The Book of Daniel contains five separate visions or prophecies. These, on careful examination, are found to have several characteristics in common. For instance, in the brief explanatory passages they are all given a “continuous historical” fulfilment. Also, they are all Messianic—they all find their great climax in the appearance of Messiah the Prince. Yet another feature, which they have in common, is this — they all include a long gap or break in the continuity of the fulfilment.

All students of the prophecy have noticed this in chapter 11. Early in that chapter the vision merges into a long sequence of literal historical detail.[2]

This impressive sequence of detail continues to the period of the Maccabees, and then all at once the reader finds himself transported to the Last Days — “a time of trouble such as never was”, and the day of resurrection (ch. 12:1, 2—the continuity into chapter 12 is undeniable).

Somewhere, then, the continuous character of the revelation breaks off, and at a leap one is taken to the end of the age. Students of prophecy have been unanimous in their recognition of this fact. Some put the break at the end of verse 35, most at the end of verse 39; but all are agreed that the gap is there.

The ram and he-goat vision of chapter 8 is almost as explicit in making similar requirements. The explanation of the prophecy begins at verse 19: “I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation”. Then for three verses the exposition of the details proceeds in a “continuous historic” fashion presenting little difficulty.

Then, “in the latter time of their kingdom (i.e. of the four Greek kingdoms), a king of fierce countenance shall stand up”. At first, the student may be inclined to apply this to Rome, which power certainly destroyed “the holy people” and “the Prince of princes” himself. But this interpretation is vetoed by the words: “but he shall be broken without hand” (i.e. by divine power; compare chapter 2:34). This fact, combined with the clear assurance that “the vision belongeth to the time of the end” (v. 17 RV), requires that this “king of fierce countenance” be looked for in the Last Days—though doubtless Antiochus Epiphancs (vv. 9-12) or the hard power of Rome provide a vivid prototype.

It would seem then that the true exposition of verse 25 will equate this ruthless king with the Beast of Revelation 17 who, with his ten allies, is to make war with the Lamb and suffer destruction at his hands (Revelation 17:14). But whether this equation be correct or not, the gap in the prophecy is certainly there.

The same approach is now seen to provide a much more realistic view of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

The commonly accepted interpretation has the following scheme (roughly):

With the first four items here, there can be no quarrel. But the fifth is hardly so satisfactory, since in the vision the feet with their ten toes are to be destroyed by the Stone, the Messiah, whereas throughout the long period indicated they have been vigorously engaged in destroying one another.

It is more reasonable, surely, to regard the ten toes as representing the ten kingdoms in existence at the time of Messiah’s coming. Once again, as in chapter 8, there is an equation with the ten kings who give their power and strength unto the Beast (Revelation 17: 14). Read thus, Daniel 2 provides the ten kings and Daniel 8 foretells the Beast—the two visions are complementary here.

If this alternative interpretation be accepted—and it is to be noted that it also avoids the anomaly of having the least important part of the metallic anatomy represent by far the longest period—then once again the gap in the continuity of the historical fulfilment is plainly there, between the iron representing Rome and the mixed iron and clay representing the discrete powers of the time of the end.

The problem of Daniel 7 is more complex and calls for more detailed treatment than this chapter will allow. All that can be said at the moment is that probably the familiar “Papacy” interpretation of the little horn is at best only a partial or preliminary fulfilment. An impressive case can be made for the view that the little horn represents a power which will oppress the Jews (the “saints”, the holy people; Daniel 8:24) in the Last Days immediately before the coming of their Messiah—in other words, that the little horn and the other ten correspond to the Beast and ten Kings of Revelation 17:12-14.

If this were so, then once again there appears a noteworthy gap in the prophetic sequence of Daniel 7 between the fourth kingdom (Rome) and the sensational developments of the Last Days.

To sum up so far—it may be taken as almost certain that the prophecies of Daniel 11 and 8 require a gap in the historical fulfilment, that of Daniel 2 probably has the same feature, whilst Daniel 7, even if it does not require a similar view, at any rate lends itself readily to the same scheme of interpretation. To put the matter thus is probably to understate the case.

Students of the Olivet prophecy will already have recognized that what is being argued for here is the existence in Daniel’s prophecies of the same gap which exists so markedly in the words of Jesus there: “and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. This is A.D. 70, and its ghastly consequences. The next words transport the reader to the day of Christ’s return: “And there shall be signs in the sun, moon, and stars; and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity . . .”. Would any first-century student of the words of Jesus have even the smallest reason for suspecting the existence of a 1900-year gap between those two sentences?

Now back to Daniel. An examination of the famous “Seventy Weeks” prophecy in chapter 9 reveals the possible existence of the same kind of gap. The precise dating of the fulfilment does not affect the issue under consideration. The prophecy is explicit that “in the midst of the (seventieth) seven he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (Daniel 9:27). This can only mean that the cutting off of “Messiah the Prince” was to correspond to a time of 37~ years from the end of the full period of 490 years.

The question promptly thrusts itself forward: What is the significance of the remaining 3½ years?

The usual answer that this leads on to the death of Stephen and the conversion of Paul simply will not do. It is too obviously make-shift — for the following reasons:

1. This prophecy is about “Messiah the Prince” and his great work. To have the climax of the prophecy concerned with one of his disciples is bathos, even though that disciple be Stephen or Paul.
2. There is absolutely no evidence available to demonstrate that Stephen died or that Saul was converted precisely 3½ years after the crucifixion. The guesses of the “experts” about the dating of the events mentioned range from one to ten years after the death of Christ.
3. The climax of the “seventy weeks” is to be to “finish transgression (in ‘thy people’ and ‘thy holy city’), to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24). Is this language appropriate to the death of Stephen?

Is it possible, then, that the prophetic gap already clearly discernible in several other revelations is asserting itself here also, and that the outstanding 3½ years represent a deferment to the Last Days when the words of verse 24 just quoted will receive an abundant literal fulfilment in connection with the people of Israel and “the holy city”?

Such a possibility opens up the way to sensational re-interpretation of a number of Bible prophecies. It is proposed to explore some of these in later studies.

[2] Detail so full and complete as to lead conservative scholars such as C. H. H. Wright and Boutflower to speculate that here the original prophecy has been replaced by a targum or commentary.

Preface

The studies of “The Last Days” brought together here have often been asked for since the Christadelphian Isolation League circulated them. Through the kind help and encouragement of Brother Roger Heming they are now made available in a handier form.

It is hoped that these chapters serve to stimulate in those who read a greater enthusiasm for what the Bible teaches about the imminent End of the Age— “set your hope perfectly on the grace that is being brought unto you in the revelation of Jesus Christ”.

Judging by the speed with which the first edition of this little book was exhausted, it may be said to have had a good reception, even though its unconventional character has been in the nature of a shock to some. The continuing demand makes it difficult to refuse a further issue.

Some misunderstandings have arisen out of the brevity of these studies. For this reason, and also in response to many requests for further help in this field of Bible prophecy, it is hoped to publish (June, 1969) another volume on similar lines.

Readers are assured that there is nothing in this or in any other writing by the author, which in the slightest degree controverts or questions any part of the well-established Statement of Faith. Those propositions, it is believed are irrefutable. But there is room for a re-assessment of some expositions, which have been overtaken by the march of events.

The help of Sister Muriel Palmer in getting this compilation ready for circulation has been considerable. I am very grateful to her.

JANUARY 1969

The studies of “The Last Days” brought together here have often been asked for since the Christadelphian Isolation League circulated them. Through the kind help and encouragement of Brother Roger Heming they are now made available in a handier form.

It is hoped that these chapters serve to stimulate in those who read a greater enthusiasm for what the Bible teaches about the imminent End of the Age— “set your hope perfectly on the grace that is being brought unto you in the revelation of Jesus Christ”.

Judging by the speed with which the first edition of this little book was exhausted, it may be said to have had a good reception, even though its unconventional character has been in the nature of a shock to some. The continuing demand makes it difficult to refuse a further issue.

Some misunderstandings have arisen out of the brevity of these studies. For this reason, and also in response to many requests for further help in this field of Bible prophecy, it is hoped to publish (June, 1969) another volume on similar lines.

Readers are assured that there is nothing in this or in any other writing by the author, which in the slightest degree controverts or questions any part of the well-established Statement of Faith. Those propositions, it is believed are irrefutable. But there is room for a re-assessment of some expositions, which have been overtaken by the march of events.

The help of Sister Muriel Palmer in getting this compilation ready for circulation has been considerable. I am very grateful to her.

JANUARY 1969

The prophetic periods included as details in Daniel’s visions have long been recognized as among the most exciting features of his prophecy. Their close connection with the time of the end is undeniable. Consequently students eager to know “when shall be the end of these wonders” and reluctant to believe their Lord when he said: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven”, have indulged in an electronic orgy of ingenious computation in a laudable attempt to identify the precise time of the return of Christ.

Such zeal is wholly praiseworthy, but it is to be doubted whether it is well-directed. Certainly the fruits of these efforts have been piling up in ecclesial waste-paper baskets for the past century. A re-examination of these prophetic periods from a rather different point of view may not be amiss.

There are four of these periods mentioned:

1. “A time, times and the dividing of time”—the duration of the little horn’s power to persecute: chapter 7:25. This recurs in 12:7.
2. 2300 days “to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot”; 8:13, 14.
3. 1290 days, and
4. 1335 days, closely associated with the “time, times and an half” in 12:7,11,12.

The first of these meets the student of Revelation in Revelation 12:14. It is generally agreed that “a time, times and an half” and “forty and two months” (Revelation 11:2) and 1260 days (Revelation 11:3) are equivalent; all of them represent 3 12 years of 360 days each. It can be mentioned in passing that no satisfactory explanation of two associated problems has (to the present writer’s knowledge) ever been advanced—why a “year” of 360 days should be used, when the ancients from the time of Daniel onwards certainly knew that this was 5¾ days in error; and what special significance is intended by the three variants of the same period: 3~ years, 42 months, 1260 days.

The classical approach to all these prophetic periods has been on the assumption that each day represents a year. The difficulties inherent in such a method of interpretation do not seem to have been adequately considered.

There are several:

1. If the intention behind the use of days instead of years was to save Daniel from overmuch discouragement, then its use was not only morally questionable but its effect was actually cancelled out by other explicit assertions: e.g. Daniel 8:26, 27.
2. The book of Daniel nowhere supplies a hint that a year for a day is the proper basis of interpretation. In Daniel 4:16 “seven times” means “seven literal years”. And if the Seventy Weeks prophecy of chapter 9 be cited as adequate evidence, it must be stressed in reply that neither days, weeks nor years are actually mentioned there. The phrase is, literally, “seventy sevens”.
3. In the only other places where the Bible used a day to represent a year (Numbers 14:33, 34; Ezekiel 4:4-6), this is explicitly stated. There is nothing to match these statements in the Book of Daniel.
4. The fruits of the application of the “year for a day” theory are singularly unsatisfying, even though~ questionable assumptions are often made in the process. In a previous chapter the termination of the 3½ “years” of Daniel 7 at A.D. 1870 was found to be not altogether satisfactory since (i) the persecuting power of the Pope ended long before that date, and (ii) the extra century which has elapsed since 1870 goes unaccounted for.
5. The starting points of these periods have to be selected in very arbitrary fashion. It may not unreasonably be asked why the 1260, I290 and 1335 periods of Daniel 12 are usually given as their beginning the epoch of Mohammedan ascendancy in Palestine. The clues supplied in Daniel 12 hardly suggest this: “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up” (12:11) can hardly be applied in fairness to the Mohammedan epoch, since (i) the daily sacrifice was taken away by the Romans in A.D. 70 and (ii) Jesus himself gave a Roman application to the words: “the abomination that maketh desolate” (Matthew 24:15=Luke 21: 20).
6. Similarly, the 2300 days of Daniel 8:13, 14 requires to be dated from the time that “the sanctuary and the host are trodden underfoot”. Yet if the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the temple be used, the period runs out too soon; whilst if the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus be selected, the result is distressingly and indeed impossibly late. Attempts to cope with this difficulty have taken two forms. One stresses that the original is, literally, “two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings”, which may conceivably mean 1150days. But this becomes impossibly short, so that even the unwarranted expedient of a Mohammedan starting point is of no avail. Others have preferred the dubious Septuagint reading of 2400 days, but this does not materially ease the difficulty of the application either, as a little mental arithmetic will speedily shew.
7. Jesus was a far better expositor of Bible prophecy than any of his twentieth century disciples. He had the Book of Daniel. Nevertheless he declared: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (Mark 13: 32). If Jesus could not use the Book of Daniel to learn the time of the end, what hope for anyone else?

In view of the fact that criticisms such as the foregoing can be so readily multiplied and when also regard is had to the accumulated wrecks of discredited computations, it is not altogether to be wondered at that this field of Bible study is in the doldrums, either a ground for puzzlement and vague speculation or the butt of open ribaldry because of the futility of the results arrived at. Is it possible that there is another, different, way of making sense of these enigmatic prophecies?

In an earlier chapter it was pointed out that the prophecies of Daniel all seem to include a gap in the historical fulfilment. It was also shewn that the “Seventy Weeks” prophecy left a period of 3½ years unaccounted for at its end. Since this 32 years is exactly equivalent to the “time, times and a half” of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12, there is here a pointed suggestion that the prophetic periods of Daniel are intended to be taken as meaning precisely what they say, and not on the basis of a year for a day. In that case, the 1260,1290, 1335 days are to be regarded as indicating the duration of “the time of trouble such as never was” which is to engulf the people of Israel immediately before the manifestation of their Messiah.

It has also been shewn earlier in this study that many prophecies speak of a third war between Jews and Arabs in which Israel will be overrun by their implacable enemies. Putting the two ideas together, it would now appear that the duration of this final down-treading of Israel will be for a period of 31 years during which all the fruits of their national resurrection will be wrested from them or destroyed. From this desperate situation of black hopelessness only their Messiah will be able to save them.

With this idea as a working hypothesis—a hypothesis, be it noted, which has been suggested in the first place by Scripture itself—it is interesting and even exciting to go back and review the prophecies where this 32 year period is involved.

Daniel 12:1 foretells for Israel “a time of trouble such as never was”. It is “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7). During this period specified in 12:7 as “a time, times and an half”, “Many (in Israel) shall be purified, and made white, and tried” (v. 10). “When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be accomplished” (v. 7).

According to this interpretation, the little horn of Daniel 7 (in its final fulfilment) is this same persecutor of the Last Days: “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (7:21). These “saints” are the Jews, the “holy people” (the same word is so translated and so used concerning Israel in chapter 8:24).

This persecutor will “speak great words against the most High”. The application of these words to the Papacy is hardly self-evident inasmuch as the Catholic Church is Christian, after a fashion, and in this 20th century is the main contender for a theistic philosophy of life against atheistic communism. But the relevance of this prophecy to a Russia-directed overthrow of the new State of Israel needs no demonstrating.

“And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time”, after which period of 3 2 years “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High” (7: 27). Possibly, though not certainly, there is a distinction here between “the people of the saints” (those who “live and reign with Christ”) and “the saints of the most High” (the nation of Israel). But this is not a conclusion that can be insisted on.

In any case the visions of Daniel are now seen to be solidly—and appropriately—Jewish in their reference. No one could question the appositeness of such a scheme of interpretation. Would any wish to do so? Papal and Mohammedan interpretations fly out of the window, and the purpose of God is revealed once again as an essentially Jewish purpose made known through Jewish prophets in a Jewish context. In chapter 8 reasons will be given for believing that the corresponding passages in Revelation are to be given a similar reference.

The existence of the gap in the continuity of the Daniel prophecies now finds a simple and more than adequate explanation: THE VISIONS CONCERN THE EXPERIENCES OF ISRAEL IN THEIR OWN LAND. When Israel is cast off and scattered the detail of the prophecies ceases, just as in the wilderness when Israel was punished for lack of faith in God’s promises there was a period of 38 years of wilderness wanderings of which no single detail is recorded.

It is now possible to see the familiar words “the times of the Gentiles” as having yet another significance. Besides referring to the long period of Israel’s scattering, they also describe specially the literal “time, times, and an half” of down-treading of Jerusalem in the Last Days. The word “times” in Luke 21:24 is the same as in the Septuagint version of Daniel. There can be little doubt that Jesus was making deliberate reference to Daniel especially since he had just quoted words “spoken by Daniel the prophet (whoso readeth, let him understand)”.

One last and important conclusion remains to be brought to the reader’s attention. It will be evident that if the viewpoint advocated here is correct, there now remains no material on which to base a computation of the date of the return of the Lord. All the prophetic periods of Daniel and Revelation are now seen to describe a comparatively short epoch immediately before the coming of Messiah. The gap in the prophecies is of unspecifiable duration. It is not possible to know beforehand when the vital 31 years will begin. Hence it is still true that “of that day and hour knoweth no man”. These things “the Father hath kept in his own power”. But with his saints there is the power of prayer: “Ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, give him no rest until he make Jerusalem a joy and a praise in the earth”.

It is the purpose of this chapter to suggest that, contrary to common expectation, the last great conflict before the coming of the Lord will be between Jew and Arab, and not (as is often thought) between Jew and Russian. Just as there are weaknesses (pointed out in chapter 1) in the hypothesis of a Gog-Magog invasion of Israel before the coming of the Lord, so there is a corresponding strength about the repeated emphasis in the prophets on an Arab victory over the Jews. Whilst many students of prophecy have lately found anticipations in Scripture of the present Arab-Jew antagonism, few seem to have taken these prophetic foreshadowings to their logical conclusion. The evidence — Biblical, not political — calls for re-examination.

First, it is taken as a conclusion requiring no proof that the prophecies of the last days concerning Edom are about the Arabs since so many of the Arab tribes are descended from Esau and because ancient Edom is unquestionably Arab territory today.

The first of these prophecies calling for attention is Ezekiel 35, 36. The words here are remarkably explicit: “I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not be inhabited, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. Because thou hast said, These two nations (i.e. Edom and Israel) and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the Lord was there: therefore as I live, saith the Lord, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thine hatred against them; an d I will make myself known among them, when I have judged thee” (Ezekiel 35:9-11).

A careful consideration of these words shews that certain events are clearly implied:

1. The annexation of Israel by Arab foes.
2. A divine judgement on these boastful enemies to be followed immediately by
3. The manifestation of divine glory among the Jews.

Almost every verse in the chapter reinforces these conclusions.

Ezekiel 36 is, if anything, even more emphatic. There, Edom is pictured as gloating over a recent triumph: “Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession” (v. 2). For this, divine judgement is pronounced “against all Edom, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart” (v. 5).

But, by contrast, there is to be re-gathering and blessing for Israel: “But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people Israel; for they are at hand to come” (v. 8).

What is specially impressive is that this Arab desolation of the Land is represented as Israel’s last agony before the fulfilment of all their ancient hopes: “Thou (land of Israel) shalt devour men no more . . . neither will I cause men to hear in thee the shame of the heathen any more, neither shalt thou hear the reproach of the people any more, neither shalt thou cause thy nations to call any more” (vv. 14, 15).

The logical conclusion seems to be that the Arab conquest of Israel will be the last that it will experience.

The prophecy of Obadiah “concerning Edom”, has exactly the same shape, so that reinforcement of this conclusion just reached is only to be evaded by denying altogether a last-day application of the prophecy. “For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever” (v. 10).

There is the same emphasis on the unlawful possession of Israel’s territory: “Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity” (v. 13).

Therefore judgement from the Lord must inevitably follow: “For the day of the Lord is upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually . . . they shall be as though they had not been” (vv. 15, 16).

Nevertheless Israel will be delivered: “Upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions” (v. 17).

The ensuing verses (vv.18, 19) indicate that the whole of the Land promised to Abraham will be restored

“and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” (v. 21).

Thus, again, Israel’s final tribulation appears to come from Arab enemies.

Many as a prophecy of Israel’s calamity also have read psalm 83 in the Last Days. Doubtless it had its origin in the historical circumstances of the reign of Hezekiah or Jehoshaphat, but few readers of these words would limit its reference to such a time, any more than they would insist on the application of Psalm 72 to Solomon only.

Psalm 83, then, describes a highly successful confederacy against the people of God: “They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel be no more in remembrance” (vv. 3, 4). Then follows a long and impressive list of names of the hostile peoples—all of them Arab peoples, or modern Arab territories: Edom, the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagarenes, Gebal, Ammon, Amalek, the Philistines, Tyre, Asshur, the children of Lot (vv. 6-8). And the plea for divine succour (vv. 9-11) is based not, as is so commonly the case elsewhere, on God’s mighty deliverance from Egypt under Moses, but on His rescue of His people from Arab oppressions—Sisera and Jabin, the Midianites, Oreb and Zeeb, Zebah and Zalmunna. And the Psalm ends with the words: “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth”. Such words require reference to the end of this era.

Further evidence may be adduced from Jeremiah 30, 31. “The time of Jacob’s trouble” (30: 7) is one out of which he is to be saved, so that “strangers shall no more serve themselves of him; but they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king (the Messiah: ch. 23:5, 6), whom I will raise up unto them” (30:8, 9). The Hebrew word here-translated “trouble” is the same as that used in Genesis 32:7: “Thy brother Esau cometh to meet thee and four hundred men with him. Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed “. In the ensuing prophecy in Jeremiah 31: 7-22 about the re-gathering of Israel phrase after phrase goes back to the Genesis narrative of Jacob’s return to the Land in fear because of Syrian foes behind him and Edomite foes coming to meet him. About twenty of these allusions are traceable. The obvious intention is to represent that return of Israel the patriarch as a type of the return of Israel the nation.

Read thus the prophecy carries a strong implication that in the great “time of Jacob’s trouble”, it will be Arab (Esau) hostility and opposition, which must be feared rather than Russian.

The familiar details of Zechariah 14 harmonize with this view . . . “and the city shall be taken . . . and half the city (i.e. half of the population of the city) shall go forth into captivity . . . Then shall the Lord go forth . . .” (Zechariah 14:2, 3).

It is not unreasonable to identify this “captivity” of Israel in the Last Days with that described in Joel 3 :1-8. If this equation is correct, then the gathering of the hostile nations for retribution in “the valley of Jehoshaphat” (Joel 3 :2) is highly appropriate also inasmuch as the great deliverance in King Jehoshaphat’s time was from a fearsome invasion by “Ammon and Moab, and mount Seir (Edom)” (2 Chronicles 20:10).

This prophecy of Joel concludes with the words: “Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land” (3:19).

From the foregoing accumulation of Bible evidence it can be justly claimed that a fair case is to be made out for believing that the great climax of Israel’s history is to come not with the crushing of a tiny Jewish state by a Russian steam-roller, but by the fulfilment of the great historic types of Genesis— Ishmael against Isaac, Esau against Jacob. The ultimate outcome of this clash is assured, both in type and prophecy. But first Israel must learn, through the bitterest experience of all, to abandon all reliance on working out its own salvation. As yet the Jews shew no sign whatever of assimilating the vital lesson that cleverness and industry can never be any substitute for humble faith in the God of their fathers.

Part 10: Chapters 235 to 258

Select a chapter:

• 234. “It is finished” (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:28-30)*
• 235. Not a bone broken (John 19:31-34)*
• 236. Blood and Water (John 19:34)
• 237. Burial (Matt. 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42)*
• 238. The Guard at the Tomb (Matt. 27:62-66)
• 239. “At the Rising of the Sun” (Matt. 28:1-4; Mark 16:1)
• 240. “A Vision of Angels” (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-9; John 20:1-3)
• 241. Peter and John (John20:4-l0)
• 242. “Rabboni!” John 20:11-18.
• 243. “Held by the Feet” (Matt. 28:9, 10)
• 244. The Message and its Reception (Mark 16:10, 11; Luke 24:9-12; John 20:18)
• 245. Scared Men (Matt. 28:11-15)
• 246. “Of Whom Speaketh the Prophet This?”
• 247. To Emmaus (Luke 24:13-33)
• 248. “Yea, Yea … Nay, Nay” (Luke 24:33-35; Mark 16:12)
• 249. “Help Thou Mine Unbelief” (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23)
• 250. Seeing Is Believing (John 20:24-29)
• 251. “I go a-fishing” (John 21:1-11)
• 252. Miracles, miracles, miracles (John 21:1-11)
• 253. Fishes – 153 of them (John 21:11)
• 255. “Follow Me” (John 21:19-23)
• 256. In Galilee (Matt. 28:16-18; Luke 24:45-48)
• 257. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:49; John 21:24, 25; Acts 1:6-8)
• 260. Symbolism in John’s Gospel

A fishing party, which included the present writer, once caught in a fairly short time off the coast of British Columbia, six splendid salmon. Their total weight was sixty-three pounds. If the “great fishes” caught in Galilee were on a par with these, this would make the total catch now under consideration to be about three-quarters of a ton.

But why — the question may well be asked — was John so careful as to specify meticulously how many fish were caught? At different times thousands of his readers have scented a special significance here. There is a sound instinct behind this.

Here, then, is a list of suggestions (doubtless incomplete). Some of these have a good Biblical flavour; others not at all.

1.	153 = 9×17: and 9 is the number of judgment (is it?), whilst 17 combines the ideas of “spirit” and “order”: 10 + 7 (do they?). So it is said! (Companion Bible).
2.	There were not 153 fishes, but 154—and this is 11 x 14 (or 22 x 7), again with corresponding numerical meaning. Sic!
3.	Contemporary Greek zoologists asserted that the sea contains precisely 153 different species of fishes. So John saw this number as symbolizing men out of all nations within the gospel net (Hoskyns).
4.	By Gematria (that is, substituting the numerical value of each letter), the Greek word for “fishes’ (ichthues) gives 1224 which is 153 x 8. Thus, “fishes” suggests those caught in the gospel net according to the eighth sign.
5.	When “Sons of God” is written in Hebrew characters it gives, by Gematria once again (par.4): 153. This result only holds true, however, if the Hebrew definite article is included: B’nei ha-Elohim, which could signify: Sons (disciples, converts) of the Mighty (the Apostles), that is, the fruits of their preaching.
6.	2 Chronicles 2:17 gives 153 thousand and six hundred as the number of “strangers”, i.e. Gentiles, in Israel who were numbered by David. And in Exodus 30:14-16, numbering of the people is associated with atonement and redemption.
7.	And now, mathematics. For the reason made plain by this diagram, 10 is called a triangular number 4.
	* ** *** ****
	The next in the set is, of course, 15; and then 21, and so on.
	153 is one of this family. 153 = triangular number 17.
	Similarly, 120 (Acts 1:15) = triangular number 15 (and 15 = triangular number 5).
	276 (Acts 27:37) = triangular number 23.
	666 (Rev. 13:18) = triangular number 36 (and 36 = triangular number 8).
	These are the most noteworthy, but not the only, examples to be found in the NT The odds against all the three-figure numbers in the NT being “triangular” are enormous. Has such a thing happened by “chance”? So it looks as though the early church saw special meaning in the idea of triangular numbers. But what? Possibly, but not certainly, according to Matthew 28:19, thus:
			Father
			/
		Son		Holy Spirit
	There may be some other more satisfactory explanation of 153 outside the range of the seven suggestions listed here. But it is not necessary to believe that the eighth sign has eight different meanings.

254. “Lovest Thou Me?” (John 21:15-19)

After the miraculous catch of fishes and the meal of fellowship which ensued, Jesus addressed himself to Peter in words which carry a certain ambiguity: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Was the reference to these other disciples or to these fishes? i.e: ‘Peter, do you love me more than these other disciples love me?’ or: ‘Peter, do you love me more than you love your fishing?’

Grammatically it might be either. The reader has only the context of the words to guide him. The conclusion usually reached is that Jesus was making allusion to Peter’s strong declaration of loyalty that “though all shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended;” and, “even, if I must die with thee, yet will I in no wise deny thee” (Matthew 26:33,35). Nevertheless, within a few hours, Peter had thrice denied his Lord with oaths and curses. And now three times, as if with allusion to that abysmal lapse of loyalty, Jesus put the disquieting question: “Lovest thou me?”

Although with hardly an exception, the commentators prefer this interpretation, scarcely any one of them offers a reason beyond the correspondence of these three questions with the three denials and the sharp contrast between denial and love. Plumtre stresses also the mention of a “fire of coals” in John 21:9 and 18:1 8, but this seems rather pointless.

Then, in view of certain difficulties, can this conclusion be accepted with confidence? For instance, is it conceivable that Jesus would torture his apostle in this fashion, and in the presence of some of the others? True, he was about to confer big pastoral responsibility on Peter. But was a blunt, almost over-emphatic, reminder of Peter’s weakness a suitable prelude to such a commission? Is it conceivable that in the Day of Judgment, before Jesus accepts those whom he sets at his right hand, he will torment them with pointed reminders of past disloyalty? This is not the Jesus of the gospels.

The Lord had already appeared to Peter on the day of his resurrection with the express purpose of comforting him in his self-torture: “Go tell his disciples and Peter…”; “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” And it was doubtless with a vivid grateful memory of all that that encounter had meant to him that Peter wrote, years later: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:5). This is one of the many pointed allusions to the gospels to be traced in 1 Peter. For Peter that meeting with his risen Lord meant his own spiritual resurrection from a day of despair, self-recrimination and bitter weeping. Is it conceivable that, after the Lord had appeared to him to impart reassurance and consolation, he would then proceed to rub salt into a sore wound that was not yet closed? Again it has to be said – this is not the Jesus of the gospels!

Further, is it not difficult to imagine Jesus inciting one of his followers to assert over and over again that he does love the Lord more than the rest do? If Peter answered point-blank: “Yes, I do,” would he not be inviting a yet more pointed reminder of those tragic hours in the courtyard of the high priest’s palace. On the other hand, if the apostle had responded with an equally explicit: “No,”the answer would have been insincere, for none loved Jesus more than Peter did. And, either way, what was to be gained by making Peter so uncomfortable concerning the worst hour of his life? Had he not already suffered enough in his own soul because of it?

Yet another important objection, of a very different kind, is the complete lack of contextual connection between the narrative of John 21 and Peter’s denials of Jesus in John 18.

A powerful alternative

This weakness—a serious one, surely—is certainly not apparent when the alternative meaning is considered: “Simon, do you love me more than you love your fishing?” The context shouts for this interpretation. In the immediate prelude to this three-fold apostrophe, there is not the smallest allusion to pastoral responsibilities, but there is emphatic reference — of a disapproving kind — to fishing: “I go a fishing… they caught nothing”… then the Lord, having rubbed in their failure (v.5 Gk.), himself provides the catch, and also the much needed meal … the shame-faced silence of the disciples (“none of them durst ask him”). All this is followed by the Lord’s insistence that there be no more “girding of thyself” (v.18) with a fisher’s coat (v.7); instead, a repeated “Follow me” (v. 19,22), itself a pointed renewal of the call to be a fisher of men (Mt. 4:19), a call given immediately after the earlier provision of a miraculous net-full of fishes. The grim words: “another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldest not” become even more grim if taken to imply: Then ought you not to get on with my work as speedily and energetically as possible?”

With such a context to steer the reader’s understanding, one is left marvelling at the obsession of the commentators here with Peter’s denials.

Thus, John’s gospel can thankfully be read as concluding not with an encounter full of uncomfortable reproach for a lapse already much repented of, but as a necessary reminder that service of the risen Lord and his brethren must come before all else. The reader turns the page and is immediately aware in the Book of Acts that Simon the fisherman is dead. He too is risen – Peter the preacher, Peter the shepherd, Peter the rock.

This, surely, is why Jesus here addressed Peter as “Simon, son of Jonas.” Almost certainly Peter was a fisherman because his father had been a fisherman before him. Such was the way of life in those days. Moreover, Peter and Andrew had their own boat — a thing unlikely with young men, unless the boat was inherited. Such, at least, is the way of things to this day in most fishing villages of Britain. Consequently, if Jesus were alluding to Peter’s love for his trade, there would be much point in calling him “son of Jonas.”

The question is not to be lightly thrust aside. With such a designed emphasis throughout the entire incident on the contrast between Peter’s former employment and his new and big responsibilities in the gospel. It would seem to be at least possible that Jesus was pressing home in Peter’s mind: Do you love me or your fishing more? Are you not willing, Peter, to say a final farewell to that old life and to become instead a shepherd of my flock?

Many years later the lesson which Peter learned that day was still remembered, to be passed on to Peter’s successors facing a similar temptation: “Feed the flock of God… not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Peter 5:2). Thus it seems by no means unlikely that “Lovest thou me more than these” was a reminder to Peter, that having been called to be a fisher of men, he must abandon his old trade altogether.

NOTES: John 21:15-19

15.	No reference here to Peter’s denials, but plenty to fishing: v.3a,c; 6,7,12,15-17,18,1 9b; Mt. 4:19.
16.	Feed my sheep; 10:11,16; 1 Jn. 3:16; Acts 20:28. Peter can be a shepherd, but not a Door; Jn. 10:7. The Catholic application of these words is vetoed by 1 Pet. 5:1-4.
17.	Thou knowest all things; i.e. about us disciples; 16:30,27; 1Jn. 3:20.
18.	Walked; v.7.
	Old; Ps. 37:25..
	Stretch forth thine hands in crucifixion, the time when, in contrast with past failures, Peter would achieve more than he had purposed or promised (13:37). From now on he knew himself to be sentenced to crucifixion; cp. 14:27.
	Wither thou wouldest not; Is. 46:4.
19.	By what death; 10:14,15. Jesus apparently implied; ‘So go on with the work whilst you can.’
	Glorify God: crucifixion; 12:33.

Discerning commentators have observed that John not only calls the Lord’s miracles “signs”, but also that the great catch of fishes is the eighth sign, as though suggesting a new Beginning comparable to the Lord’s resurrection on the eighth day. Very discerning!

But why, it may be asked, have they failed to perceive that this last sign was itself a multiplicity of signs? This characteristic almost shouts from John 21, yet its message seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Then, how complete (how discerning?) is the list which now follows?

The first marvel was, as ch.251 has underlined, that in specially favourable conditions, a full night’s fishing brought the disciples no reward. Was not that an astonishing negative miracle?

Then, by contrast, there came such a mighty catch that seven men could not bring the full net on board. But, writes John with an amazement which had lasted for years, “for all there were so many, yet the net was not broken!” — and it was a professional fisherman who wrote those words. It has to be remembered, too, that in those days the fishers of Galilee did not have nylon or steel mesh for their trade. Another negative miracle, but not so negative as the other.

Although the weight of the fish was more than the entire group of men could handle (v.6,8), only a few minutes later Peter coped single-handed (v.l1).

Nor was this the only way in which the presence of Jesus made Peter superhuman. To go to his Lord, the apostle “did cast himself info the sea.” Certainly the commonest meaning of this preposition eis is “into”. Yet, strangely enough, in this short narrative John three times uses the same word with one of its less common meanings:

a. v.4: “Jesus stood on the shore.”

b. v.11: “Peter drew the net to land.”

c. v.9: “as soon then as they were come to land.”

To read into any of these verses the meaning “into”, is to make a nonsense, and accordingly King James’ men used their commonsense and came away from the strict grammatical meaning. It looks as though John, by these three examples, was giving his readers a hint. It is as if he were saying: ‘According to your insight be it unto you.’

Another detail points to the same conclusion that Peter cast himself upon the water, to walk to Jesus.

Why should he “gird his fisher’s coat unto him” for this operation? Being virtually naked, why did he not stay so and swim the hundred yards to the shore? (Is there any beach on the verge of hill-girt Galilee where a man can walk only waist-deep a hundred yards from shore?)

Again, would Peter be so absurd as to try to swim to shore with a heavy coat impeding his movement?

When it is remembered that on an earlier occasion (Mt. 14:28-32) Peter had twice walked on the water (when it was tempestuous, and not calm, as now), it is not difficult to understand that with faith begotten out of past experience he would assay to do the same again — and be empowered to succeed once again.

Other features of this complex “sign” suggest a further element of the extraordinary.

Why, for example, did the apostles not recognize Jesus when he shouted to them? If half-a-dozen words on the telephone readily betray a man’s identity (a commonplace experience, this), ought not at least one of the seven, all of whom had been with Jesus for three-and-a-half years, to have recognized that well-loved voice at once? Another negative miracle?

And whence came the bread and fire and fish on the coals?

If the suggestion advanced in ch.251 has any substance in it, that this eighth sign was symbolic in various ways of the New Day of Messiah’s appearing, this profusion of miracles takes on an appearance of marked appropriateness, for are not the works of the Holy Spirit in the early church described as “the powers of the age to come.” (Heb.6:5)?

There is a stimulating homework here for the diligent student – to explore what specific implications there might be behind these findings. What did the symbolic mind of John perceive, and his symbolic pen imply, in this unique assembly of wonders “written for our learning”?

Part 2: Chapters 27 to 52

Select a chapter:

• 26. At a Well in Samaria (John 4:1-42)
• 27 The Nobleman in Galilee (John 4:43-54)*
• 28. Preaching in Galilee (Matt. 4: 13-17; Mark 1: 14,15; Luke 4: 31)
• 29. The First Miraculous Haul of Fishes (Matt. 4: 18-22; Mark 1: 16-20; Luke 5: 1-11)*
• 30. Demons*
• 31. The Demoniac in the Synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37)*
• 32. Healing at Peter’s Home (Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 1:29-34; Luke 4:38-41)*
• 33. A Leper Cleansed (Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 1:35-45; Luke 4:42-44; 5:12-16)*
• 34 The Healing of the Paralytic (Matthew 9:2-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26)*
• 35. The Call of Levi (Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32)*
• 36. Fasting (Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39)*
• 37. The Healing at Bethesda (John 5:1-16)*
• 38. Jesus Before the Rulers (John 5:17-47)
• 39. Sabbath Controversy (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)
• 40. The man with the withered hand (Matthew 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6 ; Luke 6:6-11)*
• 41. A Climax of Activity (Matthew 12:15-21; 4:23-25; Mark 3:7-12; Luke 6:17-19)*
• 42. The Call of the Twelve (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1, 13)*
• 43. The Sermon on the Mount
• 44. The Beatitudes – The Poor in Spirit (Matthew 5:3; Luke 6:20, 24)*
• 45. The Beatitudes – Blessed are They That Mourn (Matthew 5:4; Luke 6:21, 25)*
• 46. The Beatitudes – Blessed are the Meek (Matthew 5:5)*
• 47. The Beatitudes – Hunger and Thirst after Righteousness (Matthew 5:6; Luke 6:21, 25)*
• 48. The Beatitudes – Blessed are the Merciful (Matthew 5:7; Luke 6:36)*
• 49. The Beatitudes – Blessed are the Pure in Heart (Matthew 5:8)*
• 50. The Beatitudes – Blessed are the Peacemakers (Matthew 5:9)*
• 51. The Beatitudes: Blessed are the Persecuted (Matthew 5:10-12; Luke 6:22, 23, 26)*

In various households in and around Jerusalem there were groups of disciples who had come to the holy city to celebrate Passover. They were in a high fever of expectation that “the kingdom of God would immediately appear.” How their hopes had been dashed! Instead of acclaiming King Jesus, they now lamented him. For them no Passover Feast of joy or triumph, but instead misery, lamentation and danger. There was no ray of hope of any kind. Is it possible that in the midst of their gloom and apprehension the words of their Lord came to mind: “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted”? Did they but know it, that comfort was at hand. But it was news of a kind they were in no fit frame of mind to receive.

The result of the early visits to the tomb of Jesus was that one group of women, who had met and spoken with angels there, had been assured by them that the empty tomb meant a risen Jesus, and had been charged with the most pleasant of all tasks, that of imparting the good news to the sad and helpless disciples. Mary had seen Jesus, touched him, talked with him. And she too was entrusted with the same exciting errand.

Disbelief

Thus these women are to be imagined going here and there about the city to all the places where disciples were known to be lodged. At each encounter their message was the same. Neither did the reception of it vary. Concerning those who heard Mary’s story Mark records: “And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed it not.”

Luke’s account goes like this: “It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James (the less), and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.”

The form of the verb used by Luke implies either that the women went from group to group telling the story over and over again, or else that to the same people they had to repeat the circumstantial details time after time.

No doubt it happened both ways. The natural reaction of everyone who heard their witness would be to ply them with questions in order to fill out the story as much as possible. Strangely enough, the very fullness of detail which they were able to add – about the disposition of the grave-clothes, about the angels and their messages, and especially about the disappearance of the body — all this, which should have carried conviction by its definiteness only served to confirm those who heard it in and intransigent disbelief (Mk. 16:11,13,14,16).

Many rationalists who would airily explain away the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus think it sufficient to sweep the fact under the carpet with the blithe assumption that it was the vivid imagination of simple-minded followers, and their intense wish that they might see their leader again, which caused the delusion of a risen Jesus to crystallize out into a conviction and a dogma.

It is the vivid imagination of the rationalists which is more clearly in evidence! From this time on, the stubborn unwillingness of the disciples to believe the evidence of dependable witnesses, and even of their own senses, is repeatedly written into the record. Not that the gospel writers have gone out of their way to underscore this feature of that Easter Day There is little sign of effort in this direction. The fact is that in pulling together a concise record of some of the resurrection appearances of the Lord, none of these four writers could eliminate, even if he had wished to do so, the dogged resolute determination of the disciples to reject the most wonderful news of all. Far from being starry-eyed visionaries willing to credit any cock-and-bull story because it accorded with their inclinations, here were people of very matter-of-fact outlook. Even though they had themselves seen Jesus raise the dead and work all kinds of marvels, the resurrection of Jesus himself was not in their thinking at all, nor were they willing to let it into their thinking. Through the four records many details combine together to consolidate this picture of disciples unwilling and well-nigh incapable of believing the facts reported to them.

Consequently (so the details of the Greek text imply) each separate thing reported to them seemed to be quite obviously the delirium of a fevered mind or the babble of old women in their dotage – “and they believed them not.”

Peter at the tomb again

“Then rose Peter, and ran into the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.”

These words are usually taken to be Luke’s version of the visit made to the tomb by Peter and John when Mary first told them about finding it open. But there are several considerations which suggest that this describes another visit made by Peter alone after hearing from Mary that she had seen the Lord and talked with him:

1. The order of the record in Luke is: first, the report of the women; next, the disbelief of the apostles; then, the visit of Peter.
2. This order is repeated in the words of the two going to Emmaus: “certain women of our company … came, saying, that they had seen a vision of angels, which said he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even as the women had said.” The plural here seems to imply that not only Peter but others also (separately?) made the same investigation for themselves. Indeed, it would be very surprising if they didn’t.
3. 3 John’s record tells how Peter entered the tomb without hesitation, but these words of Luke speak of stooping to look in. Such a change of attitude at the tomb is readily accounted for if meantime a report had been received of angels sitting there
4. Peter’s separation from John is not only hinted at in the Greek text of John 20:2, 10, but is also required by Paul’s mention in 1 Corinthians 15:5 of a separate appearance of Jesus to Peter.

Very delicately, by introducing the word which the New Testament commonly uses for “resurrection, Luke hints at the re-birth of hope in Peter’s mind: “Then Peter arose, and ran …” Many years later the surge of emotion which that experience brought was still vivid in Peter’s memory as he wrote in an epistle which carries many echoes of the gospel story: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

In his latest visit to the tomb sent Peter away “marvelling in himself.” The facts had begun to make their impression on his mind. Who would wish to steal the body? And in doing so, who would be at pains to divest the body of its wrappings first of all?

Very soon Peter was to know that the Lord was risen indeed.

NOTES: Mark 16:10, 11.

10.	Told: Gk. Impf: kept on telling them.
	Those that had been with him. The Gk. seems to imply that they still believed in him, but not m his resurrection.
	As they mourned and wept. The third day, their lamentation had not ceased.
11.	When they had heard. Gk. aorist suggests an immediate disbelief.
	Seen. Gk. manifested. Does this imply a Jesus sometimes manifest and sometimes un-manifest? s.w. v.l 4; 1 Pet. 5:4; 1 Jn. 3:2
	Believed not. Perhaps there were comments about Mary Magdalene’s seven devils.

Luke 24:9-12.

10.	Other women. This plural implies at least five women in the group.
	To the apostles. The eleven have this title, but as yet no message.
11.	Seemed. Too weak a translation. The word of the women was to them quite manifestly rubbish Now contrast the use of the same word in Mk. 16:9.
	Idle tales. L & S: nonsense, humbug. For the idea, cp. Ps. 126:1 Acts 1 2:9,1 5. The Gk. implies every separate detail.
	Believed them not. Another impf. they kept on disbelieving. For ideas see Acts 12:9; Ps. 126:1.
12.	Then arose Peter- s w. 1 Pet 1:3. Christ’s resurrection was Peter’s also,
	and Peter ran, but not yet a prophet (on this, see “Acts”, H.A W, p.214).
	By themselves. This phrase seems to imply absence of the body.
	Wondering in himself. Gk. pros presents a picture of a Peter arguing the possibilities with himself.