Daniel 2 image

---

It really was an astonishing dream which Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had. No wonder he came out of it with a scream. And it must have a terribly important meaning, something to do with himself, for hadn’t he seen his own face in it?

Well, he had an entire trade union of sorcerers, soothsayers and magicians to be his interpreters in all mysterious matters. They’d tell him what it meant!

But could they? He was pretty sure that more than once they had “conspired to tell (him) misleading and wicked things” (Dan 2:9). So to test them he demanded that they tell him first the details of the dream. Then he’d be prepared to listen to their interpretation of it.

Of course, that stumped them completely. So, “Off with their heads!”

But in the nick of time, there stepped forward a young Hebrew prophet claiming that with the help of his God both the dream and its meaning would be made known.

An image of metal

Sure enough, next day Daniel began to spell out the dream, detail by detail, while Nebuchadnezzar sat there on his throne wide-eyed with astonishment.

What the king had seen was a great metallic image with:

1. A head of gold.
2. Chest and arms of silver.
3. Belly and thighs of bronze.
4. Legs of iron.
5. Feet of mixed iron and clay.

What did it stand for? Daniel explained that here was a succession of empires, beginning with the empire of Babylon — of course, for that face had Nebuchadnezzar’s own features.

Its meaning

The identification of these empires is easy to anyone who knows a bit of ancient history. Indeed, other places in the Bible provide simple clues to confirm that the sequence goes like this:

1. Gold / Babylon
2. Silver / Persia
3. Bronze / Greece
4. Iron / Rome

But why stop there? Since the time of Rome there have been quite a few other empires, most of them every bit as important as these. What about the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan? the T’ang and Ching dynasties? the Aztec and Mayan empires? Philip II’s Spain? Napoleon’s Imperial France? the British Empire? The British Empire of Queen Victoria encompassed fully 25% of the land mass and population of the whole world, considerably more than did any of the four “empires” of Daniel!

An important qualification

There is a simple explanation why these other empires are not part of the prophecy. The vision was not intended to be a prophetic history lesson about all future world empires. These four empires were the powers that would oppress the Jews, Daniel’s people, in their own Land of Israel. This qualification explains what would otherwise be two difficulties:

1. The third kingdom of bronze is described (Dan 2:39) as “(ruling) over the whole earth”. But the Greek empire of Alexander the Great, big as it was, did not cover all the earth, not even all known civilization. However, the Old Testament word eretz, translated “earth”, also very commonly means “land” — and quite especially the Land of Israel. Alexander incorporated Israel into his growing empire.
2. Secondly, the empire of Rome is described as “strong as iron — for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others” (Dan 2:40). Yet this “crush-and-break” description seems inappropriate to Rome. For wherever the Romans went, they took the blessings of law and order and settled government, the famous “Pax Romana”. But — once again — these words were grimly true concerning Rome’s relations with that little province of Judea. Unable to tame these turbulent Jews, the frustrated Romans eventually trampled down Jerusalem and leveled the land from end to end. Jews were deported everywhere, and a decree was issued that they must not return to their own land. So Daniel’s prophecy — when taken as relating to Israel — turned out to be marvelously exact in this detail also.

Bible students will readily recognize the importance of Israel, and especially Jerusalem, to God’s purpose. The Old Testament was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, about Hebrews, in the land of the Hebrews, and in the language of the Hebrews. And the New Testament, though spread across the Roman world in Greek, was also written — predominantly — by Hebrews and about Hebrews, and in language rich with allusions to the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

So the image which Daniel saw and interpreted began with Babylon, not because Babylon was the first “world empire”, but because Babylon was the first Gentile power to rule over God’s people in Jerusalem. The Persians were the second, but they did not “conquer” Jerusalem — they inherited it from a distance, simply by defeating the Babylonians. And similarly with the Greeks: their rule of Jerusalem came with the defeat of the Persians at a place quite remote from Jerusalem, in what is now Turkey.

And then there was Rome. Jerusalem passed into the possession of the Romans in their annexation of the Seleucid portion (called ‘the king of the north’ in Dan. 11) of the Grecian empire, in what is now Syria.

In proportion?

If we assume that the components of the image refer to the Gentile kingdoms during the times when they ruled over a Jewish Jerusalem, then a remarkable proportion becomes apparent:

1. Babylon conquered and trampled down Jerusalem in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c 609 BC.). The time during which Babylon was destined to rule over Jerusalem was scripturally designated, as 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10). The prophet Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, understood by reading Jeremiah’s writings that the period of “70 years” was coming to an end (Dan 9:2).
2. True to Jeremiah’s prophecy, Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC, ending the Jewish captivity in Babylon. Ezr 1:1 refers to this event as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Some Jews returned to their land, and Persian rule over Jerusalem continued until Alexander crushed the Persian army at Issus, and moved southward through Jerusalem in 332.
3. After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, control of Jerusalem alternated between the Seleucids of Syria (the “king of the north”) and the Ptolemies of Egypt (the “king of the south”) for another 160 years. Eventually, a revolt broke out among the Jews because the Grecian “king of the north”, Antiochus Epiphanes, deliberately desecrated the Jewish temple in 167 AD. In 161 AD the Jewish leaders, the Maccabees, sought a Roman alliance for protection.

Thus, the first three portions of the image endured, respectively, 70 (the head), 206 (chest and arms), and 170 years (belly and thighs) — give or take a couple of years! This is just about perfectly proportional to the human form.

Now comes the hard part! We can assign the Roman portion of the image a starting point of 161 BC, but where does it end? Some historians consider that the Roman Empire endured until 565 AD — a total period of 726 years. But such a period for the fourth portion of the image (the legs, from knees to feet) would yield, in proportion, legs almost twice as long as all the rest of the body: something like a circus clown on ridiculously long stilts!.

But consider the alternative, as suggested earlier: that the Roman empire should be of consequence only when it was ruling over God’s people in Jerusalem. This would yield a period of 230 years (161 BC through 70 AD — when Jerusalem was trodden down by the Romans, and the Jews were scattered); such a shorter period would restore the whole image to proper perspective .

The “gap” in the image

Finally, what about the toes of iron and clay? If we remain true to our assumption (ie, that the “kingdoms” enumerated in Daniel 2 are those that bore or will bear rule over Jews in Jerusalem), then — after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD — there can/could be no fifth and final part of the image until there are/were Jews back in the Land again. And so we are compelled, by this assumption, to allow for a sizable “gap” between the first four parts of the image and the last and most crucial part, the feet and toes.

Such a gap certainly appears to work against the congruity of the image in its time perspective, and might be construed as a point against this view. However, it must be admitted that a similar “gap”, of almost 2,000 years, is by far the most reasonable interpretation of the Olivet prophecy (Mat 24; Mar 13; Luk 21), which clearly contains elements already fulfilled in 70 AD and elements yet to be fulfilled in the Last Days. And, likewise, the Book of Revelation (with its oft-repeated ‘I come quickly… shortly… or soon’, but also with prophecies plainly about the Last Days) is most easily reconciled by a “gap”, or “deferment”, hypothesis.

[The “deferment” theory — put simply — differs from the “gap” theory in this: The “deferment” theory is of an initial but partial fulfillment of the whole of a prophecy, to be followed by a final and complete fulfillment of the whole — thus involving some repetition. (For more information, see WRev 259-273.)]

And, in each case, the gap (or deferment) in prophetic fulfillment is for the same reason: During that period, the Jews were not in their Land or in possession of Jerusalem. It is not stretching the point too far to say that the Divine “clock” seems to stop when the conditions in the Middle East are not immediately favorable to the fulfillment of God’s purpose.

Who are the toes?

These “toes” must refer to ten powers, some strong, some weak, who oppress the Jews when they are finally back in the Land of Israel, and who subdue Jerusalem once again. Daniel provides the clue for their identification: “Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed [ereb] with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed [ereb] with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture [ereb] and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes [ereb] with clay” (Dan 2:41-43).

The “mixed”, or “ereb”, peoples are of course the Arabs of the Middle East (cp also the same Hebrew word in 1Ki 10:15; Jer 25:20,24; 50:37; Eze 30:5; Neh 13:1,3). These are peoples of mixed ancestry, descended variously from Ishmael, Esau, Lot, the Philistines, and others. They have never “remained united”, always quarrelling and falling out among themselves… except in one particular: they are almost always solidly united in their hatred of Israel!

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, fully authenticated so far, suggests an Arab conquest of Israel in the not too distant future. This is exactly in line with what is evident in many other Bible prophecies.

However, just as the toes take up only a small amount of space in the human figure, so also it may be expected that the Arab domination will last for only a very short while. And the Bible gives us that time period also: 3 1/2 years… 42 months… 1,260 days (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7,11,12; Rev 11:2,3; 12:6; 13:5). Such a period — if taken literally — would preserve the perfect proportion of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

Roman, or European, “toes”?

There is, of course, another and very different view of things held by some prophecy students, as follows: The feet and toes of Daniel’s image, being extensions of the legs, have often been equated with the “divided Roman empire” that followed the decline and fall of Rome herself in the sixth century AD. It is suggested that this “divided” state of Europe corresponds to the feet and toes of the image, the last part of the image.

Beginning in the late 1950s, it was for some time popular to interpret the “ten toes” as the European Economic Community. The nations of the EEC were, according to this view, the last vestige of the old Roman Empire, and would be the final part of the Kingdom of Men. (It is generally forgotten that there are about 50 nations in existence today, many of them not even in Europe — including most of the Arab nations — that occupy territory formerly held by the old Roman Empire. So any of these other nations could also be considered “successor nations” to Rome.)

But, as the member nations in the EEC climbed to 12 and then 14, and with more almost certain to be admitted as of this date, this interpretation has fallen on hard times.

There is another problem with the “European toe” interpretation. If all the divided states of Europe, from approximately 565 AD to the present and beyond, are represented by the feet and toes of the image, then our image is grossly out of proportion. Not only does the image look like a man on ridiculously tall stilts, but he is standing on “feet” with seven or eight toes each, which are now more than half again as long as the rest of the body, including the greatly elongated legs!. The absurdity of this figure is a good reason for rejecting the interpretation which suggested it.

Sudden destruction

In the vision a stone cut out of a mountain without human hands (ie, a divinely-appointed “stone”!) comes flying through the air and crashes into the feet of the image, completely pulverizing them; the image crashes to the ground, and every bit of it is similarly ground to powder; then a mighty wind blows the whole out of sight, while the stone grows and grows until it becomes a mighty mountain filling all the earth (Dan 2:34,35,44,45).

The “stone” is clearly Jesus: the Son of God is the precious stone, the stone which the builders rejected, the stone of stumbling, but also the stone which God will make the chief cornerstone in His eternal temple (Psa 118:22; Isa 8:14,15; 28:16; Mat 21:44; Mar 12:10,11; Luk 20:17; 1Pe 2:4-8).

A different kingdom

This “great mountain” which grows from a little stone will be a Kingdom set up by God Himself, which will last forever (Dan 2:44). When the Arab “toes” overrun Israel and trample down Jerusalem once again (as did the Babylonians and the Romans before them), then they will themselves be smashed swiftly by the coming of Christ in power and glory.

Where will this kingdom begin?

Hoping not to belabor an obvious point, we must nevertheless ask the question: Where will this eternal Kingdom begin? All Scriptures point to Jerusalem (Psa 2:6; Isa 2:2-4; 24:23; Jer 3:17; Mic 4:1,2; Joel 2:32; Oba 1:17; Zec 14:1-4; etc, etc).

So, working backward, if Jerusalem is where the Kingdom of God will begin (ie, where the “little stone” will begin to grow into a “great mountain”), then Jerusalem must also be the place upon which that stone falls in the first place.

And if this is so, then where will the feet of the image be standing when they are struck by that little stone? Jerusalem again. Jerusalem, the center of Bible prophecy — not Rome or Europe!

Daniel, overview

---

Author: Daniel

Time: 605 – 535 BC

Summary: The book of Daniel predicts the destiny of two opposing powers: The Kingdom of Men and the Kingdom of God, stressing that “the Most High rules in the Kingdom of Men”. Daniel’s prophecies generally deal with the nations that control Israel, from Daniel’s day until the return of Christ.

Key verse: “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure for ever” (Dan 2:44).

Outline

1.	Prologue: the setting: Dan 1
	a)	Daniel and his friends taken captive: Dan 1:1-7
	b)	The young men are faithful: Dan 1:8-16
	c)	The young men are elevated to high positions: Dan 1:17-21
2.	The destinies of the nations that rule Israel: Dan 2-7
	a)	Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a large statue: Dan 2
	b)	Nebuchadnezzar’s gold image: Dan 3
	c)	Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an enormous tree: Dan 4
	d)	Belshazzar’s and Babylon’s downfall: Dan 5
	e)	Daniel’s deliverance: Dan 6
	f)	Daniel’s dream of four beasts: Dan 7
3.	The destiny of the nation of Israel: Dan 8-12
	a)	Daniel’s vision of a ram and a goat: Dan 8
	b)	Daniel’s prayer and his vision of the 70 “sevens”: Dan 9
	c)	Daniel’s vision of a man: Dan 10:1-11:1
	d)	Daniel’s vision of the kings of the south and the north: Dan 11:2-45
	e)	The end times: Dan 12

Background

In 605 BC Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon’s victory, Egypt’s vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 BC. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon including Daniel, whose name means “God is my judge” or “God is judging” or “God will judge” (Dan 1:1-3), plus some of the vessels from Solomon’s temple (2Ch 36:7). This was the first of Judah’s three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:1-4).

Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 BC. Jehoiachin reigned only three months and 10 days (2Ch 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 BC, he took Jehoiachin to Babylon along with most of Judah’s remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2Ki 24:10-17; 2Ch 36:10).

A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 BC. Jehoiakim’s younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah’s puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon’s sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer 37; 38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king’s eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2Ki 24:18 — 25:24).

Scope

Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 BC. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of Dan 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 BC (Dan 1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 BC (Dan 10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.

Writer

There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 BC or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel’s life. What makes Daniel’s authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.

Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (Dan 8:1; 9:2,20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf Exo 20:2,7).

Language

Daniel is written in two languages, not just one. The Book is written in Hebrew and in Aramaic:

• Dan 1:1 through 2:4a: Hebrew language
• Dan 2:4b through 7:28: Aramaic language
• Dan 8:1 through 12:13: Hebrew language

There are a number of theories why two languages were used. One reason may be that the Spirit of God was indicating that the message of this book was for both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, the Hebrew portions would get the attention of the Jews, while the Aramaic portion would have the attention of the Gentiles.

Babylon = Assyria

---

In the OT, “Babylon” and “Assyria” are sometimes used interchangeably of the same political power:

• The two powers spoke essentially the same language. The cultures, religions, economics, and ambitions of these two cities were practically identical.
• In the time of Isaiah, Assyria conquered Babylon, and then in the time of Zedekiah Babylon destroyed Assyria.
• Sennacherib had captured and subjugated Babylon. “King of Babylon” = one of titles of kings of Assyria. Names are switched in Ezr 6:22; Lam 5:6; Zep 10:10,11; Isa 14:4,25; Mic 5:5; 4:10. Cp 2Ch 33:11; Amo 5:27 with Act 7:43.
• Nahum read Isa 47 as prophecy of Assyria, not Babylon. He was Isaiah’s contemporary: cp Nah 3:5,4,16 with Isa 47:2,3,9,15; Nah 1:15 with Isa 52:7; Nah 1:13 with Isa 47:6; Zep 2:13,15 with Isa 47:8; and Zep 2:14,15 with Isa 13:21,22.
• Nahum also alludes to the “whoredoms, witchcraft, etc” of “Babylon” (Nah 3:4,5,16 = Isa 47:3,9,15) when his subject is still the end of Nineveh.
• In the reign of Josiah, Pharaoh-necho went against “the king of Assyria” at Carchemish (2Ki 23:29) — actually Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
• Stephen interchanged “Damascus” and “Babylon” in Act 7:43.
• In Isa 13:19 and often in Isa 14, “Babylon” is represented as the supreme world-power, exercising a cruel tyranny over many nations and esp over Israel. But in Isaiah’s day, Babylon was either a conquered state of the Assyrian empire or was making sporadic attempts at rebellion from the Assyrian yoke. Thus the “Babylon” here must be “Nineveh/Assyria”.
• The kings of Assyria took special pride in their domination of Babylon. Sargon records as one of his royal titles: “Viceroy of the gods of Babylon”. Tiglath-pileser proudly called himself “King of Babylon”.

Babylon in prophecy

---

The first great rebel against God, after the Flood, was Nimrod, “a mighty one” and “a mighty hunter”. Nimrod (the name in the Heb means “rebel”) was prob responsible for the building of the tower of Babel (Gen 11) — the first great symbol of man’s pride and worship of self. In fact, the building of Babel, in Shinar, and the building of Nineveh, in Assyria, are both attributed to this “great” (?) man.

Gen 14 gives a brief but interesting account of a confederacy of four kings from the east which attacked five kings in the land of Canaan, in the days of Abram — ie approx 2000 BC. The four kings were headed in Gen 14:1 by Amraphael of Shinar, which is the land of Babylon. (Some think “Amraphael” is simply another name for Hammurabi, the almost-legendary ruler of early Babylon, who promulgated civilization’s first great law code.) This army defeated its enemies and carried away spoils and captives, among which was Abram’s nephew Lot, but Abram and his servants mounted a daring raid to recover his nephew and other captives.

The kingdom of Assyria established a dominance over the ancient city of Babylon during much of the period from 850 to 700 BC. But in the 7th century BC Babylon began to rise again, and finally the tables were turned and she came to surpass Assyria as the dominant power in the whole of the Middle East. This empire is called by historians the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In a series of campaigns, King Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezzar pushed back the Assyrians to the west and north and controlled the heartland of Mesopotamia. In 612 BC the Babylonians, aided by the Medes and the Scythians, destroyed the Assyrian capital of Nineveh (cp Nah 3). The retreating Assyrian army, bolstered by the armies of its former enemy Egypt, tried repeatedly to stem the tide, but in vain. In 605 BC Nebuchadnezzar, now at the head of the Babylonian forces, won a decisive victory at Carchemish on the northern Euphrates.

Judah, the southern Israelite kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem, now fell under the sway of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:1; 2Ch 36:1-10). From 605 to 586 BC Jewish kings continued to reign as “puppets” of the Babylonian overlord. But when the last, Zedekiah, attempted to reassert Jewish independence, Jerusalem was besieged and crushed by the Babylonians, assisted by legions from the neighboring Arab nations of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria, and the Philistines (2Ki 25:1-8; 2Ch 36:11-17; cp Jer 47-49). The city fell, the glorious Temple of Solomon — which had seen the very Presence of the Almighty — was left in ruins, some of the Jews were enslaved and carried away to Babylon, and others were scattered to the four winds (2Ki 25:9-17; 2Ch 36:17-20).

Babylon continued as the dominant power in the area, and as the oppressor and “treader-down” of Israel, until 539 BC, when it was conquered by the Medes and Persians of Cyrus. But the city itself was not destroyed; it became one of Cyrus’ capitals, and he appropriated to himself the coveted title “King of Babylon”. More than 200 years later, it was still a trading center of great importance when visited by Alexander the Great (IBD 1:246).

In fact, the city of Babylon was never really destroyed, but rather fell victim to a sort of benign neglect — sinking bit by bit, century by century, further into decay. There were, however, both Jews and Christians living in Babylon in NT times and beyond (cp 1Pe 5:13 and Josephus, Ant 15:2:2 and 18:9:5-9). A Jewish traveler of the 12th century reported, for example, that there existed an active synagogue within a mile of the ruins of Nebuchadnezzar’s temple of Marduk [M. Allen, “Benjamin of Tudela, Itinerary of”, Jewish Quarterly Review 17 (1905), 514-530]. It is historically confirmed that, from its beginnings, Babylon has never totally ceased to exist. This simple fact has tremendous impact on the interpretations of certain Bible prophecies.

Such prophecies speak of the fall of Babylon as one of the great events of the Last Days, and an event seemingly associated with the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on the earth again. To a certain extent, some prophecies (such as Jer 50 and 51) have already been fulfilled with the defeat of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC. Sometimes it is even proposed that Cyrus himself, as the conqueror of Babylon, was AN “Anointed One”, or “Christ”, sent by God to destroy evil Babylon (cp Isa 44:28; 45:1; Dan 6:28). There is certainly some merit in this idea. Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon did fulfill Bible prophecy. However, certain of the relevant prophecies may have a further fulfillment, since the NT prophecy about the fall of Babylon necessitates another fall of the city — a fall that is demonstrably yet future.

Some of the relevant OT prophecies are discussed in light of possible further fulfillment, and the Rev passages are examined for the best interpretation possible:

(1)	Isa 13: “The burden of Babylon” (v 1): Babylon will be destroyed by God’s “sanctified ones” (v 3) in “the day of the Lord”: “it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty” (v 6): “Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonian’s pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there, no shepherd will rest his flocks there” (vv 19,20).
	It is true that, as v 17 states, God would stir up the Medes against Babylon. But history confirms that even after its defeat at the hands of Cyrus, Babylon continued to exist and to be inhabited. And so the precise prediction of vv 19, 20 has not been fulfilled as yet! Is it not likely, then, that the Medo-Persian conquest of Babylon, in the 6th century BC, was only an initial (and not a complete) fulfillment of this prophecy? And if so, that complete fulfillment yet remains for the last days.
(2)	Isa 14 continues in the same vein: At the time when Babylon falls, and when a taunt is taken up against the king of Babylon (vv 4,12) — at that very time — Israel will be especially blessed by God: “The Lord will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob. Nations will take them and bring them to their own place. And the house of Israel will possess the nations as menservants and maidservants in the Lord’s land. They will make captives of their captors and rule over their oppressors. On the day the Lord gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage…” (vv 1-3). It is true that the defeat of Babylon by the Medes and Persians led, after another few years, to the return of some Jews to Jerusalem. No doubt the return and rebuilding under Ezra and Nehemiah and Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest was A fulfillment of this and similar prophecies. But is it the ONLY, or even the FOREMOST, fulfillment? Or does a greater fulfillment await us in the Last Days? Notice the language: “they will… rule over their oppressors” (v 2) — that was not at all true of the Israel of Ezra’s day, who continued subservient to successive regimes of Persians and Greeks and Romans long centuries after Babylon’s defeat. And again, in v 3, “the Lord gives you relief from suffering… and… bondage” may point to more than the limited and temporary OT restoration of Israel.
(3)	Isa 47 and 48 picture a fall of Babylon: “The Lord… will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans” (Isa 48:14). At the same time the Lord will deliver His people who have been held captive there: “Leave Babylon, flee from the Babylonians! Announce this with shouts of joy and proclaim it. Send it out to the ends of the earth; say, ‘The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob.’ They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split the rock and water gushed out” (Isa 48:19,20). Fulfilled in the days of Nehemiah? Surely. Totally fulfilled then? Maybe not. Because a last-days (and miraculous) deliverance and return of Jewish believers — who will have evidently been carried into captivity by the Babylonian invaders — is alluded to in Isa 11:1-16; 19:23-25; 27:12,13; 35:1-10; 43:1-7; 52:1-10; and elsewhere.
(4)	Jer 50 and 51 is the most detailed prophecy of the fall of Babylon. And again, this passage was certainly fulfilled in 539 BC. But a number of verses suggest a future fulfillment: ” ‘In those days, at that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘the people of Israel and the people of Judah together will go in tears to seek the Lord their God. They will ask the way to Zion and turn their faces toward it. They will come and bind themselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant that will not be forgotten’ ” (Jer 50:4,5). When in the past has Israel bound itself in a perpetual covenant to the Lord at Jerusalem, a covenant that cannot and will not be broken? Never. So these verses have yet to be fulfilled.
	” ‘But I will bring Israel back to their own pasture and he will graze on Carmel and Bashan; his appetite will be satisfied on the hills of Ephraim and Gilead. In those days, at that time,’ declares the Lord, ‘search will be made for Israel’s guilt, but there will be none, and for the sins of Judah, but none will be found, for I will forgive the remnant I spare’ ” (Jer 50:19,20).
	Israel will experience true forgiveness only when they accept Jesus as their Messiah. That event is yet future.
	“Like a lion coming up from Jordan’s thickets to a rich pastureland, I will chase Babylon from its land in an instant. Who is the chosen one I will appoint for this? Who is like me and who can challenge me? And who is that shepherd who will stand before me?” (Jer 50:44). Only by a real stretch may such words be applied to Cyrus, the Old Testament conqueror of Babylon. But they are quite appropriate to Jesus Christ, the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:9,10; Rev 5:5; 10:3), the Good Shepherd (Isa 40:11; John 10:11), and the One “like God”!
(5)	Rev: The Apostle John wrote Revelation at least 600 years after the fall of the original city — so plainly there will be another fall of Babylon at the time of Christ’s coming (which is of course the main theme of Rev). Since the days of Luther, a common interpretation of Revelation has been to see in “Babylon” a mystical, or hidden, name for Rome. Thus the fall of “Babylon” is interpreted as the ultimate overthrow of the Apostate Church system centered in Rome. Roman Catholicism is demonstrably a corrupt system that, along with all other equally wicked systems, deserves to be, and will be, destroyed by Christ at his coming. But is that the best way to interpret “Babylon” in Revelation? It was the drying-up of the Euphrates River that led to the fall of ancient Babylon — this is suggested in Jer 50:38; 51:36 and confirmed by secular history: After the waters of the river were secretly diverted in the dead of night, enemy troops made their way along the empty river-channel right into the heart of the city, and Babylon fell. In Revelation, surely there is again a geographical and a cause-and-effect connection between the drying-up of the Euphrates River and the fall of Babylon in the Last Days (cp Rev 16:12 with Rev 16:17-21; 14:8)
	Consider that the Euphrates River and the historical Babylon were connected geographically. The drying-up of the one led, in the past, to the fall of the other. And there is only one “Babylon” through which the Euphrates River flows! So the case is strengthened for a more literal interpretation of the Babylon of Revelation — ie that it applies to the real city being rebuilt today, and to the nation occupying the ancient territory of Babylonia. And so the last chapters of Rev picture the defeat of a vicious and depraved Babylon, the hateful and cunning enemy of God’s people — coinciding with the complete victory of a spiritually renewed Jerusalem. The age-old conflict between the two cities — the one standing for sin and rebellion from practically the beginning of time, and the other standing for peace and righteousness — will come at last to a soul-satisfying conclusion. “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird… for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes” (Rev 18:2,5). “And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem… It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal” (Rev 21:10,11).

The modern-day Iraq of Saddam Hussein occupies the same territory as the OT Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar. And the links between Saddam’s Iraq and Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon are even more pronounced, since for some time the government of Iraq has been involved in a massive archaeological reconstruction of ancient Babylon. The modern restoration of Babylon began in 1978 and was, at least until the gulf war began, scheduled for completion in 1994. There is no information about damage to the project from allied bombing of Iraq; but ancient Babylon, 40 miles of so south of Baghdad, is not known to be near any major strategic sites and so may have been spared.

As of February 1990, over 60 million bricks had been laid in the reconstruction of Nebuchadnezzar’s city. Despite the objections of archaeologists, Saddam Hussein has insisted on rebuilding directly over the most ancient ruins. His reconstruction includes the Southern Palace of Nebuchadnezzar, a Greek theater, many temples, Nebuchadnezzar’s Throne Room, and a model of the famed Ishtar Gate. He plans also to rebuild the legendary Hanging Gardens and several artificial hills, including one to be called “The Tower of Babel”. Why such infatuation with an idea? It has been said: “President Hussein’s decision to rebuild Nebuchadnezzar’s Palace… is the centerpiece of a campaign to strengthen Iraq’s nationalism by appealing to history… Mr. Hussein’s campaign also serves subtler ends; it justified Iraq’s costly war with Iran as the continuation of Mesopotamia’s ancient feud with Persia. And it portrayed Saddam Hussein as successor to Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon’s mightiest ruler” (Paul Lewis in the New York Times, April 19, 1989). And Saddam himself has referred to: “Nebuchadnezzar, the national hero who was able to defeat the enemies of our nation in the land of Canaan [Palestine, or Israel] and to take them as prisoners of war to Babylon. What we need now is to increase awareness in this regard” (quoted in the Babylonian International Festival brochure for September 22, 1987).

And so a rebuilt Babylon is Saddam’s way of conjuring up the magic of Arab unity and greatness, and authenticating his call for the Arab nations to help him accomplish what his hero Nebuchadnezzar accomplished before him: i.e. the destruction of a Jewish Jerusalem.

“The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up… The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air… God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath” (Rev 16:12,17,19).

Babylon, Last Days revival

---

“With a mighty voice he shouted: ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ ” (Rev 18:2).

The whole prophetic narrative of the Bible is in many ways a tale of two cities: Babylon and Jerusalem. There are times when Babylon masquerades as Zion — a false city of God with a false Messiah leading her. And there are times when Zion in her apostasy has appeared as Babylon. But in the final conflict of the last days, these two cities will be literally pitted against each other. Zion will briefly succumb under the might and pride of Babylon, to rise again in eternal glory. It was in Babylon where Nimrod first built the tower of Babel, the first organized rebellion against God; and it was there that God first entered into open judgment of flesh and humanity en masse. And it is here likewise that His purpose with sin and His true people will likewise be fulfilled. Babylon was also called Su-anna, “the holy city”. Yet “the holy city” is Jerusalem, thus making Babylon a fake Zion. Herodotus says the city was square, just as new Jerusalem.

Unfulfilled Prophecies: “Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians’ pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isa 13:19). And yet Babylon was never suddenly overthrown like Sodom and Gomorrah in their fiery destruction. It was conquered by the Medes and Persians and fell into decline, but it was not violently destroyed. Likewise: “The Lord will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and settle them in their own land… They will make captives of their captors and rule over their oppressors… On the day the Lord gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has come to an end! How his fury has ended!… All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing” (Isa 14:1-4,7).

When Babylon is ultimately destroyed, Israel will finally be at Peace and will dwell in safety. Israel has been a nation since 1948, but not for one day has the nation of Israel known real peace or ease. It has never been able to claim all the lands God promised the Israelites, and Israel’s Arab neighbors have been a constant threat and danger.

There is the assumption by many that all the OT prophecies about ‘Babylon’ were fulfilled in the overrunning of Babylon by the Medes. However, there are many details of those prophecies which did not have a total fulfillment, and thus what the Medes did as but a partial, incipient fulfillment of what is going to come in the last days. This also requires that ‘Babylon’ be understood as literal Babylon — for it was against her that the prophecies were uttered in the first place. And quite clearly, the prophecies of Revelation against ‘Babylon’ are extensions of those of the Old Testament. We therefore are encouraged to see the ‘Babylon’ of Rev as the Babylon of the prophets — ie literal Babylon.

Unfulfilled details, which require a latter day fulfillment:

• Literal Babylon decayed due to the ravages of time, whereas Babylon was to fall “suddenly” in her prime (Jer 51:8; Rev 18: “one hour”). This must be future in its fulfillment. Rev. 18:22; 14:8 both speak of “Babylon is fallen” as applying to a latter day scenario. And yet these words come directly from Isa 21:9 and Jer 51:8, prophecies about literal Babylon being destroyed suddenly — a destruction which is clearly future, seeing the city was never so suddenly destroyed in the past. The suddenness of the destruction is a keynote of these prophecies.
• It is not true that Babylon has been uninhabited “forever”. “The city of Babylon has never ceased to exist. Although its name was changed on two occasions, it has never been totally unpopulated. Hillah presently has 250,000 citizens and was built almost entirely of bricks from the parts of the old city of Babylon” (Joseph Chambers, A Palace For The Antichrist 146). Note too that the Babylonian Talmud was written by Jews living in Babylon in the 6th century AD. 1 Pet 5:13 implies there was even an ecclesia there in the first century.
• “For the Lord will have mercy upon Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them [the Babylonians], and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors” (Isa 14:1,2). This passage has never been fulfilled yet. It will be in the last days; and at this time, as Is. 14 goes on to detail, Babylon [literal Babylon, in the context] will fall.

Other prophecies about the sudden destruction of literal Babylon — which can only be latter day in their application — are also the basis for the words of Rev about latter day Babylon. Consider: (a) “Thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me: I shall not sit a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children” (Isa 47:8), compared with: “How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously…for she hath said in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow” (Rev 18:7). (b) “But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood” (Isa 47:9), compared with: “Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning” (Rev 18:8). (c) “Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up” (Isa 47:13), compared with: “For by thy sorceries…” (Rev 18:23).

The Babylon of Rev is the Babylon of Jeremiah and Isaiah, literal Babylon, which awaits her full punishment. This conclusion is strengthened once it is appreciated how the harlot Babylon of Rev 17, loud, gaudy, decked with jewelry and painted face, is replete with reference to Semiramis, the goddess / mother of Nimrod, and one of the patron gods of literal Babylon.

The antichrist is a mimic of the true Christ; his kingdom is a parody of God’s Kingdom. And the King of Babylon claiming “I am and none else beside me” are the very words of Yahweh — the King of Babylon is clearly to be identified with the man of sin, who sits as God in God’s temple (2Th 2). But the similarities run deeper. The Babylonian epic of creation is a parody of the Genesis account; the flood has its counterpart in the epic of Gilgamesh; and the Code of Hammurabi, an early ruler of Babylon, was clearly an anti-law of Moses. And Saddam Hussein’s supporters greet him as the Messiah of the Arab world (Chambers 45). Now Saddam may pass off the scene, but the point is that a similar charismatic leader could arise and be the antichrist.

The accounts of the latter day invasion of Israel all feature a single charismatic individual, who will be destroyed personally by the Lord Jesus at His coming. This is Paul’s “man of sin”, Daniel’s aggressive king of fierce countenance, Ezekiel’s Gog, the chief prince. It is also the person referred to by Micah: “And this man [Messiah] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land” (Mic 5:1,2). The Lord Jesus will save His people in the latter days from an “Assyrian”. It has been shown that Assyria and Babylon are used almost interchangeably in Scripture. Gog was a Jew who apostatized and went to live in Assyria / Babylonia, according to 1Ch 5. This is why he has the appearance of spirituality; and he may even be an Arab Christian. 2Th 2 describes him as “the son of perdition”, exactly the phrase used about Judas, the false disciple of Jesus. Notice how Tariq Aziz [Iraqi foreign minister at the time of writing] and other leading members of the Iraqi cabinet are in fact Arab Christians, not Muslims.

(Adapted from LD, by DH)

Rich man and Lazarus, paraphrase

---

There was a certain nation (Israel) which was a privileged kingdom of priests, receiving great blessings from God.

And there was a certain class around them, outside the bonds of their covenant, who desired to share God’s favor, since they were suffering from sin and death. And their neighbors, the Jews, could give them no relief.

And these Gentiles died, and were later raised to eternal life with Abraham in God’s kingdom.

But Israel was destroyed from being a nation, and suffered persecutions and trials. Because they had refused to hear God, God refused to hear their cries or ease their sufferings.

All this happened because they refused to believe the one who was raised from the dead.

Resurrectional responsibility proofs

---

Joh 12:48-50; Deu 18:19; 29:19,20; Rom 2:8,9; Act 24:25; 17:30,32; 1Pe 4:4,5; Luk 13:28; 19:27; 14:25,31-33; 12:48; 10:14; 2Pe 2:6-9; Joh 9:41; 8:21; 3:18,19; 15:22; Rev 21:8; Isa 66:24; Jud 1:14,15; 2Th 1:8,9; Mat 11:20-24; Heb 2:3; 10:28,29.

Redemption, pictures of

---

Christ’s sacrifice is the central feature of man’s salvation, and indeed of the whole Bible. It is reasonable, then, since God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible is so beautifully rich and varied, that Christ’s sacrifice — and its effects upon us — can be described under many figures of speech.

The Cherubim had four faces, because no one face can convey the diversity of the glory of God. Because no one gospel account can completely communicate the breadth and depth and impact of Christ’s ministry, the story of his life and work has been given to us in four separate accounts. So it stands to reason that we need more than one definition or one picture to explain redemption — what God did for us through Christ.

The Scriptures, in fact, present more than a dozen major “pictures of redemption”, and many more minor “pictures”. Each separate “picture” has subtleties and shadings, and points of contact with other “pictures”. It is good and useful for us to appreciate the truth conveyed by each individual “picture”, without at the same time allowing figurative language to confuse us as to principles. (The same is true of the Mosaic rituals and sacrifices. Sometimes, “proving” first principles from details of the Law can lead to confusion!) Like the parables, the “pictures of redemption” may mislead and distract the Bible student if he reasons too closely from the details and loses sight of the “big picture”. By getting tied too firmly to any one of these figures, one may develop false or limited concepts of the sacrifice of Christ. We can guard against this by looking carefully at a number of the “pictures of redemption”, and by determining (in conformity with some basic “Principles”) what lessons we should learn from each. At the same time, we can marvel at the beauty and diversity of God’s revelation of Himself.

The Basic Principles of the Sacrifice of Christ

Before we get into the “pictures” or “figures” of the sacrifice of Christ, we should outline the basic straightforward principles involved. These will constitute the Biblical foundation on which everything else in this study is built (the lists of proof passages are by no means complete):

1. Our need and helplessness: Jer 17:9; Mar 7:21-23; Rom 5:12; 7:18; Jam 1:13-15.

As Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans, we cannot know the “good news” (Rom 1:16,17; 3:21 onwards) without first of all understanding the “bad news” (Rom 1:18-3:20). Principle #1 here stresses the “bad news” – ie, humans are all “sinners”, or at least will be (if they live long enough); the “devil” (Biblically understood) is inside all of us; and we need to be saved from ourselves!

2. Jesus Christ was a man: Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; Heb 2:14; 1Jo 4:2; 2Jo 1:7.

We are all, in Scriptural terminology, “lepers” — totally unclean and trapped in bodies of death (Principle #1). God has sent us a Savior who is one of us! Jesus touched the “lepers”, literally, in the working of his miracles, and he touches us (ie, partakes of our nature) so as to work the greatest of all miracles — our salvation! That is what being a man meant… and means.

3. Jesus Christ is also the Son of God: Psa 80:17; Luk 1:35; 2Co 5:19-21; 1Jo 4:15.

Jesus was made a man so that he could identify with us, and we could identify with him. He was made a man so that he himself would be in need of salvation. And he was, at the same time, made the Son of God so that he could — by the grace of God — achieve that salvation.

4. Jesus Christ was tempted: Mat 4:1-11; Phi 2:5-8; Heb 4:15; 5:8.

5. But he was perfectly obedient: Joh 8:46; Rom 5:19; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 2:22.

Jesus was tempted because he was a man. He was perfectly obedient, in part, because he was the Son of God. We say “in part” because his own faith (as well as his divine parentage) was indispensable to the achievement of a perfectly righteous life and a perfect final sacrifice. Jesus was truly a man, but a man plainly fitted by God for the task of atonement, as no other man has been or could be.

6. Thus he was our perfect representative: Mat 16:24; Joh 1:29; Rom 3:25; 1Jo 3:16.

In his humanity, Jesus identifies with us, and — in recognizing that humanity — we are invited to identify with him.

7. Christ’s death was necessary for his own salvation: Phi 2:8,9; Heb 7:27; 9:7,12; 13:20.

In his own life, and by his death and resurrection, Christ won a very real victory over sin and the “devil”.

8. Through Christ we may obtain forgiveness of sins: Act 4:12; 10:43; Rom 3:25; 4:25; Heb 9:22.

9. Through Christ we become children of God: Rom 8:15-17,29-32; Gal 3:27-29; 4:5; Eph 1:5; 2:11-15.

There is a change of status at baptism. God is making a covenant with us; we now belong to His family, and no longer (in any spiritual sense) do we belong to the family of our natural father Adam.

10. The death of Christ expresses God’s love: Joh 3:16; Rom 8:31,32; 2Co 5:19.

The Father of Christ was and is intimately involved in the process by which salvation is offered to, and ultimately conferred upon, those who are “in Christ”. Nothing the Father does is done grudgingly; He lovingly desires, and He works wholeheartedly toward, our redemption and our inclusion into His spiritual “family”.

---

What is stated here has been deliberately simplified as much as possible (but, one hopes, not too much!) so as to convey basic principles without confusing or ambiguous language. Don’t we all agree on these matters? Should these points be the focal point of controversy? Yet sometimes they are, and generally (this observer thinks, anyway) that is because we have attempted to “dig” more deeply into very profound matters. I am not saying it is wrong to seek out the “deeper things” of the Spirit of God; of course it is not! But sometimes, in pursuit of this objective, we set one idea against another, and concentrate on differences (or perceived differences) between brothers or groups of brothers. It is then especially that we may come to put too much emphasis on one or more of the “basic principles”, and consequently less emphasis on others of those same “principles”. In examining every aspect of one “tree” in the forest, as it were, we may lose sight of another “tree” which is equally important — or we may even lose sight of the “forest” as a whole!

Truth Versus Error

The positive principles of Christ’s sacrifice may be summarized and contrasted with some of the popular misconceptions of other “churches”, as follows:

CHRIST DID… die as our representative. CHRIST DID NOT… die instead of us, as a substitute.

The substitution (or redemption/ransom) picture — while useful — is incomplete and imperfect, because:

1. we still die (Basic Principle #1 above);
2. Jesus, as a man, had to die anyway (BP #2); and
3. Jesus — having “paid” for a total victory over sin and death — did not remain dead, as he should have, if his life were understood as full payment for our lives!

CHRIST DID… provide a way for our sins to be forgiven.

CHRIST DID NOT… pay our “debt”.

If a debt is paid, it cannot also be forgiven (but of course it is: see BP #8 above)!

CHRIST DID… obtain salvation for himself: CHRIST DID NOT… have a “free life”.

Christ was mortal anyway (BP #2), and therefore his “life” was mortgaged or encumbered; in other words, death was “owed” against that life. His body — being mortal — already belonged to “death”. And since his life was not a “free” or “unmortgaged” life, it could not be used to satisfy anyone else’s “debt”. One cannot pay off a debt with his creditor’s money (BP #7)!

CHRIST DID… show the love of God. CHRIST DID NOT… appease the wrath of God.

This is the worst of pagan, non-Christian religion: an angry, vengeful “god” appeased by the death of an innocent victim. This may be the way the Gentiles perceived their “gods” as acting, but the One God of the Bible — the God of love — is not like this at all (BP #10).

CHRIST DID… live and die as our example. CHRIST DID NOT… “do it all!”

We must follow his example (Mat 16:24). If Christ really “did it all” for us, then we should be able to live in whatever fashion we please. But of course we cannot: Christ is our representative and thus our example (BP #6), showing us how to live. And having become the children of God (BP #9), we must see that with our new status come new responsibilities (Rom 6).

The Words of Salvation

In writing of salvation in Christ, the apostle Paul especially uses various words. These are words which, through a superficial familiarity, we may come to use interchangeably, not appreciating the shades and nuances of meaning, nor the principles involved. Some examples:

In God’s sight, man is…	Then the work of salvation is…
1. An accused person; a guilty person…	Justification (declaring or considering another to be innocent or righteous). A verdict of “Not guilty!”
2. An estranged person; an enemy…	Reconciliation (atonement, “peace” or “shalom” in an Old Testament sense) (see Rom 5:10; 2Co 5:18-20).
3. A debtor, who cannot pay his debts…	Forgiveness, or mercy (see Mat 18:23-35).
4. A slave, serving the wrong “master”…	Redemption (literally, “purchase”, as of a slave out of a slave market).
5. An orphan, with no hope and no inheritance (Eph 2:12)…	Adoption or sonship (Rom 8:15).
6. Common, ordinary…	Sanctification (literally, the process of being set apart, or made holy; to become a “saint”).
7. Unclean, impure…	Purification.
8. In trouble or danger…	Salvation.

---

The question might arise: ‘Why pictures in the first place?’ Why indeed? Our fundamental Bible teachings, of which the atonement is (or should be) paramount, are expressed in straightforward, reasonable, and logical terms. We usually endeavor to make those teachings as simple as possible, for the enlightenment and encouragement of young people and those others who need to learn what the Bible says.

But the fact ought to be faced: the Bible does not express what we call the “first principles” in the simplest and most logical language — at least not very often. Much more often, these basic teachings seem to be almost byproducts of what the Bible offers us… history, poetry, stories, allegories, parables, and moral exhortations. Sometimes we deduce these basic teachings from hints and allusions; we find them “between the lines”. In fact, which of us has not had the passing thought: ‘I do wish God had put in the Bible more plain statements… or maybe just one good inclusive list — and highlighted it by telling us, “My children, here’s what you need to know, and what you need to do; just concentrate on this!” ‘

But, of course, what we have instead is a book, or really a compilation of many books, written by many different men (and women?) scattered over a millennium and a half, and comprised of many different kinds of literature. True, as we are apt to point out to others, they all tell the same story, and have the same fundamental message — that’s beyond dispute. But one has to read, and study, and meditate upon each portion… before this fact comes into focus.

Well, part of the answer to ‘Why pictures in the first place?’ is this: because the people to whom the Bible was first given, in its separate parts and then as an entirety, were almost all Jews, along with a few other Middle Eastern folks. And these original recipients of the Bible and its message had different thought processes and patterns than we modern Westerners do. Notice: I am not saying ‘better’ thought patterns; nor am I saying ‘worse’ thought patterns. I am simply saying “different”.

This might be summarized as follows:

East and West contrasts in thought patterns…

EAST	WEST
Biblical, Semitic, Jewish	European, German, English, American
Feelings	Thoughts
Attitudes	Analysis
Allegories	Technicalities
Symbols	Details
Parables	Facts
“What does it do?”	“How does it work?”
Oriented to end, results	Oriented to means, process

---

It’s fair to say that a good deal of what we call Bible exposition is really the attempt to put into Western, or modern, terms what the Bible has already said quite satisfactorily in figurative terms — terms much more easily discerned by the people of Bible times and Bible lands than by us today. Which is not to denigrate the effort at all: given our culture and our background, such exposition seems essential.

In one sense, exposition is really just “translation” carried to another level: the translation not of words or phrases only, but also of concepts and ideas and philosophy.

---

Some of the Bible’s “Pictures of Redemption”

The Scripture verses cited are examples; in most cases, there are many other illustrative passages. Some of these “pictures” are major themes running from one end of the Bible to the other; some are mentioned only once or twice, almost as an afterthought. All are interesting; all are instructive; all contribute to the full “picture”! (This list is far from exhaustive.)

1. The redemption, or ransom, of slaves out of the “slave market” (1Co 6:20; 7:23; Gal 3:13; 4:5; Rev 5:9; 14:3,4).
2. A shepherd caring for and protecting his flock (Psa 23; Isa 40:11; Eze 34:23; Luk 15:4; Joh 10:10-14; Heb 13:20; 1Pe 2:25).
3. A washing, or cleansing — paradoxically, sometimes a washing with blood (Isa 1:18; Heb 9:22; 10:22; 1Jo 1:7; Rev 1:5; 7:14).
4. A new “birth”, a new “creation”, a new beginning (Joh 3:3,7; 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Eph 2:10; Tit 3:5; Jam 1:18; 1Pe 1:23).
5. A potter working with clay to produce a vessel (Isa 45:9; 64:8; Jer 18:1-6; Rom 9:20-24; 2Ti 2:20,21).
6. A sacrifice or victim to seal or guarantee a covenant (Mat 26:27,28; Heb 9:15-17; 13:20).
7. The crushing or destruction of a “serpent” (Gen 3:15; Num 21; Joh 3:14; Rom 16:20).
8. A bond of reconciliation; a union of those who were previously enemies; a joining together in “one body” (Rom 12:5; 1Co 12; Gal 3:27-29; Eph 2:13-15; 4:4; Col 1:22).
9. The acquittal of an accused, and guilty, criminal (Isa 50:8,9; Rom 3:26; 8:31-34; Heb 7:25; 1Jo 2:1).
10. The paying of a debt; the forgiving of an offence (Mat 6:12-15; Mar 11:25; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13).
11. A meal, or feast, of fellowship and joy (Mat 26:26-28; Luk 14:8-14; 1Co 11:26-29).
12. Adoption into a family; the love of a father or mother (Isa 66:13; Rom 8:23; 9:4; 1Th 2:7,11).
13. A marriage; the love of a bride and a bridegroom (Psa 45; Song; Rev 19).
14. A farmer and his crop; the harvest (Mat 9:37,38; Mat 13; 20:1; 21:33,34; Luk 10:2; 1Co 3:6-9; 2Ti 2:6).
15. Circumcision; crucifixion: a “cutting off” or repudiation of the flesh (Jer 4:4; Rom 2:25-29; Gal 5:24; 6:14,15; Col 2:11).
16. The running, and winning, of a race (1Co 9:24-26; Gal 2:2; Heb 12:1,2).
17. Victory in a battle or war (Psa 60:12; Joh 16:33; Rom 8:37; 1Co 15:54-57; 1Jo 5:4,5).
18. The building of a house, a temple, or a city (Eph 2:21,22; Heb 3:6; 1Pe 2:5-9; Rev 3:12).
19. A fisherman drawing in his net (Mat 4:18,19; 13:47-49).
20. A putting on of a new garment (1Co 15:53,54; Gal 3:27; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10-14).
21. A moral mandate; a call to action, to repentance and change (Rom 6:3,4; 12:1,2; Gal 2:20).
22. The lifting up, or bearing, of another’s burden (Isa 58:6; Mat 8:17; 11:29,30; Ro 15:1; Gal 6:2; 1Pe 2:24,25).
23. Healing of blind, deaf, lame, etc: the resurrection of the dead (Isa 35; Joh 5:21-25; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:1-5; Col 2:13).
24. A tree producing fruit (Mat 7:17-19; Mar 11:13,14; Luk 13:6-9; Gal 5:22,23).
25. A spring of water (Isa 55:1; Joh 4:14; 7:37,38; Rev 21:6; 22:17).
26. A rest from labor; the Sabbath day of rest (Isa 11:10; Heb 4:9; Rev 7:14-17).
27. A “white stone” — ie, a favorable vote, or approval (Rev 2:17).
28. Wages received for work done (Mat 20:1-8).
29. A hiding place; a refuge; a “rock”; a shelter (Psa 9:9; 18:2; 91:2; 144:2; Pro 18:10; Isa 32:2; Jer 16:19).

Memorial meeting, importance

---

Only two “rites” are absolutely commanded to the believer: baptism, and the Breaking of Bread. By the first we join God’s family, and by the second we regularly reaffirm our membership in this family.

It is surprising that there are any with full opportunity to attend regularly who are content to be at the Breaking of Bread just now and then. For this most important service is essentially a thanksgiving. A casual attitude toward it, with irregular attendance, in effect declares, “I am thankful to God for the Lord Jesus Christ and what he has done for me, but not much! And there are other things which I regard as being more important.”

Put down in black and white, this looks horrible. But is there really anything unfair about such a diagnosis?

Would there be such a careless attitude to the Table of the Lord if it were properly appreciated what this meeting can mean? Consider the familiar words, “My blood of the new covenant… shed… for the remission of sins” (Mat 26:28).

Here is the identical phrase which is used about our baptism into Christ. These two holy rites are designed to supplement one another. Baptism washes away every sin committed up to that moment. But — such is human frailty and human thinking — spotless robes of righteousness invariably begin to become drab and soiled. However, the disciple who lives by faith in Christ knows that with the Memorial Service comes remission (forgiveness) of sins. There the robe of righteousness resumes its original brightness.

Yet faced with such startling but delightful truths as these, there are some who are indifferent to this most important thing in life, and do not mind openly asserting, by their lack of enthusiasm, that this is how they feel!

Away from home

From time to time, believers find themselves away from their homes, and their home ecclesias, on a Sunday. Such times are fine opportunities to get to know other Christadelphians, by attending memorial meetings of other ecclesias. A little foresight and planning before weekend trips or vacations can be spiritually rewarding, in experiencing at first hand the true worldwide family fellowship of our brotherhood. A week or two spent on business in a strange city far from home, rather than being a desolate and lonely time, can be a wonderful time of sharing with people who are truly “family” — family in a more meaningful sense, quite often, than one’s own natural family. As Jesus said,

“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? Pointing to his disciples, he said, Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mat 12:48-50).

In isolation

There will be times, of course, when it will be clearly impossible — or extremely difficult — to attend a Sunday meeting of Christadelphians. What should be done then? The partaking of the bread and wine, accompanied by suitable Bible readings and prayers, can be a tremendously fresh and rewarding experience — even for an individual or a couple temporarily isolated from all other spiritual companionship.

Memorial meeting, significance

---

Our Sunday service is properly a memorial. It is not a sacrifice, as the “Catholic” church insists; neither is it a “sacrament”, that is, an act which mechanically appropriates grace to the doer. It is simply a memorial, a means of remembrance:

“This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1Co 11:25).

If we are to live up to the New Testament pattern, we must be a family gathered around a table, partaking of a meal and in so doing remembering an absent member. It is an uncomplicated act, an act of loving companionship, of warmth and familiarity, not of pomp and ceremony.

We do not break bread and drink wine in order to assert any superiority over outsiders. We do not break bread and drink wine as a substitute for the rigorous discipline of service to God in its many features, to which the Truth calls us. Neither do we break bread and drink wine to encourage personal feelings of self-righteousness or complacency. (Especially on this last we must beware, because frequent repetition, instead of fostering memory, can in fact encourage forgetfulness of the true principles.)

But, purely and simply, we partake of these emblems in order to remember: first, God’s love; second, Christ’s sacrifice; and third, our duty.

There are two absolutely essential aspects of worship: baptism and the memorial supper. Baptism is the process by which the believer is “born” into his new “family”. And the Breaking of Bread is the perpetuation of that “family life” begun at baptism, by the repeated affirmation of the believer’s membership in the marvelous “family of God”!

Why are there two different emblems? The obvious answer is that the bread represents Christ’s body and the wine his blood. But that answer seems somewhat inadequate since either one alone might convey, almost as well as both together, the sense of sacrificial death. Is there some further distinction?

Perhaps it is this: the bread represents the strength of our Lord’s life — a life totally dedicated to the will of the Father. The wine more aptly represents his death — the blood willingly poured out as a climax to his life’s work.

The bread was broken and passed to each disciple. Each disciple drank a portion from the cup. But we must not suppose that this apportioning out of the emblems implies, in any sense, that Christ can be divided among us, or that we in any sense partake of only a portion of the blessings involved. All the blessing belongs to every individual among us. The bread must be broken in order that many can share it — there just is no other way to accomplish the practical object of providing for each brother and sister to eat of it. But the body, which the bread represents — Christ’s spiritual, multitudinous body — cannot be broken; it is one! “For we being many are one bread, and one body” (1Co 10:17). And the body is “knit together” in love with the Head, which is Christ himself (Col 2:2,19).

The component parts

It may be profitable to consider, item by item, the component parts of the Memorial Meeting, as to the significance of each:

1. First of all, in keeping with Hab 2:20, we enter the meeting room and take our seats, as much as possible in a spirit of quietness and meditation. Now is the time for serious thought and preparation and self-examination. Despite the ordinariness of the surroundings, if that is the case, we are nevertheless coming into the very presence of God! As for being late, when it is avoidable: This is not just wrong because it has the potential of disturbing our brothers and sisters, but also (and especially) because it is an appointment with God. Is this important? Consider the parable of the virgins in Mat 25: the foolish virgins, not being prepared ahead of time, came late to the marriage feast, to find the door shut against them!

2. General appearance and dress: In this, as in many areas of our life in the Truth, no hard-and-fast rules can (or should) be imposed. But surely we can be governed by intelligence and common sense. How would we dress for a “special occasion” such as meeting some important human dignitary? And how would we behave at such a meeting? Let us answer such questions for ourselves, and then realize, with wonder and awe, that we are going on Sunday morning to “meet” the Lord of the Universe and His Son!

3. The presiding brother: Presiding is perhaps the most important duty of all, more important to the memorial meeting than even exhorting. The presiding brother’s is the first voice to be heard; it is his duty to set and maintain the tone of the meeting; and by his presence, attitude, and words to give unity and continuity to the whole service. His duty is also to introduce the central feature of the whole worship service, the partaking of the emblems. This should require preparation (and prayer!) at home, even before coming to the meeting. Our minds are drawn to that first Memorial Meeting, in the upper room in Jerusalem, where Jesus was the first presiding brother, conveying an all-pervasive calm and confidence to his brethren, by which he demonstrated to them God’s presence and God’s love.

4. Music and singing: This can become something of an ordeal in small meetings, when those who play and those who sing may be all too aware of their inadequacies. So it must be remembered that our hymns are not important as a display of technical skill, but only for the spiritual quality of the worship itself. It is entirely possible to sing (and play) in the spirit which Jesus condemned: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mat 15:8).

In short, the words and their message must always be the motivating principle in our hymns.

5. Reading of Scripture: The crucial point to recognize here, as in every Bible reading, is that God is speaking to us:

“This is what the Lord says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?’ declares the Lord. ‘This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word'” (Isa 66:1,2).

Just as with prayers, there should be no unnecessary movements, no interruptions, and no noise. Whether we speak to God (in prayers and hymns) or God speaks to us (in Bible readings), we are dealing with divine communications!

6. Collection: Although we were not redeemed by corruptible things such as silver and gold, we cannot escape from their use in the service of God. Indeed, there is something satisfying in the thought that the world’s monies can be put to other-worldly uses. It is our privilege to consecrate what we have of this world’s goods to the service of the Giver of all things.

In our day there remains the need for money and materials for the service of our God. There is the rent or purchase of a meeting room or hall; there are the poor, the elderly, the children and young people to whom we have special responsibility; the word must be preached, the meetings advertised; there are the funds collected centrally for special causes and special occasions.

How do we give? How much do we give? We should give willingly and without grudging as though giving were, as indeed it is, a service to Christ personally. How much? That depends upon the giver. There is a twin gauge: our ability to give (our means and income) and our spirit (our liberality or otherwise).

Some churches use tithes by which to bring in the money they need: others employ businessmen with a flair for touching people’s hearts and pockets and find their annual income increased by many thousands of dollars. We do none of these things and, perhaps, rightly so. But our own system of giving should not be an excuse for minimum contributions. The left hand may not know what the right hand is doing, but the Lord knows nevertheless.

7. Prayers: Public prayers should be relevant (ie, related to the object at hand, whether an opening prayer, prayer on behalf of others, thanks for bread or wine, etc.) and not repetitious. Prayers should be fresh and spontaneous, if possible; in common, everyday language — not stilted, artificial “Sunday only” speech. When all else fails, the pattern of Jesus in what is commonly called “the Lord’s prayer” will surely set us on the right road again.

8. The exhortation: The exhortation is not primarily a Bible study talk — so it should not be particularly technical or detailed. Neither is it the best place to teach, or re-teach, the first principles of our faith. Instead, it is primarily an introduction to the emblems of bread and wine, and therefore an aid to remembrance and self-examination. An exhortation should emphasize God’s holiness and purity and love; and the awesome responsibility of our calling to serve Him. It should not discourage, but rather encourage and comfort (which is the primary meaning of the Greek word translated “exhort”). It should, above all else, show us Christ. Wherever our thoughts and words take us as we contemplate God’s message, there we will find Christ: the central character in the Bible. If the exhortation has done its work, we will leave the Memorial Meeting feeling and acting as though we have been changed for the better:

“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus” (Act 4:13).

9. The memorials themselves have been sufficiently discussed above, as to their importance and significance. Let it be merely added that in “showing the death of Christ”, our service on Sunday morning is in a sense a funeral. In attending a “funeral” we are showing respect for the dead (in this case, one who was dead, but is now alive, gloriously and eternally alive!), and for the occasion. And we are recognizing, for ourselves as well, the solemnity of both life and death, and how, in our daily lives, we can come in contact with eternal things. “Ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” Surely, if we grasp this fact, we need not worry that we will forget to examine ourselves.

10. Conclusion: After a final hymn and prayer, a brief musical interlude closes the meeting. This is not a convenient background to cover the noise of shuffling feet and whispers about lunch plans. Rather, it is a final quiet moment to gather together the threads of thoughts from the worship, and to prepare to face the rest of the day and the week to follow — being sure that Christ is going with us as we leave the place of meeting.

Remember, our service can be beautiful and holy even without the external trappings of an expensive building and a large congregation. Christ on a mountain side, or in a secluded room, with no more than a dozen friends, could lead the holiest of all services. And so it may still be:

“For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Mat 18:20).

Kingdom, where will it be?

---

QUESTION: “You talk about a Kingdom on earth. I believe in the Kingdom of heaven. Does the actual location of the Kingdom really matter, as long as we end up being with the Lord?”

ANSWER: Taking the surface meaning of the question, the simple answer must be: ‘No, it doesn’t matter. If a believer is rewarded by being given eternal life in the Kingdom of God, its location becomes incidental.’ But the question’s wording hides the real issue. The implication is: ‘Why argue about a subject that is relatively unimportant?’ And the answer to this implication is: ‘We should determine what the Bible teaches on the subject, and then respond accordingly.’

The Bible clearly teaches that the Kingdom of God is to be established on earth by Jesus Christ at his Second Coming, in fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, David, and the apostles. This teaching is plainly laid out in both Old and New Testament, and is one of the key elements of the Gospel. Given this amount of information on the subject, it seems reasonable to conclude that God has placed importance on the location and nature of His Kingdom. Given its importance, location of the Kingdom is an issue and needs to be rightly understood, lest the misunderstanding affect the belief and walk of the believer.

Start with the evidence in the Gospel of Matthew. What did John preach? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mat 3:2). Jesus preached exactly the same thing (Mat 4:17), and his ministry in Galilee was described as “teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease…” (v 23). The Sermon on the Mount explicitly mentions “the kingdom of heaven” seven times (Mat 5:3,10,19,20; 6:10,33; 7:21), as Jesus seems to be teaching the way of life required of his disciples in order to gain entrance to the kingdom.

Significantly, in Mat 6:9,10, Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the kingdom to come (from God in heaven), not that they might go (to God in heaven). The words “kingdom of heaven” are not equivalent to “kingdom in heaven” — a phrase which is never found in Scripture. The first phrase, however, is found many times in Scripture, and indicates a “heavenly kingdom”, ie, a divine kingdom originating with God, who dwells in heaven.

This point is borne out in Mat 19:23,24, where the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” is restated as “the kingdom of God”. In other words, “of heaven” should not be construed as being indicative of location but of character. “Of God” is synonymous with “of heaven”. So when Matthew writes: “many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven… ” (Mat 8:11), his phraseology is comparable to Luke’s version: “When you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God… And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God” (Luk 13:28,29).

Here location is implied, for the directions of east, west, etc. refer to earthbound men, not people existing in heaven. And the wording comes from Zec 8:7,22, where the text speaks of Gentile nations coming to Jerusalem to be with the LORD.

The Matthew/Luke reference to Abraham and his sons is not by accident. God’s promise to Abraham that he would inherit the land of Canaan “as an everlasting possession” (Gen 13:14,15; 17:8) is explicitly given to Isaac (Gen 26:3,4) and Jacob (Gen 28:13). That land — occupied by modern Israel today — is the promised land (Exo 3:15-17; 13:5,11), the land of everlasting inheritance to be received (still in the future) by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the faithful who have lived throughout the ages (Heb 11:8-16,39,40; Rom 4:13-16).

The logic in Gal 3 powerfully reinforces the idea of all believers inheriting the promised land of Israel along with Abraham:

“It is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham… those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham… in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith… and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:7,9,26,29).

So clearly the location of the Christian reward is earth, not heaven. The connection between the promised land and the Kingdom of God is just as plain. Consider the angel’s words to Mary concerning her son Jesus:

“…The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32,33).

The passage connects “throne”, “David”, “Jacob” and “kingdom”, and certainly refers back to God’s promises to David, which foretold a descendant who would rule over the people of Israel for ever (2Sa 7:12-16; 1Ch 17:11-14). See how plain God’s words to David are: “I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son… I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.”

David reigned over the people of Israel from Jerusalem for 33 years (1Ki 2:11). Thus Jerusalem was the throne city of the kingdom of Israel, a kingdom very much on earth, not in heaven. That past reality is the basis for the future kingdom of God on earth; this kingdom is the subject of Isaiah’s straightforward prophecies (Isa 9:6,7; 2:2-4; 11:3-10), and it is certain to be restored by Jesus upon his Return:

“Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mat 19:28).

“When the Son of man comes in his glory… then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations… Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you… ‘ ” (Mat 25:31-34).

This glorious message of a divine kingdom on earth was the thrust of the apostles’ early preaching before they had any understanding of the sacrifice of Christ (Luke 9:2,6,44,45). After 40 days of instruction by the risen Christ, the apostles still were keen to ask: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). They did not ask about going to heaven. They asked about the time of the kingdom being established again on earth. The matter was one of great importance to them, and thus should be of great importance to disciples today.

Being told that the time was not yet, the apostles were commissioned to preach the gospel “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8) and assured that Jesus would return (v 11). So the apostles went out and preached the gospel, pointing out the connection of Jesus with the Davidic (Acts 2:29-32; 13:32-39) and Abrahamic promises (Acts 3:20-25; 7:5; 26:6,7). Their preaching definitely kept the “kingdom of God” as a preeminent part of the gospel (Acts 8:12; 28:23,31).

Since the plain Bible teaching is that God has promised the earth as a reward for the faithful, the issue goes far beyond location. The real question is whether a reader of the verses cited can in good conscience continue to believe that heaven is the place of reward. If God has provided so much information about the kingdom on earth in fulfillment of His promises, then surely He intended us to know where the kingdom would be. Location on earth is something we humans can comprehend, and thus we can meaningfully pray for the kingdom to come here. God’s Kingdom on earth should be the accepted truth of the matter. That was the belief into which New Testament men and women were baptized (Acts 2:38,41; 8:12). Today’s disciples must believe and do the same.

(NF)

God, basic principles

---

How can we know God?

Although the order and design of the world can encourage belief in a Creator, we can only know God through His revelation of Himself and His ways. This revelation is in the Bible, which clearly claims to have been authored by Him through faithful men (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:21; Heb 1:1,2). In it we find His revelation of His nature, His character, His mind and His purpose. The superiority of all His ways and thoughts over those of men is to be expected and is stated: “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa 55:8,9; see too 1Co 1:25-29).

His nature

God reveals Himself as the Supreme Being, Who has always existed, immortal, of infinite power, wisdom and understanding (1Ti 1:17; 6:15; Psa 90:1-3; 145:3; 147:5; Isa 45:5,18). He is declared to be the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the giver of life to all that lives (Gen 1:1; Jer 10:7,10-12; Act 14:15; 17:24). Not only does He create life, but He sustains it, and when He deems fit He will take life away (Psa 104; Deu 32:39; Act 17:25,28).

His character

God declared His character particularly to Moses: “The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty…” (Exo 34:6,7). His character is seen in His dealings with mankind, particularly with the nation of Israel. God’s work with the nation of Israel illustrates His kindness and longsuffering, but also His intolerance of sin and rebellion against His ways (Psa 103:8-13; Hab 1:13; Deu 4:24). Paul describes these two aspects of the Almighty’s character as “the goodness and severity of God” (Rom 11:22).

God-manifestation

---

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1Ti 3:16).

“For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us” (1Jo 1:2).

God-manifestation is the display of the glory of God within His creation, His fundamental purpose in all creation (Num 14:21). It is particularly seen in the display of His character and attributes. When Adam fell he no longer displayed the image of his Creator as previously, and became estranged (Gen 1:27; 3:24). God’s purpose is that men and women should become even greater manifestations of Himself than Adam and Eve were originally.

God — source of all

No man can see God and live (Exo 33:20; 1Ti 6:16; Joh 1:18). So He has shown Himself by intermediaries, by God-in-manifestation.

God is revealed in the meaning of His Name, Yahweh. The angel in the burning bush spoke to Moses (Exo 3:2) as God: “I am…” (v 6). He explained His Name as signifying “I am That I am” (v 14), or “I will be Who I will be” (RSV), emphasizing that He is a God of the future as well as the present and past (Exo 6:2-8). His Name is a memorial to all future generations (Exo 3:15), most especially to those whom He is creating as manifestations of Himself, and who will become part of the glorified Israel symbolized by the bush which continued burning unconsumed (Psa 22:30; Hos 12:5,6; Isa 53:10; 2Pe 1:4).

He is the Source and Sustainer of all things, and they are created for His glory (1Co 8:6; Acts 17:28; Rom 11:36).

Revealed in the angels

• Angels displayed the joy of God (Job 38:7; Luk 2:10-14), carried the Name of God (Gen 16:13; 18:1; Exo 23:20,21), and at the Exodus and at Sinai showed the power and glory of God (Exo 14:19,20; Acts 7:38).
• Yahweh’s angel proclaimed His Name and character to Moses, “abundant in goodness and truth”, merciful and forgiving (Exo 34:6,7).

Revealed in Christ

• “The Word [or Logos] was God”; that is, the thought, mind and purpose of God was expressed in speech and later personally in Adam’s flesh as the Son of God, “the only begotten of the Father” by the overshadowing power of the Holy Spirit (Joh 1:1,14,18; 2Sa 7:14; Luk 1:35). As a result he was called Emmanuel, “God with us” (Mat 1:23; Isa 7:14).
• One purpose of his manifestation as the Son of God was to destroy the works of the devil (1Jo 3:8; Heb 2:14). It is essential to recognize that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1Jo 4:2,3; 2Jo 1:7).
• Made “in the form of God” by his birth, he is “the image of the invisible God”, “the express image of His person” (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). He has “declared” the Father, and manifested His Name (Joh 1:18; 17:6,26). In him the Father was seen (Joh 12:45).
• He brought life for the human race and was thus “the light of men” (Joh 1:4,9; 12:46; 2Co 4:4). This light is not of himself but of the Father, shining “in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Co 4:6; Joh 1:14-17).
• By service and suffering he was made perfect, a full manifestation of his Father (Phi 2:7,8; Heb 2:10; 5:8,9). He has therefore been raised to the manifestation of God in Divine nature, inheriting a name greater than angels, and glorifying God in the process (Heb 5:5; 1:4; Phi 2:9-11). He is now the anointed Son of the Father in a greater sense (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:9). He carries the name Yahweh our Righteousness and, particularly when he returns, men will bow to the Father through him, and his glory will be revealed (Isa 45:23; Jer 23:5,6).

“Christadelphians are neither Arians, Socinians, nor Trinitarians; but believers in the ‘great mystery of godliness, Deity manifested in Flesh’, as set forth in ‘the Revelation of the Mystery’, preached by the apostles” (Eur 2:336).

Revealed in the faithful down the ages

• Reception of the Word of God is made the mark of a member of the Elohim, as in the case of the judges of Israel (Joh 10:34-36; Psa 82:1,6; Exo 21:6; 22:8,28).
• Immersion into “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat 28:19) involves understanding, believing and obeying a body of truth defined in the Word of God. By this we become children of God — that is, we are “born from above” (Joh 3:3, mg).

God-manifestation should be part of the daily living of the man or woman of God (1Ti 6:6,11; 2:10). Abiding in the doctrine of Christ is essential, and by it we ‘have’ or manifest both the Father and the Son (2Jo 1:9; 1Jo 5:12).

• Even now we are the sons of God (1Jo 3:2), but are being changed into or conformed to the image of God’s Son (2Co 3:18; 4:6,7; Rom 8:29; 1Jo 3:10).
• The ecclesia, the one body of Christ, is spiritually one with Christ (1Co 10:16,17; 12:12,13; Gal 3:27,28; Eph 4:12). He is its head and through him its members enter the Name to the glory of God (Eph 5:23,27; Joh 17:22,23).

To be revealed in the saints

The future manifestation of God in the saints will fulfil promises and prophecies:

• To partake of the Divine Nature, incorruptible and immortal (2Pe 1:4; 1Co 15:53,54; Jam 1:12).
• To reign in glory with Christ in the earth (Dan 7:27; 2Ti 2:12; Rev 5:10).

Sons of God are being brought to future glory, and by sanctification through Jesus are of the one Father with him (Heb 2:10,11). The full significance of this glory cannot be appreciated by mortal man (1Jo 3:2).

• God’s title “Father of glory” will take on an extended meaning through “the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:17,18; Col 1:27).
• We wait for “the glory which shall be revealed in us”, “the manifestation of the sons of God”, “the glorious liberty of the children of God”, “the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:18,19,21,23).

Today we are either prospective manifestations of God as saints, already bearing some Divine likeness, or manifestations of the natural man, the adversary of God (1Jo 4:4).

Faith acting through works

---

The question of whether a person is saved by faith or by works has been the subject of great debate in Christendom down the ages. It formed the basis of the great split which occurred in the sixteenth century between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches, for the clarion call of the leader of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, was ‘salvation by faith alone’. In this he rejected the teaching of Roman Catholicism that salvation was to be obtained by doing works imposed by the church, and substituted for it salvation by an individual calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Scripture is quite clear on the matter: there is such a thing as salvation by faith and there is such a thing as salvation by works. They are not alternatives; both are necessary. However, there is an order of priority: salvation by faith comes first, and salvation by works comes second. The works or deeds that are required are those which flow from faith; they are the deeds which provide the evidence that faith truly exists in a person.

The above concept is both Scriptural and simple, but, like many such concepts, is not generally followed in Christendom. For many, salvation is a matter of a once-off profession of belief in Jesus Christ; whilst for many others the carrying out of acts of benevolence towards one’s fellows is all that is required. These concepts fall a long way short of the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, they are not the only ways in which wrong ideas are held about faith and works.

What is faith?

The word ‘faith’ in ordinary English usage has a slightly mystical aura about it. In ordinary speech the word ‘belief’ can be used in quite trivial contexts, but not ‘faith’. One believes that a bus will shortly turn up; one has faith that everything will ultimately be all right even though the present is dark.

This distinction does not, however, occur in Scripture, where ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ are interchangeable for the same Greek original. In fact it is usually ‘believe’ when it is a verb and ‘faith’ when it is a noun. There is nothing mystical about faith in the Bible; it simply means belief.

There is a common teaching of Christendom that faith is imparted by God directly into man’s heart through the Holy Spirit… Heb 11:6 says: “But without faith it is impossible to please [God]: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him”. Faith here is defined as believing in the existence of God, and believing what God has declared in His Word about what lies in store in His Kingdom. It must also involve believing in the work of Jesus Christ in overcoming sin and death, for this is the only way in which as sinners we are enabled to enjoy what God has promised for the future. The phrase “diligently seek” reminds us that there is more to faith than just acquiescing to something said; it goes much further than that, which is where works come in, as we shall see.

In Act 8:12 we read concerning the people of Samaria: “when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women”. These Samaritans showed the faith which saves; that is what faith is: believing the gospel. The faith that they had immediately led to ‘works’, however, for they were baptized; they did something which was commanded by God, because they believed God.

Abraham believed God

“And [Abram] believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness” (Gen 15:6). This is a key passage. Abraham was showing the faith that saves, the faith which must be shown if a person is to be counted righteous by God and live for ever in His Kingdom, and so these words are quoted three times in the New Testament.

The previous chapter records that Abram (for his name had not yet been changed to Abraham) had routed the forces of the five kings who had captured Sodom and Gomorrah. He then turned down the offer of the king of Sodom to give him all the spoil recovered in Abram’s great victory. Abram must have wondered if bigger armies might come against him, and if he had done the right thing in turning down the spoils. God reassured him in the words, “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield [against vengeful armies], and thy exceeding great reward [not the king of Sodom]”. The promises of the seed, both singular (v 4) and multitudinous (v 5), were then repeated to him. These things were what Abram believed, and this belief or faith which he showed enabled God to count him as righteous. The faith which he had was nothing mysterious, nor was it a mere intellectual assent to the truth of what he had been told; it was a wholehearted trust in God to do what He had said He would do, a trust in God which controlled his life.

In Rom 4 Paul is dealing with Jews who thought that they were righteous in God’s sight because of their efforts to keep the laws which He had given them. Many elements later incorporated into the Law of Moses were to be found in patriarchal society, and Abraham and the other patriarchs would have kept these. It was not this that caused God to count Abraham as righteous, however, as has been shown, and God’s statement in Gen 15:6 is the key element in Paul’s argument that salvation comes through faith, not works (v 3). In Rom 4 Paul is especially concerned with Abraham’s faith in the promise of a seed, as is shown by his quotation in v 18 of the words of Gen 15:5: “So shall thy seed be”. The chapter then sets out how he showed this faith in the promise: “And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness” (vv. 19-22).

Abraham’s faith, by which he was counted righteous by God, and which stands for all time as an example of what faith is all about, consisted in “being fully persuaded that, what [God] had promised, He was able also to perform”, namely, that he and Sarah would have a son. Humanly it was not possible, but he knew God could do all things. The essence of our faith, if we would be counted as righteous before God, is that we should believe that what God has promised He will do through His Son Jesus Christ, namely, set up His Kingdom and give us an everlasting place in it, cleansed from our sins.

To illustrate the simplicity of this concept we refer to an extract from Elpis Israel. The writings of Brother Thomas, with good reason at times, are said to be hard to understand, but the concept of justification (being made righteous) by faith has surely never been put with greater clarity than in these words:

“There is no true religion without faith; nor any true faith without the belief of the truth. Now, although a scriptural faith is the scarcest thing among men. it is exceedingiy simple, and by no means difficult to acquire, when it is sought for aright. Paul gives the best definition of faith extant. He says, ‘Faith is a confident anticipation… of things hoped for, a full persuasion… of things not seen’ (Heb 11:1). This is the faith without which, he tells us afterwards, God is not, and cannot by any possibility be pleased. It is a faith which lays hold of the past and the future. The person who possesses it knows what is testified concerning Jesus by the apostles, and is fully persuaded of its truth; he also knows the exceeding great and precious promises which God has made concerning things to come, and he confidently anticipates the literal fulfilment of them. Laying hold of these things with a firm faith, he acquires a mode of thinking and a disposition which are estimable in the sight of God; and being like Abraham in these particulars, he is prepared, by induction into Christ, to become a son of the father of the faithful and of the friend of God.

“This faith comes by studying the scriptures; as it is written, ‘Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Rom 10:17). This word contains the ‘testimony of God’. When this testimony is understood, and allowed to make its own impression in ‘a good and honest heart’, faith establishes itself there. There is no more mystery in this, than how one man comes to believe another guilty of a crime when he is made acquainted with all the testimony in the case. The ability to believe lies in a sound understanding, a candid disposition, and knowledge of the testimony of God. Where there is ignorance of this there can be no faith. It is as impossible for a man ignorant of God’s word to have faith, as it is for a man to believe another guilty of an alleged crime who knows nothing at all about the matter” (Elp 162,163).

Abraham’s works

It must never be forgotten that all Scripture must be interpreted in context, not just verses within chapters but chapters within books.

Rom 4 is part of an argument by Paul against Jews who thought that God was obliged to give them eternal life because they kept His law. Paul shows that sinful mankind can only earn death, and the only thing a person can do to obtain life eternal is believe what God says. The statement about Abraham’s faith in Gen 15:6 is crucial to his argument.

In James 2 the apostle is dealing with a different matter. There were those who apparently thought of faith as being some inner quality that one had quite apart from anything one actually did. This is not so, says Jam 2:17: “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being by itself” (AV mg). If a person’s life does not show forth works then that person does not have the faith which saves; in reality he does not have faith at all.

Like Paul, James turns to Abraham to illustrate what he means. When God told Abraham to go to a certain place and offer up his son Isaac, he went, and would have offered him if God had not intervened. He knew God’s power and therefore believed that God would still be able to fulfil His promise that from Isaac would come a great multitude, because He could raise him from the dead. The comment is: “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God” (vv 22,23). The NEB rendering, “faith was at work in his actions”, seems to give the idea best.

Initially it is by faith that a person is justified before God. He (or she) believes God’s Word, repents of sin, and by baptism is associated with Jesus Christ’s victory over sin. From then on there is justification by works, for if there is truly a belief in what God has said in His Word then that belief will result in a certain way of life, summed up in the word “works”.

Yet the newly baptized believer is but a ‘newborn babe’ (1Pe 2:2). Faith grows, and so do the works. When Abraham was prepared to offer up Isaac, “by works was faith made perfect”. The word translated “perfect” does not mean ‘flawless’ — it means ‘mature’. It was many years after the events of Gen 15 that Abraham obeyed the command to offer Isaac. During this time his faith in God grew, and as a result so did his obedience, until the time came when it could be said to be mature.

Again the position is put with great clarity in Elpis Israel:

“I would direct the reader’s attention to the fact, that Abraham was the subject of a twofold justification, as it were; first, of a justification by faith; and secondly, of a justification by works. PAUL SAYS, he was justified by faith; and James, that he was ‘justified by works’. They are both right. As a sinner he was justified from his past sins when his faith was counted to him for righteousness; and as a saint, he was justified by works when he offered up Isaac. Of his justification as a saint James writes, ‘Abraham our father was justified by works, when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar. Faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith alone’ (Jam 2:21-24).

“I have termed it a twofold justification by way of illustration; but it is, in fact, only one. The two stand related as cause and effect; faith being the motive principle it is a justification which begins with the remission of sins that are past, and is perfected in obedience unto death. The idea may be simplified thus. No exaltation without probation. If a man believe and obey the gospel his past sins are forgiven him in Christ; but, if after this he walk in the course of the world his faith is proved to be dead, and he forfeits his title to eternal life. But if, on the other hand, a man become an adopted son of Abraham, and ‘by a patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honour, and incorruptibility’ (Rom 2:7), he will find everlasting life in the Paradise of God” (Elp 260,261).

What we are reinforcing in this article is one of the foundation principles of the Christadelphian body, established very clearly from the very beginning of our community.

What are works?

There can easily be confusion about what works are. The phrase ‘good works’ is often used to indicate the sort of things which a ‘Christian’ does. These ‘good works’ are said to consist of acts of benevolence to others, both those done individually in the course of everyday life, and those done through charitable organisations set up to help others. Many people think that if they do acts of kindness towards others then they will be rewarded in the ‘next life’, whatever that may consist of.

To think like this is to believe in salvation by works, for it means that God is thought to be under obligation to a person to give a future reward in return for good deeds done now. Such a view completely overlooks all that we have already said in this article: that salvation is primarily by faith, not by works, and that faith means believing what God has said in His Word. Many people who expect a future reward for works done now have no idea what God has said in His Word, let alone believe it.

It is instructive to consider the ‘works’ which are used as examples in Jam 2. In the case of Abraham it was being prepared to kill his own son, a deed which in every civilised society is regarded as murder of the vilest sort. It is the fact that Abraham was acting in obedience to God’s command that transforms being prepared to commit a horrible crime into a great example of faith.

The other example given in James 2 is that of Rahab. What Rahab did was to hide her country’s enemies in a time of war — an act of treason which brings severe punishment, often death, in any country. What transformed her act of treason into an example of faith for all time is the fact that she did what she did because she believed in the God of Israel, and in God’s purpose with Israel, and chose to identify herself with this purpose.

Heb 11 is full of examples of faith. If the chapter is studied carefully it will be seen that all the examples given showed their faith by what they did; their belief in God resulted in certain actions in their lives. The predominant theme is that of association with God’s people. God’s promises. God’s coming Kingdom. To do such inevitably has consequences for a person’s way of life, and this comes out in the chapter:

“Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”; “Noah… prepared an ark to the saving of his house”; “Abraham… went out, not knowing whither he went”; “Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come”; “Joseph… gave commandment concerning his bones”; “Moses… refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter”; “Rahab… received the spies with peace”.

Besides these examples there are hosts of others referred to at the end of the chapter whose faith was shown in the way they lived their lives.

It is particularly noticeable that the things that were done arose out of a belief that God would do what He said He would do. Abel surely offered a lamb (Gen 4:2,4) because he believed that God would one day send the promised seed who would die as a lamb for the sins of the world. Noah built the ark because he believed what God had said about the coming Flood. Abraham left his native land because he believed in God’s promises about the land of Canaan. Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, believing that God would bring about these blessings. Joseph gave command concerning his bones because he believed that God would bring Israel to the Promised Land one day. Moses associated himself with Israel, not Egypt, because he believed in Israel’s great future under God’s good hand. Rahab likewise believed that the future lay with Israel, not her own people. The faith that pleases God is a belief that He will surely fulfil His promises of the Kingdom through the Lord Jesus Christ.

We do not, of course, deny that believers in Christ should do good deeds to their fellow men. Elsewhere in James we read: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this. To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jam 1:27). We read in Gal 6:10: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith”. However, it is obedience to God that makes works acceptable to God, not benevolence to man. Even though the commands of God do involve benevolence to man, such good deeds can be and are shown by those with no belief in God at all, let alone in the gospel of the Kingdom. It takes a belief in the gospel of the Kingdom to make works acceptable to God.

A distorted view

It is undoubtedly true that the Apostle Paul lays great stress on the fact that justification is by faith, not works. However, if what the Scriptures say about works being necessary to demonstrate a true faith is not taken into account, a distorted picture can emerge.

Faith, as we have seen, means believing what God has said in His Word. If all that God had given us was a list of do’s and don’ts then all we could do would be to hang it up somewhere, remind ourselves of them regularly, and try hard to obey them. However, what God has done is to teach us of His ways in a large volume containing an immense variety of material which is capable of occupying the finest minds for a lifetime without anywhere near exhausting its depths. We are told to treat this as our spiritual food: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Mat 4:4); we are told that it “effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1Th 2:13).

The Apostle Paul says: “be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2); he says the new man (or woman) in Christ “is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col 3:10). The Word of God will change our thinking if we will let it, but only if we read it and believe implicitly that it is true, that is, have faith. If our thinking is changed to be more and more in accordance with God’s thoughts then what we do in our lives will be affected, and we will more and more do what is in accordance with the will of God, that is, perform works. So, while we do not deny that determination to do better is a Scriptural concept — what else does Peter mean when he says, “gird up the loins of your mind” (1Pe 1:13)? — there is certainly a lot more to living the Truth than that.

We do not forget that one who believes God’s Word and tries to act on it will nevertheless through the weakness of the flesh fall far short of full obedience to the Word of God. Forgiveness for such failures is of course available through Christ. Nor would we fail to mention that God is active in the lives of believers to help them in their efforts to obey His Word, although this is not done by direct action on the mind but by control of external circumstances.

In the early part of the article we laid much emphasis on a firm belief in God’s declared purpose being the faith which saves. How does this square with what we have said above about belief in God’s Word transforming our thinking to be in accordance with God’s? God’s ultimate purpose, to which He is working, is that a multitude of people will manifest His character perfectly and live for ever. This is what His work in Christ is all about; this is what His Kingdom is all about. Belief in God’s purpose in Christ, and belief in the gospel of the Kingdom, entails believing what God has to say about how His character should be shown in His people. Taking into the mind the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom means taking into the mind the moral teaching concerning the Kingdom, and showing it in a way of life. If we believe God’s promises and want to be part of them we have to show in our lives that they mean something to us now.

(TB)

Faith and works

---

FAITH

1.	In the NT, the words faith and belief are all related.
2.	Cannot please God without it — Heb 11:6.
3.	Can be gained by teaching — Rom 10:14-17.
4.	Faith is one of the essential elements of salvation (Mar 16:16; Rom 1:16).
5.	Paul makes much of us being saved by our faith, and not by works of Law: eg Gal 2:16.
6.	Faith in the OT — Hab 2:4 (quoted in Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11; Hab 10:38); Psa 26:1 (combination of faith and works); Psa 37:3 (faith AND works); Pro 3:5; Psa 18:2; Gen 15:6 (Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness: cp Rom 4:1-5).
7.	What the OT says NOT to have faith in — you own mind (Pro 28:26), your own righteousness (Eze 33:13), armies (Hos 10:13), idols (Isa 42:17; Hab 2:18), anything human (Jer 17:5).

WORKS

1.	Good works are the fruit of the spirit, ie they are the result of being motivated and trained by the spirit: Tit 2:10-12; Gal 5:22-25.
2.	By doing good works we are showing divine activity through us — Mat 5:16; Joh 14:12.
3.	People with no faith demonstrate by their works (their way of life) their separation from God: Joh 3:19; Col 1:21; Eph 5:11 (“unfruitful works”); 2Pe 2:8.
4.	Good works are therefore evidence of living in faith: Jam 2:14-26.
	a.	The type of faith “without works” that James is describing here is the same type of empty belief that pagans have.
	b.	James is not “anti-faith”: cp Jam 1:3; 2:1.
5.	James is in harmony with Paul, who also repeatedly declares the necessity for works as well: Eph 2:8-10; 1Co 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-26; Rom 2:6-10.
6.	The works Paul rejects are those which men claim earn God’s favour in the sense of saving themselves by their own power: cp Rom 4:1-5; Eph 2:8,9; Tit 3:4,5. Thus good works of the unbeliever cannot save them, since these people rely on the flesh and not on the spirit (Rom 8:7,8).
7.	Why do good works? Because we are grateful for what has been done for us by God and Jesus: Joh 14:15,23; Gal 5:6.
8.	Because we are imperfect, our attempts at good works may be flawed. Yet, if we do them with the right motivation, they will be accepted by the mediation of Jesus: Col 3:17.

[See Lesson, Faith acting through works.]

Devil and the body of Moses, the

---

Here is an illustration — Biblical or non-Biblical? — to expose the evil men against whom Jude writes. Michael the archangel, in disputation with the devil about the body of Moses, is content to leave the issue in God’s hands: “The Lord rebuke thee”.

The parallel passage in Peter runs thus: “Presumptuous are they, not afraid to speak evil of dignities (glories); whereas angels which are greater (than they?) in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord” (2Pe 2:10,11).

The modernists have a field day here. Without any evidence (in fact, against the evidence, as will be seen by and by), they assume that an apocryphal work, ‘The Assumption of Moses’, was already in existence and that Jude was alluding to it in this place.

What are the facts about this mysterious writing? All that is known definitely about it is that a few short quotations are made from it by some of the early fathers and that one or two of them (Origen, Clement of Alexandria) assert that Jud 1:9 quotes or alludes to it. This piece about the body of Moses is not included in any of the known quotes, but a marginal addition to a Jude manuscript has come to light which is probably from ‘The Assumption of Moses’, and it reads thus: “When Moses had died on the mountain, the archangel Michael was sent to transfer the body. But the devil resisted, wanting to cheat, saying that the body was his as master of the material (man), at any rate because he (Moses) had killed the Egyptian (Exo 2:12), having blasphemed against the holy man and having proclaimed him a murderer. The angel, not bringing the blasphemy against the holy man, said to the devil: ‘The Lord rebuke thee’.”

There is a common assumption by the critics that the Assumption of Moses precedes Jude and is quoted by him. Yet the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, for Peter states that this encounter between angel and “devil” took place “before the Lord”, but in the quote just given “the archangel Michael was sent” (ie from God). So it looks very much as though the Jude passage was misunderstood by this apocryphal writer and by him was blown up into an imaginative and theologically absurd story.

The correct and thoroughly satisfying explanation of Jud 1:9 gives the coup de grace to any idea of dependence on The Assumption of Moses.

An unmistakable clue as to the meaning is given in the words: “The Lord rebuke thee”, which are a straight quote from Zec 3:2: “And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan… is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments…” (vv 1-3).

The background to this prophecy is the attempt on the part of some who returned from Babylon to get themselves included in the priesthood of the new temple (Ezr 2:61-63). Lack of unimpeachable genealogy led to their exclusion “until there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim” to give a firm divine decision. Evidently, in reaction from this, the men so excluded retorted against Joshua that by the same token he was disqualified from being high priest. Where were his true high priestly robes?

In the Zechariah vision, these grumblers are the Satan. Joshua is vindicated not by the Lord’s angel, who himself is content to await divine decision, but by Yahweh Himself. Joshua is given new robes, and there is set before him (in the breastplate — so the Hebrew text implies) the stone of decision belonging to the Urim and Thummim (v 9).

Devil, Satan, and Demons

---

QUESTION: Who is the “Devil” of the Bible?

ANSWER: The “devil” is a New Testament term referring to the basic sinful tendency inherent in human nature, and is used to label individuals or human powers who are false accusers or slanderers. It is quite often used as a personification of sin or opposition to God as manifested in some human or power. Therefore it is incorrect to claim that “the devil” is a rebellious fallen angel who brings sin into the world, and who deceives mankind into following that way that leads to destruction.

1. The word “devil” (Greek diabolos, one who throws things against) is found only in the New Testament, but is used to personify the Old Testament idea of the rebellious human heart, as the following references show.
2. The human heart, ie, mind, is the source of evil thoughts (Mark 7:21; Gen 6:6; Pro 6:14; Jer 4:14; 17:9; 23:26; Psa 64:1-6). Thus Scripture points to ourselves, not a fallen angel, as being the source of all temptation.
3. Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires (Jam 1:14; cp 1Jo 2:16). If that person yields to the temptation of his own passions, he sins (Jam 1:15) and is labeled “of the devil” (1Jo 3:8). On the other hand, not to yield is described as “resisting the devil” (Jam 4:1-4,7). Similarly, to withstand the wiles of the devil is to put off being corrupt as through deceitful lusts, and living in the passions of the flesh, following the desire of body and mind (Eph 2:3; 4:22,27; 6:11).
4. That “the devil” means “the tendency of human nature to sin” is well illustrated in the life of Christ. Since Jesus shared our human nature, he was tempted in every respect like ourselves (Heb 2:14; 4:15). His temptation “by the devil” in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11) is readily understood as being prompted by his own thinking and desires (e.g., hunger pangs, sensationalism, human glory: cp 1Jo 2:16). Never giving in to his own human will made Jesus sinless (Mat 26:38-42; 1Pe 2:22; Heb 4:15), and thus he overcame sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26; 10:4-10; cp Rom 8:3). In other words, by figuratively and literally crucifying the flesh, Jesus destroyed the “devil” in himself (Heb 2:14; 1Jo 3:8; Gal 5:24; 6:14; Col 2:13-15; Joh 3:14).
5. The betrayer Judas is called a devil (Joh 6:70). Being a thief greedy for money, Judas decided to sell out his Lord; this is described as: “the devil put it into his heart” (Joh 12:6; 13:2; cp Luk 22:3-5). Similar expressions are used in connection with Ananias (Act 5:3,4), Elymas (Act 13:8-10), and the murderous Pharisees (Joh 8:44). Other passages of similar character are: Jam 3:15; 1Ti 3:6,11; 2Ti 2:26; 3:3; Tit 2:3. Roman and Jewish persecuting powers are also personified as “the devil” (1Pe 5:8,9; Rev 2:9,10; 12:3,9,17; cp Mat 2:16; Act 4:26,27).
6. The Bible nowhere refers to the origin of the devil, and those verses which are sometimes used to suggest that it does (like Isa 14:12 and Eze 28:13) plainly refer in picturesque language to arrogant human powers, in the first case Babylon, and the second Tyre.

---

QUESTION: Who or what is “Satan”?

ANSWER: “Satan” is simply a term meaning adversary or opponent. It doesn’t necessarily have an evil connotation since it can refer to any person or being who deliberately gets in the way of another. Satan is invariably used to personify opposition as manifested in some human or power. Therefore, although the word is sometimes used in a similar context, “Satan” is quite distinct in meaning from “the devil”, and to equate the two is erroneous.

1. The word “Satan” (Hebrew satanas, an opponent or adversary) is an Old Testament term transliterated in the New Testament. It has a wide range of applications as a label, including an angel of God, God Himself, David, Peter, an infirmity, a temptation, the Ro-man authorities, Jewish opposition, etc., as the following passages will indicate.
2. In Num 22:22,32 it refers to an angel of God, an adversary who withstands the wicked prophet Balaam.
3. In 1Ch 21:1 it refers to one who tempted David to an unworthy deed, but in 2Sa 24:1 it is said that the LORD moved David in this way.
4. David is regarded as a possible adversary (1Sa 29:4), as are the sons of Zeruiah (2Sa 19:22). Other various human adversaries of Solomon and others are found in 1Ki 5:4; 11:14, 23,25; Psa 38:20; 71:13; 109:4,6,20,29.
5. The classical application of the word “Satan” is to Peter himself, who is said by Jesus to be a “hindrance to me — you are not on the side of God but of men” (Mat 16:23; Mar 8:33).
6. “Satan” is used in the sense of an infirmity in Luk 13:11,16, and of temptation in Mat 4:10; Luk 22:3; Act 5:3,4.
7. Several times it is used in reference to the Jewish (or Roman?) power as an adversary of the Gospel (Rev 2:9,13,24).
8. It is apparently twice used of this world, into which Paul determined that unworthy disciples should be excommunicated (1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20).
9. On the remaining occasions, “Satan” refers to the source of temptations and persecutions, or to the embodiment of the power of evil (Mat 12:26; Mar 1:13; 3:23,26; 4:15; Luk 4:8; 10:18; 11:18; 22:31; Joh 13:27; Act 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1Co 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 11:11,14; 1Th 2:18; 2Th 2:9; 1Ti 5:15; Rev 3:9; 12:9; 20:2,7).
10. In special passages like Job 1; 2, the word “Satan” occurs 12 times of someone who appears in the councils of God and with God’s consent plays a leading role in the trials of Job. Note, however, that in every case it is God who was the real source of all the evil that came upon Job (Job 1:20; 2:10; 42:11).
11. Similarly in Zec 3:1,2 the word occurs 3 times of an accuser in a visionary trial of the priest Joshua. The historical context of Ezr 4:1,4,6 shows there were real enough adversaries against the rebuilding of the Temple.

---

QUESTION: Who or what are demons? How do you explain the story about the demoniac called Legion (Mark 5:1-20)?

ANSWER: To “have a demon” was the same as to “have an unclean spirit”, which is a Bible way of saying that something was wrong or “unclean” about a person’s way of thinking or mental capability. In short, a person with a demon was a person with a mental illness.

The story about Legion — a man with many demons — illustrates this conclusion quite well. Prior to Jesus’ healing, Legion is described as “a man with an unclean spirit who lived among the tombs… so fierce that no one could pass that way… for a long time he had worn no clothes…no one could bind him any more, even with a chain… night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out, and bruising himself with stones” (Mar 5:2-5; Luk 8:27; Mat 8:28, RSV).

After Jesus’ healing, the “man who had had the legion” caused great concern among the townspeople who “came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind” (Mar 5:15). The man’s “before” and “after” descriptions contrast “unclean spirit” with “in his right mind”, “fierce” with “sitting”, and “wore no clothes” with “clothed”. In other words, sane behavior replaces insane behavior.

The behavior of ferocity, tomb-living, constant moaning and self-bruising can be explained by mental instability (manic depressant). Similarly, the “many demons” in the one man can be described by the affliction of multiple personalities (schizophrenia). Thus the story of Legion is that of a wild madman who terrified the countryside… who became (with Jesus’ help) a calm, rational disciple who proclaimed to that same ten-city area “how much Jesus had done for him” (Mar 5:20; Luk 8:39).

More About the Story

a. It is helpful to recognize the sequence of events. Notice that Jesus’ command for the unclean spirit to come out of the man (Mar 5:8; Luk 8:29) is prior to the man’s response of worship and saying “what have you to do with me?… do not torment me” (Mar 5:6,7; Luk 8:28). The healed man properly pays tribute to Jesus, but is still understandably concerned about a recurrence of his madness — had Jesus given him false hope? Jesus knew what was behind the man’s panic, as indicated by his teaching about an ‘apparently’ cured madman: “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first” (Luk 11:24-26).

A reasonable conjecture is that Legion had experienced progressively worse bouts of his madness. He had to have been calm enough from time to time to have people try to restrain him with chains. But then his adrenalin-fed mania would burst the bonds and drive him raving mad again. Given this interlude of sanity, it makes sense that Legion did not want his illness to come back with a vengeance. How could Jesus assure him that he was healed for good?

b. Jesus provided an unforgettable sign. In response to the man’s begging — and Matthew’s record says there were actually two men involved, which may explain why the text reads “they begged him” — Jesus had the disease enter a great herd of swine which were feeding on a nearby hill. Maddened, the 2,000 pigs rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned. Thus Legion saw with his own eyes the destruction of his madness.

The swine stampede was obviously a frightening experience, for “when the herdsmen saw what had happened, they fled, and told it in the city and in the country”, and eventually, “all the people of the surrounding country…begged Jesus to depart from them; for they were seized with great fear” (Luk 8:34,37; Mat 8:33,34). The difference between the two beggings is instructional.

As with his healing of the paralytic, Jesus had provided an object lesson. How could Jesus demonstrate that sin was forgiven? Command the man to pick up his pallet and walk! (Mar 2:5-12) Since no one could see that an invisible sin was gone, Jesus allowed the doubters to see the unmistakable fact of a paralytic instantly cured. How could Jesus convince Legion that an invisible insanity had forever left his mind? Have it visibly transferred to the “unclean” pigs, which were subsequently drowned! As the prophet Micah wrote, “He will again have compassion upon us, he will tread our iniquities under foot. Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Mic 7:19).

c. In all three Gospels, the story of Legion comes immediately after Jesus’ calming of the wind and sea (Mat 8:23-27; Mar 4:35-41; Luk 8:22-25). This cannot be accidental. Surely the point is that Jesus can calm the storm in a man’s mind as easily as he can speak to the howling whirlwind and tumultuous waves.

Interestingly enough, the text says Jesus spoke directly to the wind and the sea as if they were living objects — but they weren’t. Perhaps that helps answer why the text seems to present demons as if they were living objects — when they really aren’t. When Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law, he “rebuked the fever, and it left her” (Luk 4:39). Was the fever an independent entity? No.

d. How do doctors explain mental illness today? They don’t. They observe the interactive responses and manifestations of chemicals, electricity, neurons, the brain and the body. And they give long scientific names to certain phenomena and behavior. But applying a label does not constitute understanding. The Bible description of being “possessed by a demon” is just as meaningful and accurate as today’s medical pronouncement: “he’s a manic depressant” or “he has bipolar affective disorder”. And the Bible description is certainly easier to understand.

More About Demons

a. Not every case of demons was strictly mental illness: sometimes there was blindness, dumbness and deafness involved (eg, Mat 9:33). So a fuller definition of demon is: a term descriptive of those physical and mental aberrations whose cause and source is veiled from the sight of man.

The summation of Jesus’ wonderful healing is described as “healing every disease and every infirmity among the people… all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them all” (Mat 4:23,24). Since all categories of illness are being included, this description is covering both physical and mental illnesses, and thus the term “demoniacs” is probably indicative of both.

Later on, Jesus gave the twelve “authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity” (Mat 10:1). So having an unclean spirit, ie, being possessed by a demon, seems to bridge mental and physical aspects, yet provides a distinct category of its own: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mat 10:8, a restatement of v 1).

b. Demon possession is clearly a class of infirmity, as is made clear by the following: “That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases’ ” (Mat 8:16,17).

Here, “possessed with demons” parallels “infirmities”. The usual words that go with “demons” and “unclean spirits” are “cast out”, as in this passage, but in Mat 12:22 and Luk 7:21, the words are “healed” and “cured”. Act 19:12 presents the same picture: “diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them”.

c. The Bible does not present demons as independent, distinct entities. Like a disease, they always have a human host. So when we read, “then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw” (Mat 12:22), it is not a distinct entity which is blind and dumb but the man who could not speak or see. Similarly in Mar 9:25, the “dumb and deaf spirit” meant that it was the boy — not some other entity — who could not speak or hear.

d. At various times, Jesus himself was thought to be or accused of being mad, that is, he “had a demon”. An interesting series appears in John’s Gospel. When Jesus stated that the Jews were seeking to kill him, “The people answered, ‘You have a demon! Who is seeking to kill you?’ ” (Joh 7:20). When Jesus unswervingly told the Jews the truth about themselves, and that they were not listening to the words of God, “The Jews answered him, ‘Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?'” (Joh 8:48). When Jesus replied that any one who kept his word would not see death, “The Jews said to him, ‘Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, as did the prophets; and you say, “If any one keeps my words, he will never taste death” ‘ ” (Joh 8:52). In other words, the Jews were saying Jesus was “crazy”, “deluded”, “insane”, or as might be colloquially said today, “you’re mad!”

e. In Mar 3, Jesus is accused this way: “He is possessed by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out demons” (v 22). “He has an unclean spirit” (v 30). Even some of Jesus’ friends were saying, “He is beside himself” (v 21). Of course, Jesus was not crazy. Rather, his teaching proved he was from God, and his healing was destroying the stronghold of the dreadful diseases.

f. Consider two statements of the apostle Paul: “Come to your right mind and sin no more. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (1Co 15:34), and “For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you” (2Co 5:13). Here, “right mind” is opposite “beside ourselves”, ie, crazy or deluded. This phraseology is the same as that used by Jesus’ accusers who claimed he had a demon; he and his teaching were, in their view, the result of madness! So it is not surprising to read about the Roman governor Festus, alarmed by the penetrating and uncomfortable testimony of the apostle, accusing Paul of being deluded: “You are mad, your great learning is turning you mad!” (Act 26:24).

g. What is the significance of having “an unclean spirit”? The reverse of unclean is clean. What then is a clean spirit? 1Co 2:11 says, “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” This verse indicates that one aspect of “spirit” is the close connection with (but distinction from) thoughts. The passage goes on to talk about the mind of the LORD and having the mind of Christ (1Co 2:16). In other words, the spirit of a man is the mind of a man. A man’s spirit oversees his thoughts, which in turn determine behavior. So when a man has a clean spirit, his thoughts and resultant behavior will reflect that cleanness.

David describes this kind of cleanness: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit” (Psa 51:10-12). He understood that God wanted him to have “truth in the inward being” and “wisdom in my secret heart” (v. 6). He needed to be forgiven by God, and then he would “be clean” (v 7). He realized that “the sacrifice to God is a broken spirit” (v 17), a mind seeking forgiveness of sins (vv 1-4). David was physically suffering as the result of his unrepentant sins of adultery and murder, and needed to find the blessed relief of forgiveness given to a man “in whose spirit there is no deceit” (Psa 32:1-5).

Replace the good characteristics with their opposite. What do you get? An unrenewed, wrong, unwilling, rebellious, deceitful spirit. In short, an unclean spirit. How is that unclean spirit made manifest? In a person’s thinking and resultant behavior. And inescapably, in a person’s health. So when Jesus was casting out unclean spirits (demons), he was in effect giving a person a new start in life with glowing health and sins forgiven.

h. The connection between the mind and illness is being understood better every day. What used to be dismissed as “psychosomatic” — the illness is all in the mind and, hence, not real — is rapidly becoming the real explanation in the majority of cases (B. Siegel, MD, Love, Medicine and Miracles, Harper & Row, New York, 1986, p 111). So healing an unclean spirit (mind) is truly getting to the source.

Other Viewpoints

a. Could there still be a distinct entity or evil spirit called a demon which “possesses human beings” and causes them to have physical and mental problems? Theoretically, yes. But would it not be logically redundant? Given what seems to be a clear linkage of “sin” and “unclean” and “disease”, being demon-possessed indicates a person having a maddening disease, rather than a demon causing a maddening disease.

b. If one argues that there needs to be a cause behind the disease, then the real, true cause must go back to God Himself. The Bible makes this point very clear: “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exo 4:11).

The source of the evil spirit that came upon king Saul is explained to be from God (1Sa 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9). God claims full and unique responsibility for bringing evil and affliction upon mankind (cf Isa 45:7; Amo 3:6; 9:4; Eze 6:10; Jer 32:23; 1Ki 21:21). The teaching that there is another evil power at loose in this world — Satan or the Devil — is not true Bible teaching.

c. If one still insists that there can be some entity between God and man who can bring evil upon the man, one explanation is an “angel of evil”, like those described in Psa 78:49 (KJV) — an angel that, under God’s control, brings “evil” or trials upon mankind… not an “evil angel” in the sense of being sinful or wicked. When God pours out His wrath upon the earth, Scripture describes it as being performed by His angels (cf Rev 16). So if someone argued that a demon was an angel of God who brought a maddening disease to an individual, in the sense discussed above, there would be room for agreement.

d. Why does the New Testament frequently mention demons, but the Old Testament hardly mentions them at all? The most likely answer is that, between Old and New Testament times, the notions of the Greek culture had had a significant impact on the world of the Middle East. “Demon” was a word the Greeks used to describe many of the (false) gods they worshiped. Paul uses the word twice to mean a heathen god, and equates them with idols: “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1Co 10:19-21).

For a monotheistic Christian — one who believed in the one and only God of Israel — any behavior (like eating food offered to idols) that would suggest credence in pagan gods, could create a stumblingblock for someone who wasn’t fully convinced. This was the substance of Paul’s discussion in 1Co 8. While those strong in faith knew that “an idol has no real existence” (v 4), they were to avoid any appearance of indicating belief in Greek demons, and were thus exhorted: “Shun the worship of idols” (1Co 10:14). Non-worship of idols is plainly an Old Testament teaching (eg, Exo 20:4; Isa 44:9-20), and the basis of Paul’s arguments come directly from Moses: “They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods…They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come in of late, whom your fathers had never dreaded” (Deu 32:16,17).

By New Testament times, therefore, the Greek belief of demon-gods who were the cause of evil among men had infiltrated the thinking of Mid-Easterners. For example, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote: “The poets speak excellently who affirm that when good men die, they attain great honor and dignity… It is also believed that the souls of bad men become evil demons.” The first-century Jewish historian Joseph-us claimed: “Demons are no other than the spirits of the wicked that enter into men that are alive, and kill them, unless they can obtain some help against them.” Such teaching is not found in the Bible.

e. Not everybody in the Greek-speaking world believed in demon possession. Hippocrates was a famous Greek doctor who lived in the fifth century before Christ. In his treatise on epilepsy, he stated that the popular belief in demon worship was not true; epilepsy must be treated by medical care just like every other disease (cited by I. Asimov, in Guide to Science, vol 2, ch 4, Basic Books, New York, 1972). For about the next 600 years, until the second century AD, all the best-educated Greek doctors were taught this (articles: “Hippocrates” and “Galen”, in The Penguin Medical Encyclopedia, Penguin Books, London, 1972). This does find support in the Bible.

Devil, who is the?

---

The “devil” is a NT term referring to the basic sinful tendency inherent in human nature, and is used to label individuals or human powers who are false accusers or slanderers. It is quite often used as a personification of sin or opposition to God as manifested in some human or power. Therefore it is incorrect to claim that “the devil” is a rebellious fallen angel who brings sin into the world, and who deceives mankind into following that way that leads to destruction.

1. The word “devil” (Greek diabolos, one who throws things against) is found only in the New Testament, but is used to personify the OT idea of the rebellious human heart, as the following references show.
2. The human heart, ie, mind, is the source of evil thoughts (Mar 7:21; Gen 6:6; Pro 6:14; Jer 4:14; 17:9; 23:26; Psa 64:1-6). Thus Scripture points to ourselves, not a fallen angel, as being the source of all temptation.
3. Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires (Jam 1:14; cp 1Jo 2:16). If that person yields to the temptation of his own passions, he sins (Jam 1:15) and is labeled “of the devil” (1Jo 3:8). On the other hand, not to yield is described as “resisting the devil” (Jam 4:1-4,7). Similarly, to withstand the wiles of the devil is to put off being corrupt as through deceitful lusts, and living in the passions of the flesh, following the desire of body and mind (Eph 2:3; 4:22,27; 6:11).
4. That “the devil” means “the tendency of human nature to sin” is well illustrated in the life of Christ. Since Jesus shared our human nature, he was tempted in every respect like ourselves (Heb 2:14; 4:15). His temptation “by the devil” in the wilderness (Mat 4:1-11) is readily understood as being prompted by his own thinking and desires (eg, hunger pangs, sensationalism, human glory: cp 1Jo 2:16). Never giving in to his own human will made Jesus sinless (Mat 26:38-42; 1Pe 2:22; Heb 4:15), and thus he overcame sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26; 10:4-10; cp Rom 8:3). In other words, by figuratively and literally crucifying the flesh, Jesus destroyed the “devil” in himself (Heb 2:14; 1Jo 3:8; Gal 5:24; 6:14; Col 2:13-15; Joh 3:14).
5. The betrayer Judas is called a devil (Joh 6:70). Being a thief greedy for money, Judas decided to sell out his Lord; this is described as: “the devil put it into his heart” (Joh 12:6; 13:2; cp Luk 22:3-5). Similar expressions are used in connection with Ananias (Act 5:3,4), Elymas (Act 13:8-10), and the murderous Pharisees (Joh 8:44). Other passages of similar character are: Jam 3:15; 1Ti 3:6,11; 2Ti 2:26; 3:3; Tit 2:3. Roman and Jewish persecuting powers are also personified as “the devil” (1Pe 5:8,9; Rev 2:9,10; 12:3,9,17; cp Mat 2:16; Act 4:26,27).
6. The Bible nowhere refers to the origin of the devil, and those verses which are sometimes used to suggest that it does (like Isa 14:12 and Eze 28:13) plainly refer in picturesque language to arrogant human powers, in the first case Babylon, and the second Tyre. (NF)

Devil and Satan — “You are the man”

---

An officer came up one day before the king of the land and presented the following:

“Sir, please decide with regard to the following case: There is a person who is horrendously evil. His name is Satan; he also goes by the name The Devil. He has prompted countless people to sin, enticing them with deception and lies. He opposes God, and even calls God a liar. Satan slanders God, and is not even interested in the welfare of those he supposedly cares for. He despises God’s laws, as they are too restrictive. He brings harm to others, and takes for himself glory which belongs to God. He offers as rewards for following him things which he does not have the authority to offer, and he is the father of all lies. Satan does not care for the interests of God or the interests of anyone but himself. God gave great gifts and power to this man, but he lifted up his heart in pride, and he has rebelled against God. Now, I ask you, should Satan be granted immortality? Should he be allowed to live forever in God’s kingdom?”

The king replied, “Of course not!” as he rose out of his throne, startling his servants. “There is only one thing that this man deserves: DEATH! It would be absurd to suppose that such a person deserves eternal life. Let us have Satan apprehended AT ONCE so that he can be executed as quickly as possible.” As the king retook his seat upon the throne he asked the officer, “Do you know where Satan is right now?”

“Why, yes.” the officer said.

“Well, why in the world haven’t you apprehended him?!”

“Well, sir. It’s because you are the man.”

“ME!!! Haven’t you read what the scriptures say? The scriptures say that Satan is a fallen angel. He rebelled against God and then enticed Adam and Eve into sinning.”

“So Satan fell before Adam did? How then can it be said that Adam introduced sin into the world?”

“Never mind that. Anyway, Satan took a third of the angels with him in his great rebellion, and these angels married the daughters of men, producing giants upon the earth.”

“So am I to understand that when these angels sinned like this, God became enraged with mankind and destroyed THEM? Is that fair?”

“Look, I’ll concede that God punished mankind in the flood, but don’t forget that he took those angels and confined them in chains of darkness, reserved for judgment.”

“So,” the officer again replied, “you say the rebellious angels were confined like that. How then did the giants live on the earth after the flood. Did some survive the flood, or were there more rebellious angels? Or were the angels who sinned and were confined in chains able to repeat their earlier sin? And if rebellious angels repeated this earlier sin, how come they later stopped? Why aren’t they doing the same thing today?”

“Well, I don’t know, but I do know that Satan himself approached God and was granted permission to strike at Job in a variety of ways. How could that possibly be me? ‘You are the man.’ What a ridiculous statement!”

“Sir, have you considered the logic of your own words? You are suggesting that Satan has openly led the world’s first and greatest rebellion against God, and yet he is still allowed to come into God’s presence and be granted explicit permission by God to inflict calamity upon others. Would you allow your number one enemy, who was rebellious against you, to come into your presence and ask for things from you? You wouldn’t even let him ask, and even if you did you certainly wouldn’t grant him his request! What king in his right mind would do that?”

“You know, maybe it does seem a little strange that God, whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and who cannot tolerate wrong, would allow Satan to come into His very presence like that. Regardless, it does not change the fact that I didn’t enter Judas, and I didn’t suggest to Jesus that he turn stones into bread. That wasn’t me, and so for you to say that I am Satan is just plain wrong. Was it me who hindered Paul from seeing the brethren in Thessalonica? The scriptures that speak about Satan make it very clear that we are dealing with an actual supernatural being.”

“Sir, please hear me out. Do you remember when the prophet Nathan confronted David regarding David’s sins following the murder of Uriah [2Sa 12:1-8]?”

“Yes, of course I remember what happened.”

“Nathan told David about a rich man, a poor man, and a traveler who stayed with the rich man. These people were not real. The story was a parable — keeping the true identity of the evil rich man hidden from David while he rendered judgment was necessary so that David would be unbiased in the judgment he rendered. Having rendered the proper judgment, then and only then was it appropriate for Nathan to confront David by saying, ‘You are the man.’ Had Nathan begun by talking point-blank about what David had done, David would have cut him off very quickly. Nathan’s method had a purpose. It allowed David to be confronted with the enormity of his sin, so that he might be motivated to repent. God in the Scriptures uses the same method with His descriptions concerning Satan. Nobody who reads about Satan would think for a second that he belongs in God’s kingdom. WE ARE EACH THE MAN! This is why ‘Satan’ is described as the result of human thinking both when Jesus rebuked Peter, and when Peter in turn some time later rebuked Ananias [Mat 16:23 = Mark 8:33; Acts 5:3,4]. ‘Human thinking’ and ‘conceiving this in your heart’ is where Satan is. But at the same time, Satan can be anything that is our adversary. This is why the Satan who hindered Paul from returning to Thessalonica [1Th 2:18] refers to the Jewish leaders of Thessalonica who persecuted him both in Thessalonica and also in Berea [Acts 17:5-9,13], why the Angel of Yahweh was Satan to Balaam’s donkey [Num 22:22], and Yahweh Himself was described as Satan to David at one point [1Ch 21:1; cf 2Sa 24:1]. And I’m not denying that there can be external tempters, even devious ones. But the root of the problem is within us. We are each Satan to ourselves — that is, we are each our own worst adversary.”

The king, now sitting on his throne deep in reflective thought, with his head resting upon his left hand, motioned with his right hand to the officer. “Go on.”

“The idea that Satan is a fallen angel is itself ludicrous. Angels cannot sin, and while we’re on the subject let me comment on two remarks the Lord Jesus Christ made. First, he said that in the days of Noah people were ‘marrying and being given in marriage’ [Mat 24:37-38 = Luke 17:26,27], which is an obvious reference to the sons of God who were marrying the daughters of men, as described in Gen 6. At the same point in his ministry, Jesus was stating that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage [Mat 22:30 = Mark 12:25 = Luke 20:34-36], which was his unequivocal comment about whether the ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6 referred to angels. Your worst adversary is not someone else; it is your own proneness to sin. Jesus recognized this, and it is why he compared his own crucifixion to the serpent being raised up [John 3:14,15], and why Jesus in his death was able to destroy him who had the power of death over him, that is, the devil. Who was that devil? Who had the power of death over Jesus?”

“Continue,” the king said.

“It wasn’t Caiaphas or Pilate or any of the other leaders. They had no inherent power over Jesus, the only power they had was given them by God [John 19:10,11]. Besides, at most they could kill his body but they could not kill his soul [Matt 10:28].”

“Are you suggesting that God was the devil who had the power of death over Jesus? That because God alone is the one who can kill both body and soul in Gehenna, that God was him who had the power of death over Jesus? That in his death Jesus destroyed God??”

“No, your majesty. God raised Jesus up from death, since it was impossible that he should be held by its power [Acts 2:24]. That which had the power of death over Jesus was his own sin-prone nature. Even though he conquered sin, he was always mortal and thus was certain to die unless God miraculously intervened. And if he had given in to sin, then he was certain to die and to stay dead. Jesus’ sin-prone nature is what deserved death, and in his death and subsequent resurrection, he put to death that nature, which therefore no longer had power over him. Your majesty, as I said already, there are places in the Scriptures where the terms Devil or Satan refer to one person who is opposing or an adversary to someone else, in one way or another. But in many cases, The Devil or Satan is used to refer to someone’s own sin-prone thinking, acting as an adversary against them because it is enticing them away from God. In no case does either name refer to a rebellious fallen angel. When I came before you and described the wickedness of Satan and asked you what he deserved, you answered rightly. Then I pointed out that YOU ARE THAT MAN.’ When Jesus asked the Jews about where the authority for John’s baptism came from, they wouldn’t give him a straight answer, and we all know why [Matt 21:23-27 = Mark 11:27-33 = Luke 20:1-8]. Had I approached you directly about confronting your own sin-prone nature, you would just as surely have altered your answer.”

“That was a very wise thing you did. I would daresay that you are as wise as Solomon was. He couldn’t get a straight answer out of the mother of the dead baby, and so in his God-given wisdom he phrased the issue in such a way as to draw out from both women sincere expressions about whether they wanted the remaining baby to live or die. Their expressions clearly revealed who the real mother of the remaining child was. In like manner, you are to be commended for drawing out from me an untainted judgment against Satan, and then clearly revealing to me who that Satan really is. Indeed I am the man. And you are to be commended for following the example of using Nathan’s inspired teaching method in this instance.”

“Sir, may I be allowed one more comment?” the officer asked humbly.

“By all means, go ahead.”

“Nathan was not the first to use such a technique. Tamar used it also when she confronted Judah. Judah, upon hearing that Tamar was illicitly pregnant, ordered her to be put to death by burning. However, upon being confronted by her with irrefutable evidence that he was the man involved, he admitted that she was more righteous than he [Gen 38:26]. She had concealed his own identity from him, got him to admit the judgment that was necessary, and then revealed that he was the man. Later, Judah was in the same kind of situation again. When he and his brothers came before Joseph, son of Jacob by Rachel, Joseph was able to draw out from Judah an expression that he himself was willing to die so as to save the other son of Jacob by Rachel. Only then did Joseph reveal that he was the man they had earlier mistreated. So you see that Nathan was not the first one to use this technique. God uses this same technique throughout Scripture with regard to Satan’s identity. He isn’t trying to ultimately mislead us about who Satan is any more than Tamar or Joseph or Nathan was ultimately trying to mislead Judah or David. The answer is before us all the time if we are willing to think about it and receive it. Think about the case I brought before you today. Render honest judgment about what Satan deserves. And then recognize that ‘you are the man.’ It’s not an easy thing to do. Look at how hard it was for Job. But in the end, he recognized his true place before God, and despised himself and so he repented in dust and ashes [Job 42:6]. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful [James 5:11].”

The king was very pleased. “Now I see,” he said. “Whenever I look in the mirror, or whenever I examine my own mind and my own thinking, I must realize that I am looking at ‘Satan’. And I must be on guard, and careful to resist this great enemy — who is actually not outside, but inside my own ‘camp’. Thank you, trusted friend; you have taught me a valuable lesson!”

(DB).