The formal naming of the baby Jesus took place at the time of his circumcision on the eighth day (Lk. 2:21). Until that time Mary probably called him her Immanuel. But now “his name also was called Jesus” (v.21; Gk text). It would not have been amiss, in a way, if the baby’s name had been Joseph, “after the name of his ‘father’”, for what more complete type of the Messiah is to be found in the Old Testament? Yet, in another way, this would have been anything but suitable, for it would have very misleadingly suggested to the world that Mary’s child was the son of her husband. The Bible mentions only four who were named by divine instruction before birth: Ishmael (a type of unbelieving Jewry; Jn. 8:33-42), Isaac (a type of Christ), John the Baptist, and Jesus.

This circumcision-performed, most likely, by Zacharias at his home-declared Jesus a son of Abraham: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male child among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:10). Mede’s seventeenth century comment on this is worth quoting: “In circumcision was signified the taking away of the superfluity of sin in and through him who was yet in the loins of his ancestors. Hence Galatians 5:2: ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’. Why? Because he that received circumcision did as much as affirm that Christ is not yet come.” And of course this was still true when Jesus was circumcised, for until his resurrection the full truth of the Lord’s work of redemption was not evident to men. But in his eighth day “thus early did he suffer pain for our sakes”(Farrar).

From this eighth day and for the rest of his days it was testified to Jesus that “every man that is circumcised … is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3); and this Jesus did. Thus, “made of a woman, made under the law, he redeemed them that were under the law”, that any man bearing the mark of the law might “receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4,5).

Son of man

This circumcision also declared that this child of Mary, although of such a holy birth, nevertheless shared the nature of all other sons of Abraham. Any doctrine, which makes Jesus of a more pure, higher nature by birth than other men, makes this rite, applied to him, meaningless, and the record of it sadly misleading.

The same is true regarding Mary’s purification, which duly took place, according to the law of Leviticus 12, in the temple court at Jerusalem (v.22). Indeed, according to the overwhelming evidence of the manuscripts, this is specially underlined by Luke’s phrase: “the days of their purification” (RV). Here was Moses’ unflagging reminder of the “taint” about all human nature, inherited by Mary and shared by Jesus. Yet Rome talks about the “immaculate conception” of Mary, and all Christendom makes Jesus different in his essential nature from those to whom he brings redemption.

Mary’s time of uncleanness lasted for forty days, during which time she was not to go out of doors. But it is difficult to believe that she spent all that time where her baby was born. Presumably, as soon as possible, she and Joseph travelled to the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth, and spent the time there.

High Priest designate

Rather remarkably, when Luke purports to quote what is “written in the law of the Lord” about this (2:23), he includes a phrase: “shall be called holy to the Lord”, which is not found in any of the places where the Law speaks of the consecration of the firstborn. Yet this is an expression repeatedly used about the high-priest: Lev. 21:6-8; Ex. 28:36,38. Thus Luke hints at the truth which the gospel was to disclose, that through this child, later to become God’s High Priest, is a means of cleansing and redemption from all the defilement which is human nature.

Since the days of Moses the service of Levites was accepted in lieu of the firstborn (Num. 3:12,13). But since Golgotha, Levites can only find acceptance because of the Firstborn and the way in which he was (so very differently!) “brought to Jerusalem to be presented before the Lord.”

The kind of sacrifice made on Mary’s behalf tells much about this family into which Jesus was born. The offering of “a pair of (migrant) turtle doves, or two young pigeons” was the concession which the Law made to extreme poverty, where the restricted means of the family simply did not allow of the more usual offering of a lamb and a pigeon (Lev. 12:6).

Persons as devout as Mary and Joseph would obviously have brought the better offering, had they been able. So it may be safely assumed that the home in which Jesus grew up knew nothing of wealth, nor even of moderate middle-class respectability, but only a constant wearying struggle against poverty.

When Jesus was “presented unto the Lord”, would the standard redemption payment of five shekels (Num. 18:16; twenty days’ wages:Mt 20:2) be insisted on in the case of people so poor? Ginsberg is surely in error when he says that the payment was thirty shekels.

Simeon

In the temple court they were met by a venerable old man who seemed to be awaiting them. This pious witness to the Truth of God lived only in the hope of seeing the realisation of the glorious promises of God to His chosen people. He “waited for the consolation of Israel.”

One suggestion (lacking complete proof) asserts that he was not only of the line of David (and therefore related to Joseph and Mary) but also son of the famous Rabbi Hillel and the father of the Gamaliel who made such a clever tongue-in-cheek defence of the apostles when the wrath of the chief priests had been stirred up against them (Acts 5:34-40). Yet that Simeon is known to have been President of the Sanhedrin in A.D. 7, some twelve years or so later. So the usual assumption of great age at this time would have to be discarded. His prayer: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace …”, was probably a conscious imitation of Jacob’s when he again set eyes on Joseph (Gen. 46:30) -and that patriarch lived another seventeen years after that (47:28). It is rather remarkable that there is no mention of Simeon-ben-Hillel in the Mishna. Could that be because he is mentioned in Luke’s gospel?

If this identification is correct, then Simeon probably lived to be amazed by the remarkable promise of the boy Jesus in the temple just after his bar-mitzvah.

To this devout Simeon a divine revelation (s.w. Mt 2:12) had been given that he would live to see the Messiah. The divine constraint brought him in expectation into the temple court at this very time, so that he knew for certain that God’s purpose specially concerned the humble family presenting their offerings.

The Consolation of Israel

With bright-eyed gladness he took the child from his mother, and broke into a hymn of praise and thanksgiving: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all the peoples (i .e. the tribes of I srael)” (2:29-31).

Old Testament Expectations

This was not only the rejoicing of aged Jacob, but also, by the eye of faith, the fulfilment of a prophetic psalm (Isaiah’s?) which foretold the grand accomplishment of all that God had promised to the Fathers: “The Lord hath made known his salvation … he hath remembered his mercy and his truth (i.e. his Covenants of Promise) towards the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God” (Ps. 98:2,3).

Only profound insight into the purpose of God, harnessed by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could have led Simeon to associate the tiny baby in his arms with the fulness of God’s redemption: “A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” The order of the phrases here is to be noted-first, the enlightenment of the Gentiles, after that the manifestation of God’s Shekinah Glory in Israel. The literal expression used by Simeon, “the unveiling of the nations”, may have been used with direct allusion to “the veil that is spread over all nations”, the removal of which Isaiah foretold, when “death is swallowed up in victory” (25:8). Or it may imply the unveiling of God’s hidden purpose (mystery) that Gentiles should share with Israel the salvation He provides.

There are also remarkable contacts, both verbally and in idea, with other fine passages in Isaiah. Every phrase in Isaiah 52:7-9 seems to have special relevance:

	Isaiah 52		Luke 2
7.	Thy God is king	26.	The Lord’s Christ
8.	Thy watchmen lift up the voice		The waiting Simeon –
		28.	blessed God.
	They shall see eye to eye	30.	Mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
9.	Break forth into joy, sing together		Simeon and Anna rejoicing together.
	The Lord hath comforted his people.	25.	The consolation (comfort) of Israel.
	He hath redeemed Jerusalem	38.	The redemption of Jerusalem.
10.	. . .in the eyes of all nations	31.	… before the face of all people
	. . .shall see the salvation.	30.	For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.

A careful reading of Isaiah 49, with the aged Simeon and Anna in mind, reveals many verbal resemblances and similarities in idea:

v. 1	“Listen, O isles” (shimu; Simeon = one who hears)
v. 1	“From the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name”.
v. 2	“My mouth like a sharp sword” (A sword shall pierce through thine own soul).
v. 6	“A light to the Gentiles”.
v. 6	“To raise up the tribes of Jacob” (the rising again of many in Israel).
v. 7	“The Redeemer of Israel” (looked for in Jerusalem)
v. 8	“In a day of salvation have I helped thee” (Mine eyes have seen thy salvation)
v. 9	“Say to the prisoners, Go forth” (Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace)
v.13	“The Lord hath comforted his people” (The consolation of Israel).
v.15	“Can a woman forget her sucking child?” (His mother kept all these sayings in her heart)
v.21	“Then shalt thou say in thine heart” (That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed)
v.21	“I have lost my children and am desolate” (A widow of about four score and four years)
v.22	“They bring thy sons in their arms”.
v.22	“My standard (LXX: sussemon) for the people” (A sign -seme/on -that shall be spoken against)
v.23	“They shall not be ashamed that wait for me.”
v.25	“The prey of the terrible shall be delivered. . .I will save thy children” (Herod’s attempt on the life of Jesus).

Note also the references to babies (v.1,15,20-23;) and “preserve thee” (v.8 Heb. nazar; cp. Nazareth).

It is easy now to understand why Simeon ejaculated: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy spoken word.” He was alluding to the spoken word through the prophet (Is. 49:1).

Also, it was surely with reference to the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 and his own belief in the Virgin Birth that Simeon declared: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign that shall be spoken against.” Yet how very apt these words are! Just as faithless Ahaz rejected the sign in his day, so also the nation of Israel with Jesus. It was only in mockery that they sought “a sign from heaven”, Instead they were given one out of “the depth”-the sign of the prophet Jonah. And through him-the baby now in Simeon’s arms-there will yet come a sharp discrimination between ‘those who “fall” (the Greek word suggests a corpse) and those who “rise again” (this is the usual word for resurrection).

It called for faith, truly, to believe that men’s attitude to this tiny infant was one day to settle the eternal destiny of every individual. “For judgment he was come into this world”-”that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (cp. Mat. 3:2).

Mary’s Great Test

Even his own mother was to be no exception to this searching test: “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.” The word “also” is important here, for it implies a sword in the soul of Jesus as well. This came to pass in a literal fashion in the piercing of his side on the cross. Figuratively its effect is to be seen in the tremendous spiritual tension which built up in Jesus as the end drew near: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? but for this cause came I unto this hour.”

Mary too, in lesser degree, must face the same test. It is customary to seek the fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy regarding her in the pangs of wretchedness and helpless sorrow which assailed her soul as she stood with the other women at the foot of the cross, sharing with her firstborn all the agonies of crucifixion.

This is appropriate enough. But there was another occasion when a much worse misery overwhelmed her. Mark 3:21 tells how the family of Jesus “sought to lay hold on him” because they were convinced that he was “beside himself.” Evidently Mary allowed herself to be overborne by this ghastly misjudgement: “Then came his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him” (v.31). They wished to take him home and keep him under restraint. It is only this which can explain the brusque reply of Jesus: “Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren.”

Could there possibly have been any more bitter moment in the life of Mary than this when she was publicly thrust away by the son whose every word and slightest action had been the centre of all her waking thoughts for the past thirty years? Truly, on that day a sword pierced her soul as at no other time. Happily faith came again (one wonders just how? was John the one responsible for coaxing her back to faith in her son as Lord and Christ?), and she was with him at the end, sorrowing but now believing.

Anna

The little group consisting of Simeon, Joseph, and Mary with the baby in her arms were doubtless the centre of much attention in the temple court. But interest grew all the more when they were joined by the aged Anna, a well-known figure to multitudes, for she had lived a life of consecrated service and piety in the temple for about sixty years, so that without seeking it she had acquired a national reputation as an outstanding member of the minority in Israel who not only wished for but also devoutly prayed for the early redemption of the nation from its spiritual and political bondage. Paul refers to her as the outstanding example of one who is “a widow indeed … making prayers night and day” (1 Tim. 5:5).

Amongst the numerous throng in the temple court those who especially looked for the redemption of Jerusalem gathered round Anna as she continued the fervent praise and thanksgiving which had just been heard from the lips of Simeon.

The description of Anna as a prophetess may mean that she was a singer in the temple choir and not one who regularly gave utterance to inspired messages from God. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why none of her prophecies have been preserved. On the other hand there is evidence that the praising of God in psalms and hymns was also spoken of as prophecy (see Notes). Luke’s record about Anna seems to imply the same idea here, for after her “giving thanks unto the Lord” (2:38), she “spake of him to all them that looked for the redemption of Jerusalem.” If this suggestion is correct, it may readily be imagined what a sensation there would be in the temple area when this fine old lady lifted up her voice in an ecstatic melodious psalm of praise. Well might Luke take care to mention that Anna belonged to the tribe of Asher, for Asher means “happy”, and Anna is the only member of that tribe to make any contribution to Bible history.

Phanuel – Peniel

Yet there is so much similarity between the characters and forward-looking spirituality of Simeon and Anna that one is left wondering why the account of both is included. Does the explanation lie in the significant detail that she was the daughter of Phanuel? This is probably the New Testament form of Peniel, the place where Jacob wrestled with the angel through the night and till the morning, ultimately overcoming through his wrestling in prayer: “(, will not let thee go, except thou bless me … I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Gen. 32:26,30).

Luke hints at Anna’s recapitulation of Jacob’s experiences-her “supplication night and day”; and beholding the baby Jesus she saw God face to face and by that very encounter knew her life to be preserved.

Joseph and Mary were already sufficiently conscious of the high responsibility committed to them in the care of the Son of God, but these experiences in the temple court must have sent them away in awe and wonder that they should have been chosen for such privileges as to make them almost objects of envy by people of the spiritual calibre of Simeon and Anna. Although they were the meek of the earth, their status in the sight of heaven could hardly be higher.

Notes: Luke 2:21-39

24.	Said In the law. “Said “, because of Lev. 12:1.
	Turtle doves or young pigeons. But why in Gen. 15: 9 one of each?
25.	Waiting for the consolation of Israel. See also v.38; 3: 15; 24: 21; Mk. 15: 43; Is. 52: 9; 62: 6,7. In 8 NT passages out of 14, “wait for” refers to the kingdom.
	Behold is Mt.’s characteristic interjection.
29.	Lord. Gk. despotes. In LXX, 6 times in Dan. 9, the prophecy of Messiah the Prince.
	According to thy word. Gk: spoken word—through Anna the prophetess?
31.	Prepared before the face of all people should perhaps be read as meaning: ‘according to the prayers of all the people of Israel’.
34.	Unto Mary. Observe how Joseph is ignored here.
	Fall and rising again. The “and” here may imply Israel’s fall, through rejecting Christ, followed at length by their repentance and acceptance of him, after the pattern of Joseph and his brethren; cp. Is. 8: 13-15,18.
36.	Prophetess. Praise of God is sometimes called prophesying: 1 Chr.15: 1; Ex.15: 20; Joel 2: 28; Acts 21: 9; 1 Cor. 11: 4.
37.	Fastings and prayers. Rather remarkably, at Ex.38: 8 the Targum has “fastings” and LXX has “prayers”.
38.	Redemption. The word means “atonement”.

When the great promise of God came to David, he must have been sorely perplexed by what seemed to be an inherent contradiction in it: “I will set up thy seed after thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels… I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Sam. 7:12-14). The two sections of Matthew 1 resolve this in a way David could hardly have foreseen. The genealogy established descent from David. The rest of the chapter shews how Messiah is also, quite literally, Son of God.

Mary’s husband-to-be was a poor man. This can be readily inferred from the kind of offering that was made when the baby Jesus was presented before the Lord in the temple (Lk. 2:24; Lev. 12:8). Probably, too, it was a struggle for a livelihood which had taken him, or an earlier generation, to Nazareth, for it may be taken as fairly certain that, if possible, the heirs to the throne of David would remain in Bethlehem, David’s city.

It is not clear how Joseph came to know that Mary was pregnant. One guesses that it was disclosed to him by her mother after her return from the home of Elisabeth-”she was found with child” (v.18). Here was an unpleasant problem to resolve. Joseph was a good man, and not merely “just” in the technical Law-of-Moses sense of being one who faithfully observed all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord. This may be taken as certain, for was he not chosen by God to represent to Jesus in his earliest formative years the meaning of the word “Father”?

He had to make up his mind whether or not he should “put her away”, that is, divorce her, for, unlike a modern engagement, among the Jews this betrothal reckoned as a legal tie between man and woman. “From the moment of betrothal a woman was treated as actually married. The union could not be dissolved except by regular divorce; breach of faithfulness was regarded as adultery, and the property of the woman became virtually that of her betrothed” (Edersheim). It is for this reason that he is referred to as “her husband”, and she as “thy wife” (Mt. 1:19,20). Indeed, it did often happen that without any formal marriage ceremony the two came together as man and wife, the betrothal being regarded as the marriage. This was the way it worked out with Joseph and Mary, as the record proceeds to shew (v. 24).

With great delicacy the record leaves a lot of questions unanswered. When did Joseph learn of Mary’s condition? Did she explain to him? If she did, was he able to believe it? In any case, why was he unwilling to continue their marriage (consider Hosea 3:1-3)?

It would seem that Joseph had decided on what today would be called a separation-a quite remarkable decision, committing him (most probably) to continue unmarried for life, and also bringing to an end his branch of the family of David. This to save Mary from being “a public example”. The alternative would be the quietest form of divorce allowed by the rabbis- before two witnesses only.

Help from Heaven

However, Joseph was not given to precipitate action. He had come to his decision, but was still turning over in his mind how best, for Mary’s good, he should implement it, when there came a revelation from heaven (Gabriel again, surely). And this put the whole thing in a completely different light.

“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” How reassuring this would be to his troubled mind, for he feared offending his God and he feared public opinion. This latter would be an important consideration, for Joseph would have in mind his position as heir to the throne of David. Hence the angel’s first words: ‘‘Fear not…”

The child to be born was not to be Joseph’s son (contrast Gabriel’s words to Zacharias: “Thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son”); nevertheless he was to be acknowledged as though Joseph’s own: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” and thus it came about in later years that the ordinary people knew Jesus as the son of the carpenter in Nazareth (Lk. 2:48; 4:22; Jn.6: 42).

The next words of the angel lifted the soul of Joseph from wretchedness and perplexity to a level of profound spiritual exaltation: “He shall save his people from their sins.” In the text the emphatic pronoun seems to imply: ‘he, and no one else, shall do this’. Time after time in ancient days God had raised up a saviour for Israel (Judges 3:9), but these were men who fought and routed physical enemies and saved the kingdom of the Lord from invasion and oppression. But the Scriptures foretold God’s provision of a greater Saviour: “He shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities” (Ps. 130:8); and “not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles; as he saith in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people” (Rom. 9:24,25). The use of “people” (loos) in these passages points to a New Israel dependent not on circumcision but on Baptism and the Breaking of Bread “for the remission of sins” in Christ (Acts 2:38; Mt.26:28). The use of the pronoun in “Immanuel” confirms this. In the prototype “us” meant the faithful remnant, the true Israel: “Unto us a child is born” (Is. 8:10; 9:6). Now it means the New Israel, including believing Gentiles (Mt. 28:19).

The Immanuel Prophecy

These wonderful truths, very concisely put in Matthew’s record, were no doubt explained at greater length by the angel, it is more than likely that Isaiah’s famous prophecy about the birth of the Messiah was quoted by him. But in any case, on waking, the mind of a devout man like Joseph would quickly recall, with fuller understanding, that “which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” There is so much, both of importance and difficulty, attaching to this Scripture that it would not be amiss to spend some time considering it.

A careful reading of Isaiah 7 makes it fairly evident that the prophecy, like so many other Messianic prophecies, had a primary reference to Isaiah’s own day. Ahaz, king of Judah, was making frantic preparations to stave off an invasion by the confederate kings of Syria and Israel. “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established”, reproved the prophet, making effective play on the sound of the Hebrew phrases: “No belief, no relief!” Then, as always, deliverance could only be on the basis of one abiding God-honouring principle: Salvation by faith.

So the king was encouraged to ask for a sign concerning the Messiah, the point being that if God renewed His promise of a king who should sit on David’s throne, reigning for ever, no imminent overthrow of the kingdom need be feared.

“Ask in the depth, or in the height above.” There are three different ways of interpreting this enigmatic expression:

• It is an idiom for the Messiah, who is to be of human and divine origin (2 Sam. 7:12,14; Gen. 49:25; Prov. 30:4; Deut. 30:12; 33:13; Is. 45:8; Gen. 27:28; 22:17; Zech. 8:12).
• Ask a sign from Isaiah, a prophet living in “the valley of vision” (Kidron valley) — “the depth”; or ask a sign of divine manifestation in the temple, “the height”.
• Allusion to a spring of water originating in the temple area, close to the place of sacrifice, and flowing out via the Virgin’s Fountain to En Rogel where the kings were crowned.

After his public desecration of the temple of Israel, Ahaz was not prepared to make a public recantation. “I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord”, said he hypocritically. But a sign was given nevertheless: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (7:14).

A good deal of argument has taken place about this Hebrew word almah. Does it mean “virgin”, or merely “a young woman of marriageable age”? All the other occurrences of this word seem to require the former meaning. Also, it is very remarkable that the Septuagint translators, doing their work long after the time of Isaiah and also long before the time of Jesus, chose to translate it by a Greek word which certainly means “virgin”. Over against this is the interesting fact that the versions of the Old Testament in Greek made by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus all read “young woman”. But these translators were all Jews or Jewish proselytes after the time of Christ, so they all had a large doctrinal axe to grind!

It is suggested here that in the first instance Isaiah alluded to the young queen elect of king Ahaz, actually present with him when the words were heard. The child who was born in due time was Hezekiah, who deserved the name “God is with us” more than any other king since David (2 Kgs. 18:7; 2 Chr. 32:8). Hezekiah is almost certainly the basis of the other outstanding Messiah prophecies in Isaiah—with great appropriateness since in so many remarkable details he was a most impressive type of Christ. Most probably, when Isaiah was making his prophecies concerning Hezekiah, he knew that he spoke also about the Messiah.

Here, as happens with so many other prophecies of the Old Testament, the proximate fulfilment matched the words only approximately (the words “virgin” and “Immanuel” especially!), whilst the application to Christ is exact. (In the rest of Isaiah the reverse appears to be the case.)

Variations in the Text

There are certain interesting variations in the different versions of this passage. The Hebrew text has: “she shall call his name Immanuel”, which implies a contravention of the normal Jewish usage that the father decided the name of the child! (see Study 6) This supports the idea that Isaiah’s prophecy intended a reference to a virgin, there being no human father to pronounce the child’s name. At the same time, the true father of this divine child did assign the name in the pronouncements made by the angel separately to Mary and to Joseph, and more publicly later at his baptism.

When Matthew quotes the prophecy he makes a deliberate variation: “and they shall call his name Immanuel.” Fairly evidently the allusion here is to the “us” in the Immanuel name, those who depend on this God-given Saviour for help which can come from no other.

With what gladness do they hail him as Immanuel. Perhaps also Matthew intends his readers to see the mother of the child as a type of the faithful remnant rejoicing in Immanuel, whilst Ahaz is a figure of the faithless nation which has constantly tempted the Lord their God by an unbelief and self-dependence bringing them no lasting peace.

All this, Matthew is also careful to stress, was “in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet”. But of course the main intention behind the Virgin Birth was not simply to provide a striking fulfilment of prophecy. Here the great redeeming Purpose of God was taking an impressive step forward. Matthew’s “in order that” is only his way of emphasizing this important truth.

Prompt Obedience

Joseph, faced with the problem of his wife’s pregnancy, had been cautious, considerate, and unhurried. But once he knew the mind of God on this, as revealed by the angel and confirmed by Holy Scripture, in glad relief he lost no time in giving ready obedience: “Being raised from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had bidden” (cp. 2:14,21)-and what a relief this must have been to Mary! Even God provides things honest in the sight of all men! That immediate response by Joseph invites comparison with the prompt obedience of Abraham who “rose up early in the morning” and set out without delay for mount Moriah and the offering up of his only son (Gen. 22:3).

In this experience of Joseph is exemplified the power of Christ (even before he was born) to win men from doubt to faith. John the Baptist, bewildered and uncertain in prison, the two crucified malefactors, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, the twelve (Peter especially) constantly swithering between loyalty and puzzled uncertainty-these are other examples recorded to illustrate to men who will read about him how Christ has the power to lift them out of their chronic weakness of doubt into the satisfying confidence of faith.

The Brothers of Jesus

Matthew reverently adds a further significant fact to what he has already told. Joseph, quietly but unhesitatingly receiving Mary as his wife, “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” The problem of the parentage of the other children in the family of Joseph-there were four brothers and at least three sinters (Mt. 13:55,56) has often been discussed. There are two possibilities: either they were the children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, or they were Mary’s children, born after Jesus.

The first of these, conjectured out of a mistaken reverence for Mary, is to be rejected, not because it is the standard Roman Catholic interpretation, but because there is no Bible evidence in support of it. On the other hand several arguments seem to require acceptance of the alternative view.

1. The word “until” in the passage just quoted seems to imply pointedly a normal married life after Jesus was born. However this by itself could hardly be regarded as decisive, for in the Bible “until” does not always carry this implication. But there is also the word “firstborn” which would be altogether pointless if Mary had no other children. (See the strong implication behind “firstborn” in Col. 1:18; Rom. 8:29). The usual rejoinder here is that the Vatican manuscript and several fourth-century fathers omit “firstborn”. This evidence can hardly be regarded as satisfactory, for Codex B is often guilty of unwarranted omissions in its text of the gospels. And these “fathers” all belonged to a period when an excessive reverence for Mary and reprobation of a normal sex life were dominating the church.

2. The Greek imperfect tense in “knew her not” would be quite inappropriate if the Catholic view is correct. It would need to be aorist.

3. If the rest of the family were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, then the genealogy of Matthew 1 should end with James, and not with Jesus, for Joseph’s firstborn would be the one who then had the right to the throne of David. ,

4. The Greek text of Matthew 12:46 clearly implies the reading: “his mother-and-brethren.”

5. For those who accept Psalm 69 (and not just a few verses of it), as Messianic, verse 8 there is decisive: “I am become a stranger unto my’ brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.”

It is perhaps worthwhile at this point to consider how carefully and suitably this beginning of Mary’s family was planned by divine wisdom. Suppose, for example, she had been betrothed to no-one or that conception had taken place before her betrothal to Joseph. Then what provocation there would have been! not only for gossip but also for the sanctions of the Law of Moses to operate? Or, if conception had taken place after marriage, then the child would certainly be assumed to be Joseph’s, and no evidence available to the contrary. Again, suppose Mary betrothed to a man not of the line of David, then his putative son Jesus would have no legal right to the throne of David.

Thus, from every angle, there was divine imperative and divine contrivance about the birth of Jesus, the Son of God. “All this was done in order that (the prophecy) might be fulfilled.” “It behoved the Christ” (Lk. 24:46) to fulfil all of this prophecy — a virgin pregnant, a male child, his name, and its meaning.

Notes: Matthew 1:18-25

18.	Found. If this perplexing truth was kept from Joseph until after the birth of John, that fact would make his grasp of this new situation so much easier.
19.	Not willing to make her a public example, as the Law prescribed (Dt. 22: 23,24; and see Studies 109,110), if indeed the case were as he would naturally suspect at first. The Gk. word is always associated with shame: Heb. 6:6; Num. 25:4; Jer. 13:22; Ez. 28:17; Dan. 2:5 LXX.
20.	In a dream. All the dreams in the New Testament come in Matthew: 1:20; 2:12,13,19,22; 27:19.
	Thou son of David. Thus the angel alludes to Is. 7:13, which doubtless he later quoted to Joseph, and explained.
	That which. If there were a pre-existent Jesus, ought not this to be “he who”?
	Holy Spirit. By its position the word “holy” is specially emphatic, as though implying the contrast: “not by unholy promiscuity”.
21.	Bring forth a son. But “unto thee” (Gen. 17:19; Lk. 1:13) is pointedly omitted. Yet, equallly pointedly, Mic. 5:2 has “unto me”!
	Jesus, a name first used in Num. 13:16. The parallel between these two Joshuas is very impressive. How many others were named before birth, besides Isaac, Ishmael, Moses, Solomon, and perhaps Josiah?
22.	Spoken. Appropriate to Is. 7:14.
	Gk: in order that it might be fulfilled.
23.	God with us. The subtle accuracy in the Gk. text is something to marvel at. They are “his people” whom he saves from their sins—he is one of them. Nevertheless the preposition here, meta and not sun, carefully insinuates a distinction which is altogether right and proper.
24.	Raised from sleep. The Gk. verb is passive. Then did Gabriel see to this, even though seen in a “dream”?
25.	And knew her not… Here the reader expects: ‘But knew her not. .”So this suggests that here was a further item in the instructions from the angel.

Luke introduces his account of the preaching of John (3:1-2) with a catalogue of the men who exercised power in God’s Land at that time. The list has been acclaimed as the hall-mark of a thorough historian, but such an interpretation misses the main point. It is true that the details Luke supplies make possible a chronology of the ministries of John and Jesus, but the real purpose was to represent the people of God as under the thrall of the powers of evil-Tiberius Caesar, Pilate and Lysanias, the Herods, Annas and Caiaphas. What a crew! A people governed, or, rather, misgoverned by such a bunch was surely ready for the gospel of the kingdom of God. Here was hard rapacity, cynical selfishness, vice unlimited, crafty wirepulling, the pride of power, and in every one of them an utter disregard for the well-being of the two or three millions of common people over whom they were set.

Those evil days

Matthew, beginning this section of his record, achieves the same effect by a different device: “And in those days came John the Baptist” (3:1). Precisely what days are not specified, but a devout Jew who knew his Scriptures would recognize the echo of Exodus 2:11,23, when Moses went out and looked on the burdens under which his brethren laboured, the children of Israel sighing by reason of the bondage. It was “in those days” that “the word of God came upon John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (Lk. 3:2; cp. Jer. 1:1 LXX); and it was to such a man, not to any of these eminent scoundrels, that the spirit of prophecy was imparted.

It was “the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar”. This infamous Tiberius reigned as emperor from A.D. 14, but he had been associated with Augustus Caesar from A.D. 11, and the word used by Luke suggests this. So the public work of John began either In A.D. 26 or 28/29, the baptism of Jesus following fairly soon after.

Messiah’s Herald

The proclamation began, not because John thought that he had a message and that the time was ripe for its proclamation, but because of a specific divine commission: “the (spoken) word of God came upon him.” At the same time he was given a sign: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33). So from the earliest possible time John knew himself to be Messiah’s forerunner. It was his work and highest honour to announce him to the nation.

Yet he did not attempt any sensational demonstration in Jerusalem and the other big cities. Instead, as the news spread that after a lapse of centuries the Spirit of prophecy burned once again in Jewry, he remained in the wilderness, and the people came to him in evergrowing crowds. The bare facts are not without their symbolic value-John was preaching “in the wilderness of Judaea” and also in “the region about Jordan” that is, not far from ancient Sodom and Gomorrha. It was a people and an epoch desperately in need of his call to repentance.

An Elijah Prophet

All John’s way of life, and especially how he dressed was designed to emphasize his message. His rough camel’s hair coat and crude skin belt were a deliberate imitation of Elijah (2 Kgs. 1:8). This is more than hinted at in Luke’s phrase: “The same John”, or “John himself “-implying, like Elijah—was dressed in this way. Thus without verbal reiteration of the fact, the fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy (4:5) of an Elijah-like prophet was proclaimed to the nation.

The synoptists saw even more symbolic truth of this kind in the rough simple fare which he subsisted on. In the Bible, honey is symbolic of wisdom, human (Lev. 2:11; Pr. 25:16,27) or divine (Pr. 24:13; Ps. 19:10; 119:103; Rev. 10:9). John’s words were wisdom from God, free from any human modification or “refinement”. And was it not “wild honey” which enabled another John, the friend of David, to smite the Philistines? (1 Sam. 14:27-30).

John’s primitive diet quietly rebuked the obsession of the affluent, then and now, with food and drink. Perhaps the godly were reminded of the prophet Joel’s vivid use of a locust invasion (1:4; 2:1-11) to describe the inevitable divine judgment which must one day come on this people. And could they fail to be reminded also of Joel’s ringing call to repentance (2:12-17)?

A Message from the Old Testament

To all this symbolism was added the point-blank witness of Holy Scripture. John himself asserted unequivocally (Jn. 1:23) that he was the fulfilment of the majestic prophecy they were so familiar with in Isaiah 40. All four gospels make this their main point about John. There is no need to spend time arguing whether the words should read as in the A.V. or be re-punctuated to preserve the Hebrew parallelism: “In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord.” The Hebrew and Greek texts allow of either. On reflection the meaning is seen to be essentially the same both ways.

But what is the meaning? Is the picture that of a diligent preparing of roads suitable for the visit of a king? Or is the idea rather that of a people preparing to meet their God by a return to Him in contrite humility? One phrase in Isaiah 40 appears to be decisive: “Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand …” For this coming the people must make themselves ready. Here, then, was a re-statement of John’s function as a herald of the Messiah.

He insisted that Messiah’s kingdom was at hand: “The kingdom of God (of heaven) has drawn near.” Yet now, two thousand years later, that kingdom has not yet come-its coming is certain but is as yet without accomplishment. On this problem here are two worthwhile comments:

“Had the nation (of Israel) continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came, received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem, King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, p.30], 11th ed.).

“He (God) makes the accomplishment of His declared purposes wait upon the prayers of His people” (R.R. in Nazareth Revis. p.16 )-and therefore upon their repentance.

But in this interpretation the way must be left open for the other idea, for in so many places in Isaiah the picture is that of a people returning from bondage, glad to seek again the fellowship of their God: “Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people” (57:14). “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. . .They shall be turned back (i.e. repentant), they shall be greatly ashamed” (42:15-17).

Isaiah, always Isaiah

John called for a complete reversal of existing standards-valleys filled, mountains and hills to be made low, that is, an end to religious privilege, Jewry on the same level before God as all the rest of the world (cp. Is. 41:15-18; 2:12-15-the same symbolism). In the Hebrew text “the crooked shall be made straight” reads almost like: “Jacob shall be made Israel”, and it was precisely this which John sought to achieve.

Isaiah’s “Comfort ye!” also means “Repent ye!” Clearly, this is how John read his main proof-text (it is there in Mat. 3:7c also). And to this imperative he also added: “Believe” (Acts 19:4). Moreover, Isaiah (and John) foretold what a national repentance of Israel might accomplish: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh (the Gentiles included) shall see it together.” Here the LXX version reads: “shall see the salvation (the Jesus!) of God” (and in Is. 52:9,10), and this is adopted by Luke in his citation of the passage. The saving of those who are flesh, tne mere grass and flowers of the field, is the manifestation of the glory of the Lord—this is His Glory, His greatest work.

Isaiah continues, and no doubt John preached (because this Scripture specially was his text): “the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God (Jesus, the Word made flesh) shall rise, shall be raised, for ever” (the Hebrew text uses the word for resurrection). So John taught the people to be expectant. With Isaiah, he said to the cities of Judah: “Behold, your God”—and he pointed them to one who would “feed his flock like a shepherd, and gather the lambs with his arm.”

So completely did Isaiah anticipate John’s work as a herald that Mark introduces his account of the Baptist with a masterly “confusion” of his prophetic sources: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the way before thee” (1:2). But this quotation is from Malachi 3:1. To be sure, it is followed immediately by the familar words of Isaiah 40. But why should Mark apparently attribute Malachi’s words to Isaiah, also? A simple answer is that this is Mark’s way of expressing his conviction that the Malachi prophecy was not independent but rather was a conscious comment on or expansion of the words of Isaiah. That Mark knew that he was putting together passages from two different prophets is clear from the fact that his Malachi quotation follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (with one small significant change) whilst the words of Isaiah are the LXX Greek text verbatim.

The Isaiah prophecy is referred to (Mt. Lk) as “spoken” by the prophet. This is with reference to “the voice in the wilderness”. In the primary meaning of the prophecy, that voice was Isaiah himself. And now the “spoken word” descends from God upon His messenger John (Lk).

When the apostle John includes the Isaiah quote (1:23), he seems deliberately to switch from the LXX to a different Greek verb, as though to make allusion to Joshua’s last appeal for repentance in Israel: “Put away the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel” (24:23).

Austere, but gracious

Though John may have been dour and exacting in his demands for a drastic change of heart in Jewry, there was yet something gracious and encouraging and understanding about him. “Prepare ye the way of the Lord”, was his imperative, the Greek form of the verb requiring immediate and decisive action. But there was nothing rigid about his teaching; no spiritual strait-jacket, this. “Make his paths straight”. So whilst there was only one way of the Lord, there were several paths by which a man might draw near. But the word for “paths” means “worn tracks”. In other words, the recognized well-established ways of religion in Israel were devious. They needed to be “made straight” (Pr. 4:26 RVm).

And whilst “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” carried a solemn implication of the coming of a Judge, there was also the gracious call to experience the remission of sins through the rite of baptism which he offered. Both Mark and Luke give prominence to this, but Matthew carefully leaves it out, presumably because it is his purpose to follow on immediately with a detailed account of the baptism of Jesus, and the juxtaposition of these ideas might convey wrong impressions that Jesus, like all the rest, needed remission of sins.

(It will be shown in the next study that in all essentials John’s baptism was an anticipation of Christian baptism. For the present, attention is directed to Lk. 1:77; Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38.)

The great Isaiah 40 prophecy is, of course, a proper corrective of this misconception (that Jesus needed to have sins forgiven). It calls his work “the way of Jehovah”; it bids men prepare “a highway for our God”. And Mark’s use of Malachi is made with a significant change of pronoun. “Prepare the way before me, the Lord of hosts” becomes: “Prepare thy way before thee”. Those familiar with the doctrine of God-manifestation in Christ find no problem here. (See “He is risen indeed”, p. 73,74).

Disciples of all Kinds

The people turned out in crowds to hear the preaching of John. “Jerusalem and all Judaea”, writes Matthew, with evident allusion to John’s text in Isaiah (40:2,9). But much of this attention was fashionable curiosity regarding this man who was so different, so peremptory in his demands, and so sure of the divine authority of his message. To those who came in sincerity he taught a humble repudiation of any spirit of self-justification.

Concerning evil practices now to be put away he encouraged open confession (s.w. Acts 19:18)-to himself or before all the rest? He brought his disciples to the waters of baptism, there to reject their old way of life and to consecrate themselves to the service of the Messiah, now about to be manifested. Thus within a short time-probably a matter of months only—he built up a solid body of disciples who accepted his reforming spirit into their lives.

But there were others who came in a different frame of mind. These included Pharisees and Sadducees to whom any spirit of true self-abnegation was altogether foreign. Some of these, it is certain, were an official deputation from the religious authorities in Jerusalem, enquiring into the bona fides of this new prophet (Jn. 1:19). The findings of this commission were never published, for they could find nothing amiss with either the man or the message, and in later days Jesus reproached them openly for their lack of candour in their official attitude concerning John (Mk. 11:27-33).

Also it may be surmised that some of these religious leaders who came to John’s baptism were feigning discipleship. The real motive of these evil men was to join the new movement in pretence, with the deliberate intention of wrecking it later on from within. This was the policy they followed with the early church after the ascension of Jesus, and with no little success (e.g. Gal. 2:4). John saw through their pretensions at once, and roundly castigated them for it: “Generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (1 Th. 1:10; 2:16 Rom. 1:18). Perhaps his figure is that of snakes sliding rapidly through the undergrowth before the fierce heat of an advancing fire. But more likely John here labelled them as the seed of the serpent (Ps. 58:3-5), which in the guise of friendly adviser wrought such evil in Eden. The Messiah, the promised Seed of the woman, is soon to be manifested, John warned them, to crush in the head not only the serpent but all his evil brood (Gen. 3:15). This kind of application of the primeval prophecy is to be traced right through the New Testament-in John’s gospel and first epistle, in several of Paul’s letters, and on into Revelation.

To these men who came to him full of confidence in their own spiritual qualifications John put a peremptory demand for immediate repentance (the Greek has an aorist imperative here) and for a life of practical godliness which would make their change of heart evident not only to God but also to men.

All self-esteem must be let go. “Think not to say within yourselves (the Greek verb implies cock-sureness), we have Abraham to our father.” These men, the seed of Eden’s serpent, preened themselves on having the blood of Abraham in their veins, as though that fact could in itself make them spiritually acceptable to God. The Talmud has this: “A single Israelite is of more worth in God’s sight than all the nations of the world.” True, of course, regarding a true i Israelite but not true of these self-righteous _t charlatans.

A year or two later Christ’s counter to this ,attitude was: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (Jn. 8:39,44). The Baptist’s more withering retort was: ‘I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” It has been suggested that as he spoke John pointed to the cairn of twelve great stones which had been lifted from the bed of the Jordan when Israel crossed into the Land of Promise (Mt. 3:9; Josh. 4:3).

There is a hint here that John spoke in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew, making a play on the words for “sons” and “stones”. But there was no light-hearted joke. John’s words carried a grim message to these who vaunted their national privilege. In effect, he declared all Jewry excommunicated. To be accepted by God, every man jack of them must start life afresh in His sight, rising as a new creature from the waters of baptism, and disowning by repentance the old way of life. It may be that John’s allusion was not to Joshua’s cairn, but to “these stones”-the slabs which sealed the tombs in that vicinity, pointing well the lesson that before a man can live unto God he must first die; and this John bade them do in the waters of baptism.

Again the message came from Isaiah: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord (note the irony here!): consider the rock whence ye are hewn, and the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Consider Abraham your father, and Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him” (51:1,2). The point here is easy to grasp. There must be no pride in descent from Abraham, for if God called this holy couple, aged, childless, sterile, and made them into a great nation, He could do the same again-and will! For the context in Isaiah goes on to foretell the passing of the Mosaic order and the acceptance of Gentiles as seed of Abraham (v.4-8).

Vivid Metaphors

John’s warnings of impending judgment were couched in terms of two figures of speech, both culled from his favourite Isaiah. There is the picture of the lumberman shaping up with his keenly-sharpened axe precisely where the first cut shall be made for the felling of a fruitless tree (Mt.7:19;Lk. 13:7-9; Jn. 15:6). Or possibly this figure had another slant. The temple was garnished with wonderful carved work-trees large as life (1 Kgs. 6:29). It is conceivable that these pseudo-religious Pharisees and Sadducees thought of themselves as “palm trees … planted in the house of the Lord” (Ps. 92:12,13). In that case, John’s warning is a reminder of a prophecy in the Psalms of a time when men would both literally and figuratively “break down the carved work thereof with axes and hammers” and “cast fire into the sanctuary” (74:6,7).

John talked also about the threshing and winnowing of the corn, followed by the fierce blaze of burning chaff. (The temple area was a threshing floor! 2 Sam. 24:18ff). It was customary to separate wheat and chaff with the use of a large shovel called a fan. By means of this the threshed wheat was cast up into the air against the wind. The light chaff was blown down-wind, whilst the heavier grain fell to the ground near at hand. Thus the wind (or, spirit) of the Lord separated the good from the worthless. Then the chaff was burned with a blaze which was inextinguishable until there was nothing left to burn (Jer. 23:28,29). In this sense, and not in any mediaeval hell-fire sense, the fire was unquenchable.

These two figures-of trees to be cut down (literally: cut out), and of chaff to be burned to ashes-are intermingled in the prophets, as they were also in John’s admonitory preaching:

“Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Is. 5:24).

“Behold, I will make thee a sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them” (41:15,16).

“For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble. . .that it shall leave them neither root nor branch” (Mal. 4:1 and 3:2,3).

John may even have been implying that Messiah would deal with the unworthy as with the mighty oppressors of Israel-”like the chaff of the summer threshing floor, the wind (the Spirit) carrying them away that no place be found for them” (Dan. 2:35).

Fire or fire!

John’s preaching was not all minatory. There was also the winsome appeal of the blessings which Messiah would bring. It is remarkable that John chose to emphasize, not the alluring pictures painted by the Old Testament prophets of the Messianic Age, but another of Isaiah’s prophecies: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, (even) with fire” (Mt. 3:11). Thus John set alternatives before the people-either Messiah’s fire of regeneration, or Messiah’s unquenchable fire of destruction. It must be one or the other.

Isaiah and his contemporaries had the same choice set before them-either the purging of sin by a coal from the altar, brought by one of the Lord’s “fiery ones” (6:6,7) or the fire of judgment devouring the stubble (5:24). By and by Jesus himself was to bid men make their choice: “Every one shall be salted (as a sacrifice; Ley. 2:13) for the fire (of God’s altar);” the alternative-a Gehenna of fire “where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” (Mk. 9:48,49).

To this day the issue is unchanged. Either the zeal of God’s house eats a man up, like the flame of the altar of consecration, or else the Lord is revealed to him in the Last Day in flaming fire, taking vengeance because he knows not God (2 Th. 1:8,9). Is there really any other alternative?

“Is he the Messiah?”

In everything John pointed men away from himself and towards the coming Messiah. “He is mightier than I … coming after me, he is preferred before me.” I am not worthy to baptize him. Even “his shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose (as he prepares for baptism), not worthy to bear them” (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7;Jn. 1:15).

It is possible that by this figure of speech John was alluding to the Mosaic practice of loosing the sandal of one who refused his brother’s widow a (evirate marriage, thus proclaiming: ‘The Law is dead. The One who comes after me will raise up true seed to Israel. There will be no reproach possible against him.’ If this idea is correct, John was also implying that there was room for ample reproach of this kind against the priests and rabbis.

John’s campaign set the people in a state of high expectation. “All men (of every kind and character) mused in their hearts, whether he were the Christ or not.” This statement by Luke (3:15) is altogether mvstifying. Had not John explicitly disavowed all Messianic claims? Had he not plainly proclaimed himself a forerunner? And was he not a Levitical priest, with no descent from David? And since the Messiah was universally expected to be a mighty King of the Jews, how could they possibly assign such a role to John? Perhaps there was a school of thought which considered the possiblity of Messiah’s manifestation first of all in a much humbler role. The word “mused”—RV: reasoned-is almost always used in a bad sense, here perhaps hinting at Luke’s depreciation of the biblical ignorance behind these speculations. Soon John was driven to say explicitly: “I am not the Christ” (Jn. 1:20).

Counsel in Godliness

Some among the people received John’s exhortations with deep seriousness of purpose. “What then must we do?” they asked of him in response to his demand for repentance. Obsessed by the ideal of salvation by works, they pressed their enquiry: “What must we do?”

The replies which John gave to the various types of individual who recognized the need for reformation are not to be interpreted as being the gospel which he preached, but rather as examples of how the repentant spirit which he called for should express itself in what is nowadays called “practical Christianity”.

“He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.” It was a doctrine which found little expression in Jewry, and almost none at all in the pagan world outside. Thus John stressed personal responsibility (in the spirit of the Good Samaritan) for social problems with which there is personal contact—a striking contrast with the formal institutionalised soul-less benevolence which the 20th century specialises in.

And here already, in anticipation of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, was a big emphasis on faith as the virtue which specially commends a man to God. For in those days when insurance was unknown and national health or national security schemes not even thought of, it called for real faith to believe that God would not let a man down when he tried to live in such an altruistic spirit. God is never in debt to any man, but remarkably few have the faith to believe this.

Publicans were among those who took John’s message seriously. With lively and uneasy consciences they sought his guidance, hoping doubtless that he would view with tolerance their alliance for profit’s sake with the hated Roman master-race. There is nothing amiss in itself with tax-collecting, said John, anticipating the teaching of his Master (Mt. 22:21), but you shall be tax-gatherers of a kind the world has never seen as yet-fair and reasonable, free from all rapacity. John may even have meant: ‘Collect only the sums demanded by your Roman masters. Do not add any overheads or personal surcharge for your own pockets which are already well-lined. You have already plundered the people so much that you can easlily live for the rest of your days on what you have already amassed.’

Was Matthew one of these publicans, being made ready for the better life he was soon to lead? Zaccheus in Jericho almost certainly heard this call to sanctified government service, and doubtless had many a sleepless night because of it.

Soldiers also were constantly among those who were drawn by the magnetism of this rough single-minded preacher. These men were nationalist irregulars preparing to help Barabbas in his bid for power. With three concise commandments John shot their insurrection fervour to fragments:

“Do violence to no man” (he used a word which pointedly suggests political revolution). Abandon all idea of either guerilla fighting or open war against the Roman regime, no matter how much you hate it.

Nor must you turn against those who choose to co-operate with Rome. “Neither accuse any falsely.” Cease your campaign of lies and vilification against your rulers and against all who work with them.

“Be content with your wages.” Settle down to a quiet orderly life, and cease your struggle centred on materialism and politics.

Again, all this was a remarkable anticipation of the principles of the Sermon on the Mount.

Even harlots sensed that they could find on Jordan’s banks solace for their souls and wise guidance for a new and better life (Mt. 21:32), but what John said to them is not recorded. It may be readily surmised.

John’s stirring call was heard and its power felt throughout the nation, specially in Nazareth, and even much further afield than that, for evidently some of the Dispersion who came to Jerusalem for the Feasts were drawn by the news of this preacher, and then went home to pass his message on to others (Acts 13:24,25; 18:25; 19:1-7).

“And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people” (Lk). What other things? There was the open rebuke of the vicious life of Herod (3:19). There was encouragement of his close disciples in the art of prayer (11:1), and doubtless a good deal more instruction was educed from Isaiah 40 (and later chapters) and from Malachi 3,4—the prophecies which were so pointedly about himself.

By all these means the way was being prepared.

And the signal reached not only the people but also the King in his obscurity.

Failure

Yet the sorry fact has to be faced that John’s mission turned into failure.

“The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized of him” (Lk. 7:30). “Why did ye not then believe him?” (Mt. 21:25).

“He (John) was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing tor a season to rejoice in his light” (Jn. 5:35)

The parable of the unclean spirit cast out and later returning with seven more worse than himself (Mt. 12:43-45) is a picture of the evanescent repentance and renewed corruption of “this wicked generation”.

“Elias is come already, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them” (Mt. 17:12).

‘If ye will receive him, this is Elias which was for to come … John came neither eating nor drinking,and they say, he hath a devil” (Mt. 11:14,18). Compare also: Ez. 33:31,32.

Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist

“Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I mentioned, and was there put to death.” (Ant. 18.5.2). Here it is interesting to note:

1. how completely Josephus misunderstood the meaning of baptism;
2. that he believed the characteristic Greek body/soul dichotomy;
3. that he assigns a hopelessly wrong reason for the imprisonment of John.

Notes: Matthew 3:1-12.

1.	Preaching: “heralding”- “The voice of a crier begotten of a dumb father”.
2.	Kingdom of heaven. Matthew’s characteristically Jewish equivalent for the kingdom of God, as the following parables demonstrate:
		4:17 = Mk 1:15 11:11 = 7:28 19:14 = 10:14 13:11 = 8:10 5:3 = Lk. 6:20
6.	Confessing their sins. Literally: “confessing forth”; cp.Jas. 5:16; Acts 19:18. Is there any 20th century equivalent of this? Confession of personal sins was a completely new thing in Israel; and nationally, only on the Day of Atonement.
7.	He said; i.e.kept on saying.
	The wrath to come. This phrase curtly refuted the Sadducees’ doctrine of the hereafter.
8.	Fruits meet for repentance, thus emphasizing that repentance is more than confession of faith and baptism.
9.	Stones. The play on “sons”, in Aramaic or Hebrew, shows the language of John’s preaching. The same argument, only more copious, proves that Jesus habitually used Greek.
	Children of Abraham. The same mentality in Rom. 2:17-29; Is. 48:1,2; Mic. 3:11; Jer. 7:3,4.
10.	The root of the tree … fire. Consider Ps. 80:16,17; Is. 10:33,34. Fire is the doom of every fruitless fruit tree:
	Mt. 7:19; Ik. 13:7,9; Jn. 15:6. 12. Note: His wheat… the chaff.

Mark 1:2-8

1.	The Gospel, used for (a) the good news of the kingdom; (b) the sum of saving knowledge (traditionally); (c) narrative about the Lord, as in 1 Cor. 15:l;2Tim.2:8.
4.	Remission. In O.T. comes only in context of Year of Jubilee or Day of Atonement. Here, neither.
5.	The river of Jordan. Specified here (and only here) as a river because Mark’s readers were Romans, who knew nothing of the Jordan?
6.	Camel’shair, worn by a priest, in spite of Lev. 11:4. Hinting at the end of the Mosaic order?
7.	Stoop. In LXX the normal meaning is “worship”.
8.	/ baptized. The past tense suggests that these words were addressed to John’s own converts.

Luke 3:1-18

1.	Iturea. 1 Chr. 1:31 suggests the Edomite origin of the name. Lysanias… Abilene. Why mentioned at ail?
2.	Annas and Caiaphas. The former was high priest from A.D. 7 to 14, and the latter from 17 to 35, with three other high priests in between. But through all this period Annas was the only one who really held authority. Hence Jn. 18:13,24.
4.	The way of the Lord. This recurs, in the same context, in Acts 18:25.
5.	Every valley. . . filled, every mountain … brought low. The rabbis coined and transmitted the fantasy that the Shekinah Glory did precisely this for Israel in the wilderness.
	The extra quotation here in v. 5,6 sums up figuratively the ideas of repentance and remission of sins. It also indicates that N.T quotes from O.T. do not necessarily cite all that is relevant for the purpose in mind.
6.	Salvation of God. Another Isaiah phrase equivalent to “righteousness”; 52:10; 56:1; 46:13; 51:5.
8.	Begin not. This seems to suggest that John feared that the crowds listening to him might be influenced by Pharisee-Sadducee criticism.
15.	Whether he be; more literally: lest he be, as though implying alarm: “and we unprepared for his coming.”
16.	Worth. Gr: sufficient. But Acts 13:25 has a word which means “worthy”.
	Fire. For the double idea mentioned in the text, see also: Is 4:4,5; Lev. 10:2; Mic. 5:7,8; Mt. 13:42,43; Acts 2:3,18,19. Compare also Peter’s double use of the symbol of water-either saved or destroyed by it (1 Pet. 3:20). Similarly baptism saves or condemns.

John the Baptist and Isaiah

40:1; 46:8 LXX:	Repent.
40:4; 59:8:	Crooked made straight.
40:7	Spirit, wind.
40:9;	Jerusalem, Judaea.
40:24,30 LXX:	Axe
41:14,16:	Chaff, fan, wind (spirit)
43:16,17:	Stronger than I.
51:2,1:	Abraham our father… these stones.
52:10; 56:1,2 etc:	Salvation of God.
58:7:	Food to the poor, two coats.
59:5:	Generation of vipers.

“Cyrenius was governor of Syria”. Says an old commentator, with evident weariness: “Volumes have been written about this one verse”-and since his day volumes more. The essential facts are these:

The decree from Caesar Augustus “that all the world should be taxed” was really one of a sequence of censuses taken every fourteen years in the Roman provinces. It is known that Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, but at a date which cannot possibly fit the year of the birth of Jesus. For this reason critics have been very ready to assume Luke’s inaccuracy and a late date for writing of his gospel. But through the researches of Sir William Ramsay the historical dependability of Luke has been substantiated over and over again, so it is surely wise to assume that Luke is correct here also until clear proof to the contrary is available. Actually it has been found that at this particular time (about B.C. 5, according to conventional reckoning) Quirinius did hold some important office in Syria such as might well be described as “Quirinius ruling”.

It is possible that the text should be read as meaning: “This was the first census when Cyrenius was ruling in Syria”, as though implying (what is known to be true) that at a later time there was another census under his governorship-which later census was evidently done Roman style and provoked a bitter rebellion led by Judas the Gaulonite. But on the earlier occasion Herod the Great was wily enough to dress up this political event in a Jewish guise, by holding it at the time of a Jewish feast and by insisting on all registering as members of their own particular tribe of Israel. Almost certainly, according to Exodus 30:11-16, the payment was made of the half-shekel of “atonement money … for the service of the tabernacle”. So the priests in Jerusalem would co-operate with enthusiasm, but for poor men like Joseph it would be a heavy tax on slender resources.

Why Mary also?

So, because of the census, Joseph betook himself to Bethlehem to be enrolled, “because he was of the nouse and lineage of David”. There seems to be a tautology here, for either word would suffice. Was it Luke’s intention to emphasize that not only was Joseph in direct line from David but also that he was legal heir to Mary’s side of the family?

But why was he accompanied by Mary? Since the time of her delivery was near, was it not wiser that she remain at home? Various explanations are available: To save Mary from an environment that would be rife with rumour about her. So that Jesus might be officially registered as belonging to the line of D*avid. Because Mary was an heiress in her own right, and must therefore register. Because Joseph and Mary intended to make a fresh start, settling in Bethlehem or some other place. The reason might be any or none of these. But the basic reason was an angelic constraint on the mind of a great Roman emperor nearly 1500 miles away, leading him to order that this census be organized in this particular way. Robert Roberts writes very well on this (Nazareth Revisted p. 33a).

Because so many people were travelling, the inn on the outskirts of Bethlehem was filled to capacity. This place was “the habitation of Chimham” (the Hebrew word means “a place for strangers”; Jer. 41:17). It was so called because it had been founded by the son of Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:37) when he was at the court of David, to commemorate the hospitality shown by his father to David at the time of Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sam. 17:27-29).

Symbolism

But now there was no shelter for the greater Son of David (cp. Jud. 19:15). It is even doubtful whether the manger in which Jesus was laid was in the yard of the inn. The words of the angel to the shepherds: “Unto you is born this day…” and “Ye shall find the babe…” might well imply that it was in the shepherds’ bothy where the Lamb of God was born. So those seeking to identify the birthplace of Jesus should look for remains of “the tower of Eder”, “the tower of the flock”, somewhere on the (northern) outskirts of Bethlehem (Mic. 4:8; Gen. 35:21). When Joseph and Mary saw the tower, did they recall the Micah prophecy and ask permission to lodge there? The tradition that Jesus was born in a cave seems to have been a precarious inference by the early church from Isaiah’s words: “He shall dwell in a high cave of a strong rock: bread (Bethlehem) shall be given him, and his water shall be sure. Ye shall see a king with glory” (33:16,17 LXX).

It has been a popular idea that, because the text says: “She (Mary) laid him in a manger”, it was a birth free from pain and distress. But Micah’s prophecy (with more than one fulfilment) seems to imply the opposite: “Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee?… for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail” (4:9,10). If Matthew can insist that the passage four verses further on (5:2; Mt 2:6) had a fulfilment in the birth of Jesus, then this also, surely.

That first cradle for the infant Son of God was described by the Lord through His prophet: “The ox knoweth his master, the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider” (Is. 1:3). Perhaps also attention should be directed to the prayer of Habakkuk:

“O Lord … thou shalt be made known between the two living creatures” (3:2 LXX), an allusion to the Glory of the Lord seen between the two ox-form cherubim over the mercy-seat.

These things were not without their symbolic value, as also the fact that Mary “wrapped him in swaddling clothes”. Here, surely, wrapped in its swaddling clothes is the profound and essential truth that Jesus shared the mortal nature of those he came to save, with all its inherent weaknesses and propensities. The contrast with his resurrection, when the tokens of mortality were left behind in the tomb is very pointed (Jn. 20:6). By contrast (Jn. 11:44), when Lazarus rose to a new life of mortality, “he that was dead came forth bound hand and foot with grave clothes.” If Luke did not intend some meaning of this kind in his account of the Lord’s birth, it is difficult to see why he chose to include such details, when so many others of much greater human interest are omitted. “Thick darkness was the swaddling band” of the old creation (Job 38:9), and now the darkness of our human nature was the swaddling band of the New Creation.

The manifestation of rejoicing angels to the shepherds in the fields nearby is a lovely assertion at the very beginning of the story of redemption that the grace of God in Christ is for the meek of the earth. Jacob, Moses and David were all of them shepherds, and these humble men of Bethlehem were heirs to their faith and godliness. Human pomp and circumstance are cut down to size by the choice of these untutored shepherds to be the first to hear the good news of the Lamb of God: “Unto you is born this day…”

Angelic Announcement

At first only one angel was visible to them, and he accompanied by a manifestation of the resplendent Glory of God, a glory such as men may not behold without a deep awestruck misgiving of their own ability to survive such a presence of heavenly majesty. “They were sore afraid”-literally, “they feared a great fear.” But this was no time for fear, only for rejoicing, for the angel brought good tidings-good tidings of great joy.

The birth of a child into any family is an occasion of gladness. In all human experience, from youth to crabbed age, is there any more unanimous sentiment? But the birth of this child, more than any, meant joy and gladness past describing for all who belong to his family. The angel bade them: “Cease your fear of me”, for was he not bringing them goods news for “all

the people”—that is, for all Israel, for all who are the true Israel of God.

Foretold in Scripture

The message was explicit: Messiah is born this night in the city of David. The very circumstances must have brought to the minds of these godly men a Scripture they longed to see fulfilled: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed … O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of luda. Behold your God… He shall feed his flock like a shepherd” (Is40:5,9,11).

Also appropriately, the angel gave the good news in terms of another Messianic prophecy which these unlearned and ignorant shepherds must have been familiar with: “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great lignt… Thou hast increased their joy… Unto us a child is born … upon the throne of David…” (Is. 9:2,3,6)-all these phrases have their counterpart in the angel vision and message.

In those days all Israel looked and prayed for the fulfilment of Isaiah’s sublime prophecies of Messiah. The angel declared that the one who should achieve these things was born that night in Bethlehem. Today Judaism declares that Messiah has not been born yet. And conventional Christianity believes that he was born then but has not and will not turn the prophet’s vision into reality. But to those who believe Jesus to be the Messiah and that the prophecies will very soon find their accomplishment, the message is one of greater joy than even the shepherds could experience, for all their angelic vision. For they believed that the new-born King must grow to maturity before manifesting himself to Israel, but the believer today knows that the signs are ripening faster than that.

“A Sign unto you”

Gabriel had appointed signs for Zacharias, for Elisabeth, for Mary (and for Joseph?). Now he gave a sign to the shepherds also: “Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” The sign was the babe himself, and the remarkable circumstances of his birth (cp. ls. 7:14). Similarly in days to come the sign of the Son of man in heaven is to be the Son of man himself (Mt. 24:30). In those days in Bethlehem and its locality there must have been quite a number of mangers for the foddering of animals. These words of the angel seem to imply a manger in the sheepfold used by these shepherds to whom he spoke. They would have little difficulty in going straight to the place, to wonder and adore.

All Heaven Rejoices

But before they could bestir themselves, there came a yet greater manifestation of heavenly joy and glory. All at once a veil was taken away (cp. 2 Kgs. 6:17), and they beheld the great multitude of angels (who had been there all the time) rejoicing and praising God (Ps. 148:2). Beyond the powers of any temple choir (1 Chr. 15:16 ff) they celebrated the glory of the Almighty. “In the highest, glory to God; on earth peace, (His) goodwill among men.” By far the most important Biblical idea behind the word “peace” is not absence of war between nations or of strife between individuals, but “peace with God”- “The Lord lift up the light of His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.” And “goodwill” looks back to the Hebrew ratzah, ratzbn so very often associated with acceptable sacrifice. Thus “goodwill toward men” means reconciliation through the greatest of all Days of Atonement. The alternative textual reading: “to men of goodwill”, means the same thing: “peace to men who know themselves reconciled to God through Jesus”.

Well might there be angels’ gladness. This was heaven’s D-day, and ten thousand times ten thousand rejoiced, as at the Lord’s resurrection (Lk 24:52; Mt 28:8) and his ascension (Rev. 5:11,12). Their joy and excitement was not to be restrained. And the fields of Bethlehem echoed with the sound of it. That day the Corner-stone of the New Creation was laid, so the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of God shouted for joy (Job 38:7).

Shepherds rejoice also

It was in no spirit of disbelief that the shepherds talked with great eagerness (Gk.) among themselves. These who had been “keeping careful watch” (a strong Hebraism) over their sheep were now ready enough to leave their ninety and nine in order to find for themselves the Lamb of God (v.8,15,17). There is fair evidence (Edersheim) that sheep for temple sacrifices were kept in the vicinity of Bethlehem, so there may be special symbolism in this! All were eager to go (Ps. 132:;6,7). The true text: “the shepherds also said…” seems to imply: ‘The angels have been to Bethlehem to behold. Have they not not told us’ of a manger and swaddling bands? We too must go.’ Nor did they say: ‘To see if this thing has come to pass’, but: “to see this thing which is come to pass.” They had implicit faith in the message.

There was no question of leaving even one of their number to safeguard the flocks, for that night the sheep had guardian angels.

Together the men made haste through the darkness back to their sheepfold. And-God be praised! — it was even as they had been told. On the hay which they themselves used for sleeping rested Mary, tired with travel and travail. And in the manger lay a baby. It has been very truly observed that in every age it is shepherds who watch their flock by night as well as by day who also see the Glory of the Lord and know the help of angels and enter into the presence of Christ.

He looked like any other new-born baby. But the sign was complete: a new-born child, a boy, a firstborn, wrapped in swaddling clothes (for Mary had travelled knowing there would be need of these), the manger for his crib; and on enquiry the family proved to be of the house of David. So they too praised God, and with restrained eagerness told the story of their experience out in the open fields.

Mary, for all her fatigue, heard their tale with quickened attention and gladness. Along with all the other awe-inspiring happenings associated with the birth of her son, these also-especially the message of the angel and the song of the heavenly host-were stored away in her memory and many a time pondered during the years which followed. There was little these rough shepherds could do to help this travel-tired family in their crude bivouac, so they considerately withdrew-and not unwillingly, for what a story they had to tell! During the next few hours they did their utmost to match the glad praise of the angelic choir with their own and to tell to everybody with as much conviction and rejoicing the good tidings that Messiah, the Son of David, was born in Bethlehem. The common version fails completely to bring out how this account of our Lord’s birth is dominated by the angel’s “good tidings of great joy”:

v.15: This saying which is come to pass.

v.17: They made known the saying which was spoken to them.

v.18: Those things which were spoken to them by the shepherds.

v.19: Mary kept all these sayings.

v.20: …as it was spoken unto them.

Notes: Luke 2:1-20

5.	Espoused. RV: betrothed; s.w. Dt. 22: 23, a passage which dominates the meaning of Jn. 8: 1-11.
7.	Her son, the Firstborn. Ps.89: 27;Col. 1: 20.
	The inn; s.w. 22: 11. Cp. Jer. 41: 17—the same place, probably.
	No room. Symbolic of what Jn. 1: 11 says explicitly.
8.	Abiding in the fields, until mid-October, says the Targum.
13.	The heavenly host. Other instructive allusions: Gen. 28: 12; 32: 1,2. In praise: Ps. 103: 20,21; 148: 2. In judgement: Ex. 12: 23; Dan. 7: 10. In protection: Mt. 26: 53; 24: 31.
15.	Even unto Bethlehem. Gk: de is both emotional and imperative. ‘Come! we’ve got to go to Bethlehem’ perhaps conveys the idea.

All moderately-careful readers of the Bible notice the frequent appearance in the New Testament, and especially in Revelation, of passages which read as though the writers expected the return of the Lord from heaven within a comparatively short time – certainly not after a lapse of 2,000 years! In the Apocalypse statements of this kind are particularly plain and copious:

1.	“Things which must shortly come to pass” (1: 1). This might conceivably read, as it often is, as meaning: “things which will begin to come to pass shortly”. But is this fair treatment of the words? Their face value seems to require that Revelation as a whole would be fulfilled “shortly”. And so also with 22:6.
2.	“The time is at hand” (1: 3).
3.	“I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place” (2:5). To refer these words to the gradual decay either of the city of Ephesus or of its ecclesia, some hundreds of years later, cannot be considered satisfactory. “Repent; or else …”
4.	“I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (2:16; cp. 19:15).
5.	“That which ye have already, hold fast till I come” (2:25).
6.	“If thou wilt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief” (3: 3). Is it to be assumed that in all these instances, repentance was immediate and drastic, and consequently there was no need for these threats to be fulfilled? All that is known of the early church suggests the contrary. In particular, “I will come on thee as a thief” points to the Second Coming (Luke 12:39). So also does, “I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (Revelation 19:15).
7.	“Behold, I come quickly” (3:11 – to Philadelphia, and also to all (22:7, 20)
8.	The souls under the altar are told to “rest yet a little while” until the persecution of fellow-servants is concluded (6:11).
9.	“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me” (3:20). This gracious promise to Laodicea is usually given a timeless application to the sweet fellowship possible between Christ and the believer. Nevertheless such a view is demonstrably a mistaken one. Careful comparison with Luke 12:36, 37 makes it clear that here in Revelation 3:11 the Lord is repeating an earlier promise concerning his Second Coming. And concerning it, he now emphasizes (in A.D. 66 or thereabouts): “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.”
10.	“Behold, I come quickly” (22:7).
11.	“Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be” (22:10-12) – a specially impressive passage. This fiat of the Judge of all the world carried with it the implication that so imminent was his coming (at the time the words were uttered) that no longer could there be time for repentance – or even for backsliding! He comes as “quickly” as that.
12.	“Surely, I come quickly” (22:20).

The problem has been swept under the carpet long enough. No self-respecting commentator on Revelation can leave it ignored.

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS:

There are five ways of tackling the difficulty:

	(a)	To agree with the modernist that what the apostles wrote was not true, but the expression of a fond delusion universal in the early church and shared by the apostles. All who accept the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture find such a view utterly unacceptable.
	(b)	To agree that a Second Coming of Christ did take place in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel. This view, usually supported by Matthew 22:7 and by 2 Peter 3, and by nothing else, must be written off because:
		(i)	Biblical evidence for it is quite inadequate.
		(ii)	A.D. 70 was not a Coming of Christ. (Note: “and after that thou shalt cut it down;” Luke 13:9). This invisible Coming of the Lord is “Jehovah’s Witnesses” teaching!
		(iii)	It simply will not explain the passages it is intended to explain. Let the reader try it and see!
	(c)	To assume that this early “Second Coming” is what is elsewhere spoken of as Christ’s abiding invisible presence in his Ecclesia. “Behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age.” This will hardly do, if only because in that sense Christ never went away! Further, let the student attempt to read this idea into the passages cited and then ask himself whether he can honestly declare himself satisfied.
	(d)	For every believer the next conscious moment after the day of his death will be his resurrection. Thus the Second Coming is, in effect, no further away than the day of one’s death. So from this point of view the apostles were justified in writing as though the Lord’s return was only a few years away. This idea has been given uncritical welcome by too many. It is a pity more careful thought has not been given to it. Two serious criticisms:
		(i)	It is an entirely un-Biblical idea. It does not appear in any form whatever in the New Testament. This fact alone should restrain enthusiasm regarding it.
		(ii)	Even if the key fits (sic!), it won’t turn. Let it be tried on a few examples: e.g. Matthew 10:23; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 5:23; 2 Peter 2:3; 1 John 2:17, 18.
	(e)	The method formerly adopted by the writer of these words – to seek to improvise a separate explanation for each of the passages which provoke the problem – is a method which can be pursued with tolerable success so far, until it ends in a realization that the scheme is breaking down under its own weight of over-lengthy explanation. For example, in several passages in 1 Thessalonians (especially 4:15-17) Paul writes as though he and his readers would be among those who are “alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord”. Here it is possible to reason that Paul, for the sake of argument and perhaps to make his point more clear, deliberately chose to class himself with those alive at the Lord’s coming. But is this altogether satisfactory, since he could with even greater lucidity have written “those who are alive and remain”? When this kind of approach has been made to something like a couple of dozen passages, it begins to feel a bit threadbare. To attempt to maintain this “explain away” method when in discussion with a well-informed modernist is to court disaster. In such a case instead of being on the offensive, as every protagonist of the Truth should always be, the believer finds himself desperately defending a whole series of weak points insecurely held.

FURTHER EXAMPLES:

First then, let the magnitude of the problem be recognized. Here are the main passages (besides those already cited) with occasional brief comment:

13.	“The Lord is at hand” (Philippians 4:5).
14.	“The end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7). It is taking too big a liberty to say that “at hand” means “after 2,000 years,” especially when “my time is at hand” (Matthew 26:18) means “within twenty-four hours,” and “the time of my departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:6) means “in a few days” time” or possibly “within a few weeks.”
15.	“For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Hebrews 10:37). What did Jesus mean when he said: “Little children, yet a little while I am with you” (John 13:33)?
16.	“The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20).
17.	“But this I say, that the time is short” (1 Corinthians 7:29). When the Apostle wrote in the same epistle, “I will come to you shortly,” did he mean “in about 2,000 years” time”?
18.	“Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come” (Matthew 10:23).
19.	“Immediately after the tribulation of those days…” (Matthew 24:29). The most natural way to read these words is that the “signs” Christ went on to mention were to follow immediately on the horrors associated with the fall of Jerusalem.
20.	“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:27,28). It is customary to refer these words to the Transfiguration, which took place a week later. Such can be at best only a primary fulfilment, for (a) the context suggests the actual Second Coming; (b) why should Jesus say “some… here which shall not taste of death” concerning an event only a week away; the passage reads strangely when taken this way; (c) the parallel in Mark 9:1 has “the kingdom of God come with power.” The Greek perfect participle here seems to imply: “come to stay.”
21.	“This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34). Here “this generation” must not be translated “this race,” for the Jew is immortal. The most natural way to take the words is: “This generation to which I am speaking.” But faced with the fact that that generation passed away long ago, the modern expositor has to suggest: “this generation which witnesses the signs described.” Adequate, perhaps, but not entirely satisfactory.
22.	“Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man… coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). It is a very watery interpretation, which takes this as meaning “the Jews, 2,000 years hence, shall see…”
23.	“They returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Luke 24:52). Is there not implied here an understanding that the angel’s promise (Acts 1:11) would soon be fulfilled? And if this was the rash assumption of, their human ignorance, why should it be given such a misleading prominence in the inspired record?
24.	“For now is our salvation nearer than when we believed… the night is far spent, the day is at hand” (Romans 13:11, 12). Would it be extreme to say that application of these words to anything but the Second Coming sounds very much like casuistry?
25.	“Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) – “Our Lord cometh” – had little point as a Christian watchword in the First Century if that coming was to be many generations later.
26.	“… to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven” (1 Thessalonians 1 :10) reads very strangely except as meaning that these Thessalonians could expect to see the coming of the Lord from heaven.
27.	“I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
28.	“God… hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son” (Hebrews 1: 2). The only alternative interpretation here seems to be with reference to the “last days” of the Mosaic economy. But what of:
29.	“Exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25)? “The Day” was the normal way for a Jew to refer to the Day of Atonement – what Day of Atonement but the coming of the Lord (Hebrews 9:28)? In no other way does the passage make sense.
30.	“The coming of the Lord draweth nigh… the judge standeth before the door” (James 5: 8, 9). Can these words have any other meaning than the obvious one?
31.	“False prophets … whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not” (2 Peter 2:3). What other judgement can this be than the Day of Judgement?
32.	“For the world is passing away … Little children, it is the last time (R.V. hour); and as ye have heard that anti-Christ shall come, cven now are there many antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time” (1 John 2:17, 18).
33.	“The apostles … told you that there should be mockers (2 Peter 3:3) in the last time … These be they … “ says Jude (18, 19) speaking of his own day.

I COME “QUICKLY”

The repeated warning: “Behold, I come quickly” (Revelation 2:5, 16 and 3:11 and 22:7, 12, 20) calls for special attention, for it has been much misunderstood – largely out of a desire to evade the obvious difficulty that the Lord was promising (in the apostle John’s day) to come soon.

The Greek word tachu and its kindred word tacheos, taken by the grammarians as its equivalent, may mean “quickly” in any of three senses:

	(a)	soon, before much time has elapsed;
	(b)	with speed, travelling or working fast;
	(c)	suddenly.

The tendency has been to put the emphasis on the third of these, thus turning the Lord’s words into a warning that the disciple must be ever ready because his Lord’s coming will be so sudden as (possibly) to take him off his guard.

An analysis of all the occurrences of these words makes this conclusion questionable:

tachu

	(a)	Matthew 5:25; Revelation 11:14 (this passage is most emphatic).
	(b)	Matthew 28:7, 8; Mark 16:8; John 11:29.
	(c)	Mark 9:39 (doubtful).

tacheos

	(a)	1 Corinthians 4:19; Galatians 1:6; Philippians 2:19, 24; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Timothy 4:9.
	(b)	Luke 14:21 and 16:6; John 11:31.
	(c)	1 Timothy 5:22 (doubtful).

Even an examination of cognate words shews a distribution not markedly different:

tachion

	(a)	1 Timothy 3:14; Hebrews 13:19, 23.
	(b)	John 13:27 (doubtful) and 20:4.

tachista

(b)

Acts 17:15.

tachus

(b)

James 1: 19.

tachos

	(a)	Acts 25:4; Romans 16:20.
	(b)	Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7 and 22:18.

tachinos

	(a)	2 Peter 1: 14.
	(c)	2 Peter 2:1 (doubtful – see v. 3).

“QUICKLY” MEANS “SOON”

From this catalogue it follows that (i) the meaning “suddenly” must be discarded; “I come quickly” does not mean “I come suddenly;” (ii) whilst there is better evidence for the meaning: “I come swiftly, at great speed,” this reading would be not only pointless but almost silly, (iii) the preponderance of passages, and especially the emphatic evidence of one clear example in the same book (Revelation 11:14) is decisive that the meaning “soon-in point of time” should be given primary consideration and should only be rejected if in any instance it leads to a palpably absurd interpretation.

The net result of this rather technical digression is to pick out the Revelation passages about an early return of Christ from heaven as amongst the most emphatic in the whole series. But even if they were discarded along with any others of those listed, where the reader feels that another quite different but thoroughly competent meaning can be educed, there still remains a massive hard core of these Scriptures. What is to be made of them?

WRITTEN BY INSPIRATION

That the Holy Spirit, there inspired these New Testament writers can be no manner of doubt. Then what they wrote concerning the return of their Lord must have been absolutely correct when they wrote it. How comes it, then, that their God-guided anticipations have proved to be in error? It can only be because God Himself has brought about a wholesale deferment of the consummation of His purpose, so that what was originally to have happened in or soon after A.D. 70 is to be fulfilled instead in the 20th Century.

This suggestion (put forward by Bullinger in the first instance) may seem extraordinarily difficult of acceptance. The reader is asked to curb any impatience with it until there has been a careful and unprejudiced examination of the evidence.

EXAMPLES OF DIVINE DEFERMENT

First, it is necessary to realize that similar postponements of declared developments in the divine purpose have taken place before. Here are examples:

1.	When the twelve spies searched the land, faithless Israel chose to accept the God-dishonouring report of the faithless ten rather than the wholesome exhortation of the faithful two. So judgement was pronounced against them: “Surely ye shall not come into the Land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb and Joshua. Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years … After the number of days 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 (mg: the altering of my purpose)” (Numbers 14:30-34).
	Had Israel relied in faith on the faithfulness of their God, the Land would have been theirs within a matter of months. Because they found no place for either faith or repentance there came in this “altering of God’s purpose,” a deferment of fulfilment of His promise; and Israel entered the Land forty years later than they might have done.
2.	The second example is remarkably similar, though not so well known.
	Moses’ obvious disposition to assume the leadership of his enslaved people, m token of which he slew an oppressing Egyptian is often (almost always, in fact) interpreted as the action of a headstrong young man who was not prepared to await God’s own good time. But Scripture says differently. The R.V. of Acts 7:25 reads, with admirable exactness: “And he supposed that his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand was giving them deliverance, but they understood not”. The view that Moses was seeking to bring a deliverance which God did not intend at that time could hardly be further from the truth, God was giving them deliverance, and they refused both the deliverer and the deliverance (“the reproach of Christ” Hebrews 11:26), and thus condemned themselves to another forty years of bondage – a forty-year postponement of a promised redemption!
	That this is the correct interpretation of the incident is confirmed by the way in which the passage just cited became the king-pin of Stephen’s argument that, as the nation’s scorning of Moses had confirmed and intensified their squalid bondage in Egypt, so now their more emphatic rejection of the prophet like unto Moses (v. 37) was to lead to consequences yet more dire – that is, unless they repented, in which case, just as Moses brought deliverance forty years later, so also would Christ (forty years later? – A.D. 70).
3.	“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” declared Jonah in the streets of that exceeding great city, but about two hundred years later Nineveh was still standing, mighty as ever. The explanation: “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that He said He would do unto them; and He did it not.” Nor will it do to argue that Jonah’s message included also: “Repent from your evil ways, and God’s judgements will not come upon you.” Such an idea, for which there is no evidence whatever in the text, is precluded by ch. 3:9 and also by the character of Jonah – he did not wish Nineveh to be saved from destruction.
4.	Elijah the prophet announced divine judgement against weak and wicked king Ahab: “Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine (that last phrase is emphatic) … Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will utterly sweep thee away” (I Kings 21:19, 21 R.V.). Nevertheless the full intensity of this doom was deferred to the time of Joram: “Because Ahab humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house” (v. 29).
5.	Another instance in the reign of Ahab. In the enacted parable of the smiting of the disguised prophet, the oracle was uttered: “Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man (the king of Syria) whom I had appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people” (1 Kings 20:42). This Benhadad had been “appointed to utter destruction” in the battle of “the princes of the provinces” – appointed to this fate by God! – and yet through the weakness or perversity of Ahab he had been let go scot free. Doubtless his “destruction” did come at a later period, but it did not take place at the time originally “appointed.” The divine plan concerning Benhadad was deferred.
6.	Hezekiah was told that he was about to die; yet his prayer of faith added fifteen years to his life. Even if it could be argued (which it cannot) that Hezekiah would have been better without that extension of his life, this view would not affect the plain facts of the case that – what the prophet of the Lord pronounced as about to happen was in reality postponed for fifteen years.
7.	Perhaps in the same category, though with rather different features, is the three-day plague appointed in the reign of David. In point of fact, the angel was bidden to stay his hand before the first day was over. See 2 Samuel 24:15, 16 (Hebrew text) and Speaker’s Commentary at that place.
8.	To these should probably be added the familiar words of Genesis 2:17: “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”. But Adam ate, and lived over 900 years! To argue that in that very day he suffered spiritual death simply will not do. Only too obviously Genesis 2:17 is about physical death as the penalty for sin. Nor will the frequently heard Idea stand that in the day of Adam’s eating the slow but certain processes of mortality began to work in his members. This is hopelessly to misunderstand the Hebrew idiom: “dying thou shalt die.”
	The truth is that Adam’s sentence of death was deferred because of his repentance (shewn in the offering of a sacrifice: ch. 3:21) and his faith (expressed in the re-naming of his wife as the mother of the promised Seed; ch. 3:20).

A PRINCIPLE AND ITS CONVERSE

A careful review of these examples (and a great many more similar ones are given later in this chapter) reveals clearly the existence in every case of one of the following principles:

1.	That repentance, faith and obedience bring an acceleration of the fulfilment of God’s promises or a deferment of His judgements, as the case may be.
2.	Conversely, that rejection of God’s ways and especially lack of faith in His promises brings about a postponement of the blessings He seeks to bring, and instead there is an intensification of His judgements.

HOW IT OPERATES

These two principles are repeatedly insisted on in the New Testament in connection with the preaching of the Gospel, especially when that word was being proclaimed to the Chosen People. The following examples are both illuminating and provocative. They are also decisive.

1.	“Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus” (Acts 3:19, 20 R.V.). Omitting the intervening clauses in order to throw the main point (for present purposes) into sharper relief: “Repent … so that he may send the Christ … “ This shews clearly that the sending of Jesus a second time was to be a consequence conditional or, the repentance of Israel.
2.	In 2 Peter 3 the apostle addresses himself to the problem: Why the apparent delay in the Lord’s return? Not because the Lord is “slack concerning his promise, but because He is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (v. 9). According to this, there has been a deliberate withholding of fulfilment of the divine purpose, in order to give opportunity for repentance. With this compare v. 15: “And account that the long-suffering of our Lord (in not sending Christ in judgement) is (your opportunity of) salvation.”
3.	The proposition is also stated conversely in vv. 11, 12: “What manner of persons ought ye to be in holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God…” The A.V. reading of this passage is difficult to the point of impossibility. How can one “hasten unto the coming of the day of God”, since it comes to the disciple, and not he to it? The perfectly good translation suggested by both the A.V. and R.V. margins is free from this difficulty: “hastening the coming of the day of God.”[88] How? By “your holy conversation and godliness”. The idea is exactly the same as Acts 3:19, 20. With this compare also:
4.	“Ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth” (Isaiah 62:6 R.V.). Why all this agonizing in prayer if it not going to affect one whit the time of the bringing in of God’s new heaven and earth? Why should Jesus require his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come,” if such prayers are of no force whatever to affect the coming of that kingdom, not even by five minutes? Have they gone studiously ignored in the counsels of heaven?
5.	“For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead”? (Romans 11:15). In other words (rather like a proportion sum in arithmetic) the cutting off of Israel has led to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles: likewise the consequence of their being received back to God’s favour (through repentance, the only way; hence Malachi 4:5!) will be life from the dead, i.e. the resurrection – and therefore, by implication, the Second Coming of Christ.
6.	The fruitless fig-tree in the vineyard was without doubt a figure of Israel unresponsive to God. “Lord, let it alone this year also (after three fruitless years), till I shall dig it about and dung it” (Luke 13:8). The words are a clear anticipation of the all-out effort, which Jesus made in the end of his ministry to bring Israel to a sense of its responsibilities. “And if it bear fruit, well: and, if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down”. The words envisage the distinct possibility that Israel might repent and thus make divine judgement unnecessary. Thus the long period of Israel’s persecution and scattering would have been eliminated. Compare Deuteronomy 28:1, 15.
7.	“Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? … It is not for you to know the times or the seasons … But ye shall receive power … and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:6-8). It can hardly be that Jesus is here evading the issue by a deft change of subject. His answer is relevant. How? As who should say: “It is not for you to know when the kingdom will come, but this I can say – it depends on your efforts in preaching.” Thus the same conclusion as before is indicated.
8.	“And John said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias” (John 1:23). But the context of these words from Isaiah 40 is: “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned … And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together … Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him…” Hence it follows that if Israel had made straight the way of the Lord (which they didn’t), the rest of this prophecy would also have found fulfilment then. And only when Israel do make straight the way of the Lord will these words be fulfilled.
9.	“But that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:31). Either these words mean that John’s baptizing was itself a means of manifesting Christ to Israel, or they re-inforce the conclusion already reached, i.e. that through repentance and baptism Israel would bring in the reign of their Messiah.
10.	Perhaps this is the proper place to draw attention to Mark 13:32. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Yet is seems reasonable to believe that if an understanding of the chronological framing of the ages can be gained from a study of Bible “times and seasons,” then even in the days of his flesh that knowledge would have been the Lord’s, so masterly was his insight into the Word. That he did not know must surely be taken to mean that from the human point of view the precise time still remained indeterminate.
11.	In harmony with this is the significant occurrence of the Greek particle in practically every New Testament passage which speaks of the time of the Lord’s return. This small and practically untranslatable particle always imports an element of contingency or doubt into any statement where it is included, “giving to a proposition or sentence a stamp of uncertainty, and mere possibility, and indicating a dependence on circumstances” (Edward Robinson – Lexicon).
	For instance, all the Synoptists include it in connection with the statement, “There be some of them which stand here which shall not taste of death till (, it may be) they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. “ So also every New Testament quotation of Psalm 110:1 “until (, ever) I make thy foes thy footstool”. Specially forceful is the following: “Ye shall not see my henceforth, till (, the time whenever that may be) ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matthew 23: 39).
	Other passages which by the use of the same word suggest that the time of the Lord’s return would be dependent upon some unspecified contingency are: Matthew 10:23 and 12:20; Luke 19:23; 1 Corinthians 4:5 and 11:26; James 5:7; Revelation 2:25.
12.	This principle of repentance as the necessary condition for the fulfilment of God’s purposes with Israel is repeated again and again in the Old Testament. The reader should consider in succession Leviticus 26:40-42 (with its pointed references to the Promises to the Fathers); 1 Kings 8:46-53; Daniel 9:4-19, especially v. 13; Nehemiah 1: 5-11; Malachi 4:5, 6; Isaiah 17:7, 8 and 40:3 and 59:20; Zephaniah 2:3; Romans 11: 15; Ezekiel 20:42-44; Psalm 81:13; Deuteronomy 30:1-3; Jeremiah 4:1, 2.

SUMMARY SO FAR.

It is time to recapitulate.

This study has submitted a fair amount of Bible evidence for believing:

(a)         that the Apostles and the early church had an inspired expectation of an early return of Christ;

(b)         that God has, at different times in His dealings with Israel, deferred the fulfilment of His promises (or threats) beyond the time originally indicated;

(c)         that the Second Coming of the Lord is repeatedly made contingent on the repentance of God’s people and their acceptance of the Gospel.

In the light of these findings, the conclusion seems to follow that the divine intention that Jesus should come again some time in the First Century suffered a drastic postponement because of the general rejection of the Gospel, especially by Israel.

THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED.

Suppose, then, that the Lord had come in A.D. 70. The time when “Jerusalem was trodden down of the Gentiles” would have been the (3½-year) period of the Roman War, A.D. 67-70, or, just possibly, an equivalent period following immediately on A.D. 70. Into this period would have been compressed the fulfilment of all the signs indicated in the prophecies in connection with the Lord’s return, and then Christ himself would have been manifest in glory.

The big and mysterious gaps[89] in the prophecies of Daniel and elsewhere (e.g. Matthew24: 29; Isaiah 61:2; Micah 3:12-4:1, 5:2-6; 7:10,11) now find immediate explanation. They are there because the original “programme” did not include the long long period, which has elapsed between the First Century, and the Twentieth. The view now being suggested reduces to much smaller proportions a number of other difficulties in Daniel:

	(a)	The time periods in Daniel and Revelation, whether completely understood or not arc by no means so serious a headache.
	(b)	The Fourth Beast of Daniel 7, which must be identified primarily as Rome, is aptly described as “devouring and breaking in pieces, and stamping the residue with its feet,” because this was the character of the Roman onslaught on the land of Israel, and will also be the character of the great power of the Last Days which ravages the Holy Land.
	(c)	Phrase after phrase in Daniel 9 now drops into place perfectly. The 70 weeks is to see not only the “end of sin-offerings” but also “the bringing of everlasting righteousness.” Daniel 9:26, 27, which Jesus applied to Roman invaders (compare Matthew 24:15 with Luke 21: 20), is now the right and proper description of the great enemy in the Last Days (Daniel 12:11), for they could have been one and the same. And in Daniel 9: 26,27 the confusion that seems to exist between the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and “the end” or the” consummation” is confusion no longer. The entire passage reads with easy lucidity.

Happiest result of all is the elimination of the problem of the many passages anticipating an early return of Christ. Jesus himself could foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and then proceed with the utmost literality: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . signs in sun, moon, and stars… the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven.” In his Revelation he could still say: “Behold, I come quickly,” and be stating what was then a literal truth. “The souls under the altar” could be bidden to have patience “a little while.” Laodicea could be warned out of its lukewarmness by a warning that was no make-believe: “I stand at the door and knock.” And so through the entire catena of New Testament Scriptures, each separate one of which when understood any other way can be a minor trial of faith to the disciple of the Lord.

Further, the double and even treble fulfilment of large parts of Revelation is now precisely what one would expect. Deferment of the Second Coming has involved in a like wholesale deferment, a great accumulation of detailed Bible prophecies. A.D. 70 and its horrors provided an only partial fulfilment. The greater reality is yet to be.

When not one but an impressive collection of Bible problems all find one and the same solution, there is ground not only for satisfaction but for confidence in the method and result. To the reader who has followed thus far with his prejudices on leash, this must be a factor of no mean consequence. To put it bluntly, the key turns out to be a master-key, fitting several locks and opening doors hitherto shut in the face of an enquirer or susceptible only to burglarious entry.

DIFFICULTIES.

But of course arguments are raised against this view. It is therefore proposed to list some of the obvious ones – possible snags that have been brought to the attention of the present writer in the course of many a discussion – and to offer such answers as are available, so that the reader may have the main pros and cons before him.

0bjection 1: Is there not flat contradiction between the undoubted fact that God knows the end from the beginning and this suggestion of a change in the divine scheme?

Answer: Yes, there is – so far as the human mind can judge. But is the human mind fit to judge such questions, with absolute confidence of no mistake? Let is be remembered that, unlike many questions of theology which force themselves upon the reader of the Bible, this problem involves a consideration of God’s attitude to His own world. Is it to be expected that one should be able to understand the workings of the divine mind in such questions? This point, unless carefully handled, will lead to the usual interminable and ultimately unintelligible rigmarole about pre-destination and foreknowledge.

It is certain that Scripture does speak of an unchanging God (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). That Scripture also presents many examples of God altering His purpose, His “breach of promise,” is also certain. To the eight examples of this already listed on pages 4 and 5, the following might be added:

9.	The principle itself is enunciated in Jeremiah 18:7-10.
10.	“I will consume this people, and will make of thee a great nation,” said God to Moses (Exodus 32:10); but He didn’t.
11.	“I will not go up in the midst of thee,” said God to Israel (Exodus 33:3); but He did.
12.	“My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest” (i.e. the Land: Deuteronomy 3:20), said God to Moses (Exodus 33:14). But Moses was sternly excluded in spite of strong crying and tears.
13.	Why should God agree to spare Sodom for the sake of ten righteous if there was no possibility of this happening (Genesis 18:32)?

The list is almost endless. Other examples for further study are:

14.	1 Samuel 13: 13, 14.
15.	2 Chronicles 34:28 and 35:23.
16.	Numbers 16:21, 24.
17.	1 Kings 9:3.
18.	1 Kings 11:36, 38.
19.	Genesis 19:20, 21.
20.	2 Kings 5:27 (contrast 8:4).
21.	Deuteronomy 28:68.
22.	Genesis 19:2, 22.
23.	Genesis 15:19.
24.	Deuteronomy 19:8.
25.	Deuteronomy 23:3.
26.	Deuteronomy 31:3 (contrast Judges 2:21)
27.	2 Samuel 12:14, 16.
28.	2 Kings 22:20.
29.	Isaiah 55:7-9.
30.	Jeremiah 35:15-17.
31.	Ezekiel 4:12, 15.
32.	Ezekiel 12:25 R.V.
33.	Daniel 2:21.
34.	Daniel 4:27.
35.	Amos 7:3, 17.
36.	Luke 24:28, 29.

So far as the present writer’s limited powers of reasoning take him, there is flat contradiction between examples of this kind and the idea of divine foreknowledge. That there should be difficulty in harmonizing these is surely to be expected, when one considers that, as a dog is to a man, so is man to God. The one who is poor and of a contrite spirit and who trembles at the

Word of God will accept both truths (even though he cannot reconcile them) simply because the Word of God says so. The day will come when what seems like contradiction will be seen to be harmony.

But there can be no question which of these two ideas should, according to ,he Word itself, have most emphasis. Undoubtedly the stress must go on the possibility of God “changing His mind.” It must be for the reader’s good that the Bible teaches him to think of God in this way. The whole of the Bible’s teaching about petitionary and intercessory prayer is based on this. And without this, or with undue emphasis on the other, much in prayer is bound to become a stilted meaningless form, a pathetic piece of faithless play-acting.

Objection 2: Hasn’t the entire divine programme been laid out in Bible prophecy? How then could there possibly be any drastic modification of the kind here suggested?

Answer: It is surely short-sighted to believe that God can bring about the fulfilment of His prophecies in only one way, e.g. the curse of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:5-7) was fulfilled, but repentance turned Levi’s curse to a blessing. After all, have not quite a number of prophecies in Scripture already been fulfilled more than once and in different ways?

Further, it is quite conceivable that even such well-known prophecies as Ezekiel 37, 38 could have found a fulfilment in the First Century on similar lines to those confidently expected in the present era, for it is to be remembered that already, long before A.D. 70, many Jewish communities were buried in far-off foreign “graves” and even then looked hopefully for restoration. And so with other “Last Day” prophecies also.

Objection 3: Does not Scripture speak of “a set time to favour Zion”? Has not God “appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness”?

Answer: True, but this “set time,” this “appointed day,” need not be a precise date in history. It would be a mistake to interpret these passages as meaning that God has, so to speak, put a ring round a certain date on His calendar. To illustrate: A father may say to his son: “When you come top in your class exams at school I’ll buy you a bicycle.” Here is a “set time,” here is an “appointed day.” But it is a day fixed by certain contingencies. Similarly, “God will send Jesus Christ” when “the fulness of the Gentiles is come in.” Hence also the possibility of “hastening the coming of the day of God” by one’s “holy conversation and godliness.”

Objection 4: Do not certain passages indicate that there must be a long lapse of time before the return of Christ? e.g. Matthew 25:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Answer: Such passages are pathetically few in number. What others can be cited besides the two mentioned here? And they are inconclusive.

“After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with then.” But isn’t forty years a long time for a lord to leave his servants without personal direction? Certainly long enough for any so disposed to begin to say: “My lord delayeth his coming”.

“That day (the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ) shall not come, except there come the falling away first.” It is argued that apostasy such as the Apostle envisaged would require the growth of centuries. But such is certainly not the case. It is a big mistake to think of the apostasy as coming to fruition centuries after Constantine. It was already fully fledged before the Apostles died. Compare Acts 20:29-31; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:18, 19; 2 John 7-10; 3 John 9,10; Jude 10-19; Revelation 2,3. A careful reading of the writings of the earliest “Fathers” confirms the impression given by these New Testament warnings.

The idea advanced in this study is hardly new, though the application of it may be. Well over a century ago Dr. Thomas wrote:

“Had the nation (of Israel) continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came, received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem, King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, p.301, 11th edition).

[88] Cp. the use of the same verb in Exodus 5:13 LXX.

[89] “The Last Days” ch. 3.

The angel of the Seventh Vial had been the heavenly medium for revealing to John the seven final Visions (17:1). He now repeated the scope and purpose of all that the Apocalypse was meant to do — “to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass.” This is by no means the only repetition, which the final section of the prophecy makes. A long series of allusions to chapter 1 and the letters to the churches comes in here:

	Revelation 22		Revelation 1, 2, 3
3.	The throne of God.	1:4	The throne of God.
6.	Faithful and true.	1:5	The faithful witness.
		3:14	The faithful and true witness.
6.	Sent his angel.	1:1	Sent and signified it by his angel.
7.	Behold, I come quickly.	1:7	He cometh with clouds.
7.	Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.	1:3	Blessed are they … that keep those things which are written therein.
8.	I John saw these things and heard them.	1:10, 12	I heard behind me a great voice … and I turned to see the voice that spake with me.
8.	I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel.	1:17	And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.
10.	The time is at hand	1:1	Things which must shortly come to pass.
		1:3	The time is at hand.
11.	My reward is with me, to give to every man.		To him that overcometh will I give … (7 times in ch. 2, 3).
12.	… according as his work shall be.	2:2	etc. I know thy works.
13.	I am Alpha and Omega.	1:8	I am Alpha and Omega.
14.	That they may have right to the life.	2:7	Will I give to eat of the tree of tree of life.
16.	To testify these things in the unto the seven churches.	1:11	Write it in a book, and send it churches.
16.	I am the bright and morning star.	2:28	And I will give him the morning star.
19.	God shall take away his part out of the book of life.	3:5	Blot his name out of the book of life.
20.	He that testifieth these things.	1:5	The faithful witness.
21.	The grace of our Lord Jesus	1:4	Grace to you, and peace, Christ. from …

There is also here a repetition of the apostle’s attempt to offer worship to the revealing angel, with the same reproach as on the earlier occasion (19:10) — “you and I, John, along with all the prophets and all the faithful, are servants together of the same Lord; offer your worship to God.” It is a warning against the adulation of those who bring help in the understanding of Revelation, whether angels or men.

A SPECIAL BLESSING

An important detail in the double repetition from chapter 1 is the blessing on him “that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book” (22:7); “blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life” (22:14). The change in pronouns is significant here. Is the first of these blessings intended for John himself as the recipient of Revelation? It is followed immediately by the words: “And I John saw these things, and heard them”. And the second blessing reads somewhat strangely, inasmuch as there is in Revelation little emphasis on “keeping commandments” but rather on “patience,” “faith,” and “overcoming” The reading given by many manuscripts here is: “Blessed are they that wash their robes”. Since this has its obvious counterpart in chapter 1 — “washed us from our sins in his own blood” (1:5) — it may safely be presumed to be the correct reading. The two passages are beautifully complementary. Robes washed in the blood of the Lamb, that is, made white at baptism through the merits of his sacrifice, need a further cleansing of a different kind in the “pure river of water of life proceeding from the throne of the Lamb” (22:1) before a man may enter in through the gates into the city.

THE INFAMOUS EXCLUDED

In sharp contrast to these who are granted “the right to the tree of life” the catalogue of evil workers, who are “without”, is repeated (21:8; 22:15). This time it includes, first on the list, “dogs,” along with “whoremongers.” There is allusion here to a blunt interdiction in Deuteronomy 23:18: “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog (that is, a sodomite) into the house of the Lord thy God.” In the days of John there was a sordid background to words such as these, for all pagan temples had associations of just this sort. It was an accepted way of life from which the Christian must sever himself altogether. And in the Twentieth Century, devoted increasingly to a religion of sex, the lesson needs to be learned afresh. It is not unlikely, also, that the idea behind this Deuteronomy commandment was taken over in the early church for a different application: “Beware of dogs,” wrote Paul, “beware of evil workers, beware of the concision”. This word “concision” carries with it (both in Greek and in the English translation) a deliberate play on the word “circumcision “ But it means also”those who cut in pieces”. The reference is to schismatics who were already introducing fragmentation into the church with their separatist movements. It is not inappropriate that in the list of those who are excluded from the holy city should be those who would exclude their brethren from the fellowship of the faithful.

“ADDING TO” AND “TAKING FROM”

Again, also in this list of the infamous comes “whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”. The serpent is now to be excluded from Paradise forever. “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar,” warns the Book of Proverbs (30:6). It is this kind of lie which Revelation now specially denounces: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (22:18). The same warning comes no less than three times in the Book of Deuteronomy (4:2; 12:32; 24:19-21). Pentecostals and others who make glib claims to Holy Spirit guidance are among those who need pointed reminder concerning these Scriptures. But perhaps it is not necessary to look so far afield for examples. What about those who have been known to add to Revelation 20 the assumption that at the end of the Millenium Christ and his immortal saints will withdraw their presence and their power to leave the way clear for a massive Gog-Magog rebellion? Such “exposition by invention” is met with from time to time.

There is also a curse on the man who “takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy” (22:19). The most obvious sin of this kind is the denial of the inspiration of the Apocalypse (for it is this particular book of the Scripture to which reference is made, primarily), but what stands true regarding Revelation is surely valid also concerning the rest of the Oracles of God.

Is it possible, however, that even for those who have a complete conviction of the divine origin of the Apocalypse there may exist the very real danger, which these words express? Religious authorities in the time of Jesus refused to see in the Book of Jonah anything more than a story about Jonah, and they paid for their refusal with an ignorance, which became incurable. This, because they took away from the prophecy. Then how comparable may be the attitude of the interpreter of Revelation who limits the meaning of this complex prophecy to just what he himself can discern in it, steadily rejecting the idea that the greatest of all Biblical prophecies may be designed for more than one fulfilment?

“I COME QUICKLY”

Solemn though these warnings may be, they hardly compare in weight with the frequently repeated reminder in this conclusion that the Lord’s personal return as Judge of all is very near: “Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book”. There is a tone of urgency about these words, and an apparent insistence on the imminence of fulfilment. But nearly two thousand years have elapsed, and still disciples quote the words to each other with varying degrees of confidence: “Behold, I come quickly.”

“EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS”

Here is a problem, which has been almost studiously ignored by commentators of all shades of conviction, perhaps because it presents more difficulty than almost any other in the New Testament. The Appendix following this Chapter attempts a solution. There it will be suggested, with copious Bible evidence in support that the ripening of God’s purpose depends on the fervent prayers of Gentile saints and on the repentance of an unbelieving Israel. Today with all their power, the Spirit and the bride should be pleading with Christ: “Come”. And those who know the water of life, and yet hesitate to drink, should recognize their own wonderful opportunity and the responsibility which rests on them also to “hasten the coming of the Day of God” by their own “holy way of life and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11, 12).

John and the angel, representing the Spirit and the bride, offered their fervent prayers (22:17). Let readers of Revelation also continue to add theirs, and this with all urgency. The only possible response to “Surely, I come quickly” is an “Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus”, the words being not merely the expression of a pious or maybe selfish wish, but the intense plea of those who desire more than anything else to see God vindicated in His own world which at present is determined to get along without Him.

As already mentioned, when John saw the new heavens and earth, all he actually saw was “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven” (21: 1, 2). This was now made known to him in greater de

tail. Very evidently the picture set down in words in Revelation 21, 22 is symbolic. After the preceding twenty chapters the reader is prepared for this.

Here is a city, which has the same length and breadth and height (21: 16). Its encompassing wall is 72 yards thick – unless, that is, this measurement (v. 17) is intended to give the height of it, in which case the difficulty is just as great, only in a different dimension. The emphasis on foundations and gates made of all kinds of precious stones (v. 19-21) points strongly to the same conclusion. “The city was pure gold, like unto clear glass” is a further description that refuses to yield a literal meaning.

EZEKIEL’S TEMPLE

Yet it is to be noted that there are traceable at least eight distinct allusions to the temple described in Ezekiel 40 48:

		Revelation	Ezekiel
	A great and high mountain.	21:10	40:2
	Measured by a man who is an angel.	21:16	40:3, 5
	It is foursquare.	21:16	42:15-20
	There are twelve gates three on each side, and each with a name of a tribe of Israel.	21:12	48:31-34
	A river of water of life	22:1	47:1
	has trees of life on its banks.	22:2	47:12
	The Glory of the Lord is there.	21:11, 23	43 :4; 48:35
	God dwells with men.	21:3	43 :7-9

The reconciliation of a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 with the obvious symbolism of the last chapters of Revelation is too difficult an exercise in Bible interpretation to be attempted here.

There are also certain important differences from Ezekiel. The dimensions of the city are not the same. Five hundred reeds (Ezekiel 42:20) or twenty-five thousand reeds (48: 8, etc.), whichever measurement is chosen, is hardly the same as twelve thousand furlongs (21: 16). Nor is there any suggestion in Ezekiel that the length and breadth and height are equal.

There are also certain designed resemblances and contrasts with the tabernacle in the wilderness. As ancient Jerusalem became, so to speak, the spiritual descendant of the tabernacle, so this holy city is the glorification of the heavenly sanctuary that has been repeatedly described or alluded to in Revelation (e.g. chapters 4, 5, 7, 15). These details will be brought out as the study proceeds.

BABYLON SURPASSED

Oddly enough, there are also certain associations with Babylon, the city of judgement. This city of God is a hundred times larger in its dimensions than the hundred and twenty furlongs each way which ancient Babylon boasted. As Babylon had the Euphrates running through the middle of it[84] and the temple of Bel at its centre, so this city has a river of water of life, and the very presence of God within it. Babylon had its famous hanging gardens, but the new Jerusalem is the Paradise of God, luxuriant with trees on either side of the river. Men talked of three chariots driving abreast on top of the walls of Babylon, but the measure of these walls (height or width) is given at seventy yards or more -” according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel,” for in this city men have become “equal to the angels… being the children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36).

The problem of a symbolic city in which “the length and the breadth and the height are equal” (21:16) is resolved by reference to the tabernacle. The Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God among His People, was a perfect cube. Hence: “I saw no sanctuary therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the sanctuary of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb” (21:22, 23). The Holy of Holies was without natural or artificial illumination. It was lit, only on the Day of Atonement, by the radiance of the Glory of God, declaring the putting away of Sill through God’s acceptance of one sin-offering for the transgressions of all the people. So this uninterrupted fulness of Glory in the New Jerusalem indicates the putting away of sin for all time, through the blood of the Lamb. And “the lamp thereof is the Lamb,” suggests that he is the Glory of God in the holy city: “With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light” (Psalm 36:9).

UNREAL DIMENSIONS

The strange symbolic dimensions of this enormous cubical city are readily accounted for. There are twelve edges to a cube, and

which is the symbolic number of the redeemed, a number already reached in chapter 7 by allocating 12,000 to each of 12 tribes.

The symbolism of an extra dimension – height, besides length and breadth – was anticipated by Paul: “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with ali saints what is the breadth and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:17-19).

Every phrase here had reference to the sanctuary of God. The word “dwell” describes the saints as the dwelling-place of God. “Grounded” makes reference to both tabernacle and temple (e.g. 1 Kings 5:17). The three dimensions are the measures of the Holy of Holies-but “height” is also “depth”, because the purpose of the sanctuary is a two-way traffic: “angels of God ascending and descending upon” a mercy seat, which is “the Son of man.” The idea, already discussed in Chapter 41, that the life in Christ leads on to the addition of new spiritual faculties, both here and hereafter, is suggested by “the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge”. And “filled with all the fulness of God”, was what happened when “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:35), and the temple of Solomon (2 Chronicles 5:14), and the temple described by Ezekiel (43:4) and Isaiah (4:5, 6; 60:1), and especially the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21: 11, 22, 23).

THE SHEKINAH GLORY

The description of this Glory merits special attention: “the light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.” How inadequate this is as a word picture of the effulgent majesty of this radiance. In nuclear bombs men have succeeded in producing a flash of light far brighter than they dare look upon. And no wonder they dare not, for they do not know how closely they are approaching the physical expression of divine energy (Acts 26:13).

“Like a jasper stone, clear as crystal” probably refers to the diamond in its most excellent and impressive form (p. 40). This and gold (verse 18) both have associations with immortality and the divine nature (4:3). Appropriately, then, the jasper is the last stone in the breastplate of the high priest (Exodus 28: 20), but the first of the foundations of the New Jerusalem (verse 19).

A WALL OF DIAMOND

“And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass” (verse 18). The words are puzzling. The tremendous emphasis in 1 Kings 6:20-22, 30 on a gold finish to everything in the sanctuary built by Solomon suggests at least a like splendour here. But “like unto clear glass” perhaps implies solid gold, in contrast to overlaid gold (that is, gold leaf), and burnished so as to be as effective a mirror as the finest glass. Alternatively, this last phrase may be associated with the wall of jasper, and so describe the lustrous gold of the city as seen through the scintillating radiance of a diamond. Inevitably the imagination boggles at these concepts, as no doubt it is intended to do, for how can mortal man hope to fathom the transformed glories of new heavens and new earth?

Like the cities of the Anakim, walled unto heaven, which over-awed faithless Israelites when they explored the Land of Promise (Deuteronomy1: 28), this city wall is great and high (verse 12). The important difference is that this city is the Land of Promise, and the faithful are within its walls. Nothing can rob them of their inheritance.

THE GATES OF THE CITY

Besides a wall (of Salvation) great and high, there are twelve gates (of Praise; Isaiah 60:18). The tabernacle had its wall of holiness – a linen curtain of dazzling whiteness contrasting with the drab black and brown goats’ hair tents of sin-stricken Israelites. And it had a gate – but only one, which was specially associated with the camp of Levi. By contrast, here is a wall, which proclaims immortality, and gates, which give access from north, south, east and west (Luke 13:28, 29) for those who have taken on them the name of Israel and of one of its tribes.

At these gates are twelve angels. For what purpose? When Christ rose from the dead, “the angel of the Lord … rolled back the stone … and sat upon it” (Matthew 28:2). In this way the tomb which men had sealed shut was now divinely sealed open. So also in the holy city, these angels secure that “the gates shall not be shut at all by day (and there shall be no night there!)”; so the way of entry is permanently open. Then does this mean the possibility of exaltation to immortality at any time during the Millenium? It has always been assumed that there must be another resurrection and judgement at the end of the Kingdom of Christ. On what Biblical grounds?

The Book of Revelation has several references to seven angels (1: 20; 8:2; 15:7), but rather remarkably no other mention of twelve angels. When Israel were protected from Passover destruction in Egypt, twelve legions of angels were on duty that night, exercising a divine guard over the homes of twelve tribes of faithful Israelites – (Exodus 12: 23). At another Passover all of these stood ready to come to the aid of the Son of God: “Thinkest thou not that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). In the age to come, the captains of these heavenly hosts are still “ministering spirits … for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). Their work will not be ended with the resurrection.

Each of the gates is inscribed with the name of one of the sons of Jacob, who became Israel. These names are there because their owners repented of what they did to the Saviour whom God raised up for them. The story of the sons of Jacob in Egypt shews up very clearly the change of heart, which came over Joseph’s murderous brothers. They could have attempted to save themselves at Benjamin’s expense (Genesis 44:I2), but they did not. They had got rid of one favourite. Then why should they hesitate about another? Instead, their immediate return to Egypt when Joseph’s cup was discovered and the confession of their crime when they returned to Jacob (45: 26) both shew a wholesome and repentant spirit. For this their names are written for all time on the gates of pearl. And all who are prepared to shew a like humility have opportunity of a like privilege.

PRECIOUS STONES, SILVER SOCKETS

The foundations of the tabernacle were silver sockets (Exodus 26:25, 32 etc.), teaching all who came to the sanctuary that redemption was their great need and that here was the place where God provided it. There is no mention of the material of which these foundations were made, but it also may be safely presumed to be silver, “for other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). And even though the people of the New Jerusalem have no further need of redemption, they will never cease to be glad of every reminder of the fact. For this reason they will eat of the New Passover when it is “fulfilled in the kingdom of God” and they will “drink of the fruit of the vine in the Father’s kingdom” in lasting commemoration of salvation in Christ.

These twelve foundations of the city will each have as its own ornamentation one of the precious stones, which were formerly set in the breastplate of the high priest. But now the entire community of the redeemed will be openly declared to be holy and precious before God: “the city (of Jerusalem) shall be built to the Lord;” every part of it, including Gehenna and the place of the ashes, all that was formerly unclean will be made clean in the city of the New Covenant: “it shall be holy unto the Lord”, holy as the High Priest himself (Jeremiah 31: 38-40, Exodus 28:36-38). The Jeremiah passage (Septuagint) even adds mention of “precious stones”. In this city “there shall be upon the bells of the horses, Holy to the Lord; and the (earthenware) pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the (golden) bowls before the altar” (Zechariah 14:20).

Since the foundations of the wall are necessarily round the perimeter of the city it becomes almost a necessary inference that the same stones were set in the breastplate of the high priest round its perimeter and not in horizontal rows, as is more commonly represented. This, with the addition of the Divine Name in the central space, provides a small-scale replica of the camp of Israel with the tabernacle of witness at its centre.

On the foundations of the holy city are inscribed “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” These names are there not only because the Twelve now “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” but because this spiritual Israel has been gathered in through their efforts and their preaching, and especially because they followed Christ when he was the Lamb. Therefore are they with him now, essential constituents in his city of splendour.

If indeed he needed further reassurance, John saw his own name written on one of those foundation stones (on which one?). He saw also the name of the twelfth who took the place of Judas, and so knew the answer to an enigma which has puzzled many.

A TEMPLE COURT

“And the street of the city was pure gold transparent as glass” (verse 21). The word used here means “a broad place”. The normal New Testament meaning is “a street”, but since this city which is being described is also a temple, the reference must be to the court of the temple. What in the tabernacle was bare earth or sand, and in Solomon’s temple was probably paved stone, is now “clean gold”. All the equipment of the outer court of the tabernacle was of brass, but the prophet had already declared that “for brass I (the Lord thy Saviour) will bring gold” (Isaiah 60:17).

But how can gold be transparent? Again this emphasis on two seemingly incompatible characteristics (as in verse 18) must be a way of emphasizing that the gold is burnished so as to be like a mirror. And, since the city is illuminated by neither sun nor moon nor seven-branched candlestick but by the glory of God and of the Lamb, it follows that wherever the eye travels in this city-temple there is always the lustrous radiance of the Shekinah Glory, either seen directly or perfectly reflected from gold made “clean” – this gold is “not like unto corruptible things as silver and gold”, as men refine them.

The same truth is enunciated again in yet more explicit fashion: “And there shall in no wise enter into it anything ‘common’ (that is, unsanctified) nor any person who practises abomination or falsehood” (verse 27). There were times in Israel’s history (e.g. Ezekiel 8:10, 11) when the temple was profaned with loathsome pagan practices. But that can never happen to this temple. Nor will there be any place for the lie of the serpent, for he belongs in a lake, which burns with fire and brimstone (verse 8).

Only those enter this temple whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. In the time of Ezra certain were excluded from the priesthood because their title to office could not be produced. So their claim was set-aside “till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim” to give a divine decision (Ezra 2:63). An ominous warning had been issued to the unfaithful in Sardis that they might find their names blotted out of the book of life by the One who had prevailed to take the book out of the hand of “Him who sits upon the throne”. It was a grim reminder of the awesome possibility that a man may have his name written in the book of life, and yet may also have it expunged. But not so now, as the Greek phrase beautifully emphasizes. This blessing of citizenship in the New Jerusalem is for those whose names “stand written” in the Lamb’s book of life: “thy people shall be all righteous.”

THE GLORY AND HONOUR OF THE GENTILES

Into this city-temple “they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations” (verse 26). Every sanctuary of God described in the Bible was constructed out of Gentile resources. In the wilderness the tabernacle was equipped out of the plunder brought from Egypt. The splendour of Solomon’s temple came from David’s military successes against all the nations round about, and Gentile craftsmen fashioned it. The temple built after the captivity in Babylon was equipped by the people of Babylon and the Persian king (Ezra 1:4, 6; 6:4, 8). The temple in the time of Jesus was built by Herod the Great, an Edomite. And in the age to come, the same principle will hold, both materially and spiritually: “The kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it’’.[85]

PARADISE RESTORED

There are certain outstanding resemblances between this Paradise Restored and the original Eden. There is a river of water of life, and there are trees of life (not just one tree of life). And “there shall be no more curse”, nor any serpent that “maketh a lie.” The removal of the curse of mortality (Genesis 3:17-19) refers specifically to the redeemed in the Millenium, for “the leaves (of the trees of life) are for the healing of the nations” (22:2). But the curse of “thorns and thistles” will be gone, in this wondrous epoch when “the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose” (Isaiah 35:1).

Is the reference to the trees of life to be taken literally? This is the Book of Revelation! And in Isaiah’s prophecy of “the acceptable day of the Lord,” a prophecy about the Year of Jubilee, the redeemed are “called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified … For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all nations” (61:2, 3, 11). The fruits of the Spirit, the gracious influence of the saints with Christ, will be a steady healing influence in the lives of the nations.

And the beautiful symbolism of Ezekiel 47 describes the stream of cleansing truth[86] which pours forth from the altar, the throne of God,[87] as an ever widening, ever deepening stream. Yet there are those who believe that this divine stream suddenly dries up as Christ’s reign draws to its close! But the Hebrew word for “river” (47:5) altogether prohibits such an idea.

THE GLORY OF THE LORD

As is right and fitting, this gracious vision of God’s wonderful world of tomorrow ends with a further picture of the greatest blessing the immortal saints can know: “the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him (Gk: as priests in a sanctuary): and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads”. Every phrase here is appropriate to a High Priest ministering in the Holy of Holies. Yet this is not a description of the High Priest ministering in the Holy of Holies, but of others who are now exalted to share his high honour. God is enthroned above the cherubim and the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat. Before Him is not one High Priest but many who are now exalted to share the highest privilege of all. In the Mosaic order the high priest must be always wrapped in a dense cloud of incense when entering the Holy of Holies, “that he die not” (Leviticus 16:12, 13). But these with open face – and not in a mirror – behold the glory of the Lord, because they have themselves been changed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18). Moses, pleading for reassurance by the sight of God’s face, was hidden in the cleft of a rock and permitted to see His back, the departing glory of the Law. But these minister unafraid, seeing the very face of God and revelling in a fulness of divine fellowship. What formerly was the unique privilege of the High Priest, to wear the resplendent name of God on his forehead – “Holy to the Lord” (Exodus 28:36) – is now the royal priestly honour of them all.

“There shall be no night there” in this Holy of Holies. In the tabernacle and temple it was not so. Except when there came a dim glow from red-hot coals in the high priest’s censer and except for the brief moments on the Day of Atonement when the Shekinah Glory of God shone forth, the Holy of Holies was normally in complete darkness. It had no light of the sun, nor of the seven-branched candlestick. But in this wondrous city-temple the effulgent Glory of God will be ever present, and His immortal saints, neither abashed nor ashamed, will glory in their eternal redemption and blessedness.

[84] A Euphrates which dried up! 16:12.

[85] ‘Then why no single allusion to Gentiles or Gentile resources in Ezekiel 40-48?

[86] Septuagint Version: “waters of remission,” i.e. forgiveness.

[87] The idea of the mercy seat equates these two details, which would otherwise be contradictory; Ezekiel 47:1; Revelation 22:1.

It is by no means certain that the vision of One on a great white throne, “before whose face the earth and the heaven fled away”, is to be read in association with the description of judgement which follows. It may belong to the vision of final retribution on the Gog-Magog rebels. There would be certain appositeness about this view, and such a reading would also mean that the great rebellion is assigned separately to one of the last Seven Visions and is not to be regarded as a contrasting appendage to the Vision of the thrones of the redeemed.

It is, however, more usual to regard the great white throne as the Lord’s throne of judgement (compare Solomon’s ivory throne: 1 Kings 10:18) at the time when “the books are opened: and another book … which is the book of life” (20: 11, 12).

WHEN? – AFTER THE MILLENIUM?

But what is the time referred to in this vision? A very popular interpretation makes this a judgement, which is to take place at the end of the Millenium – a judgement of those who have lived during the Kingdom age. This is part of a common assumption that this section of Revelation (20:12-22:5) has reference to the time beyond the Millenium. Such a point of view is hardly justified, even though three separate arguments can be presented in support of it. These are worth examining:

	(a)	Ch. 20:5: “This is the first resurrection” seems to imply, as plainly as can be, a second resurrection, which must be the one described in verses 12, 13: “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God… and the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them”. Then, since the first resurrection is certainly at the return of the Lord, when else can the second resurrection be but at the end of his millenial reign? In effect this argument has been anticipated and answered by the suggestion in Chapter 39 that the first resurrection concerned certain of the more privileged and blessed of the servants of the Lord. The phraseology of 20:4 seems to point to this. In that case, the second resurrection will be the raising and judgement of the main body of believers, who were not already raised.
	(b)	The phraseology of 21:4 seems to be decisive: “no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither … any more pain”. Taken by themselves the words would seem to be so comprehensive as to require reference to a time when these evils have been completely and finally abolished. But the context shews that this is actually a description of the experience of the glorified saints in the Millenium: “a bride adorned for her husband … God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes” (v. 2, 4). The words just quoted are cited from Isaiah 25: 8, a passage to which no one would dream of giving a post-millenial application.
	(c)	20:14: “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” Here both argument and answer are similar to what has just been written. Do these words require reference to the final abolition of death, or is their scope more limited? Again, read in its context, this passage is seen to refer to the blessing of those accepted before the great white throne. Verses 12, 13 picture the judgement itself. Then verse 14 describes the glorification of the worthy – for them “death and hell are cast into the lake of fire”. Verse 15 then tells the dire fate of those who are rejected: “Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire”. The shape of the passage seems to require this interpretation.

CHRIST’S KINGDOM – NOT AFTERWARDS

Over against these arguments, which are anything but insuperable, should be set the mass of details which either demand or strongly suggest a reference of all this concluding section of Revelation to the time of Christ’s Kingdom and not to the aion, beyond it.

	1.	The earlier Visions in this set of seven certainly concern events at the beginning of the Millenium. It would be strange if this series is so broken up that a gap of a thousand years is to be read between the fulfilment of some and of the rest.
	2.	20:11: “I saw … him that sat on the throne, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away.” The heaven and earth, which flee away, must be the old human order (compare Revelation 6:14). Is there much point in such a description if this judgement takes place a thousand years after the earth and heaven fled away?
	3.	“…and there was no place found for them” is a phrase quarried out of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2:35). Again the words suggest the work of Messiah in destroying the kingdoms of men. There is little relevance to the end of Messiah’s kingdom.
	4.	21:1: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth.” Isaiah 65:17and 2 Peter 3:13 are equally emphatic that this is the setting up of the kingdom of Christ.
	5.	The allusions in ch. 21: 2, 9 to “the bride, the Lamb’s wife” are difficult to harmonize with a time when all are redeemed. It is impossible to believe that the Bride waits a thousand years for union with her Lord. This new Jerusalem is “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”. The symbolism requires reference to “the marriage supper of the Lamb” at the time of his coming. The context of Revelation 19:7-9 puts this conclusion beyond argument.
	6.	20:12: “and the books were opened: and another book … which is the book of life.” These are unmistakable allusions to Daniel 7:10 and 12:1. Would anyone argue for an application of these passages to the end of the Millenium?
	7.	21:3: “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.” This is a very slightly modified quotation of Ezekiel 37:26b, 27, the time of reference of which is again unmistakable.
	8.	The description of the New Jerusalem includes this: “the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour unto it … they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it” (21: 24, 26). Will there be “nations” and “kings of the earth” when Christ’s reign has been concluded?
	9.	The same passage has a long series of undeniable allusions to Isaiah 60: “The city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it … And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there” – these are two examples but the whole of ch. 21 :22-27 should be studied. Again, the question has an easy answer: What epoch does Isaiah’s prophecy describe? Then what does Revelation 21: 22-27 refer to?
	10.	A similar argument can be based on Isaiah 65. Without direct quotation, no less than eight points of contact can be traced between the second half of that chapter and the first eight verses of Revelation 21. So it is reasonable to assume that the two Scriptures are about the same thing. What is Isaiah 65 about?
	11.	Ch. 22:2: “And the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” So at the time spoken of there will be nations to be healed!

An accumulation of evidence such as this (and the list is not exhaustive) allows of only one conclusion – which the whole of this final section of Revelation refers to the kingdom of Christ and not to the time beyond that. Indeed it seems probable that the only place where the Word of Prophecy peers into the future beyond the reign of Christ is 1 Corinthians 15:28: “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

BODILY RESURRECTION ASSURED

“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God.” There can be no doubt that the one on the throne is Christ. In a score of places the New Testament witnesses to the fact that “the Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son”. Of course, this passage is not Trinitarian, but is simply another example of the familiar Bible idiom, which speaks of any who acts on God’s behalf – be he man or angel or Messiah – as bearing the name of God.[81]

The description of those raised from the dead is noteworthy. Not only did “death and hell deliver up the dead which were in them”, but also “the sea gave up the dead which were in it.” This is surely the Holy Spirit’s reassurance to believers that God’s resurrection power can extend even to those whose bodies have not been tidily interred in one place but whose remains may have been scattered to all parts of the ocean or otherwise dissipated to different parts of the world. Drowned at sea, burnt at the stake, or vapourized by a hydrogen bomb, the disciple of the Lord has the same confident expectation of bodily resurrection as any other.

SMALL AND GREAT

All appear before their Judge, both small and great. The order of words here is to be noted. The great promise of the New Covenant was: “They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them” (Jeremiah 31:34). But it is the least who learn first! And it is the least who have priority when they “stand before God!” Thus Scripture teaches the greatness of a humble spirit.

The opening of “the books” and of “the book of life” is not to be pressed literally. Nor should it be inferred from this vivid figure of speech that each individual would separately be called upon to answer for each separate deed, good or bad, which the record of his chequered life preserves. In his discourse on the Last Judgement Jesus spoke of “separating them one from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.” Again a figure of speech, but the evident meaning is that just as a shepherd knows immediately, without even a moment’s consideration, whether the animal before him is a sheep or a goat, so also the Good Shepherd will distinguish at once, without inspection or inquisition, between the true and the counterfeit.

The phrase “small and great” is taken from Psalm 115:13: “He will bless them that fear the Lord, both small and great.” This is not an accidental allusion, for the suitability of the context to the events of Revelation 20 is immediately evident: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men (new heavens and a new earth!). The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence (this verse interprets: ‘Whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire’). But he will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore (in the tabernacle of God when He dwells with men)”.

ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS

Before the great white throne there is double emphasis on judgement “according to their works”. This reads strangely in view of the continual New Testament emphasis on justification by faith. Gospels and epistles never cease their exposure of the folly of the man who thinks he can work his own passage to eternal life: “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith” (1 John 5: 4). Yet just as explicit is the doctrine that a man is answerable for what he does: “We must all appear (be made manifest) before the judgement seat of Christ; that every one may receive in the body according to that he hath done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5: 10). And there is always the vigorous practical common-sense of the apostle James: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20).

Several Scriptures build a bridge between these extremes, outstandingly John 6:29: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” Again: “Whatsoever we ask we receive of him because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment” (1 John 3:22, 23). This, then, is the saving work. But why did Jesus call it work? The answer is because faith in him inevitably expresses itself in things done to the glory of Christ. This is why James challenges so bluntly: “Shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18).

Essentially the same synthesis is taught in Jeremiah: “I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings” (17:10). Here at first is emphasis on what a man thinks and is inwardly – in a word, on his faith. But then, immediately, comes the test of his works. Not that any man’s works can be adequate to acquit him before the Lord of all!: “If Abraham were justified before God, he hath whereof to glory … but not before God!” – not even Abraham. So Jeremiah hints at this in the words: “according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings”. No man can get there in his own strength, but God reckons his faith as righteousness if his “ways” are right, that is, if he is facing the right way. So also the Psalmist: “Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work” (62:12). Here is a paradox, truly. If God did render strictly according to what a man does, then we are all damned before a great white throne so white as to blind with its whiteness all who stand before it. But to this Judge belongeth mercy – mercy to those who have no faith in themselves but who do have a saving faith to know that what their own achievement lacks is abundantly made up by what the Judge himself has already done for them.

[81] Two examples of each:

a. Exodus 21:6, Psalm 82:1, 6.

b. Genesis 18:13, Hosea 12 3, 5.

c. Isaiah 40:3, 9, Hebrews 1:8.

There is something grotesquely familiar about the main events in this next vision. The dragon is brought to naught and buried in the abyss, where he is chained and sealed. Nevertheless, after a time he comes forth again and manifests himself to his disciples who are as the sand of the sea for multitude! But there are, happily, significant differences – it is not his disciples who are seen enthroned and blessed, neither does he ascend up to heaven; instead, he is cast into a Gehenna of fire.

In Revelation 12 the prototype of this dragon is fairly evidently the opposition of pagan Rome to the gospel (the Apocalypse was itself revealed at a time when Rome was persecuting the Truth of Christ). In the Last Days the counterpart to this great antagonist is probably scientific rationalism, which dominates human thought and activity today as much as the power of Rome ever did. It is the pagan religion of the Twentieth Century, making unlimited claims, working all kinds of signs and lying wonders, accepted in blind faith by millions, who now begin to rejoice in its promises of pie in the sky when this world is dead.

This wretched philosophy will receive a set-back at the coming of the Lord, which may at first seem like its final annihilation. The return from heaven of one whose name is called “The Word of God” will be the conclusive answer to the derisive question which the Serpent has put so confidently ever since Eden: “Yea, hath God said?” The fact of the existence of an Almighty God who has been ceaselessly active through all human history will be vindicated by the dramatic events in which His Son is manifest to the world. Satan’s bigoted anti-God activities will be chained, and those who now set their seal to the fact that God is true (John 3:33) will rejoice in the restraint put upon God-dishonouring thought and activity.

A LITERAL THOUSAND YEARS?

The heavenly kingdom, which now takes over the realm of the Serpent, is called in Revelation, The Thousand Years. This phrase has been almost universally read with a dogmatic literalism which is somewhat surprising in a community which has just as dogmatically insisted that the Book of Revelation is given in a multiplicity of signs and symbols requiring to be given a proper Biblical interpretation. Occasionally the question has been heard: “If prophetic periods in the Bible have to be interpreted on the basis of a day representing a year, why is it that the Thousand Years is given such a literal meaning?” But no answer to this inconsistency is ever supplied. Perhaps the idea of a Messianic reign of 360,000 years is deemed to be self-confuting.

More positively, the argument from the symbolism of the Genesis week of Creation is considered adequate support: Six thousand years of the rule of man, to be followed by a thousand years of rule by God’s Messiah. Quite apart from the fact that the most conservative archeologists are convinced that Adam was created more than six thousand years ago, there is something a trifle unsatisfactory about this analogy with Genesis 1. Is not the correspondence between the two ideas somewhat thin?

SEVEN DIVINE EPOCHS

A more probable and more satisfying development of this idea of a week of Creation emphasizes the Covenants of God rather than a rigid chronological time-table. To the Almighty people are more important than calendars. Certainly it is remarkable that God’s Covenants of Promise mark off human history into six epochs:

1. Adam to Noah.

2. Noah to Abraham.

3. Abraham to Moses.

4. Moses to David.

5. David to Jesus.

6. Jesus to Christ (the Second Coming).

The Kingdom now comes in as the appropriate climax of the sequence.

7. Christ to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28).

The symbolism of a Thousand Years now takes on a special appropriateness. The Revelation is very largely expressed in terms of the symbolism of the sanctuary. All the visions introducing the seven-fold sections and much else besides have this basis. In harmony with this the thousand suggests a link with 10 x 10 x 10 cubits, the dimensions of the Holy of Holies, which are again alluded to in the description of the new Jerusalem: “The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal” (21:16).

Considerations such as these suggest that the “Millenium” of Revelation 20 is an apocalyptic phrase for the Kingdom, rather than a hard-and-fast chronological period[78] of precisely one thousand years. At first it will be a Holy Kingdom in a world not fully consecrated.

Another detail suggesting the same conclusion is the expression: “they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years”. It is understandable that “they lived” should be a Greek aorist, for this phrase indicates the instantaneous gift of immortality. But the verb “reigned” also is in aorist tense where the continuous form of the verb would surely be expected if emphasis on the long duration of the Millenium was intended. Here the meaning appears to be: “they were made immortal, and became kings to reign in the kingdom.”

REBELLION – WHEN ?

For the sake of continuity, it is desirable to resume this exposition with a consideration here of the ultimate fate of the Dragon and his allies (20:7-10). The section that follows is reprinted from Chapter 13 of “The Last Days” (by this writer)

At the end of the millenial reign of Christ there will be a mighty rebellion against his authority. Such a conclusion seems to be perfectly clear and obvious from either a casual or a careful reading of Revelation 20. And for that reason in the minds of many it has taken on something of the character of a “First Principle” of the Faith.

Nevertheless there are big difficulties about such a conception. For instance:

	(a)	The prophecies of lasting peace in the kingdom of Christ are quite explicit: “they shall learn war no more”.
	(b)	Also, there is to be lasting godliness: “At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart” (Jeremiah 3: 17). “Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders” (Isaiah 60:18). “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end” (Isaiah 9:7).
	(c)	Rebellion against immortals is so palpably silly. By comparison modern nuclear armament, which every Bible reader can see to be a lunatic policy, has calm reason on its side. For, armed with the big bombs, there is always a thin chance that you will devastate the other half of the world before it does the same to you. But for nations, who have had a thousand years’ experience of divine power and immortality, to calculate that their puny strength can win against God presupposes a mental deterioration to kindergarten level during the millenium.
	(d)	The practical problem insists on obtruding itself – where will these rebel nations get their weapons from? Swords will have all been turned into ploughshares.
	(e)	“He must reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15: 25). The words imply a steady progress towards complete godliness. The idea of a great boil-up of rebellion at the end is surely most difficult to reconcile with this.
	(f)	A massive rebellion at the end of a thousand years would stamp the reign of Christ as a failure. To think that the end of all his efforts in teaching, guidance, personal influence and benign rule (to say nothing of the immortal aid of men like Moses and Paul) is to be “We will not have this man to reign over us” – this is just incredible to any who settle down to consider it seriously. Jesus accomplished his work as Prophet, Sacrifice and High Priest perfectly. Can anyone be happy that his work as king is to end in failure? – for can a long, long reign which ends in turbulent rebellion be reckoned as a success?
	(g)	A rebellion such as is described in Revelation 20 does not arise in five minutes. Even a triviality like the Suez episode in 1957 called for weeks of detailed organization, which could not be kept secret from the rest of the world. Nevertheless one is asked to believe that Christ and his immortals will know nothing at all of this mighty Gog-Magog uprising until it bursts upon the world. The only alternative seems to be that, knowing all that is being secretly concocted, they will pretend to ignore it, so that the rebels may be lured to their own destruction. Would any reader be happy about the morality of such a proceeding?
	(h)	It is sometimes postulated that if the visible authority of Christ were to be withdrawn for a time, then – human nature being what it is – rebellion would be almost certain to ensue within a short while. But does Scripture speak of any such withdrawal of the Messiah’s authority? This seems to have been invented specially to cope with a big difficulty. On the other hand, Isaiah is explicit that “thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light” (60:20).
	(i)	The coincidence of the names Gog and Magog in Revelation 20 with that of the leader of the great confederacy of Ezekiel 38 does not seem to have been given its proper weight. With any other Bible problem such a coincidence would shout for the two to be equated with each other. Then may it not be said that any interpretation which does line up these two prophecies as having the same fulfilment has a much stronger claim to acceptance than one which severs all connection between them and instead inserts a gap of a thousand years? or is “Interpret Scripture by Scripture” to stand as a sound principle everywhere except in Revelation 20?
	(j)	Revelation 15 :I R.V. The Vials are described as “the seven plagues which are the last, for in them is finished the wrath of God.” The logical conclusion from these words is that the judgement of the Gog-Magog rebellion takes place before the outpouring of the Vials is concluded.
	(k)	Has the difficulty ever been properly faced that this amazing rising against all that is good and beneficent is spoken of in Scripture in one place only? Are Christadelphians to copy Mormons, “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and such, in their disreputable habit of confidently basing major beliefs on one passage of Scripture? Have we, the people of the Book, not yet learned the elementary lesson of mistrust in our own powers of Bible interpretation? We believe what we believe about our “First Principles” not because of one text of Scripture but because of the massive over-all testimony of many passages. Shall we then go back on this thoroughly sound attitude here, and this, concerning verses in the Book of Revelation, of all places, the book about the interpretation of which there is less room for dogmatism than any other in the Bible?

A SERIOUS PROBLEM

To sum up so far, the position regarding the Gog-Magog rebellion of Revelation 20 is this:

On the one hand, the text is explicit that “when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations … Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city (Jerusalem).” Apparently nothing could be plainer.

Nevertheless, on the other hand, there are copious Scriptures (already quoted) and various associated problems and difficulties, which seem to rule out the possibility of such a rebellion.

Can it be, then, that Scripture contradicts itself? God forbid!

A CONTRADICTION HARMONIZED

The only alternative, therefore, is that a re-scrutiny of the evidence will reveal reconciliation between the two. A harmonization must be possible. No Bible student worth his salt should be content to affirm adherence to cither view without being prepared to give fair consideration to the other. Such a synthesis, the present writer believes, is possible by a re-interpretation of certain details in Revelation 20.

Familiarity with the phrases of the beloved King James Version often has the effect of hiding from students of Scripture the fact that quite a number of words in the original text have perfectly valid alternatives. “Exhortation” is also “consolation”; “hell” is “the grave”; “spirit” is “breath”; “tribe” in the Old Testament is also “rod”; “boy” is also “servant” (like the French “garçon”). The list is a long one.

In this Gog-Magog passage no less than three of these ambiguities occur. “Earth” may also be “the Land (of Israel)”; this double meaning is common in both Old and New Testaments. And “saints” may be “angels” or “Israel, the holy people”. Also – and most important of all – the word translated “expired,” “finished,” “fulfilled” (vv. 3, 5, 7) may also carry the sense of “accomplished,” “achieved,” thus giving this key phrase the meaning: “when Christ’s millenial kingdom has become fully established”.

OTHER EXAMPLES

This last point is so important that it is not to be accepted without substantial evidence. Here, then, are examples of the use of the same Greek word elsewhere in the New Testament or in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament:

	(a)	Luke 22:37: “This that is written must yet be accomplished in me.”
	(b)	Galatians 5:16: “Walk ye in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.” To read “finish” here is to make nonsense of the passage.
	(c)	James 2:8: “If ye fulfil the royal law … Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye shall do well.” Again, the substitution of “finish” makes the meaning ludicrous.
	(d)	Romans 2:27: “And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil (finish?) the law, judge thee who … dost transgress the law?”
	(e)	Ruth 3:18: “the man (Boaz) will not be in rest until he have finished (i.e. accomplished, achieved) the thing this day.”
	(f)	Isaiah 55:11: “My word … shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish (but not ‘finish’) that which I please.”
	(g)	Daniel 4:30: “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built” – here “achieved, fully established” are both appropriate; “finished” also is suitable in the sense of “finished building”, but certainly not in the sense of “ended”.

Coming back to Revelation 20, a possible meaning is now seen to be this: The power of Sin is restrained during the period (seven years? forty years?) of the establishment of the Kingdom. Then comes the great Gog-Magog rebellion. Here Revelation 20 is strictly parallel with Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us (cp. the “great chain” of Revelation 20:1) … Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (the beloved city – Revelation 20:9).”

OTHER SCRIPTURES

Other Psalms besides Psalm 2 suggest submission to Christ only until forces can be rallied to make effective resistance to this resented King of the Jews. “As soon as they hear of me, they shall obey, the strangers shall yield themselves unto me.” Note the margin: “shall yield feigned obedience” (Psalm 18:44, and so also Psalm 66:3 and 81:15).

A further suggestion may be advanced here in harmony with the foregoing. The only passage in the Bible with any sort of resemblance to the words of Revelation 20 about Satan being shut up in the abyss is to be found in Isaiah 24:22, 23. “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days, they shall be visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.”

This comes at the end of a vivid prophecy of divine judgement in the Last Days.

If the two passages do actually describe the same thing, then here is further evidence that the Satanic rebellion of Revelation 20 comes immediately after the beginning of the Millenium and not at its close.

Ezekiel 38 also can now be read as the precise equivalent of Revelation 20. In an earlier chapter (Chapter 37) Biblical reasons were advanced for applying the Gog-Magog invasion to a time after the enthronement of the Messiah. The details of Revelation 20:9 correspond exactly with those in Ezekiel: “And they went up on the breadth of the Land (Ezekiel 38:9) and compassed the camp of the saints about (‘my people of Israel dwelling safely’), and the beloved city; and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them” (precisely as in Ezekiel 38:22).

This easy harmonization with other prophetic Scriptures provides additional confirmation of the validity of the interpretation proposed. Also, the picture now presented is entirely according to what might be expected. When a war-shattered world has licked its wounds and begins to realize that the Land of Israel is the headquarters of a new Power which now proclaims the hated Jews as the head of the nations and not the tail, there will be no great lapse of time before the authority of this King of the Jews is challenged. Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20 tell of the fate of this last attempt, early in Christ’s reign, to proclaim “Glory to Man in the highest”.

[78] This is not to say that the reign of Christ will not last for precisely one thousand years. There may be a literal fulfilment also, but this should not be insisted on.

The harlot is variously described as sitting on many waters (17:1), on the Beast (v. 3), on seven mountains (v. 9), and as being in the wilderness (v. 3). These are all symbolic. The only item (the third) which one might be disposed to read literally is carefully picked out for interpretation: “and they are seven kings” represented by the seven heads of the Beast. “Sitting upon many waters” is probably to be taken as a Hebraism for “dwelling beside many waters” – as the original Babylon did, in a literal sense (Jeremiah 51:13; cp. Nahum 3:8, 2:8). These waters, so verse 15 interprets, represent many “peoples and multitudes, and nations, and tongues” with which the harlot is closely associated. The form of the Greek text suggests that these four terms be taken as two pairs with a distinction of reference.

BABYLON – FALSE RELIGION?

The “fornication” of the harlot and the kings of the earth is almost universally taken to mean the allurement of spiritual apostasy (though why specially with kings?). It is true that in Ezekiel and Hosea Israel’s apostasy is described as fornication, but (as already explained) this figure was inevitable because of the literal fornication and promiscuity, which was associated with the crude fertility cults Israel, took up. On the other hand the same vigorous language is used about Nineveh, the capital of the Assyrian empire (Nahum 3: 4), and also with reference to Tyre in a time of restoration to serve the Lord!: “she shall return to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world. And her merchandise and her hire shall be holiness to the Lord”!!! (Isaiah 23:15-18). A clear-cut example such as this demonstrates that the language of Revelation may be economic in its emphasis rather than religious. That such a slant should perhaps be given to the interpretation is supported by the long series of allusions to ancient Tyre and ancient Babylon, listed in Chapter 34. It is noteworthy that in all the anti-Babylon prophecies in the Old Testament there is only one allusion to its false religion,[65] and that is a detail which appears to have little relevance to papal perversions: “Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth” (Isaiah 46:1). Even the worship of the golden image (Daniel 3) was essentially an acknowledgement of Nebuchadnezzar as supreme lord of the empire. There is a corresponding lack of religious emphasis in Revelation 17, 18. In fact, the real picture of anti-Christ religion is in Revelation 13 – reverence given to the Beast. And accordingly many expositions apply the details there to the papacy. But this approach runs into serious trouble in ch. 17, where the Beast and his ten kings ravage Babylon, the mother of harlots. Papacy versus papacy? Dog does not eat dog!

ROME OR JERUSALEM?

What would seem to be a clear identification comes in the words: “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Here the present tense “reigneth” (literally: “hath a kingdom”) requires reference to some dominant city familiar to John’s readers. The obvious answer seems to be Rome. But then those interpreters enthusiastic about a papal reference of this prophecy run into difficulties. For Roman authority was not spiritual, but based on military might. Also, the word “earth” or “Land” is rather odd, for the usual word to describe Roman civilization is the Greek oikoumene.

In A.D. 66, the well-supported early date for the writing of Revelation, Jerusalem also was a city which “had a kingdom over the kings of the Land.” Indeed, not only was Jerusalem a city with special authority over the various tetrarchies adjoining Judaea, but also the temple had an amazing degree of authority over Jewish communities in all parts of the Roman Empire. The details of verse 15 present no problem here. The two phrases: “people-and multitudes,” and “nations-and-tongues” (as indicated by the Greek text) refer to the inhabitants of Palestine with close allegiance to Jerusalem, and the Jews of the dispersion (perhaps including also Gentile sympathizers).

Again, “the seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth”. Since everyone knows that Rome was built on seven hills, this is usually taken as the clearest possible indication that the harlot is to be equated with Rome. Yet a little reflection casts some doubt on this identification. Are the hills of Rome – the highest of them only 150 feet! – Such bold drastic geographical features as to warrant the description: “mountains”? Reference to a city like Jerusalem would be much more appropriate. “Mountains” is the only word to describe that city and its surroundings.

SEVEN KINGS

A more important consideration is that Revelation itself gives the seven mountains a symbolic reference: “and they are (i.e. represent) seven kings: five are fallen, one is (at the time when John wrote), and one is not yet come.” With reference to Rome these details are a serious headache. One explanation would refer these heads to the various forms of government tried by Rome throughout its history, but then one is left wondering what these had to do with the theme of Revelation, and why Rome should be identified in this peculiar way. Another explanation, with a better attempt at reality, refers to the sequence of emperors. But this runs into serious numerical difficulties. Those who adopt the late date of Revelation find that Domitian was the tenth (or perhaps twelfth) Caesar. The early date gives less trouble. Nero was the sixth in the sequence. But he was not the sixth out of seven, for the complete list of emperors is nearer seventy than seven.

If now attention can be coaxed away from Rome, to Jerusalem, in accordance with the remarkable details listed in Chapter 34, and in harmony with the general theme of the book, there is no problem. The seven mountains represent seven kings (i.e. kingdoms, as in Daniel 7:17). “Five are fallen” – Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece in turn all held dominion over Israel. “One is” – this is Rome at the time of the writing of the prophecy. “The other is not yet come” – the final despoiler of the Last Days. He continues only “a short space.”[66]

THE EIGHTH HEAD

If this seventh enemy be Russia, then who is the eighth, which the prophecy now speaks of? He is to be equated with the Beast himself: “The beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven.” This would appear to mean that he is like the preceding seven in character, being a hater and oppressor of God’s people. Yet in some essential respect he is not like them, or he would surely be included in the symbolism as an eighth head comparable with the rest. The seven are all world powers, supreme in the civilization of their time. This suggests perhaps an enemy of limited power, and yet supported by the resources of ten kings who “give their power and strength to the beast.”

A movement like in character to that of the Palestinians, supported by the ten Arab states, might answer to the description tolerably well, though at the time of writing there seems small likelihood of that lawless organization developing sufficient power and influence.

The easier identification with Russia has this difficulty, that ever since Russia’s pro-Arab policy was inaugurated, its “power and strength” has been given to “the ten kings” – and this is hardly what the prophecy says.

Some look to the European Common Market for a solution to this difficulty. But the prospect of the iron curtain being replaced by an entente cordiale is feasible only to the infatuated. Nor will it do to have the EEC suddenly obsessed with enthusiasm for the Catholic Church. “These shall hate the whore,” says the prophecy. And in all these guesses it should not be forgotten that Bible prophecy centres on Israel, not on European politics.

“ONE HOUR”

These ten kings “have received no kingdom as yet.” In other words, in John’s day they were not identifiable. Nor are they identifiable, so the prophecy implies, until the exciting events of the Last Days are already in train, for “they receive power as kings one hour with the beast.” To attempt to turn this “one-hour” into a significant time period is to manufacture difficulties.[67] The fairly obvious intention behind the expression is to emphasize that this build-up of hostility to “Babylon” is the divinely decreed counterpart to the hour of shame and suffering which Jesus suffered there. A glance at the concordance shews how impressively this expression is used over and over again, especially in John’s gospel, for the shame and tribulation of Christ. Its fourfold use about the downfall of Babylon adds one more to the long list of correspondences between Christ and anti-Christ.

At the time of writing it is easy enough to see how Arab hatred and resentment against Israel could bring ten Arab states together so that “they have one mind, and give their power and strength to the beast”. But, by contrast, there is a serious lack of reality about the interpretation so popular with many, which has all the nations of Europe suddenly consumed with eagerness to dedicate all their political, economic and military power to the service of the Pope.

THE ATTACK ON THE WOMAN

These ten kings are matched by the list of ten Arab powers given in Psalm 83:6-8. In that prophecy they reduce Israel to desperation and helplessness, so that – at last – there is frantic appeal to the God of the Fathers for help (v. 1 4, 13-18). The counterpart to this, in Revelation, could well be the attack on the harlot: “these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire”-the picture is vividly described in Revelation 18. These details are precisely what is written of God’s judgements on harlot Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s terrific prophecy against the faithlessness of Israel: “they shall strip thee of thy clothes … and leave thee naked and bare … and they shall burn thine houses with fire” (16:39, 41).

All this because of the common natural hatred that is in these enemies against the harlot in their midst. “These have one mind (or, purpose)” – but it is really God’s purpose: “God hath put in their heart to do his mind and to come to one mind (the most astonishing thing in the world, that the quarrelsome Arabs shall all agree!), and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled”. Thus the anti-Christ Beast becomes a king of kings – but only for a very short time.

WAR WITH THE LAMB

The final picture, although it is mentioned before the destruction of the harlot, is one of war by the Beast and ten kings against the Lamb. This clearly presupposes the Second Coming (described in ch. 14) and the deliverance of the wrecked city of Jerusalem from the hands of the enemy. Its people, battered and helpless, have turned to God in their desperation.[68] The widow of Israel, pleading for help to One who has seemed hitherto to be an unjust Judge, is now given vengeance on her adversaries. The cry: “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” has its immediate response in a heavenly rescue operation.

The war waged against the Lamb by the Beast and his confederates appears to be foreshadowed in Daniel 8. There, the early part of the prophecy (v. 9-12) has details about the little horn, which seem to require reference to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem – what might be called the primary fulfilment of Revelation 17. The later explanation of this vision given to Daniel by the angel would appear to require a fulfilment in the Last Days. The parallel with Revelation 17 is quite striking: “And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences (diplomatic dissimulation?), shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power (the kings giving power and strength to the Beast): and he shall destroy (or, corrupt) wonderfully and shall prosper, and practise, and destroy the mighty ones and the holy people (Israel; literally: the people of the saints) … he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes (the Messiah?), but he shall be broken without hand (i.e. by divine power; see Daniel 2:34).” This is what Revelation 17 says also, almost laconically: “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them”.

A MEANING FOR THE EARLY CHURCH

Ii is perhaps desirable to conclude this study, with its somewhat unconventional conclusions, with a reminder of the point, which has been made repeatedly in the earlier part of this exposition. The Book of Revelation shares the main characteristic of practically all other Bible prophecy about the Last Days. So the student needs to be constantly on the alert for signs of an earlier fulfilment. If the identification of “Babylon” with apostate Jerusalem is accepted as Biblically feasible, then it is not difficult to see how the early church would find in such vigorous visions as Revelation 17 prophecies which had a fulfilment in their own time. Then it was the Roman army? With copious support from various tributary kings in the Middle East,[69] which ravaged the adulterous city. And it was Rome, which, about the same time, made war with the Lamb in a cruel persecution of the Christian believers (compare the force of “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”). Indeed, Revelation 17 mentions the war against the Lamb before the destruction of the disloyal city! The Nero persecution came before the Jewish war.

RELEVANCE OF CERTATN DETATLS

It is this primary reference of the prophecy which helps to explain some of the details whicl1 otherwise would be quite baffling: “Rejoice over her ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her” – in A.D. 70 this apostrophe to apostles and Spirit-guided prophets was not mere rhetoric, for quite a number of them were still alive. “In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain in the Land” is language hardly appropriate to the Twentieth-Century Jerusalem, but it was bitterly relevant in the apostle John’s day. Similarly, the mention of “harpers, musicians, pipers, trumpeters” seems slightly pointless with regard to modern Jerusalem (or modern Rome either, for that matter), but its appropriateness to the temple, soon to be destroyed, is so manifest as to need no underlining. Another very clear example is this: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins”[70] (18:4). It is hard to give point to these words in any Twentieth-Century application, for there are no saints (to present knowledge) in modern Jerusalem,[71] and certainly not in the modern papacy. And if “Babylon” were taken to mean present corrupt civilization, it is well nigh impossible for the saints to make their escape. But the A.D. 70 force of these words is immediately obvious-they are the apocalyptic equivalent of: “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies … let them which be in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them which are in the midst of her (Jerusalem) depart out” (Luke 21:20, 21).

A point of a different character may occasion difficulty and perhaps needs to be tidied up. The prophecy goes on to say that “her smoke rose up for ever and ever” (19:3). How is this to be reconciled with the indisputable assurances of a Jerusalem that is to be glorified for all eternity?

The explanation is not difficult. It is the old wayward, rebellious, unspiritual Jerusalem, which was and is to be judged and which will vanish forever. Its place will be taken by a new Jerusalem which in every respect reflects God’s glory and manifests His praise. Time and again, “Babylon” is “that great city.” In its place there is to be “the holy city coming down from God out of heaven.”

ANOTHER IMPRESSIVE CONTRAST

[65] Plus three passing mentions of “graven images.”

[66] As in the Olivet prophecy and the visions of Daniel, the interim period between A.D. 70 and the Last Days is left as a gap without commentary (Chapter 27 – The Woman and The Dragon (ch. 12)).

[67] The equivalent phrase in Revelation 18:18 is: “In one day.”

[68] See “The Last Days” ch. 7 and “The Time of the End” ch. 2, 3, 5, 6.

[69] Many of them sent contingents to reinforce the army of Vespasian and Titus. The prospect of loot unlimited was, no doubt, something of an encouragement.

[70] A palpable Hebraism for “the punishment of her sins.”

[71] But apparently New Testament reading and “Jews for Jesus” are both making some headway in Israel.

		Christ	Anti-Christ
	1.	From heaven.	Out of the abyss.
	2.	With 7 horns and 7 eyes.	With 7 heads, 10 horns.
	3.	King of Kings and Lord of Lords.	Crowns on his horns.
	4.	His name is called The Word of God.	Full of names of blasphemy.
	5.	The Lamb associated with Four Cherubim.	Composite Beast: leopard, bear, lion, dragon.
	6.	The Father’s power committed to the Son.	The Dragon gave him authority.
	7.	“A Lamb as it had been slain.”	Wounded to death.
	8.	“I am he that liveth and was dead.”	Deadly wound healed.
	9.	“He opened his mouth and taught them saying…”	Opened his mouth in blasphemy.
	10.	Michael: Who is like God? “Who shall not fear thee, O Lord?”	Who is like unto the Beast?
	11.	Reigns 1000 years.	Power 42 months.
	12.	With righteousness he doth judge and make war.	Makes war with the saints.
	13.	Redeemed out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.	Power over all kindreds, tongues, nations
	14.	Every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth worship the Lamb.	All that dwell on the earth worship him.
	15.	His Father’s name in their foreheads	The mark of the Beast in right hand or forehead.
	16.	The number of Jesus: 888.	The number of Man: 666.
	17.	Great multitude which no man could number	The number of his army as the sand of the sea.
	18.	Which is, and was, and is to come.	A Beast which was, and is not, and yet is, and goes into perdition.
	19.	Armies in heaven upon white horses.	The Beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies.
	20.	A pure river of water of life.	Cast into the lake of fire.
	21.	The marriage supper of the Lamb.	All the fowls of heaven called to eat the flesh of captains and kings.
	22.	The cherubim rest not day and night, saying, Holy, Holy, Holy.	They rest not day nor night, who worship the Beast.
	23.	Has the keys of Death and Hell.	The Dragon shut up, chained, in abyss.
	24.	The true Elijah prophet as forerunner.	The False Prophet.
	25.	Fire out of heaven devoured them.	Fire from heaven in the sight of men.