An appeal to Unamended and Abrahamic Faith brothers and sisters regarding submission and ecclesial fellowship

A clause in many ecclesial Constitutions, modeled on the original Christadelphian Ecclesial Guide, reads as follows:

“In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority.”

We may make the mistake of supposing that “majority rule” is simply a convenient way of doing things, borrowed — with no particular Bible support — from the democratic governments of England and America. So we might assume that this rule is not especially binding, and in fact really means:

‘We agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority, unless we believe them to be wrong.’

But it should be evident — after some reflection — that the rule cannot be limited to such an interpretation: If everyone agreed to submit to the will of the majority only when he or she thought it to be right… and if everyone felt free, and were free, to strike out on his own whenever his ecclesia made a decision not to his liking, then such a clause would have no real application and thus would mean… nothing at all! This would then be the perfect prescription for ecclesial disunity. Sadly, this has happened far too often among Christadelphians. Brothers and sisters have stayed together in ecclesias, thinking themselves to be in perfect harmony, until the first real problem arose. Then they have divided from one another because one side or the other had supposedly “departed from the Truth”, even if only in a relatively minor matter… basically because they did not see, or did not care about, the wisdom summarized in this clause.

No, the proper way to interpret the clause is surely:

‘In matters not affecting essential doctrines, we mutually agree to submit to the arrangements preferred by the majority, even if we believe the majority is wrong.’

Even if our ecclesia makes what we consider to be a wrong decision, our duty is to remain peaceably with the ecclesia, and honor its decision… unless that decision affects the ecclesia’s official position in regard to one or more essential doctrines of the Truth.

It may be that our ecclesia has decided to embark upon an expensive building project which we feel is imprudent. Or it may be that our ecclesia has decided to take back into fellowship a sister whom we feel should remain out of fellowship. In such cases, and other similar ones, our recognition of the principle of “majority rule” compels us to abide by — and even support — the ecclesial decision.

Why should we do this? Because “majority rule” is much more than a convenient way of doing things; it is really the restatement of a Bible principle — which is just as binding as any other commandment!:

“All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: because God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (1Pe 5:5).

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21).

These passages most directly “prove” that the rule is Scriptural. There are other passages which, almost as directly, say the same thing, and they are the passages which teach the unity of the Body of Christ (eg Rom 12:4,5; 1Co 12:12-27; Eph 2:14-18; 4:4,12-16). All the passages, in Paul’s letters and elsewhere, that command us to “be of the same mind” or “one mind” (Rom 12:16; 1Co 1:10; 2Co 13:11; Phi 2:2,3; 1Pe 3:8,9) also make essentially the same point: that in matters of non-fundamental questions, we must for the sake of peace and unity submit to the will or “mind” of others (ie, the will or “mind” of the majority), even if (especially if!) we think they are wrong. Just as our obedience to certain commands (to love, to be kind, and to “turn the other cheek”) is only truly tested when we are wronged — so also our obedience to other commands (to submit to one another, to be of one mind, and to unify the Body) is only truly tested when we have a significant difference of opinion with the majority of our brethren.

We now must ask a question with very serious implications:

If the above is good advice for individuals within the local ecclesia, is it not also good advice for an ecclesia as a whole within the collective body of many ecclesias?

Or, to put it another way, do we believe in a worldwide “ecclesia”, a single worldwide Body of believers of which we (as individuals and as ecclesias) form a part? IF we do, then I think we have to acknowledge that the passages cited above, and others besides, have some bearing upon the fellowship policies of ecclesias:

“At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven’ ” (Mat 18:1-4).

“Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mar 10:43,44).

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1Co 1:10).

“Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you” (2Co 13:11).

“Make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves” (Phi 2:2,3).

These are not “easy” passages; in fact, they very much go “against the grain”. They are just the sort of passages of which we might well think, ‘Those certainly apply… to the other fellow!’ But — read in the right light, and understanding how difficult this might be — we have to ask: Do we have a duty to “submit” to the desires of other ecclesias in regard to our fellowship practices? Do we have a duty to “submit” — even if we believe we are more right than they, and even if we believe our general approach is more Scriptural — for the sake of peace and unity?

I suppose there is one premise to which we all agree, without question: The greater unity of the One Body is our ultimate desire:

“Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others” (Rom 12:4,5).

“The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ… Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?… The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I don’t need you!’ And the head cannot say to the feet, ‘I don’t need you!’… God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” (1Co 12:12-27).

“There is one body and one Spirit — just as you were called to one hope when you were called — one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all… so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ… speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Eph 4:4-6,12-16).

We assume, therefore, that the greater unity of the One worldwide Body is an object fervently to be desired from a Scriptural standpoint.

Now, following along these lines, a second premise must be stated: The Central (or Amended) Christadelphian community comprises by far the greatest number of true believers worldwide (approximately 95% of the total). [Note: This whole appeal is intended only for Unamended and Abrahamic Faith brethren who agree that the Central community contains true believers. I realize some may not agree; for them, these points will hold no weight.] This overwhelming majority is often lost sight of in North America — where the Central “fellowship” comprises perhaps only 60% of all generally-recognized believers. But the other Central brothers and sisters in the rest of the world are a serious factor in any unity discussions in North America, because North American Central brethren interact with them in Bible schools, fraternal gatherings, traveling abroad, visiting, personal correspondence, and all sorts of “missionary” and “service” capacities. This interaction necessarily affects the ability and desire of North American Central brethren to “go the extra mile” in offering fellowship to non-Central believers, for fear of endangering or disrupting the “fellowship” they already enjoy. To put it bluntly, consideration of the “cost-benefit” ratio suggests that such broadening of fellowship is just not worth the risk.

Given the two “premises” above, how can the spiritual goal of a greater unity be achieved? And the answer must of necessity be: ‘Only under the umbrella of the Central fellowship, by some recognition of its generally accepted statement of faith (the BASF) and by some agreement with its generally followed fellowship practices.’

We therefore cannot reasonably expect reunion discussions to be some sort of “negotiation” between two (or among three, if we include the Abrahamic Faith, or CoGAF) more-or-less “equal” entities. It must be something more of a “petition” on the part of the much smaller group (or groups) to “join” Central. This may not seem “fair”, but it is the practical reality of things. And it is the only way for the isolated fragments to achieve the spiritually desirable result of unity with the One Body.

To summarize the differences: The Central “fellowship” practices fellowship on the basis of the BASF only, which is expected to be applied consistently by each ecclesia. The Unamended “fellowship”, on the other hand, allows fellowship either on the BUSF, the BASF, or sometimes other statements, and its ecclesias apply such statements much less consistently. It is interesting to note, however, that the Central “fellowship” — with its “stricter” policy — continues to grow, while the Unamended “fellowship” — with its “looser” policy — continues to fragment, and more so especially since reunion has become an important issue. Why is this so? Because Central has a higher degree of collective recognition of the standard of fellowship. That is, all know where they stand, and they feel secure in that knowledge (something like children whose parents practice “tough love”, and therefore they know “where the lines are”). In short, the parts (individual ecclesias) honor the whole (the BASF), and the whole (all ecclesias) treats each part (each single ecclesia) with honor (look at the 1 Corinthians 12 passage again!). Therefore, “If you’re in, you’re in!” This has been disparaged, sometimes, as the “card carrying” or “club” mentality, but there is no denying the security this affords, and that security may well have a lot to do with the relatively much greater growth in Central.

On the other hand, the “looser” Unamended “fellowship” allows each ecclesia — to some extent — to do what is right in its own eyes (cp Jdg 17:6; 21:25). There is little “security” in such an arrangement; certain Unamended ecclesias are apt to “disfellowship” other Unamended ecclesias for relatively minor differences, and it can be very difficult for the individual to figure out where he or she stands. And for every ecclesia that “reaches out” beyond the Unamended group (either to Central or CoGAF), there is another Unamended ecclesia that cuts them off for doing so. Unamended “fellowship” is very much a relative thing: it changes from place to place, and from day to day. The result, for all the best intentions of some, is more fragmentation. And individual ecclesias remain adrift from the main Body of believers, denying themselves many of the benefits chiefly pertaining to that main Body.

It may be argued that the Unamended/CoGAF (“UC”) policy of fellowship (with its greater ecclesial independence, and fellowship recognition on the basis of individual faith) is “better” — that is, more “Bible-based” — than the general Central policy (with its collective adherence to a single standard, and fellowship recognition on the basis of ecclesial position). But — even if this were so, and given the realities of general ecclesial practice, and prevailing attitudes — could the UC policy ever hope to achieve the greater unity among all who share a common faith — which, after all, is (or should be) our desire?

Aside from the relative “rightness” of each possible fellowship policy, there may also be (what can best be called) “the test of fruitfulness”:

“By their fruits you will recognize them” (Mat 7:16; cp Mat 12:33; Luk 6:44).

By this “test” there is simply no comparison. In terms of:

• holding together a diverse array of brethren;
• edifying the whole Body (through magazines, books, Bible schools, gatherings, and interecclesial visiting);

• providing welfare and other assistance to those members in need; and

• proclaiming the gospel (locally, where ecclesias exist, and further afield, by organized missionary efforts, now in many countries and expanding steadily) —

…in all this, the worldwide Central fellowship passes the “test of fruitfulness” hands down! It far outdistances the “minorities”. (Does this mean that Central brethren or Central ecclesias are in any sense more righteous than their counterparts in Unamended or CoGAF? No, nothing of the sort! But it does suggest that their “system” works better!)

Add to this the fact that the Central brethren, worldwide, outnumber all the others — in total — by about twenty to one, with the disparity increasing all the time. Given all the above, should the Unamended, or the CoGAF, really expect the “twenty” to “join” the “one”? Should they even expect that the “twenty” will go very far in “accommodating” the special “needs” of the “one” — if there is a risk of jeopardizing any of the benefits listed above?

Let us assume — for the sake of argument — that the UC policy of fellowship is “more correct” in a theoretical sense, being based on the faith of the individual rather than the standing of his ecclesia. Nevertheless, as a practical matter the UC policy can only work to achieve greater unity in the wider sphere if it is actually practiced (or at least acknowledged and tolerated) by quite a number of other ecclesias. I have to say now, after some years of experience with this practice, that it does not appear to have (or to have gained) wide enough acceptance. Many Unamended ecclesias and most CoGAF churches practice similar fellowship — and even some Central ecclesias do too, but not very many. (And where Central ecclesias do this, they are subject to serious scrutiny and sometimes sanctions, and are more or less “forced” into secretive practices — which may give the appearance, at least, of dishonesty, and which in any case is not a very healthy situation.)

So, accepting the premise that the greater unity of the wider Body of Christ is an object to be desired, then we have come back to our original idea: there is a place, and a rationale, for humility, and submission by “minorities” to the wishes of the “majority”– not just by individuals to a single ecclesia, but also by whole ecclesias to the greater worldwide Body.

We must conclude, then, that in order to achieve true unity with the worldwide Body of believers, an ecclesia should acknowledge the validity of the BASF as an acceptable basis of saving Truth, and undertake to limit its fellowship to others who do the same.

This, I suggest, is the practical way — now — to do our part toward making peace in the brotherhood:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Mat 5:9).

“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness” (Jam 3:17,18).

Finally, please consider Paul’s teaching about “meat offered to idols”, and its general application to situations where the “strong” should take into account the consciences of the “weak” (Rom 14 and 1Co 8). (But be aware of the apparent contradiction here: The “stronger” fellowship position may be considered an indication of brethren with “weaker” consciences, who feel comfortable only by insisting on some restrictions that others think unnecessary; whereas the “looser” or “weaker” fellowship position may indicate those of “stronger” faith, who are not troubled by such concerns.) To paraphrase Paul, it is possible that the “exercise of your freedom”, in an otherwise justifiable fellowship practice, may “become a stumblingblock to the weak” (1Co 8:9). True, it may be permissible to try to instruct the “weak” as to the legality of the “stronger” position, and this has been done over the past decade or two. But… there may come a time when Paul’s words apply to us:

“If your brother is distressed because of what you eat [or ‘with whom you eat’?!], you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15).

There is, of course, the counterargument: ‘But we are not talking about mere food here; we are talking about other brethren, with whom we may not be able to break bread if we join Central!’ (And that is an important consideration: we should be concerned about how we treat all our brethren!) The proper response, I think, is this:

‘Those other non-Central brethren also have their own obligation to consider the mind of the majority, and to achieve a greater worldwide unity by joining Central themselves, just as we have (or will). If we maintain any fellowship “accommodation” with them which falls short of unity in the Central group, then we are implying that they need do nothing else themselves, even while they remain separate from the main body. This is “enabling” their continued disunity and isolation, and ultimately doing them a disservice under the guise of friendly “fellowship”.’

And, just maybe, there is the opportunity — for those who must “give up” something — to learn true humility, to esteem others better than ourselves, to serve them rather than perhaps proudly insisting on our own “better” way. But perhaps that is what we all need, to build ourselves up by the exercise of sacrificial love. It is just possible, in all of this, that God is offering the “stronger ones” a very great blessing: the opportunity, through a loving submission, and a sacrifice of our own wills, to learn more about following Christ.

First of all, there are numerous prophecies that speak of an Arab-Israeli conflict in the last days. These seven are remarkably similar: Psa 83; Eze 35; 36; Joel 3; Oba; Zec 14; Zep 2; 3; Amo 1; 2.

1. Each pictures an Arab attack upon Israel. While it is true that Psa 83 does not actually say that this attack will succeed, all of the other six do say so (consider Eze 35:5,15; 36:2-5; Joe 3:2,3,5-7; Oba 1:10-14; Zec 14:1,2; Zep 1:2,3; and Amo 1:3,6,9,11,13). And thus they supplement Psa 83’s lack on this one point.

2. There is an amazing conformity as to the nations named in each of the seven prophecies: Psa 83 lists the most nations (ten in all: Edom; Moab, Gebal, Ammon, Amalek, Hagarenes, Ishmaelites, Philistines, Tyre, and Assur — the number may be significant: cp Gen 15:18-21 and perhaps Dan 7:7 and Rev 12:3; 13:1; etc). But four of those ten (Edom, Moab, Ammon, and the Philistines) figure in almost every other of the seven passages. These names closely correspond to Jordan and the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) — who have, according to their views, been dispossessed of their territory by an expansionist Israel.

3. In two of the prophecies (Joel 3 and Zec 14), the phrase “all nations” occurs. This has led many to suppose (mistakenly, we believe) that these passages parallel Ezekiel 38 / 39, and describe a mammoth Russian-led coalition from Europe and Asia and indeed (through perhaps the United Nations) from virtually all nations on the face of the earth. This misapprehension arises, we think, from two causes: (a) failure to appreciate the reasonable limitations, in the Bible, of such all-inclusive language; and (b) failure to consider the context: whereas Joel 3:2 and Zec 14:2 both use “all nations”, Joel 3:11 and Zec 14:14 modify that phrase to mean ‘all nations round about’. Furthermore, each of Joel 3 and Zec 14 actually name only Arab nations in the Middle Eastern area.

4. Considering some of the nations involved (see #2 above), it is evident that the Arab nations will fight Israel in order to reclaim their land, which they believe to have been stolen from them. But, even more precisely, Psa 83 and Eze 36 state their objective to be the reclamation of the ancient high, or holy, places (Eze 36:2) — or the “houses of God” (Psa 83:12). Most likely, this means the ancient Temple mount, where now stands the Moslem Dome of the Rock. It is interesting that, though they are but a small minority in Israel, there are fanatically religious Jews bent on the destruction of the Moslem “abomination” and the subsequent erection of a new Jewish temple on its former site. Will some such act be the spark to set off the final Arab-Israeli conflagration?

5. Each of these seven passages predicts the manifestation of Divine glory to defeat Israel’s conquerors and to reveal the true God of Israel to all men. It may be argued that such prophecies have already been fulfilled in Old Testament times or perhaps in 1948 or 1967. Many Bible prophecies have more than one fulfillment. But surely the language in these passages is intended also to describe, in the final and most perfect fulfillment, the arrival in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the establishment of his Father’s glorious millennial (ie 1,000-year) kingdom: “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth” (Psa 83:18). “The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake… So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain” (Joel 3:16,17). “But upon mount Zion shall be deliverance… and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” (Oba 1:17,21).

6. Whereas most of the nations enumerated are the immediate neighbors of Israel, Psa 83:8 seems to present Assur (or Assyria: cp Zep 2:13) in a very important role: “Assur also is joined to them; they have helped the children of Lot [ie Moab and Ammon].” The verse suggests that what had been threatened before (but never achieved) is finally made possible through the invaluable assistance of Assyria. Thus, what Edom and Moab and Ammon have been unable to accomplish — when helped merely by Syrians and Arabians and Palestinians — they at last accomplish with the intervention and help of the greater power from the northeast. And this is in keeping with the facts of history also. The early history of the nation of Israel contains several incidents in which David and Jehoshaphat, among other kings, defeated their immediate Arab neighbors and even expanded their territory (2Sa 5; 8; 10; 12; 1Ch 11; 18; 19; 20; 2Ch 20). But, later, when (first) Assyria and (afterward) Babylonia came as northern power leaders of these same Arab nations, then at first two-thirds and finally all of Israel and Judah (including Jerusalem) fell (2Ki 17:1-6; 2Ch 36:11-21; Zec 13:7-9). We suggest that we are in the midst of another fulfillment of this very sequence. It is true that in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and 1973 Israel has defeated her closest Arab neighbors and has extended her dominion into their lands. And this Israeli supremacy has become so much a part of Christian “legend” and “lore” that many now find it unthinkable that the “clever” Israelis could ever lose to the “bumbling” Arabs. But history — Divine history — tells us that, what “Moab” and “Ammon” and “Edom” (Jordan?) and Syria could not do on their own, “Assyria” and “Babylon” (Iraq?) could help them to accomplish!

7. This defeat of Israel by Moslem/Arab nations is plainly marked out (in 5 of the 7 selected passages) as the very last defeat of Israel before an extraordinary fulfillment of Israel’s hope: “Neither will I cause men to hear in thee [ie the mountains of Israel] the shame of the heathen any more, neither shalt thou bear the reproach of the people any more” (Eze 36:15). “Then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no stranger pass through her any more” (Joel 3:17). “There shall be no more utter destruction” (Zec 14:11).

Significantly, we have not listed the Gogian invasion of Eze 38/39. Why? In ct with these seven prophecies, Eze 38/39 has an almost totally different cast of characters. These are by and large an outer ring of Moslem nations encircling the inner ring listed in Psa 83, etc. Thus Ezekiel’s vision should probably be relegated to the time immediately after Christ has defeated the first Arab wave and established his kingdom. (Note the relevance of “dwelling safely” in Eze 38:8,11,14 — cp with Eze 28:25,26; 34:25,28; Zec 14:11; Jer 23:5,6.)

There are numerous other passages that describe a final Arab-Israeli war resulting in defeat for Israel — a defeat which will be the very last suffered by Israel before her deliverance by Christ at his return. The constraint of space allows no more than the listing of a few such passages, with brief comments:

Psa 60 (cp with Psa 108:6-13): Moab, Ammon, and Philistia first scatter Israel, and then are trodden down by Divine power.

Isa 13 — 23: Ten “burdens” upon, among others, Babylon (Iraq?), Philistia, Moab, Damascus (Syria), Egypt (where many Jews have been carried captive — cp Isa 19:20-25 with Zec 14:2), Dumah (or Edom), Arabia, and Tyre (Lebanon).

Isa 34: Retribution upon an Arab enemy (called “Edom”), because of “the controversy of Zion”.

Jer 25: Certain nations are singled out to drink of the cup of the Lord’s wrath — ie Egypt, Philistia (modern Gaza), Edom, Moab and Ammon (Jordan), Tyrus and Zidon (Lebanon), and Arabia along with the king of Babylon. The first fulfillment of this prophecy was God’s punishment of those nations that assisted Babylon in the overthrow of Jerusalem. Are we on the verge of a repetition of history?

Jer 44 — 51: Extended prophecies of judgment upon Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus (Syria), Kedar (Arabia), and of course Babylon (cp Jer 25 above).

Rev: Whatever else Rev might mean (and there are various possibilities, and quite prob more than one fulfillment), it is surely noteworthy — in light of all the foregoing — that the Book pictures:

1. “Figs dropping from a fig tree” (cp Luk 21:29-31) at the end of a series of judgments (Rev 6:13). The fig tree is a common symbol for Israel (Hos 9:10; Luk 13:6-9).

2. A great “army” of locusts coming out of the Abyss (the Arabian Desert?) (Rev 9:1-11). (Note that, in Heb, “locust” = arbeh, or “Arab”; and see Joel’s prophecy of a locust invasion of Israel.)

3. A great destroying power bound at the Euphrates River — which flows directly through modern-day Iraq (Rev 9:12-21).

4. Jerusalem being trodden down by its enemies (Rev 11:1-19). This is equivalent to Luk 21:24 and prob the same as Zec 14:1-3. (Cp the great earthquake of Rev 11:13 with Zec 14:4,5.)

5. A great Beast (who is a man: Rev 13:18; cp esp Nebuchadnezzar in Dan 4:16,25,32,33!), with ten horns (cp Psa 83:5-8 and Gen 15:18-21), blasphemes God and kills His people (Rev 13:1-18).

6. Finally, great judgments are poured out upon the river Euphrates (Rev 16:12), and Babylon falls (vv 17-21).

7. The last chapters picture the final and complete victory of a renewed Jerusalem over her vicious enemy Babylon.

Such details are fascinating, in light of quite current events. They should stimulate us to keep our minds open, in the days ahead, to what may be exciting new insights of Bible prophecy being fulfilled in our lifetime!

Who are the “mixed” people described in Dan 2:41,43?

“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 with clay… And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.”

The word translated “mixed”, “mixture”, and “mixes” in the above verses is a word which is transliterated into English (according to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon) as “arab”. In the Old Testament, however, this word is not identical with the other words (also transliterated as “arab” or “ereb”) which are often translated “Arab” or “Arabia” or “Arabian”, as referring to the land or peoples of that name.

Why a different word? Because the Daniel passage was originally written in Aramaic. (Only a very small portion of the OT — basically, parts of Ezra and Daniel — was actually composed in Aramaic: a Semitic language very closely related to Hebrew, which eventually replaced Hebrew as the common language during the latter part of the Old Testament times.)

So, technically, the Aramaic “arab” occurring in Dan 2:41,43 (and nowhere else in the Old Testament) is not identical with the other, Hebrew, “arab” occurring in a number of passages… although Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon states unequivocally that the two words are closely related — as shall be seen.

A brief review of a section of Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon may help to clarify:

6148 (arab)	is a primitive root, meaning “to braid, to intermix”. [6148 occurs 26 times in the OT, and is variously translated “mixing, mingling, etc” as well as “buying, trading, giving surety” and “meddling”.]
6150 (arab)	is “a primitive root” identical with 6148 through the idea of “covering with a texture”; signifying “to grow dusky at sundown — be darkened, (toward) evening.” [6150 occurs 3 times: Jdg 19:9; 1Sa 17:16; Isa 24:11.]
6151 (arab)	is the Aramaic, “corresponding to” 6148 (the Hebrew). [6151 is the word which occurs (only) in Dan 2:41,43.]
6152 (arab)	is derived from 6150, and signifies the land of Arabia. [6152 occurs in 5 verses: 1Ki 10:15; 2Ch 9:14; Isa 21:13; Jer 25:24; Eze 27:21.]
6154 (ereb)	is derived from 6148, and signifies a “web of cloth”, also a mixture (or mongrel race), and especially the people of Arabia, a “mingled people” or “mixed multitude”: This Hebrew word (6154) occurs in 15 verses: Nine of these — in one chapter (Lev 13:48,49,51-53,56-59) — all have to do with fabrics, mixed or woven or braided together. Of the other 6 verses where 6154 occurs,
	(1)	Exo 12:38 is about the “mixed multitude” who accompany Israel out of Egypt. Who these were we cannot know for sure, but it is certainly possible that they were other enslaved, oppressed people who seized the opportunity to escape Egypt along with the Israelites. Of what nations? The other occurrences of the same word (below) certainly give clues!
	(2)	Neh 13:3 refers to the people of “mixed” extraction in the Land at the time of return from captivity in Babylon (the immediate context points to the Ammonites and Moabites: Neh 13:1);
	(3)	Jer 50:37 refers to the “foreigners” amongst the Babylonians (the larger context mentions the allies of Babylon: Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, and Elam: Jer 46-49);
	(4)	Eze 30:5 refers to other “mixed” peoples (actually translated “Arabia” by NIV) alongside Cush, Put, Libya, and Egypt.
	(5) (6)	Especially interesting are the final passages, Jer 25:20 and Jer 25:24, where “ereb” occurs twice, bracketing a list of nations — “all the kings of Uz; all the kings of the Philistines (those of Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the people left at Ashdod); Edom, Moab and Ammon; all the kings of Tyre and Sidon; the kings of the coastlands across the sea; Dedan, Tema, Buz and all who are in distant places; all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the foreign people who live in the desert.” Basically a checklist of all the “Arab” nations!
6163 (arabee)	is derived from 6152, and signifies “an Arab or inhabitant of Arabia”. [6163 occurs in 8 verses: 2Ch 17:11; 21:16; 22:1; 26:7; Neh 2:19; 4:7; 6:1; Jer 3:2.]

Each word in this whole cluster may be seen to be related to all the others in the cluster; a “family tree” diagram demonstrates these relationships (not in my words, but in Strong’s words!):

ARAB (6150) is identical with ARAB (6148) # — which corresponds to ARAB (6151) #.

ARAB (6150) is root of: ARAB (6152)*, Which traces to: ARABEE (6163)*

And…

ARAB (6151) Is root of: EREB (6154)*

(The three words marked * are indisputably descriptive of the Arabs. The two words marked # both indisputably mean “mixed”.)

It should be seen at a glance, therefore, that “Arab” and “mixed” are closely related terms; they all belong to the same “family” of words.

In other words — studying the chart above — it may be noted:

1. The primary words for “Arab” and “Arabia” are derived from the root word “arab” (6150).

2. The basic Hebrew word for “mixed, mingled” (6154) is derived from a root word “arab” (6148), which (says Strong’s) is “identical with” the root word for “Arab” (6150).

3. The Aramaic for “mixed, mingled” (6151) “corresponds to” the Hebrew root (6148), from which is derived the basic Hebrew word for “mixed, mingled” (6154).

Now we already know, from Strong’s, that the “arab” (6151) of Dan 2:41,43 is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew “ereb” (6154) in the above passages. Both words — apparently without any doubt — signify “mixed or mingled”, and the second (the Hebrew word, 6154) plainly indicates, in a number of its usages, Arab peoples!

Smith’s Bible Dictionary also states that “Arab” and “mixed” are related terms and ideas:

“Arabia cannot be held to have a more extended signification than the Hebrew equivalents in the Old Testament. (a) ‘erb’ (Exo 12:38; Neh 13:3) and ‘erb’ (1Ki 10:15; Jer 25:20, 50:37; Eze 30:5), rendered in the AV “a mixed multitude” (Exo 12:38), here followed by ‘rb’, ‘the mixed multitude,’ kings of ‘Arabia’ so in Vulgate, and in Hebrew in corresponding passage in 2Ch 9:14, and (in the last two instances) ‘the mingled people,’ have been thought to signify the Arabs.”

---

It should be noted that, even if — somehow — the linguistic connections outlined above are disputed, the same conclusion may easily be drawn from other lines of inquiry.

For example, let us ask the simple question: ‘What peoples in the Old Testament are described as the result of racial mixing?’ And the Bible answer would have to be, primarily… the Arabs!

Why? Because, first of all (and leaving aside the linguistic connections altogether), the last six verses cited above where “ereb” (mixed, mingled) occurs [6154] plainly point to the Arab peoples… which include: Ammon, Moab, Egypt, Philistia, Edom, Damascus (Syria), Kedar (Ishmael), Elam, Philistia, Tyre and Sidon (Lebanon), Dedan, Tema, and Buz (Bedouin, Saudis). (Does this sound something like Psa 83?)

Even if there were absolutely NO linguistic connection between “mixed” and “arab” in Dan 2:41,43… the Bible evidence would still point to the Arabs as the preeminent and predominant “mixed” people of Old Testament times! When Daniel the Jew hears, and writes, about the “mixed” people, of whom would he naturally be thinking?

There is more:

The Book of Genesis describes in some detail how the people of the covenant — the descendants and relatives of Abraham — sinned against the LORD and violated His covenant by intermarrying with those who had no regard for that covenant:

1. Ishmael, the son of Hagar the Egyptian, mocks Isaac, the true “son of the covenant”, and Ishmael’s descendants (the results, of course, of further mixing) have done the same toward Isaac’s descendants ever since. (Abraham, meanwhile, takes careful steps to see that his seed of promise, Isaac, avoids marriage with the daughters of the Land.)

2. Lot, the nephew of Abraham and a righteous man, becomes the father of other “mixed races”, the Ammonites and Moabites, wicked and idolatrous nations who have no regard for the God of their father, and who hate God’s people.

3. Esau marries daughters of the Hittites (Gen 26:34); his family, the Edomites, are another group of “Arab” (mixed) peoples who hate their “cousins” the Jews, who have received the Promises. (Isaac warns his other son, Jacob, not to marry a Canaanite woman: Gen 28:1. Esau later compounds his previous marital errors by marrying a daughter of Ishmael: Gen 28:8,9.)

4. When the Jews were about to enter the Land they were warned by Moses not to make marriages with the people of the Land, lest they turn them away from God toward idols (Deu 7:3-4; cp Jos 23:12-13). Such errors by Solomon eventually turned his heart to idolatry (1Ki 11:1-6; cp 1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14).

5. Ezra and Nehemiah — at a much later date — also lament that the priests and Levites have “mixed” and “mingled” their seed with the daughters of the land — specifically the women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab (Neh 13:23).

6. More generally, the earlier peoples of the Land — enumerated in Gen 15:19-21: “Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites” — were not all destroyed or driven out of that Land, and they remained as a continual snare to the people of Israel throughout their time there.

Three or four thousand years after the events outlined above, it is now impossible to mark out any individual Arab as an Ammonite or an Edomite or a Philistine… just as it is impossible to point out one who is a Canaanite or a Jebusite. In one sense, all these ancient peoples and nations have “disappeared”; the old national identities are gone. But the fact is (and the Bible is absolutely plain on this) these people were never completely wiped out by the Israelites. Their bloodlines remain, and ever since Bible times have been merging and mingling with one another to create the modern “Arabs”, the quintessential “mixed” people.

As has been pointed out in other studies, these “Arab” peoples bear a strong genetic likeness to, and linkage with, the Jews [see Lesson Jews and Arabs are cousins]. But they are different, they are “mixed”, and they hate their Jewish “cousins” with a fierce passion. Also, they desperately desire the same Land promised to Abraham’s seed… because they are (in part) — or believe themselves to be — Abraham’s “seed” too. Their prevailing religion, Islam, teaches them as well that they, and not the Jews, are Allah’s chosen people! They are the true rivals of Israel… by history, by blood, by proximity, by Old Testament example and type, and by (many) Bible prophecies.

---

Question: ‘But isn’t Dan 2:41-43 all about the “ten toes” of the old Roman empire? How can the Arabs have any part in this?’

However, in fact, the Arabs do have ancient connections with the Roman Empire, and particularly as it related to the Land and People of Israel. For details on this, see Lesson, Ten toes, identity.

---

Finally, TENS EVERYWHERE:

1. Ten nations in the Promised Land at the beginning: Gen 15:19-21.
2. Ten nations, the sworn enemies of Israel, in Psa 83.

3. Ten Gentile nations, neighbors of Judah, upon which God lays “burdens” for their treatment and hatred of His people: Isa 13-23.

4. Ten nations in Jer 25: Arabian enemies of Israel… (or 12 or 14 here, hard to group and enumerate… but a similar number, and a lot of overlapping with other lists).

5. And ten modern nations that came into existence in the same generation (between 1922 and 1971, a 50-year period centered on 1948). Ten Arab nations living on land that once formed part of the old Roman empire. With an 11th nation, Palestine, poised to be “born” after the others… a “little horn” springing up last, ready and eager to be the spearhead to destroy the State of Israel (see Lesson, Beasts, heads, and horns).

Possible connections with the (ten?) toes of Daniel’s image, and the 10 horns and kings of Daniel and Revelation?

---

Also, there is a plain and evident connection between Daniel’s image in Dan 2, and the great image of Goliath, slain by the little stone flung by David (1Sa 17). And that “image” — so very much like the other — was… Philistine, or Palestinian!

Furthermore, Goliath, being Philistine, would probably have been of Greek lineage, as were all the Philistines. Therefore we have added to the “mixture” an element derived from the third portion of Nebuchadnezzar’s “four-part” image, Greece.

Now this gets interesting…

So we might see the Philistines as a Greek element in the decidedly varied “mixture” of Arab peoples in and around the Land today.

So the “mixed” peoples calling themselves “Arabs” (Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Bedouin, etc, etc) are not just the Last Days mixture of Abraham’s (apostate) seed and the Canaanites/Jebusites/et al of Gen 15.

They include a “spoonful” of Greeks too.

Is this surprising? Not really. Think about it. Conquering, ruling minorities always leave something of themselves behind. And one of the ways of controlling ruled-over peoples is to systematically undermine their ethnic uniqueness, their national identity. Thus the Assyrian conquerors of the Northern Kingdom moved all the conquered peoples here and there, with the purpose of mixing them all up with one another (and obscuring/obliterating the strains of national identity, and these people’s connections with their own lands): see the history in 2Ki 17:24ff.

Then of course there is the racial “mixing” that happens more or less “accidentally”. (Reminding us of the slur perpetrated against Jesus by some of the early rabbinical writings: that he was the result of an illicit relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier. How could such a story be told about any specific person, unless similar things had happened generally?)

Just a thought, then: the “Arabs”, in the broadest sense of the modern word, are plainly a very “mixed” peoples… genetic makeup contributed from 50 different ethnic groups — including, no doubt, all of Daniel’s “image parts / beasts” that ruled over their Land for hundreds of years. {This is no particular slur in and of itself: many peoples today are really a genetic mixture of a dozen or a score of earlier races. But… in the Middle East, and in the context of Bible teaching, God always desired that His people be “pure” of outside influences, that they not intermarry with the idolaters around them — not disparaging, of course, the occasional “Ruth” who in faith became a Jew.}

In fact, and naturally speaking, we should expect to see — in the area of Palestine/Israel/Canaan (the extended Holy Land) — even more mixing than is normal elsewhere in the world, because this land is the natural “bridge” connecting the three great continental land masses of the ancient world. Over this “bridge” passed Egyptians on their way to the east, and Babylonians on their way to Africa, and Greeks on their way to India, and countless other generals and armies, explorers and travelers, and traders.

One might ask, “Why would God deliberately put His people in a place where they would be exposed to so many other non-Jewish influences… if He really wanted them to remain pure and undefiled from such peoples?” And the answer — an aside to the main point here — would be: they were SUPPOSED to be a “light to the Gentiles”, a “city set on a hill”; that’s why they were placed at the “crossroads” of the world! In large measure, however, they failed — they did not “conquer” the world with the light of God’s truth, but the world “conquered” them instead! But later… from this same “crossroads” the Gospel message, carried by Jews, went forth in all directions, so that the Hope of Israel will yet “conquer” the world! And God’s purpose did not — and will not — fail after all!

Enough on the “aside”.

So… when we talk of the whole image of Dan 2 being joined together, and acting as one, to trample down the Land of God’s Promises… is it just possible that we can see, in the extended “Arab world” of today, the whole of Daniel’s “image” standing up together? A microcosm of practically the whole “world”, bent on the destruction of God’s people? A great blended “mixture” of Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans… and others besides… whose one unifying feature is their bitter hatred of Israel?

The so-called “archaic” pronouns of the King James Version had a purpose not generally recognized today. They were used to distinguish between singular and plural in the second person:

“Thou” = Singular subject “Thee” = Singular object “Ye” = Plural subject “You” = Plural object

Our modern speech, of course, puts “you” in place of all four, with a consequent loss of clarity; and thereby forces us (esp those of us from Texas!) to resort to such phrases as “you all”.