Elijah on Horeb (1Ki 19)

James calls Elijah “a man of like nature with ourselves” (James 5:17, RSV)         and nowhere is this more evident than in Elijah’s confrontation with God on Mount Horeb. This austere prophet of the Lord had just been instrumental in a great victory for the honor of Yahweh over Baal, on Mount Carmel (1Ki 18). But from the heights of spiritual exaltation Elijah was plunged into the depths of despair when he realized that his great accomplishments had not softened the heard of Ahab, and had served only to intensify Jezebel’s hatred of him. Fleeing for his life, and yet in his despondency losing all desire to live, he came into the wilderness, to Horeb (1Ki 19:8). In a pathetic prayer Elijah reveals that he has given up on Israel, and that he sees himself as the only true believer remaining:

“I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thy altars, and slain Thine prophets with the sword, and I, even I only am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (v 10).

We have all heard such laments as this, generally for much less reason than Elijah’s. In the circumstances we may understand his pessimism, but God saw fit to dispel the mistaken notions that led to his negative state of mind. A contemplation of this incident might also cure the state of mind of any brother who, more or less self-righteously, isolates himself from “less-worthy” brethren.

God called Elijah forth from his cave, and paraded before his awestruck eyes a tremendous panorama of God’s power — strong winds, earthquake, and fire. But the Lord was not in these; Elijah saw that something was missing. At last came a still small voice, and Elijah, bracing himself up, came out of the cave whence he had fled for fear at the previous manifestations. The soft voice had a soothing effect; now at last the frightened prophet felt the presence of God. Thus was the message driven home to him that God is best known, not in works of judgment, but in the still small voice which calls His people when properly prepared by adversity, to repentance.

And Elijah was to be that voice!

“Go, return on the way” (v 15).

Like Samuel before him, Elijah was carefully taught that wickedness is preeminently an affront against God, not against any individual (1Sa 8:7), and consequently no man (no matter how righteous)         has any prerogative to turn his back on his brethren. Elijah must minister to the remnant that remains in Israel; in the midst of gross apostasy he is not to flee in fear, but rather to stand firm for God and provide a rallying point for the sheep of Israel.

“Yet I have left Me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him” (v 18).

How wrong, how seriously wrong, had been Elijah’s estimation that there were no righteous remaining in Israel. He had let his despair get the better of his judgment and he had forgotten his responsibility. It was one thing to stand strong against entrenched error on Carmel, but he had not been perceptive enough to see his duty afterward, to strengthen those who remained faithful against the evil in the midst of the nation.

This verse is cited by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, with the comment that “God hath not cast away His people” (Rom 11:2). It is a though worth remembering for all time. God knows in every age who His “seven thousand” are. In many Scriptural lessons He directs those who would flee in despair from troubles, to turn around, to “go, return on thy way” to find their brethren and strengthen them. Those who would hold firmly to the Truth in the midst of trials must combine their forces, strengthening and upbuilding one another in God’s service, sharing in good times and bad the fellowship of the saints.

Enoch and the spirits in prison

PETER’S FIRST ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE PROBLEM

With the benefit of hindsight, from having studied the more detailed argument in 2Pe, 1Pe 3:19 obviously links, in some way as yet to be defined, Christ and the Shemjaza and the 200 fallen angels of Enoch [these characters are found in Apocryphal literature, but not in the Bible, of course!].

This approach, with the linking of the events of Enoch and Christ, is somewhat different than the conditional argument of 2Pe 2:4: “For IF God spared not the angels that sinned… THEN…”

Why?

Firstly, this is not Peter’s last word on the subject; it is only the first sign of a problem that later caused a second letter to be written. It cannot be read in any way that would contradict the 2nd letter.

Secondly, we do not know why Peter’s comments are so oblique in 1Pe as compared with 2Pe. Nor the time lapse between the two. Nor when Jude wrote his letter. Perhaps the “fiery trial which is to try you” was a more pressing concern.

Thirdly, the verse is often misread to read “Christ went and preached unto the spirits in prison”. Christ did not go. 1Pe 3:18 refers to “the SPIRIT by which also [he] went and preached unto the spirits in prison”. The word “he” is not in the text, as it is not required by Greek grammar, but probably refers to Christ rather than to God.

Fourthly, alongside the Enoch reference there is a clear OT reference here to the Messianic prophecy in Isa 42:5-7: “to bring the bound and them that sit in darkness out of bonds and the prison house”.

Fifthly, Peter was probably also thinking of Isa 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those that are bound.”

So why should Christ be preaching, by the Spirit, to spirits in prison, which were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah?

The answer to that question lies in a detailed comparison of 1Pe, 2Pe, Enoch, and Isaiah, but observe in the Greek text that there is no particle between “preached” and “disbelieved/disobeyed”. This would indicate a sequential relationship — that the Spirit by which Christ “preached” was “disbelieved” in the days of Noah. It then becomes necessary to look for the Spirit of Christ c 400 BC.

Now, according to the Enoch legend, this is perfectly possible as Shemjaza and the other angels were bound in chains for 70 generations starting from an unspecified point prior to the flood, allowing Noah and his great grandfather Enoch (who interestingly was “at the ends of the earth” and not in heaven)         to discuss them prior to the flood. Enoch 10 describes the proclamation judgement on another angel-gone-bad, Azazel, and the earth.

The alternative belief that Christ went, while in the grave or after his resurrection, to preach to these angels is not supported by the grammar. Peter is describing a past event.

Peter explains himself what he means by “disbelieve/disobey” in 1Pe 2:7,8; 3:1; 4:17.

It is suggested that Peter’s reference to “spirits in prison” and “the days of Noah” here is consistent with his reference in 2Pe 2:5: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.”

Note that our key words from Isa 42 and Isa 61 have just reappeared — coincidence?

If the Gospel was preached to Abraham (which we accept), then why is it not possible that Noah preached by the “quickening spirit” of Christ during his day? “The figure like whereunto baptism does now save us” (1Pe 3:21).

If that is what Peter is saying, then the way he concludes his brief reference in 1Pe 3:19 to the thorny subject of the Book of Enoch leaves no doubt whatsoever about his beliefs concerning angels: “By the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God: angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him”.

(JB)

Enoch, Book of

An imaginative expansion on the story of the Sons of God and the daughters of men in Gen 6:1,2.

A group of 200 angels (led by archangels Shemihazah and Azazel)         descend to the earth where they take human wives and father a race of giants, or Titans. For this sin the angels are bound in Tartarus to await judgment for 70 generations. The angels ask Enoch to intercede for them, but Enoch’s requests are refused. The angels’ children cause havoc on the earth, but then are drowned in the flood. But the spirits of the giants survive to torment mankind, becoming a new class of beings — the demons. The giants’ human mothers also survive and become Sirens.

In Christ’s day the Book of Enoch was a “bestseller”, spawning a small library of derivative literature: Jubilees, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, etc. (There is a possible reference to this by Christ in Mar 12:25.)


The information presented below is drawn from AH Boulton: “The Book of Enoch” (Tes, July 1932); NActs; WSSE; and Bill Davison: “The Devil and Demons — A New Approach”.

Since the discovery of the Greek manuscript at Qumran in 1946 it is no longer possible to claim the book is an Ethiopian forgery. Enoch was obviously well known to both Peter and Jude, and there are anything up to 50 references to Enoch in their epistles to prove it beyond any doubt.

The argument:

A. Peter and Jude were opposing serious heresies (2Pe 2:1), including:

  1. myths and fables (contrasted with inspiration);
  2. the blaspheming of angels (contrasted with angels who do not even rebuke);

  3. denying the coming of the Lord (“all things continue since creation”);

  4. denying the intercessor role of Christ (Enoch not Christ goes to heaven to beg for the sheep);

  5. financial exploitation (2Pe 2:3);
  6. lasciviousness (2Pe 2:7,18; Jud 1:4).

B. Peter and Jude “have the more sure word of prophecy”:

More sure than what? More sure than their “cunningly devised fables”. Note that 2Pe 1:16-19 gives a lengthy description of the Transfiguration, a deliberate contrast of Peter’s real experience as a witness of Christ and hearer of God’s words “on the mountain”, with that of Enoch: “And they took and brought me to a place in which those who were there were like flaming fire, and, when they wished, they appeared as men, and they brought me to the place of darkness, and to a mountain the point of whose summit reached to heaven” (17:1,2). The point of Peter raising this as his first point in the argument is because of the contrast between the first person witness of Peter who WAS with Christ on the mountain and was shown the Kingdom, and the false teachers who were NOT on any mountain with Enoch when Enoch was shown the heavens. Cp 2Pe 3:2; Jud 1:17.

C. The teachers taught “cunningly devised fables” (2Pe 1:16; 2:12; 3:16; Jud 1:10). Both the context of 2:12 and Jude 1:10 are speaking evil of angels. The things they understand not are angels.

D. The false teachers accused angels of sin (2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:8).

E. The Book of Enoch accuses angels of sin (2Pe 2:4,9; Jud 1:5-7).

F. Peter and Jude use the book’s own illogicalities to undermine those who use it (just as Christ used Pharisee’s ideas to expose them in Luke 16):

Jude 1:14: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, (‘Enoch the seventh from Adam’ is a quote from the Book of Enoch, not from the Bible)         prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Cp the Book of Enoch 1:9. The idea of using Enoch as a source to condemn the Enochites is rejected by many. But why? In Luke 16 the Pharisees’ ideas of Abraham’s Bosom are used to ridicule them. The ridicule of pagan gods and demons goes back at least to Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Another point: According to the grammar of the Greek Enoch did not prophecy “of these” (AV)         or “about these men” (NIV)         but “to these”; the Greek has PROEFHTEUSEN DE KAI TOUTOIS (dative), wheras if AV and NIV are right it should be PROEFHTEUSEN PERI TOUTWN (genitive). The difference can be illustrated by two exchanges between Christ and the Pharisees: Mat 26:68 has “prophesy to us!” — PROFHTEUSON HMIN (dative)         and Mat 15:7 has “prophesied well concerning you” — KALWS EPROFHTEUSEN PERI UMWN (genitive).

So Enoch prophesied to those who “speak evil of those things which they know not”. How did he do this? Through the pages of their own book. As Boulton wrote concerning Jude and Enoch: “the writers of the NT were ready to use legend and folklore as Jesus was ready to use superstitious beliefs in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus”. The parallel with Luke 16 is quite telling because Christ used the Pharisees’ fantasies about Hades to attack Caiaphas (and his five brother-in-law high priests dressed in purple and linen), Jude uses the Enochites’ fantasies about angels to attack them.

G. Peter and Jude use the book’s own language to reject the teachers (2Pe 1:9; 2:17).

Also, 2Pe 2:17 and Jud 1:12,13: All the imagery and several verbatim phrases regarding the false teachers are quotes referring to the fallen angels Stars and ‘Shepherds’ in Enoch (cf. all of Enoch 96~100).

“I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw the paths of the angels” (Enoch 18:5,6). “I saw from whence they proceed in that place and from whence they saturate the dusty earth. And there I saw closed chambers out of which the winds are divided, the chamber of the hail and winds, the chamber of the mist, and of the clouds, and the cloud thereof hovers over the earth from the beginning of the world” (41:4,5). “And the fourth quarter, named the north, is divided into three parts: the first of them is for the dwelling of men: and the second contains seas of water, and the abysses and forests and rivers, and darkness and clouds; and the third part contains the garden of righteousness” (77:3).

“Observe and see how (in the winter)         all the trees seem as though they had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes” (3:1)         “And he said unto me: ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree, and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?’ Then I answered him saying: ‘I wish to know about everything, but especially about this tree.’ And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgement, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything)         to its consummation for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King” (25:1-6). “And in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward, And shall not grow in their time, And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time” (80:3). “And high trees were rent 5 from their stems, and hurled down and sunk in the abyss” (83:4,5).

“And if He sends His anger upon you because of your deeds, ye cannot petition Him; for ye spake proud and insolent words against His righteousness: therefore ye shall have no peace. And see ye not the sailors of the ships, how their ships are tossed to and fro by the waves, and are shaken by the winds, and are in sore trouble?” (101:3-5).

H. The real heresy is the denial of Christ for Enoch (Jud 1:18,19; 2Pe 3:3,4).

The Enochites denied the second coming of Christ by referring to Jewish cosmology: “From the creation of the world and unto eternity… and through that oath are the depths made fast, and abide and stir not from their place from eternity to eternity” (69:18,19).

Worse, they made Enoch the intercessor calling for judgement (2Pe 2:1): “And this one who wrote the book carried it up, and showed it and read it before the Lord of the sheep, and implored Him on their account, and besought Him on their account as he showed Him all the doings of the shepherds, and gave testimony before Him against all the shepherds” (Enoch 89:76,77).

As one last sober point. If Peter and Jude were so opposed to those who “spoke evil of dignitaries” we also should be careful what we say of angels “who are ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14 — written by a Jew who must also have heard of the Book of Enoch).

The fact remains is that out of 300+ other references to angels in OT and NT all (meaning ALL including Psa 78:49)         are unanimously describing obedient angels who are ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.

Conclusion

We have shown that the treatment of the Book of Enoch in 2Pe and Jude shows it to be a “cunningly devised fable” of those who “speak evil about things they know not” and “slander celestial beings”.

We have shown that the language used to describe the Enochites is drawn from the Book of Enoch’s own description of the “angels that sinned”, “wandering stars” and “shepherds”.

We have shown that Enoch did not prophesy to the believers “concerning” these “wandering stars” but prophesied to the false teachers present at the love feasts in the church. The false teachers, not the believers, were those who recognized the book’s authority and to whom Enoch prophesied.

We have shown that the references to the Apostles’ vision on the mountain are the answer to Enoch’s vision on the mountain, and that the Apostles had a “more sure word of prophecy” and were “dreamers” (visionaries)         in fulfillment of Joel at Pentecost, not “[filthy] dreamers” like the Enochites.

We have shown that in Enoch “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” and that not only did the Enochites mock the coming, they also denied the Lord that bought them, having Enoch intercede “for the sheep”.

Most importantly we have Peter’s own testimony about angels which contradicts that of the Enochites:

1Pe 1:10-21: Even angels long to look into the things spoken by the Spirit of Christ in the OT prophets.

1Pe 3:22: Angels (AGGELOI), authorities (EXOUSIAI), and powers (DUNAMOI)         are in submission to Jesus Christ who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.

2Pe 2:11: Angels, even though they are stronger and more powerful than those who slander celestial beings, do not bring slanderous accusations against them (the slanderers)         in the presence of the Lord.

These three mentions show the doctrine taught by Peter and Jude: a doctrine of obedient angels, giving honor to the Spirit of Christ even before he was born, of all classes of angel in submission to Christ now, and not slandering even the worst of mankind.

The contrast with the teachings of the Enochites is only too clear on each point. We now have to make a choice as to whom to believe: the Apostles or the Enochites? We cannot believe both.

(JB).

See also (1)         Lesson, Zec 3 and Enoch, and (2)         Lesson, Enoch and spirits in prison.

Enoch, fate of

The fate of Enoch (Gen 5:24):

Enoch testified against the “ungodly” (Jud 1:14,15), ie Lamech, his counterpart in Cain’s line: a man of violence (Gen 4:23,24). Perhaps Lamech sought to slay Enoch, and God removed him from harm — hidden in Garden of Eden, to walk with God in even closer fellowship, as a “reward” (Heb 11:5,6). (BS 10:152,153).

What happened to Enoch? In both Gen and Heb 11:5 Enoch is treated differently than his contemporaries. Did he die? Prob “Yes!”: 1Co 15:22: “as in Adam all die”; and Rom 5:14: “death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Also, Heb 11:13: “these all died in faith”, and the five people mentioned earlier included Enoch.

If so, then what about the statement: “he was not, for God took him”? This suggests disappearance or removal, as does Heb 11:5 and the word “translated” (= transferred, or changed as to status: ie Heb 7:12). Possibly Enoch was taken away from a potential life-threatening disaster to another place to live out his life. Heb 11:4,5 sets Enoch alongside Abel who died by the hand of an assassin; both experienced God’s overshadowing care, yet one suffered and the other was delivered.

Eph summary of faith

In writing to the ecclesia in Ephesus, Paul appeals for unity of mind and fellowship among believers there based on their mutual acceptance of seven “ones”: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph 4:4-6).

The enumeration of these seven “unities” has the distinctive appearance of a “summary of faith”, a statement of faith which is wholly Biblical. Some writers (Marcus Barth, “Ephesians 4-6”, Anchor Bible, pp 462,463; Alfred Barry, “Ephesians”, Ellicott 8:36; Francis Foulkes, “The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians”, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p 112)         suppose that Paul is in fact citing a concise yet precise doctrinal summary known to the worldwide church or ecclesia of his day:

  1. One body
  2. One Spirit
  3. One hope
  4. One Lord
  5. One faith
  6. One baptism
  7. One God

The seven “ones” may be defined by comparing especially Paul’s use of the same words elsewhere. This produces a credible statement of essential doctrines — which defines the distinctive truths we believe, and sets that system of truth apart from various false “gospels”:

1. One body: The unity of all believers, and specifically both Jews and Gentiles, reconciled to God on the same basis (Eph 2:16). One body, bound together in love with Christ as the head (Eph 4:12-16; Rom 12:1,4,5; 1Co 12:12-27). Also, one body as “husband” and “wife”: the “great mystery” of Christ and the church, or ecclesia (Eph 5:23,28,30). Finally, the “one body” of the church is equivalent to the “one bread” of communion or fellowship with Christ (1Co 10:16,17; 11:24,27,29). Thus “one body” defines the ecclesia in terms of fellowship, both inclusively (all true believers being members)         and exclusively (no others being members).

2. One Spirit: The Holy Spirit of God, by which prophets and apostles were inspired to record the one truth, and by which the Bible itself was written, validated, and preserved. This was the Spirit of truth, or the Comforter, which came to the apostles, to teach them the words of Jesus (Joh 14:17,26; 15:26; 16:13). As there is one true Spirit, or Teacher, the others must be false “spirits” or teachers (1Ti 4:11; cp 1Jo 4:1-3)         when they teach other doctrines contrary to that which the apostles received and taught (Gal 1:8-11).

3. One hope: In Paul’s own words elsewhere, the one “hope” is the hope of a resurrection (Act 23:6; 24:14,15), the hope of the promises made to the fathers (Act 26:6-8; Rom 4:13-18), and the hope of Israel (Act 28:20)         — that is, the kingdom of Israel restored (Act 1:6; 3:19-21; 2Sa 7:12-14; Luk 1:30-33). Thus the “one hope” must also be the hope of Christ’s appearing and kingdom (Act 1:11; Col 1:5; Tit 2:13)         and the hope of eternal life (Tit 1:2; 3:7). Those who are “without Christ” have “no hope” (Eph 2:12).

4. One Lord: References to “the Lord” in Paul’s writings are too numerous to catalog here. The essence of Bible teaching about the “one Lord” might be summarized, however: Jesus is the one Lord because he is the only-begotten Son of God, and the one man in whom all mankind (that is, all believers)         are included (Eph 4:11-16; 2Co 5:14-17). He was the one man to lead a perfect life, and therefore the one man capable of dying as the perfect representative sacrifice for all men. Thus he was raised from the dead (Phi 2:8-12)         to become the head, or Lord, of all who would have eternal life in him (Rom 5:12,18,19). A final point: as the “one Lord”, Jesus is always personally distinct from the “one God” (Eph 4:5,6; 1Co 8:4-6; 1Ti 2:5).

5. One faith: Faith in the crucified and risen Christ is the one and only means to salvation (Act 4:12; Rom 3:22-31; Gal 3). By such faith — in prospect — even Abraham was justified, or declared righteous (Rom 4:1-5; cp Rom 3: 25 and Heb 9:15). By faith sinners may be forgiven (Rom 4:6-8), apart from their own works or acts of righteousness (Eph 2:8,9).

6. One baptism: The one baptism (ie, the only true baptism)         is that which is preceded by belief in the one gospel, as defined in the list. Paul knows only one form of baptism: a burial (Rom 6:3,4; Col 2:12)         in water. Baptism is the means by which believers become heirs of the promises made to Abraham and his “seed” (Gal 3:27-29).

7. One God: The last of the seven “unities” in Paul’s list is actually the first and greatest “unity”, from which all other “unities” are derived. “One God”, as distinct from even His own Son (1Co 8:6; Gal 3:19,20; 1Ti 2:5). The “one God” is the “Father” of one Divine family, all made one in Him because of His love for them, as shown through His Son (Eph 3:14-21).

The essential doctrines derived directly from Paul’s “summary of faith” in Eph 4 are listed below. The references 1 through 7 are to the preceding seven numbered “unities”. For ease of future reference, the essential doctrines are listed in the general order familiar to readers of our common statement of faith.

  • The Bible (the teachings and writings of prophets and apostles), the only source of truth and the only hope of eternal life (2).
  • One God, the Father of all (7).
  • The Holy Spirit, God’s power unto salvation (2).
  • The one Lord, Jesus, the Son of God, who is distinct from God Himself, being a man and the head of all men, by virtue of his perfectly obedient life (4).
  • The one Body: all men — both Jews and Gentiles — who have been reconciled to God through the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1).
  • The forgiveness of sins, only through faith in Christ (5).
  • Christ as the one mediator between God and men (4).
  • The second coming of Christ (3).
  • The resurrection of the dead (3).
  • The reward of the faithful with immortality (3).
  • The fulfillment of the promises to the fathers: eternal possession of the earth (3).
  • The kingdom of Israel restored (3).
  • The one true gospel, which cannot be altered (5).
  • Baptism (total immersion), only after belief of the gospel and repentance (6).
  • The memorial supper, expressive of fellowship (inclusive and exclusive) in the family of God (1).

Certain false doctrines are very directly and distinctly ruled out by belief in the positive teachings summarized above:

  • The “trinity”, and the pre-human existence and “divinity” of Christ (all being contrary to the “one God”).
  • The immortality of the “soul” (contrary to the “one hope”).
  • Heaven-going (contrary to the “one hope”).
  • The earth literally burned up (contrary to the “one hope”).
  • A superhuman fallen angel “devil” or “Satan” (contrary to both the “one God” and the “one Lord”).
  • Infant-sprinkling (contrary to the “one baptism”).
  • Universal salvation (contrary to the “one hope”).

Day-for-a-year principle?

Does the “day-for-a-year” principle pass the Scriptural test?

The day-for-a-year principle is one of the foundation stones for much of traditional Christadelphian prophetic interpretation. The continuous-historic viewpoint of prophecy that our pioneer brethren endorsed is especially dependent upon this principle. It is therefore incumbent upon us to test this principle against Scripture.

The day-for-a-year principle presumes that the word ‘day’, when found in a prophetic passage, should be interpreted as representing a literal year. For example, the 1,260,1,290, and 1,335 days of Daniel and Revelation are read as 1,260, 1,290, and 1,335 years (Dan 7:25; 12:7,11,12; Rev 11:2,3; 11:6,14; 13:5). In short, prophetic ‘days’ represent literal years.

There are passages that are quoted in support of this day-for-a-year principle. Do they prove it? Let us look at them one at a time.

1. Numbers 14:34: “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know My breach of promise.”

This verse apparently supports the principle, especially the phrase “each day for a year”. But, if we pay closer attention, we immediately notice two things about the passage. First, both phrases, “forty days” and “forty years” are in the text. Second, both time periods are literal.

There is a correspondence between the two time periods in the use of the Scripturally significant number forty (that is, “after the number of the days”). But there is absolutely no evidence that the phrase “forty days” is to be interpreted as “forty years”. The facts, as plainly declared in the passage itself, are that the spies searched the land for forty literal days and the nation wandered in the wilderness forty literal years.

In short, though initially this passage might seem to support the principle, after a more careful analysis we find that it actually does not.

2. Ezekiel 4:4-6: “Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.”

Again, at first this passage seems to teach a principle that prophetic days are to be interpreted as representing years. But we must read carefully.

The passage actually says that Ezekiel was to lie on his left side for 390 literal days and on his right side for forty literal days, each representing the corresponding number of literal years of the iniquity of Israel and Judah. Here, as before, we find that, in the text of Scripture itself, “days” means literal days and “years” means literal years. Let us suppose that, instead of what is written, Ezekiel had been told: “Lie on your left side 390 days, and on your right side forty days. For I have laid upon you the time of Israel’s punishment.” (Note that the word ‘years’ does not occur in this hypothetical text.) Now let us suppose that the corresponding punishment of Israel’s iniquity was shown to be a Scripturally-attested 390 years and forty years. Such would be Biblical precedent for a day-for-a-year interpretation. However, this is not the case.

Both passages (1) and (2) use the same method: a certain number of literal days for individuals corresponding to the same number of literal years for the nation. In each case all the Scriptural time periods are literal periods.

3. Daniel 9:24: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city…”

This passage is used as support for the day-for-a-year principle as follows: 70 weeks = 70 x 7 days = 490 days; then, 490 days = 490 years, this last equality being supported by the principle in question. The problem with this analysis — and it is a fatal problem — is that the Hebrew word “shabua” (translated “week” in the AV) means nothing more than ‘a seven’. This explains why John Thomas used the anglicized Greek word ‘heptade’, meaning ‘a group of seven things’, in his translation of this passage given in his “Exposition of Daniel”. Eze 45:21 emphasizes that it cannot be simply read as “seven days” because in that verse the same Hebrew word “shabua” is combined with the word for days. In short, the “seventy weeks” of Dan 9 stands for a group of ‘seventy sevens’ of something to be determined [“seventy ‘sevens’ ” (NIV), “seventy weeks of years” (RSV, Roth)].

From the context, we discover that Daniel was asking (in v 2) about the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah. Gabriel then gives him a prophecy concerning seventy times seven years. The result of 490 years is the same as that derived earlier, but now it is on a much firmer basis. The point can be set out graphically as follows:

Wrong formula:

70 weeks = 70 weeks x 7 days = 490 days = 490 years

Right formula:

70 x 7 (what?) = 490 (what?).

The variable (what?) becomes ‘years’ only after consideration of the context. There is no need for application of a day-for-a-year principle.

4. Luke 13:32,33: “And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk today, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.”

We would never have suspected that these verses would be quoted in support of the day-for-a-year theory until a well-respected speaking brother did just that at an American Bible School.

There are at least four problems in taking the passage to be a prophecy indicating that our Lord’s ministry would last three years.

First, his ministry lasted longer than three years. Second, these verses were spoken in the fourth year of the ministry, making them too late for the purpose indicated. Third, there is nothing at all in the passage itself to suggest that the day-for-a-year principle should even be applied. Finally, his interpretation ignores the most likely basis for Christ’s expression. The idiomatic phrase “yesterday, the third day” is used about two dozen times in the Old Testament to indicate an indeterminate period of time.

Whatever the correct interpretation of this passage, by itself it does not support the hypothesis.

As far as we know, these are the only passages that have been quoted as direct support for the principle that prophetic days represent literal years. As we have seen, these passages do not actually support this hypothesis. On the other hand, we have seen that in the two strongest passages (Num 14 and Eze 4) the words ‘day’ and ‘year’, when used in the text of Scripture, mean precisely day and year, even by the admission of those who would find support for their theory here.

Are there any passages that support the hypothesis that prophetic time periods should be taken literally? The answer is definitely yes. The following are several examples in which prophetic time periods are necessarily literal:

1.         On many occasions Jesus predicted that he would be raised the third day. These are all quite literal.

2. Genesis 15:13: “And He said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.”

3.         Genesis 41:29,30: “Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: and there shall arise after them seven years of famine.”

4. Isaiah 38:5: “Behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years.”

5. Jeremiah 25:11,12: “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.”

6. Jeremiah 29:10: “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”

7. Daniel 9:2: “In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalern.”

These examples are sufficient. They provide conclusive evidence against the theory of a day-for-a-year. However, there may still be those that argue against this result on the basis that the passages to which the principle is applied are symbolic, whereas the passages cited against it are all literal. But, when we go through the passages, we see that making such a distinction does not save the theory.

Before we examine the passages, we ask the question: Did John, for example, apply the day-for-a-year principle when interpreting his own visions? If he did, then certainly he would have passed this much along to Polycarp, Irenaeus and others of the first and second centuries. But “it is admitted that, for the first four centuries, the days mentioned in the prophecies of Daniel and in the Apocalypse were interpreted literally by the Fathers of the Church” (“Literary History of the New Testament”. as cited in “Tregelles on Daniel”: The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony, Chiswick, 7th ed, 1965, p 112.)

On the other hand, Tregelles wrote: “As far as I know, the first who spoke of a period of twelve hundred and sixty years was the celebrated Abbot Joachim of Calabria at the close of the twelfth century. But he did not excogitate this as a prophetic period by using any year-day theory, but he formed it from the designation of ‘a time, times, and the dividing of time’, thus: he assumed a time to be the largest measure of time in use amongst men, a thousand years; times to be two of the next smaller measures of time, two hundred years; the dividing of time he assumed to be part of the last-named measure. He probably adopted sixty precisely (instead of fifty which he should have done as it is properly ‘half a time’) from the analogy of the 1,260 days. I ought to inform the reader that Abbot Joachim considered himself to be inspired. The year-day theory of two centuries later seems to be only a carrying out of the supposed revelation to Abbot Joachirn” (“Tregelles on Daniel”, footnotes on pp 123,124).

Now to the passages.

1. In Dan 4:16,23,25,32 Nebuchadnezzar was told that he should be driven from men “till seven times pass over him”. The “seven times in these verses is generally taken to be seven years, a conclusion that is most likely correct. (The Hebrew word for “time”, moed, is the same as that used for the yearly feasts of Israel, especially the Feast of Passover.) This period of seven years must be taken literally. In fact, vv 28-37 detail the fulfilment of the dream, recounted by Nebuchadnezzar in vv 10-18, precisely as interpreted by Daniel in vv 19-27. Verse 28 is emphatic: “All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.”

Application of a day-for-a-year principle in this passage results in nonsense. But that does not stop some expositors who tell us that the seven times represents 2,520 (7 x 360) years.’ However, their interpretations of the prophecy are completely unrelated to the details given in Daniel 4. The prophecy deals specifically with Nebuchadnezzar, with no implication otherwise.

This example is particularly important with regard to our discussion. The primary application of the day-for-a-year principle is to the various time periods in Daniel and the Apocalypse. One of these periods is the “time and times and half a time” (RV) of Dan 7:25; 12:7 and Rev 12:14. This corresponds to exactly half the period given in Dan 4. Because the seven times in Dan 4 must be seven literal years, the three-and-a-half times in the other passages should reasonably and consistently be interpreted as three-and-a-half literal years, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.

2.         “Time and times and half a time” (RV) in Dan 7 is not found in the symbolic part of the prophecy, but in the interpretation given to Daniel. The rest of the interpretation is literal, so the time period should be also. In Dan 12 “the man clothed in linen… sware by Him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half.” The fact that the time period was part of an oath would seem to emphasize that it is literal. There are three methods used to describe this same period of time: the “time, times, and an half” we have been discussing; “a thousand two hundred and threescore” in Rev 11:3; 12:6; and “forty and two months” in Rev 11:2; 13:5. It is as though God intended there to be no room for confusion. He was saying it would be three-and-a-half years; that is, forty-two months; in short — 1,260 days. Simply put, if an inspired apostle, in this case John, tells us exactly the same thing in three different ways, it ill becomes us to insist that he did not really mean what he said!

3. The “thousand two hundred and ninety days” and the “thousand three hundred and five and thirty days” in Dan 12:11,12 are both associated with the 1,260 days, in that the 1,290 days would end one (thirty-day) month after the 1,260 days, and the 1,335 would end 45 days later. These particular numbers are most likely to be connected with the Jewish calendar. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the passage in Daniel to suggest anything but a literal interpretation of these time periods.

4. The “hour, and a day, and a month, and a year” of Rev 9:15 surely refers to a specific and precise point in time and not a period (that is, the very hour, day, month, and year).

5. There is no reason why the “three days and an half” in Rev 11:9 should not be taken literally. The 31/2 days that the two witnesses are dead corresponds to the 31/2 years that the holy city is trodden under foot. This parallels the method used in the Num 14 and Eze 4 passages discussed earlier: a certain number of literal days for specific individuals corresponding to the same number of literal years for the nation.

It is interesting that the usual continuous historic interpretation of this time period does not use the day-for-a-year principle; otherwise it would signify three-and-a-half years, not 105 years as is often given. This inconsistency in the application of the principle is itself evidence against the principle.

6. The “thousand years” of Rev 20 provides another example of this inconsistency. This time period is always assumed to be literal by the continuous-historicists.

We could discuss other prophetic time periods but this collection should be convincing. We have concluded that the day-for-a-year principle not only lacks evidence to support it, but that it is actually contrary to many plain examples in which time periods must be literal. Given this result, it is urgent that we, as seekers of Bible truth and not men’s traditions, review many commonly accepted interpretations of prophecy. Specifically, all the standard continuous-historic results that depend so heavily on the day-for-a-year principle must be seriously questioned.

(Joe Hill and George Booker)

Death of a princess… and a “saint”

(Written in 1997)

During the first week of September, millions in England and millions more around the world mourned the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, who died tragically in a car crash in Paris.

The sudden death of any person who is young (Diana was only 36) inspires more than ordinary grief. The tolling of church bells at unusual times has, traditionally, marked death, with each peal signaling one year in the life of the deceased. In earlier (and slower) times, farmers at work in their fields, and women at work in their homes, would pause in their daily routine when the church bells rang out. They would listen and they would count the peals: Sometimes the bells would ring for a good long time… seventy, eighty, ninety peals… and the listeners would say to themselves, “Well, those were good innings!” — meaning, ‘The deceased lived a long life.’ But at other times the bells would ring… ten, twenty, thirty peals… and then all would be silent… and the listeners would return to their chores with hearts a little heavier, realizing once more the brevity, and sadness, of life.

“Any man’s death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind. And therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls.

It tolls for thee.”

On Saturday, September 6, church bells rang out, and the whole world stopped and listened. From Westminster Abbey in London, final resting place of forty generations of British kings, sounded out words and music and prayers that were flashed around the world instantaneously. More people were brought together in that one moment, to witness that one event, than ever before in human history.

Many nations have royalty. All nations have the rich and the famous and the powerful. What made the Princess of Wales so special? In pondering that question, we may find some interesting answers.

Diana was a “fairy tale” princess, plucked from obscurity to marry her “Prince Charming” and to live happily ever after… but of course, the story didn’t end the way fairy tales should. In real life, fairy tales don’t!

But in the beginning, she captured the imagination of the world; she was young, she was rich, she was beautiful, she was fashionable, and she married the man of her dreams. What Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had been, Diana Spencer became… only more so! In no time at all, her appearances — opening hospitals, visiting foreign dignitaries, reviewing the troops, whenever and wherever — completely overshadowed the appearances of her husband Prince Charles. And therein lay, perhaps, the seeds of the final tragedy. For Diana, young and naive, outshone everyone around her, including monarchs and future monarchs!

So, even as she captured more and more hearts with her genuine concern for, and kindness toward, the sick and the downtrodden, AIDS victims and lepers and homeless, and her tireless efforts for almost countless charities, she was losing… her husband, and her special place in the royal family. The same newspapers and tabloids and television networks that had made her an icon were chipping away at the image they had helped to create. Nothing was secret in the fish-bowl existence of the Windsor family; every whisper, every innuendo, was grist for the mill; all privacy was stripped away from her; she was lampooned and scorned by many. And a marriage — that might in ordinary circumstances have been salvaged — finally and sadly broke down. Surely there was fault on both sides, but the feeling in many quarters is that Diana was more sinned against than sinning.

In the wake of various infidelities on both sides, the marriage of Prince Charming and his Princess was lost, irretrievably. Separation led to divorce. But the Princess did not “go away”; she had such a hold on the imagination of the world that, even in exile and stripped of her royal title, she was still beloved by millions. The woman who would never be Queen of the United Kingdom became the “queen of hearts” — still the most watched, the most reported, the most photographed, person in the world. And still she persisted, despite failures in her personal life, despite what some of her family characterized as deep personal feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, to devote herself to many charities and causes, and to reach out to touch and help many of the poor and wretched of society.

Perhaps it was her very failings, and her vulnerability, that helped to endear her to so many millions. She became, in the words of her brother’s eulogy, the “standard-bearer for the rights of the downtrodden”, because so many recognized in her their own weaknesses. She was not just royalty; she was imperfect, and human, and real. She was one of them.

So she died, as she had lived, in the fast lane. And pop singers and prime ministers, and unimaginable crowds of common folks, mourned her passing, “like a candle in the wind”. And the monarch of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, who bows to no man, bowed to her coffin as it passed.

Someone who truly cares!

The outpouring of grief at the death of Diana suggests, pathetically but also promisingly, a world that is looking for someone who truly cares. A world that is looking for a leader who can truly supply what the bright and beautiful, but frail and flawed, Diana could only hint at! A world that is groping for, that desperately needs, true “Royalty”.

There is such a man:

“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mat 11:28-30).

There was a man who walked through the world, touching the lepers and the harlots and the poor and the blind and the homeless, changing lives as he went. There was a man who truly cared for all, but especially for the rejected and downtrodden and the abused — he himself was rejected and trodden down and abused because of his good deeds. There was a man who was truly “touched with the feeling of our infirmities”, for he was in all points tempted just as we are — he knew what it was like to feel the weakness of human nature, yet… marvelously … he was without sin” (Heb 4:15)!

This man was born in obscurity, but he was destined for great things. He went about Israel, proclaiming by his actions that he was a King, doing only good for others. But some of the “establishment” (who hated him) plotted and connived, and finally stripped him of his “titles” and even his clothes and his last vestige of human dignity; then they nailed him to a cross… where he died, still a young man.

“I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32).

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:14-16).

This man, being lifted up on a cross, became the true “standard-bearer for the rights of the downtrodden”. And this man, being lifted up again… three short days later, from a tomb of stone, became — and continues to this very day to be — the “King” of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, India, Africa, Asia, Europe, and America… and the “King of love”, who reigns in all loving hearts. In the words of our Hymn 33 (which were sung at Diana’s funeral):

“The King of love my Shepherd is. Whose goodness faileth never: I nothing lack if I am his, And he is mine for ever…

“Perverse and foolish oft I strayed; But yet in love he sought me; And on his shoulders gently laid, And home, rejoicing, brought me…

“And so through all the length of days Thy goodness faileth never: Good Shepherd, may I sing thy praise Within thy house for ever.”

The whole world will witness another great spectacle, one day not too far in the future. We cannot know exactly what form it will take, although the Bible has many hints:

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Rev 1:7).

There will be aspects of a great state funeral about that event too (which could well be witnessed in a single moment by virtually all of the world’s peoples), because the great King who appears then will be recognized as the One who was crucified (will he reveal the wounds in his hands and side?: Zec 13:6)… and there will be great mourning when he comes, at least for a short while.

“And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean” (Rev 19:14).

There will be a military presence at that great event too, and beautiful horses, and armies arrayed in splendid pageantry. Mourning will give way to rejoicing, as the understanding sinks into the minds of the billions watching that this man had been dead, but now is gloriously and eternally alive… and he brings the blessings of Heaven to all his subjects!

“The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him” (Psa 72:10,11).

“Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising” (Isa 60:1-3).

Before this King the monarchs of the whole earth will prostrate themselves, laying their crowns at his feet!

Countless graves will be opened around the world, and out of the dust itself will be reconstituted living, breathing, sentient beings… Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Moses, David, apostles and prophets, and ordinary men and women… who are gathered together with untold numbers of living ones, to meet the new King before his throne. Out of the multitudes will come new “kings and priests”, and “a royal priesthood” — the true Royal Family for which the world has been waiting!

Surely there will first be a great hush among that magnificent throng — a “minute of silence”:

“The LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (Hab 2:20).

This will be the most eloquent stillness the world has ever known. Then the moment of silence will be broken with the peal of bells, ringing out liberty and life, and the notes of trumpets, sounding out victory.

And from everyone who has breath, now knowing and fully understanding the purpose of that God-given breath, voices will be raised to sing the praises of the once and future King, and the whole earth will be a “cathedral” to echo those praises:

“And they sang as it were a new song before the throne… and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth… And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest… And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Rev 14:3; 15:3,4; 21:3,4).

May that day soon come when all peoples of the earth will be united into one, with one king and one voice. “Even so. Come, Lord Jesus.”


The death of a “saint”

Within a few days after the death of Princess Diana, another world-famous woman died… in India. Born in Macedonia (Greece) 87 years ago, she was known to the world as Mother Teresa. She really was what Diana, in her better moments, must have aspired to be: a woman who spent her life serving the poorest of the poor, the desperately impoverished street people of one of the world’s poorest cities, Calcutta.

Widely regarded as a “living saint”, Mother Teresa was perhaps the most admired woman in the world. When she appeared, as she often did, at the side of Pope Paul II, it was the pope who stood, figuratively, in the shadow of the frail and stooped little woman.

It was fifty years ago that Sister Teresa (as she was then known) abandoned a reasonably comfortable job in a Calcutta school to go out into the filthy streets of the worst slums of the city, to teach the children who were too poor to attend regular schools. One day, as she later recalled, she found a woman “half eaten by maggots and rats” lying almost dead in the street. She sat with her, stroking her head, until the woman died.

And thus a new vocation, and a new religious order, was born. Her goal would be to minister to the “unwanted, unloved and uncared for,” and to that end she began to gather a small group of women around her, forming the Missionary Sisters of Charity. Building shelters for the dying became her special service. Poverty was her chosen way of life. When Pope Paul VI gave her the limousine he had used during a visit in 1964, she sold it — without ever stepping inside — and used the proceeds to start a leper colony. To the usual religious vows of poverty, chastity and obedience she added a fourth: a promise of “wholehearted free service to the poorest of the poor,” whom she characterized as “Christ in disguise”.

When she died, many thousands of those poor came to her elaborate state funeral, along with flocks of cardinals (the human, and Catholic, kind!). Among the Scripture passages read was Mat 25:31-40:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ ”

Among the hymns sung was our Hymn 313:

“Abide with me; fast falls the eventide; The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide: When other helpers fail, and comforts flee, Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

“Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day; Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories pass away; Change and decay in all around I see; O Thou who changest not, abide with me.”


Once again the outpouring of grief, in Calcutta but also around the world, was tremendous. This time the natural constituency of the deceased truly was the downtrodden of the world — the people huddled in the corners of the worst slums, begging in the streets, the diseased and the deformed and the dying.

And, almost immediately, in the Vatican of Rome, half a world away, wealthy and comfortable bishops and cardinals began planning the process by which the little wisp of a woman lying in state in Calcutta might become the latest Roman Catholic “saint”.

The true saints?

We know what the Bible says. “Saints” are not made “saints” by an apostate Church! The word itself means those who have been made holy or sanctified by their faith in Christ, and by his atoning sacrifice. It is “all the church, beloved by God,” who are also “called saints” (Rom 1:7). And we know also that good works alone, no matter how numerous, cannot earn salvation in God’s Kingdom — we must believe the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and be baptized into his name.

But once again, within the space of the week, the pictures on our television sets and in our newspapers and magazines remind us of the wrenching poverty to be found in the world, and the desperate hopeless plight of so many. And of how much we all need Christ to come, to gather his true saints together, and to extend his wise and benevolent rule over all the earth.

And in the meantime?…

In the meantime, while we wait for that Kingdom to come, what should be our attitude (or should we even bother having one?) toward the awesome outpouring of grief, in London and throughout the world, at the death of Princess Diana? And again, at the different, yet eerily similar, grieving centered in Calcutta?

We “true believers” are inclined to adopt certain attitudes at such times as these. We tend to feel superior at the spectacle of so many others grasping at a false (or imperfect) hope, or even grieving because they have no hope (“We thank Thee, Lord, that we are not as these poor sinners!”). We tend to secretly (or not so secretly) laugh at the silliness of a belief system that mixes and juggles heaven-going and resurrection with no apparent regard for logic (and feel superior again). We may also tend to pull our garments about us even more tightly, and draw back even further, if possible, from a world lost in such obvious darkness and ignorance.

For every one of these attitudes there is some justification. But are they not easy (perhaps too easy?) for us to adopt? Is there something more?

As the camera pans across the oceans of people gathered in the heart of London, and again shows us the barefoot and ragged masses of India, the mind goes to Paul’s words in Rom 8:

“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (vv 20-22).

Can we not be moved by the sight of a world groaning in pain, a world mourning the loss of something it cherished? A world yearning for something more, a world desperately laboring to bring forth something… something it does not quite understand?

And why doesn’t it understand? To some degree (which each of us can only assess individually) the world does not understand what it needs, what it longs for… because we haven’t told it, or because we haven’t told it often enough, or because we haven’t told it well enough, or because we haven’t told it with sufficient sympathy and kindness and patience?

But the world — those masses upon masses of sinners of every shape and hue, part of which we saw on our TV screens in the streets of London and Calcutta: homosexual AIDS sufferers along with Baptist deacons, drug addicts and prostitutes along with social workers, the lice-ridden and the leprous, Hindus and Muslims and atheists along with Anglicans and Catholics — they all need the Kingdom. What they don’t need is our contempt, and our mocking, and our rejection. The true King, the true “Holy One”, when he walked on this earth, didn’t give them that; neither should we!

LG Sargent, one-time editor of The Christadelphian, wrote this in his exposition of the Lord’s prayer (in the section entitled “Thy kingdom come… “):

“To desire God’s kingdom and righteousness is to desire the day when all nations whom He has made shall come and worship before Him; when ‘Truth shall spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven’… It is to desire that His reign and His righteousness, like His holiness, shall be known and acknowledged throughout the earth. This desire, if it is anything more than empty words, is a desire that we may serve His purpose… To desire the kingdom merely as an end for ourselves would not be to desire God’s kingdom but our own… ”

The Kingdom, when it comes (and it surely will), will not be just a Kingdom for us — it will be a Kingdom for the whole world! Because… the whole world needs it! And if we, the “true believers”, expect to serve God’s purpose in that Kingdom, we had best be considering — seriously, right now — how best we can be serving His purpose… seriously and right now!

If aloofness from their association, and fear of their contamination, and scorn for their ignorance, and condemnation of their sins… if these are all we can summon up in our feelings toward the “world” right now… how can we expect that these attitudes will be miraculously turned off, and just as miraculously replaced with tenderness, and sympathy, and compassion for that same “world” after Christ comes, and sends us out to them to proclaim his Kingdom?

Let us go back (in our mind’s eye) right now, and look once again at those vast crowds of sorrowing people. What do we feel? What should we feel?

What should we do about it?

The man who laid down his life for the world — the man whom we memorialize in this bread and wine — can help us answer these questions.

Demons, what are?

How do you explain the story about the demoniac called Legion (Mar 5:1-20)?

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).

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.

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.

(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 stumbling-block 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 NT 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 ( 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 (“Hippocrates” and “Galen”, in The Penguin Medical Encyclopedia, Penguin Books, London, 1972). This does find support in the Bible.

Points of Interest

  1. Associated with “healing” (Mar 1:34; 3:15; 6:13).
  2. Nature of diseases: dumbness (Mar 9:17,25), epilepsy (Mat 17:15-18).
  3. John records healing miracles without ever referring to “demons” — thus the precise language is secondary.
  4. The manifestation of “demon” possession depended entirely on a host. Evidently, then, the “demons” had no separate existence.
  5. No OT refs to demons; no teaching as such in all of Scripture (NMk 19,20).
  6. Though Jesus “spoke” to demons, he also “spoke” to a fever (cp Mar 1:31 with Luk 4:38).

Deu, overview

Author: Moses (date of writing: c 1400 BC).

Period: 1440-1400 BC.

Title: “Deuteronomy” is taken from the Latin form of the Greek word Deuteronomion, the title given to this book in the Septuagint. The word means “repetition of the law.” The Hebrew title, “elleh haddebarim” (“These are the words…”), or simply “debarim” (“Words”), is taken from the first two words of the Hebrew text of this book.

Summary: Deuteronomy is the fifth and last book of the Pentateuch. It records the repetition of the law recorded in Leviticus. It was given on the plains of Moab just prior to the entrance into the Promised Land by the nation of Israel under the command of Joshua. This was Moses’ last address to Israel as a whole prior to his death. At this time only two surviving members were left out of the generation that escaped from Egypt. Therefore, this repetition of the law was extremely important to the welfare of the new generation.

Theme: God will continue to honor His covenant. Moses calls the people to obedience and reminds them that God brought them out of Egypt, guided them and provided for them whilst they journeyed in the desert. He counsels them to be careful not to follow the pagan ways of the people of the surrounding countries.

They are given further laws and statutes to assist them in their daily life. The are told of the blessings that will come through obedience (Deu 28:1-14) and the cursings that will come through sin (Deu 28:15-68).

Deu 18:15 foretells a future great prophet, and was applied by Peter (Act 3:22) and Stephen (Act 7:37) to Jesus. Jesus referred to the book through the words “It is written…” or, “You have heard that it has been said…” (Mat 5:21, etc) — showing the importance he placed on the OT scriptures, even as he began to fulfil them as the bringer of the new covenant. His insistence that he came to fulfill the law rather than destroy it is clearly given in Mat 5:17-20.

Paul places the law in perspective for us in Rom 15:4. It was written for “our instruction… that we might have hope.”

Outline

I. First address

A. Events at Horeb Recalled: Deu 1:1-8
B. Appointment of Tribal Leaders: Deu 1:9-18
C. Failing faith
1) Israel’s Refusal to Enter the Land: Deu 1:19-33
2) The Penalty for Israel’s Rebellion: Deu 1:34-45
3) The Desert Years: Deu 2:1-25
4) Defeat of King Sihon: Deu 2:26-37
5) Defeat of King Og: Deu 3:1-22
6) Moses Views Canaan from Pisgah: Deu 3:23-29
D. Moses Commands Obedience: Deu 4:1-40
E. Cities of Refuge East of the Jordan: Deu 4:41-43
F. Transition to the Second Address: Deu 4:44-49

II. Second address

A. Covenant faith
1) The Ten Commandments: Deu 5:1-21
2) Moses the Mediator of God’s Will: Deu 5:22-33
3) The Great Commandment: Deu 6:1-9
4) Caution against Disobedience: Deu 6:10-25
5) Conquest of Canaan: Deu 7
6) Lessons from the past
7) The Essence of the Law: Deu 10:12-22
8) Rewards for Obedience: Deu 11:1-32
B. The Law
1) Worship of a holy people
(a) Pagan Shrines to Be Destroyed: Deu 12:1-12
(b) A Prescribed Place of Worship: Deu 12:13-28
(c) Warning against Idolatry: Deu 13:1-18
(d) Pagan Practices Forbidden: Deu 14:1-2
(e) Clean and Unclean Foods: Deu 14:3-21
(f) Regulations concerning Tithes: Deu 14:22-29
(g) Laws concerning the Sabbatical Year: Deu 15:1-18
(h) The Firstborn of Livestock: Deu 15:19-23
(i) The Passover Reviewed: Deu 16:1-8
(j) The Festival of Weeks Reviewed: Deu 16:9-12
(k) The Festival of Booths Reviewed: Deu 16:13-17
2) Duties of officials
(a) Municipal Judges and Officers: Deu 16:18-20
(b) Forbidden Forms of Worship: Deu 17:1-7
(c) Legal Decisions by Priests and Judges: Deu 17:8-13
(d) Limitations of Royal Authority: Deu 17:14-20
(e) Privileges of Priests and Levites: Deu 18:1-8
(f) Child-Sacrifice, Divination, and Magic Prohibited: Deu 18:9-14
(g) A New Prophet Like Moses: Deu 18:15-22
3. Criminal law
(a) Laws concerning the Cities of Refuge: Deu 19:1-13
(b) Property Boundaries: Deu 19:14
(c) Law concerning Witnesses: Deu 19:15-21
4. Rules of Warfare: Deu 20:1-20
5. Other laws
(a) Law concerning Murder by Persons Unknown: Deu 21:1-9
(b) Female Captives: Deu 21:10-14
(c) The Right of the Firstborn: Deu 21:15-17
(d) Rebellious Children: Deu 21:18-21
(e) Welfare: Deu 22:1-12
(f) Laws concerning Sexual Relations: Deu 22:13-30
(g) Those Excluded from the Assembly: Deu 23:1-8
(h) Sanitary, Ritual, and Humanitarian Precepts: Deu 23:9-25
(i) Laws concerning Marriage and Divorce: Deu 24:1-4
(j) Miscellaneous Laws: Deu 24:5-25:4
(k) Levirate Marriage: Deu 25:5-10
(l) Various Commands: Deu 25:11-19
6. First Fruits and Tithes: Deu 26:1-15
7. Concluding Exhortation: Deu 26:16-19
C. The Inscribed Stones and Altar on Mount Ebal: Deu 27:1-10
D. Twelve Curses: Deu 27:11-26
E. Blessings for Obedience: Deu 28:1-14
F. Warnings against Disobedience: Deu 28:15-68

III. Third Address

A. The Covenant Renewed in Moab: Deu 29:1-29
B. God’s Fidelity Assured: Deu 30:1-10
C. Exhortation to Choose Life: Deu 30:11-20

IV. Appendixes

A. Joshua Becomes Moses’ Successor: Deu 31:1-8
B. The Law to Be Read Every Seventh Year: Deu 31:9-13
C. Moses and Joshua Receive God’s Charge: Deu 31:14-39
D. The Song of Moses: Deu 32:1-47
E. Moses’ Death Foretold: Deu 32:48-52
F. Moses’ Final Blessing on Israel: Deu 33:1-29
G. Moses Dies and Is Buried in the Land of Moab: Deu 34:1-12

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).