes theft by cheating in business. Weights on sets of balance scales were used to calculate payments. By using differing sets of weights that looked the same, a merchant could vary which they used when buying or selling to unfairly benefit in every transaction.
Similarly, “ephah” and “bath” were supposed to be the same volume – apparently about 22 liters – just with one measuring dry goods like grain (that might be in sacks or baskets) and the other measuring liquids like oil or alcohol (perhaps kept in stone jars).
The last part of chapter 45, and chapter 46, contains more about God’s expectations for honorable and pure actions by the prince and the priests, which circles back to the Temple’s layout. Washing at the Temple had always required a great deal of water, brought there with difficulty. But here this issue of purifying water is reversed, it is not brought into the Temple but flows from it and will affect the nations.
“By the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water flows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing.” (47:12)
I have previously cited the estimate that the book of Revelation contains over five hundred references to other biblical texts which are not direct quotations. And, to save you looking it up, here is the similar language to Ezekiel 47:12 in Revelation:
“Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” (22:1-2).
The two quotes share many details, but they also differ. In Ezekiel, for example, the water comes from under the wall of the Temple and then deepens to become a river. The Revelation text involves the huge New Jerusalem, while the “18,000” cubits of the city mentioned in Ezekiel 48:35 is a bit under six miles. Such issues are another reason to question whether the vision is to be taken as about the precise details of future events or themes of purity and redemption.
A message of purity and redemption for the exiles flows through the text. They were torn from their people and their land, forced even to hear about the destruction of their city and its Temple at a distance. They mourned in exile. But God intended to restore what was broken – including the people. God’s people had been broken long before, that is why the exile took place. Exile was part of the penalty God kept putting off generation after generation, though ultimately God’s words had to be fulfilled. But now God was again offering the people an opportunity to live as they should, interacting in purity, they and their princes, priests, and merchants. And no matter how many more times those relationships were damaged, God was committed to them being set right. God’s name was to be exalted, and the people who lived where God’s name dwelled needed to be purified, in keeping with that city being known as “ ‘The Lord is there.’ ” (Ezekiel 48:35b).
Reflection Questions
What application do you see of the principles God applied to the conduct and attitudes of the exiles, in terms of your own life? How demanding do you perceive God as being, compared with how forgiving God is? What impact does the presence of Jesus in the situation have?
Do you think anyone might be looking at you expecting that “the Lord is there”? (Perhaps this would be through an interpretation of Christians being the Temple, having the Holy Spirit in them, etc.) In what senses might that be a reasonable way to understand the text, and in what ways might it be unreasonable?
Ought believers to take more encouragement or discouragement from the thought of the Holy Spirit being in their lives?
Today we continue Ezekiel’s vision, begun in chapter 40. For three chapters suspense built as he observed a shining figure (presumably an angel) give the dimensions of a new Temple, room by room, wall by wall. We might say that measuring the building simulated its construction. Or perhaps these measurements symbolize preparation God’s people needed to accept and undergo so they could properly serve God.
Ezekiel previously relayed to the Babylonian exiles a vision in which God abandoned Solomon’s Temple and Jerusalem. He had seen the glory of God exit the Temple, going East (10:18-19). In today’s text Ezekiel is taken to the eastern gate and sees God’s glory arrive there: “like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city,” and falls to his face before it (43:3). Getting this vision confirmed God’s intentions for the covenant, that the people would be restored to the land and again have a Temple.
In that earlier vision we were told that “the temple was filled with the cloud and the [inner] court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the Lord” before it exited (10:4). Similarly at its return “the glory of the Lord filled the house” (43:5). This ‘filling’ of the Temple mirrors events at the dedication of the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple, when in each case God’s glory filled the building and prevented people from ministering (Exodus 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:11). (Though in his visions Ezekiel saw each event from on scene, I would guess that is due to them being visions and not reality.)
I wanted to address a point from verse 7 next which called for background from Tabernacle and Temple history. The next several paragraphs (o.k., 19 paragraphs) give background, after which the devotion proper resumes. (Honestly, I didn’t want to spend the next few hours paring this to a more “normal” length – and then end up saving bits from what I trimmed to maybe use later. I’m sorry about the length, though.)
Background about the Temple and Tabernacle
The basic points involved with the Jerusalem Temple are shown in the Pentateuch. Moses told the people about “the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling” (Deuteronomy 12:5). The “place” is the location of the Temple, as Moses said there, and with similar language several more times (see v. 11, 18; 14:23-25; 15:20; 16:2, 7, 11, 15-16; 17:8; 26:2; 31:11). The Hebrews didn’t set up the Temple very soon, they couldn’t because they weren’t even informed of the location God chose for it until hundreds of years later. Instead at Mount Sinai the people constructed the Tabernacle, a “sanctuary” built for God to “dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8). God gave instructions to Moses regarding that sanctuary, but first he prepared the Ten Commandments, and then the Ark of the Covenant which would hold them. One of the central issues about the Tabernacle, and it would be central for the Temple as well, was that it provided somewhere to place the Ark of the Covenant, along with the other “sacred articles belonging to God” (1 Chronicles 22:19). Those items, created at Mount Sinai, initially went into the Tabernacle’s walls of cloth. Later they went into the Temple’s walls of stone, (walls which were covered by wood, that was covered by gold, decorated with gems and art – it really was quite a fancy place).
The twelve tribes were in the wilderness of Sinai for 40 years, and during that time when they stayed in one spot the Tabernacle was set up in the center of the camp – which is to say the tribes put their tents around the Tabernacle. We are even told the pattern in which they arranged the camp, the tribes that were to the Tabernacle’s north, east, etc. When the tribes moved priests carried the Ark by hand, using poles put through metal rings attached to it. The various parts of the Tabernacle were transported by the Levites. Once the people arrived in the promised land the Tabernacle continued to go with the main camp of the nation while the first few years of fighting took place, and then it was set up in one place or another for long periods (for example at Shiloh, where High Priest Eli raised Samuel). God eventually revealed to King David where the Temple would be (1 Chronicles 22:1), but God did not allow David to build the Temple (v. 8). Solomon, who was not associated with violence, would direct the construction of a place for God’s name (1 Kings 5:5).
Just as I see the Temple as existing to house the Ark of the Covenant, I recognize the central portion of the Temple as the Holy of Holies where the Ark of the Covenant was kept. The other areas of the Temple are defined at least in part by their relationship to the Holy of Holies. Outside the Holy of Holies was the Holy Place, beyond that was the Inner Court, then the Outer Court.
I find it clear that God’s connection with the Tabernacle and the Temple keyed on the Ark of the Covenant more than either building. The Ark which sat in the Holy of Holies is referred to a few times as the “footstool of God” (1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalm 99:5; 132:7). Psalm 99:1 includes the comment that God “is enthroned above the cherubim,” referring to the two statues on the Ark’s lid. That imagery is reflected in the lid’s name, “mercy seat” (Exodus 25:17-22; Leviticus 16:2, 13-15; Numbers 7:89; 1 Chronicles 28:11; Hebrews 9:5). In Exodus 25:22 God promised “I will meet with you; and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony.”
In Exodus 40 Moses learned the final steps for setting up the Tabernacle. After he put everything in place “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (v. 34). It was an impressive moment for the people. Similar events took place when the Temple was ready in Solomon’s time. They brought the Tabernacle to the Temple, and transferred the Ark of the Covenant into the Holy of Holies of the Temple. While people stood outside praising “then the house, the house of the Lord, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God.” (2 Chronicles 5:13b-14). (In my mind taking the Ark of the Covenant from the Tabernacle for the last time was rather like removing the power source from the Tabernacle; it couldn’t operate anymore. We aren’t told what happened to the Tabernacle after that, but my guess is that it was dismantled and put in a Temple storage area. Could you imagine it being thrown out, even though it was obsolete?)
In scripture the Ark being the “footstool” of God pairs with “heaven” / “the heavens” containing the “throne” of God. “The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven” (Psalm 11:4). “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens” (103:19). Isaiah 66:1 is probably the most important Old Testament verse about this subject for us, because of its effect on the New Testament. The Isaiah text has a slight difference of focus from the Psalm texts, saying heaven ‘is’ God’s throne, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Heaven is my throne”. (The three texts do effectively agree about the location of God’s throne.)
The shift in Isaiah 66:1 from a “throne” in “heaven” to heaven itself may serve to set up the text’s similar change with the concept of God’s footstool, which is expanded from the Ark to “the earth.” The impact of that change feels different than with the “heaven” reference, it comes across as representing God as too great, too expansive, to be linked with one spot.
“Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest?”
Still, the rest of Isaiah 66 continues to grant significance as physical locations to both Jerusalem and the Temple. Jerusalem is mentioned several times and verse 20 says:
“Then they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as a grain offering to the Lord, on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem,” says the Lord, “just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord.”
I think verse one either tries to daunt human pride, or it warns against humans being complacent. Those issues are related. It seems to suggest two problems that can occur for those who try to build God a Temple: 1) if anyone implies that having a Temple puts limits on God, and 2) forgetting that the materials used for the building project are only ever things God already brought into existence.
The language of Isaiah 66:1 carried into the New Testament, and its use there made that way of speaking about “throne” and “footstool” more familiar to us than the language used by the Psalm texts. But probably far fewer people remember what Isaiah 66:1 says than this line from Jesus: “make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.” (Matthew 5:34-35). (If we are considering the impact of Jesus’ words on beliefs about the Temple, another text many people pay attention to is John 4:20-24. Some draw the conclusion from that statement that there is no future for any physical Temple. But I won’t take more space on that sidetrack right now.)
Stephen directly quoted Isaiah 66:1-2, near the end of his speech in Acts 7, after false witnesses claimed that: “This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us.” (Acts 6:13-14; see 7:47-50 for Stephen’s quote). Again, these were false witnesses, and Stephen would not have been disrespectful of the Temple or the Law. It is possible that some of Stephen’s opponents, while being uninterested in learning from him, still heard and skewed things Stephen said.
As a Christian Stephen was no longer called on to follow the Mosaic Law, though that Law still existed. And Stephen seems to have recognized the freedom he had in terms of that Law sooner than most in the Church. As Paul would later point out, the Law continued to apply to those who meant for it to be their way of relating to God; that was why Paul warned the Gentiles in Galatia that a man who chose to be circumcised “is under obligation to keep the whole Law”; Galatians 5:3. (Many people today are circumcised, but what Paul wrote here only applies when that fact is given a religious intent regarding the Mosaic Law.)
And Jesus, about whom Stephen taught, was not going to destroy the Temple, but Jesus did predict its destruction (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Also, at least once Jesus spoke metaphorically of his own death as the destruction of a “temple,” a statement which people had misunderstood even when he made it (John 2:18-22). It is possible that Stephen referred to some of Jesus’ statements about these matters, and that this affected the accusations against him.
As I pointed to above, Isaiah 66 may relate to two issues 1) not being able to put limits on God, and 2) that people could only “create” a Temple in a limited sense because really God made all the materials they used. Herod the Great certainly seems to have been prideful about renovating the Temple. It seems like the ongoing renovations also pleased the priests of Stephen’s time, which may tie to his use of Isaiah 66 (Matthew 23:16). All we humans really do in ‘creating’ objects is rework the shape and function of material provided by God. Jesus said that “not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself” like a lily of the field (Matthew 6:29). What can be said of Solomon’s wardrobe can probably also be declared of his construction projects. When is a wooden board more impressive than the living tree it came from? Can a wall of stone outclass a mountain (or a canyon)? The book of Hebrews makes explicit the fact that the Tabernacle was intended to reflect heaven’s throne room (Hebrews 8:5 – note that both are “tents”; Isaiah 40:22). By implication the Temple achieved that same purpose. But even when Herod coated the outside of the Temple with gold to make it reflect the sun that didn’t let it outshine the sun. God’s originals are always superior to man’s replicas.
The reference in Isaiah 66:1 to the earth as God’s footstool points to God being much larger than one location can hold. But there is another way that human pride can try to put limits on God with the Temple – a limit on God’s actions. When I read Stephen’s sermon I am reminded of Jeremiah 7:4, when God had him stand in the gates of Solomon’s Temple and warn the people “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.’ ” The point of that statement is that the injustice being practiced in Jerusalem at that time was sufficient for God to choose to let that Temple, though it was God’s Temple, be destroyed. Just because it was offered to God didn’t mean it would be preserved. The fact that it existed in Jerusalem did not mean the people of Jerusalem would be safe from harm. Yet a complacent population could choose not to be revived and reformed, because they had the Temple in their midst.
God did not need a building to dwell in – the Temple existed for humans. God was willing to let the building go if that action helped humans recognize truth (remember, the punishments described in Deuteronomy were ultimately corrective, intended to reform and allow for restoration). The Temple gave a place to worship, with rituals God laid out. It was intended to help people understand and relate with God. It housed the Ark of the Covenant, from which God condescended to communicate. No building can be grand enough to gain significance for God. Yet God can choose to put divine glory into a human offering, granting it significance. God did so with the Temple in Jerusalem. In Isaiah 66:1 God asked about the building someone would offer, and that question comes as a challenge to human pride. As God points out in verse 2 “Has not my hand made all these things?” (NIV). But an assertion of God’s power and authority is not a denial that God in fact called for a building to be constructed in Jerusalem, which God accepted for divine use. Nor was there only one such building. When verse 20 says people will go: “to my holy mountain Jerusalem, . . . to the house of the Lord” the Temple it refers to is still in our future.
Devotion resumes
In Ezekiel 43:7 God says: “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever.” This verse offers a shift from how the Temple is normally discussed in the Old Testament. God is not presented as dwelling in the heavens, feet propped on the Ark of the Covenant. Rather throne and soles are together on earth.
It can be difficult to conceptualize God occupying a single location while having a presence everywhere. Even scripture can seem ambiguous on this topic, for example Psalm 139:7-10, which seems to include both concepts, implying that one or the other is metaphorical. In the past when discussing the “throne” and “footstool” texts I have suggested they involve where God’s focus is. While God is aware of all things, God gives special attention to the promised land.
But if language about the Tabernacle and the Temple normally meant to convey that God’s attention is focused on Jerusalem, while God still dwelt apart in heaven, it seems that in the time of this new Temple the opportunity had come to combine the two settings. God (in whatever sense) dwells “among the sons of Israel forever,” with both God’s throne and the “soles” of God’s feet situated at the new Temple (Ezekiel 43:7). “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them” (Revelation 21:3). Take joy in this!
The change seems to involve more than the location of God’s throne. We are not told that this new Temple’s Holy of Holies has any furniture, such as an Ark of the Covenant for God’s feet to rest on. We are told: “This is the law of the house: its entire area on the top of the mountain all around shall be most holy.” (v. 12). Does this expanded holiness suggest that in the new Temple there is no need for divided courts, and places of greater and lesser sanctity? It implies that only those who may enter God’s presence are allowed near, for the whole area is where God stands.
(This could be overstated. In 44:13-14 God speaks of priests who had not behaved as they should, but who would be allowed to serve. It says: “they shall not come near to Me to serve as a priest to Me, nor come near to any of My holy things, to the things that are most holy; but they will bear their shame and their abominations which they have committed. Yet I will appoint them to keep charge of the house, of all its service and of all that shall be done in it.” So, we again see ambiguity in the text. What is “most holy,” and what is not?)
Ezekiel was told: “As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan.” (v. 10). God expected that contemplating these exalted plans for worship would affect Ezekiel’s hearers. God’s prophet had already received the measurements of the building, and now begins to get those for the altar, followed by expectations for the priests.
Recall that for most of its history the Levitical priesthood did not function as it was meant to. Teaching had not gone out as it should, being a priest had not always seemed honorable, nor possessing God as inheritance been greatly valued. But God is saying this will be fixed, it will work. When God dwells with the people, the priests will do as they were meant to. And the name of the Lord will be glorified.
Reflection Questions
How do you think it felt for Ezekiel, a priest so long separated from his worship roles, to see a vision of this pristine Temple, untouched by false worship, and then filled with God’s glory? What do you think Ezekiel made of God’s plans for the future of the Temple and the priesthood?
What is something that helps you strive for the Lord (perhaps a Bible account, event, image, or the comfort of a friend, which you are able to hold to as an example of what you particularly aspire to or hope for)?
What difficulties do you think Ezekiel may have faced in trying to relay his experience of this vision to his fellow exiles? How does that compare with your experiences of trying to express yourself to others?
The Israelites have been in exile for twenty-five years and it has been about fourteen years since the fall of Jerusalem. The prophet Ezekiel is in Babylon when he experiences visions of God. He is taken to a very high mountain in Israel and from the south side he sees buildings that look like a city. He is visited by a man whose appearance was like bronze, an angel. He is holding a measuring tool. He told Ezekiel to closely pay attention to everything he would show him and he was to tell the people of Israel everything he saw.
He was shown a temple complex. It was given with detailed and specific measurements and dimensions including outside walls, gates, alcoves, thresholds, porches, outer courts, rooms, etc. Some say this vision symbolizes an ideal temple where God’s presence resides and God is glorified. Others believe that it is a literal future temple that will exist in the Millennium. There is much discussion on this vision. For instance, if it is a literal temple in the 1,000 year reign of Christ, why are there offerings there? Are these only memorial offerings remembering the ultimate sacrifice that Jesus provided? Though we may not understand everything about the vision, we know that it showed the people of Israel that there would be restoration and reconciliation with the LORD. This vision gave the people hope. They viewed the temple as a place to worship and praise the LORD. They had the same desire that we do. We want to be in the presence of God. We want to experience Him. After all, He is amazing and we love Him. He desires to be with us as well. How blessed we are to know that the LORD is with us. As the apostle Paul states, “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? And God’s temple is sacred, together you are that temple.” (1 Cor. 3:16&17b) How blessed we are to be so connected to the LORD.
(As editor, I had been concerned that we had a few weeks with no one signed up to write devotions – so I sent out several emails and God answered with not just one writer for today – but two! So, with no apologies, but many thanks to God and to both Rebecca and Daniel, here is your second for the day…)
Devotion by Daniel Smead (Minnesota)
Today’s text is the start of another of Ezekiel’s visions, in which he again visits his homeland of Israel. It takes place on a mountain by a city, which is presumably a way of referring to Jerusalem, and Ezekiel observes a new Temple. His guide in that building is a shining figure, who sounds something like the figures that moved God’s throne-chariot back in chapter one. This figure measures the Temple and declares the dimensions for Ezekiel to record, having calculated them using a stick a bit over ten feet long.
Interestingly, this vision is one of only two places where Ezekiel states the exact date an event took place, the tenth of Nisan, near the start of the Hebrew year that went from 573-572 B.C. The vision is twenty-five years after Ezekiel was taken from Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple, and about thirteen years after the Temple’s destruction.
In its essence this vision allowed the exiles to look forward to a time when God’s people, again in the promised land, would have a renewed opportunity to worship God at a temple. The passage did not take shortcuts to describe this but went into minute detail. Rather than simply refer to the existence of a temple, we are told about its size and decorations as though the importance of fulfilling every detail is being emphasized. Using some effort, readers could put themselves in the scene alongside Ezekiel.
The building described in this text is quite large, and it is not a prophetic description of the Temple built in the time of Zerubbabel, after the Babylonian exile. Nor, apparently, did the returnees of that generation attempt to follow this design even when doing so would simplify their work. For example, 40:28-37 describes having three gates to the inner courts, and a Jewish Midrash says the second Temple had seven gates. In fact, the small number of gates, and the emphasis on large square rooms, raises the issue of the practicality of the design, and whether this was ever intended as a literal image of a building or just as a symbolic representation – the architectural equivalent of a parable, perhaps.
Ezekiel, as a priest who had ministered at Solomon’s Temple, would have a particular interest in the description this passage provides, whether it was symbolic or a future reality. But Ezekiel was not the High Priest, and even in his vision it seems that he does not enter the Holy of Holies, though he reports its dimensions (41:4). We hear nothing about the contents of that area.
I have written before about John’s measuring of the Temple in the book of Revelation, and how simple it can be for us when reading the figures in that passage to miss the time it would have taken to measure those distances. The same issue applies here. The long period when Ezekiel watched the shining figure go about this task, announcing number after number, can only have felt surreal. Obviously, this scene was leading somewhere, though learning what awaits tomorrow’s text. In the meantime, Ezekiel moved through a nearly empty building, large enough to hold thousands of people, simply recording its dimensions.
How often do you find yourself caught in a moment, feeling incomplete, unsure what comes next? At that time the exiles in Babylon were probably wondering what their next steps would be, and this vision was part of how God laid out expectations for them. Ezekiel, in his vision, must have found it obvious that what he saw was building toward a larger point, although he could have been recording measurements for hours. It may not always seem as obvious to us when God is at work in our lives, or how. But it is to be hoped that we can maintain trust that God is working. I don’t know how often we learn quickly or plainly what our next steps need to be. Sometimes Ezekiel waited years between his visions, visions that we can simply turn pages to link together. And the fulfillment of all that he saw in his visions waited far longer than a few years.
Regardless of all that Ezekiel went through, and how long it took, if the Bible revealed that somewhere along the way he decided not to pay attention to what God was doing with him, that it was not all worth it, we would consider him foolish. From our perspective in history such a choice would appear absurd. But sometimes we, and indeed sometimes I, need to be reminded of this same principle for ourselves. My trust, and my attentiveness for what interests God, need firming up. I can’t expect to maintain the same focus always and in every situation; no one can. Humans don’t have that kind of attention span and focus. I, and maybe you, need to be reoriented when necessary. At times we also need to realize that God still cares about us, continuing to be open and accepting despite our failings. The people God was telling about a new temple had their old one destroyed just 13 years earlier. God is open to offering forgiveness and acceptance, but more than being open to that, God strongly desires to provide it to us, in love.
Reflection Questions
What thoughts and feelings might Ezekiel’s original audience have had before Ezekiel’s temple vision – as they have been stuck in a foreign land far from God with no clear way to worship Him and even no temple to try to return to? Have you ever felt similarly?
What thoughts and feelings might Ezekiel have had as he was getting a tour of this temple? As he was sharing his vision? How might the people have responded?
In what ways might God be asking you to pay attention to what He has done, is doing and will do? Is there anything in your past that you didn’t understand at the time but you can see now how God was using it in preparation for your future?
When do you find yourself needing hope? What gives you hope?
In Revelation 21 we have come to the climax of events. In the Garden of Eden God set out to undo the separation between Himself and us, and that goal is at last complete. Humans may have been short sighted during history and at times tied themselves in knots over other issues, but God wanted to return to our sides. With “the first things” passed away there will be no more pain. Evil is removed from the scene and God is changing the universe, making everything new. He intends to freely give the water of life to those who overcome (John 4:14).
God lists some of those who will not receive what He offers, addressing several issues that were raised in the book, murder, sorcery, idolatry – but it begins with the cowardly (v. 8). I wonder if that is directed at early readers, facing persecution in the Roman Empire and possibly hesitant to commit. But it extends to later readers, who might question if they wish to stand up for Jesus’ name and his authority and risk conflict, or if it would be simpler and safer not to, even to appear to be unsaved. Some of God’s servants, like Gideon, were called to serve while not eager to act on their own. That may seem to give a basis for seeing hiding as credible. But I think God chose from the reluctant to make a point, and to stir the hearts of others. And those were not Christ’s disciples, already gifted with the Spirit. He expects something else from us. Not that I am saying we are to be abrasive and offensive in an eagerness to act, there are proper and wise moments and ways to stand up, and we are not always the right people to do so in a situation. Like I said, the appearance of that word first in the list strikes me. It convicts me, all too often, of taking an easier route. But I work for Jesus, and I’ve never heard of anyone braver than him. I leave it to you how it makes you feel.
John is taken to a tall mountain by an angel to see “the bride, the wife of the Lamb” and arrives at “the holy city, Jerusalem” (v. 9, 10). It is reminiscent of Ezekiel being shown the new temple, which was on a mountain (Ezekiel 40). I have taught about Revelation 21 numerous times. I have considered taping a cardboard mockup on a globe of the world to show the size of New Jerusalem. I didn’t end up attaching it, and I wasn’t sure if it should be a cube or a ziggurat, or a pyramid (we are told its base is square, and the height). Just describing my idea to the students got the gist across. New Jerusalem is large.
Earth’s breathable atmosphere extends out for about eleven miles at the equator. Perhaps you have heard the idea about being able to see the Great Wall of China from orbit. You can’t. You could bump into New Jerusalem in orbit. We aren’t totally sure of the size of the city, it depends on how you understand twelve thousand stadia, the 1995 NASB says 1,380 miles and some other versions say 1,500 miles. The International Space Station orbits about 250 miles from Earth. The Hubble telescope is 340 miles out. The upper range of what are known as “low Earth orbit” satellites is 1,243 miles, so the city would tower above all of them, if they were still around. (Which they won’t be.) But the geostationary satellites are much further out, at 22,236 miles. And the Moon is 238,900 miles away, which is nowhere near it. Speaking of the Moon, it has a diameter of 2,159 miles. Earth is 7,917.5 miles in diameter. Under the smaller estimate for the city (1,380 miles) it is 15.69% of the width of Earth, and my cardboard mockup needed to be 1.88 inches wide for a standard 12-inch globe.
We are told that with God’s new heaven and new Earth there is no longer a sea (v. 1). If that refers to the Mediterranean Sea it seems like a necessary removal, to give New Jerusalem ground space to fit. If it was centered on the location of Jerusalem it would extend about halfway through Greece, assuming it was aligned square with the equator. It also couldn’t be flat on the bottom since the Earth curves, which matters at this size.
I think this raises some questions. When God replaces the Earth, will it be the same size as the old one? What is being described here sounds like God planned on expansion. The millennium just took place, a thousand years without plagues, famine, and war. It didn’t start off with very many mortal people, but I think the population had a good opportunity for growth. It may be that the number saved during human history leading up to Christ’s return will be just a fraction of those who will ultimately be saved, guided in part by the priests we are being prepared to be. Oh, may it be so.
My questions are skipping over a rather obvious point. The angel who volunteers to show New Jerusalem to John does so under the description of “the bride, the wife of the Lamb” (v. 9). It isn’t clear to me whether that is because the bride (the population) is inside the city, or because the city is simply a symbol of those who have been accepted as Christ’s bride. The names inscribed on it, of the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles, may not simply be honoring those figures but symbolizing all who came from the lineage of those figures. Consider the description of its size and splendor, and the statements that none with bad character will enter. It says that God and the Lamb provide it with temple and light and lamp. All of this fits the idea that New Jerusalem is the people of God. Now, perhaps the language here presents people and city in another of the Bible’s double fulfillments and both cases are true. Whatever God intends it will be wonderful, and the beautiful description given in this chapter leaves me in awe and anticipation. I say, rejoice in your Lord!
Thank you, Father, for giving us this glimpse of the glory that lies ahead. Thank you for your commitment to us, that you did not give up on the work of Your hands, but took such care and effort to restore what had been damaged. Please help us to value what you value, to seek what you desire. There are so many lost sheep, so many hurting hearts, that you desire to be blessed by the love of your son. Please shape me into who you desire me to be, until I am complete. Thank you, in the name of Jesus, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
(originally posted November 17, 2023 for SeekGrowLove)
Reflection Questions
What does God’s commitment to fixing what was broken tell you about Him? What does it say about how God sees us?
What are some of the “first things” that will have passed away when the events of Revelation 21 have come to be?
Might God count you among the cowardly? When have you taken a courageous stand for Him? If (when) you are tempted to hide, what helps you overcome that temptation and stand up?
At the start of Revelation 19 heaven rejoices over God’s actions regarding Babylon the great. Soon we hear about the coming of the marriage supper of the lamb, and John is informed that the bride is clothed in fine linen which “is the righteous acts of the saints” (v. 8). He is also told to write that those who are invited to the wedding supper are blessed. This feels a bit like when Jesus commented in 16:15 “I am coming like a thief,” drawing our attention forward to coming attractions rather than remaining in sequence with events.
The voice which spoke about the marriage supper came from God’s throne, and hearing it speak caused John to fall and want to offer worship. John is corrected for this and told that only God is to be worshipped (v. 10). But it seems like in this case he made an understandable error. Throughout Revelation voices come from a variety of exalted sources, among them angels, strong angels, mighty angels, an angel standing in the sun, the Temple, the altar, and the horns of the altar. For John it may have been like experiencing holy surround sound, never knowing where the next proclamation would emerge from. Maybe degrees of grandeur are indicated by who spoke from where, giving different impacts to their statements. It wasn’t always clear to John what the intention was.
The message of the chapter proceeds, announcing the arrival of Christ, and of the armies of the world gathered for Armageddon. In fact, the word “Armageddon” is only named back in 16:16 where its origin is explained. Here the battle is previewed as “the great supper of God” – a supper for the birds, to eat the carrion it will provide, in contrast to the wedding supper of the lamb (v. 17‑18). With Jesus on the move there is no contest (2 Thessalonians 2:8). Jesus seems to be given credit for the entire victory: the gathered forces “were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse.” That is, except for the beast and the false prophet. Those two are removed from the scene and dropped into the lake of fire, receiving their punishment for serving the dragon and for deceiving the nations.
The description of Christ includes having “a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself” (v. 12). Note that this mirrors part of Christ’s letter to the third church, Pergamum. There Christ said he would give overcomers a white stone with a new name written on it, which only the recipient would know (2:17). (That same letter identifies Christ with the sharp two-edged sword, shown in John’s opening vision sticking from Christ’s mouth, much as in chapter 19; 1:16; 2:12.) I like the idea of these names which are known only to oneself. I wonder if I am being fanciful in thinking this new name involves having a sense of your own identity. You won’t need to share that with anyone else. There will be no need to. There will no longer be self-doubt, rivalry, jealousy, any of the potential bitterness that plagues our current lives. It will be a wonderful time. I hope to see you then.
Lord, I look forward to the day when your kingdom has come on earth as you now reign in heaven. You have been waiting for a long time, allowing more people to be saved through the grace of your son. May your glory and your majesty be shown in my life while I wait for that day. Let me be empowered and enthused to perform righteous actions that will please you. Let me set my mind on the things of the Spirit, live as your humble servant, and exalt you. Let my light so shine before men that they will glorify you. Let me present my body as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to you. Renew my mind, so I may prove what your will is. Thank you, my God. In Jesus’ name I pray these things, Amen.
-Daniel Smead
(Originally posted November 15, 2023 for SeekGrowLove)
Reflection Questions
Do you ever think about the fact that it is our opportunity, and honor, to clothe the bride of Christ in righteous acts?
Who are some of the people you want to sit with at the wedding supper of the lamb? What do you think you will talk about there?
Seek Grow Love 