 |  |
"He shall surely pay ox for ox" (Exod. 21: 36).
"He should make full restitution" (Exod. 22: 3).
So also in the translations "reward", "recompense", "requite", "repay", "make
amends" and "restore"; what is uppermost is the idea of making a complete return as a
righteous basis of peace.
Shalem, the adjective, is mostly translated "perfect", which enforces the idea resident
in the root word. "Peace" therefore is not merely the cessation of hostilities, it is the
result of perfect or complete satisfaction. It is therefore obvious that in their dealings
with one another the world can never appropriately use the word "peace" in its full
meaning. At the best there will be but a poor compromise. Again we say nations at war
may cease fighting, but unless the root cause of the hostility has been completely and
righteously dealt with, the ensuing "peace" will be but a patched-up interval of
comparative calm between periods of open hostility. The Epistle to the Romans connects
"peace" with "righteousness". "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
God" (Rom. 5: 1). And Hebrews speaks of the "peaceable fruit of righteousness"
(Heb. 12: 11). So also Isaiah.
"The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness
and assurance for ever" (Isa. 32: 17).
The difference between "work" (maaseh) and "effect" (abobah) is the difference
between a thing done, or made, and service rendered. So righteousness makes peace as
an accomplished fact, for its result is tranquility.
We have been in correspondence with a believer, who, while positively expressing his
belief in Christ and consciousness of the sealing of the Holy Spirit until the day of
redemption, is nevertheless seeking assurance and confirmation. He has come as far as
Isa. 32: 17, but has not stepped out into verse 18 where those who are justified and at
peace "dwell in a peaceable habitation, sure dwellings, and quiet resting places". Perhaps
the difference between the experiences of verses 17 and 18 is the difference between
"faith" and "trust", a difference that eludes us when we seek to be logical, but which is
nevertheless obvious as we become acquainted with the vagaries of the human heart. The
difference is well illustrated by a story about Blondin, the tight-rope walker. This acrobat
asked a spectator of his feats whether he believed that he could carry him across the
tight-rope on his back. The man replied in the affirmative. "Will you then let me do it?"
continued Blondin. "No", replied the man, thus evincing that while he "believed", he did
not "trust".
Returning to the earlier verses of Isa. 32:, we observe that in the structure we have
grouped verses 3-11 under the heading, "Character". It had been the prophet's grief that
Israel's "eyes", "ears" and "heart" were blind, dull and hard, and that this had brought
about their inability to understand, and consequently their failure (Isa. 6: 9, 10). Under
the reign of the righteous King, eyes shall see, ears shall hearken, hearts shall understand,
and instead of being addressed in judgment by men of stammering lips (Isa. 28: 11);
those of once stammering lips shall speak plainly. Let us not miss the prophet's intention