Casting the first stone (John 8)

Many critics do not regard these verses as authentic, but despite all the official doubts there are voices to be heard in their favor. Strong arguments have been advanced on both internal and external grounds, which are summarized elsewhere (CJo 100,101; CCW, “The Woman Taken in Adultery”, Xd 70:405,406). The words of Jesus reported therein ring true and consistent both with the immediate context and the more general teachings of his ministry.

Jesus was teaching in the temple precincts one morning when a band of scribes and Pharisees thrust themselves through the crowd, dragging with them a terrified woman, whom they flung at the Master’s feet. They reminded him of the law of Moses, requiring stoning for the offence of adultery, and also that this woman was apprehended in the very act. What does this new Rabbi have to say? Will he agree with Moses or, as rumored by those who have heard his teaching, will he throw over the revered traditions and laws of the fathers? It is Jesus, not the woman, who is on trial this day; how will he respond?

The first reaction of Jesus was to stoop down and write on the ground, apparently indifferent to their demands. But his crafty enemies were not to be ignored or put off; they pressed him again and again for an answer. But the answer they finally received came as a bombshell or, more precisely, as a searchlight from the “Light of the World” (Joh 8:12) to reveal their innermost thoughts, their consciences stained indelibly with sin.

“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone” (Joh 8:7).

The burden of decision, with its consequent dangers, which these men had sought to thrust upon Jesus, was now placed squarely on their own shoulders. The law specified that the witnesses be the first to lift up the hand in punishment of a convicted sinner. Not only was this so but, by implication from the Law at least, such hands must be innocent of the same offence. It is reported that the first-century Jews, even those most devout for the Law, were notorious in their disregard for the sanctity of marriage, and divorces were granted for the most trivial of reasons. The Mosaic law in this regard had long fallen into disuse, and such punishments as they argued for here were no longer meted out. In fact, they would have been prohibited by the Romans at any rate.

Jesus put a sword with two edges in the hands of the woman’s accusers; should they lift it up against the adulteress they would also cut down themselves. That “first stone” is not in the world yet, if Christ’s condition be required. Only one man could have cast that stone, but he chose not to do so. The Light of the World had come, and his light shone in the darkness. Assuredly that penetrating light would reveal many works of darkness, no less the Pharisee’s subtlety and hatred than the woman’s immorality. But Jesus had come to offer life; the pronouncement of death for those who reject his offer was yet in the future.

He stood up and searched the faces of these rulers of Israel who had stooped so low. His eyes burned into them and they felt the disapproval of this man’s perfect holiness. Then he bowed again to write upon the ground. He had not accused them, but had left them to decide. They watched him as he wrote, conscious that at any moment he could stand up again to challenge any one of them, and they would have no defense. Silently, each man in turn confessed his own guilt by departing, “beginning at the eldest, even unto the last” (Joh 8:9).

“That last phrase is an interesting one….The older we get the more experienced we become, and the more conscious we are of the scope and content of sin. Often when we read and hear of the sins of others we are conscious that our guilt is as great as theirs. For us, circumstance has not provided the occasion for the ‘very act’, or in the case of some has even provided a cloak for sin. So, with the scribes and Pharisees, it was the older and more experienced, the Gamaliels, who first turned away, and it was the young Zealots, the Sauls amongst them, who finally bowed their heads and left” (A. Ashton, “Neither Do I Condemn Thee”, Xd 105:247).

Now, finally, Jesus stood again. The crowd, transfixed by the spectacle, remained awaiting an outcome. The poor bedraggled woman, her shame revealed to all, was still there where her accusers had cast her. But they were gone. Jesus now fixes his stare upon her. “Is there no man here to condemn thee?” They had all faded away as mists at the rising of the sun. “No man, Lord.” No witnesses remained to the crime, none willing to cast “the first stone”. “Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more” (Joh 8:11).

The word for “condemn” here is katakrino, which signifies a formal passing of judgment. It was at this time the sole province of the Sanhedrin, supported and often restricted by the Roman rulers, to pass such judgment. Jesus had recently spoken of the Father committing all judgment to the Son (Joh 5:22), and it was so. The power was there, both moral and physical, to punish sinners; but the authority had not yet been assumed. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world (easy though it would have been!), but that the world through him might be saved (Joh 3:17). This was the great message of light and comfort and hope; it is the message we must share with one another and take to the world today. Christ does not condone sin — that lesson is plain from the incident too — but today, this age, is the “day of salvation”, not the “day of condemnation”. Those who persist in sin, with disregard to the holiness of Christ, will meet their fates soon enough without the intervention of their own imperfect brethren.

“This incident has proved invaluable in Christian history. It is a graphic exposition of the Master’s words on the mount, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ (Mat 7:1-5). However damning the evidence may be against our brother, if we pause and look into our own hearts, we shall go quietly away and leave him with his Lord. There are times when it becomes necessary to take action, but that action must not be taken because we have condemned our brother. It will be taken in the painful consciousness of our own unworthiness, and with a love which will plead intercession before the Throne of Grace. We shall wait with eagerness for the first signs of penitence so that we can joyfully restore the erring one to the fellowship of the saints” (MP 235).

“The greatest abhorrence of sin is not necessarily found in the one who is most severe on the sinner. Sinful men wanted to stone the sinful woman. It was the perfect man who saved her. In these days many of the brethren seem to think that if it is admitted that any members have sinned, the only logical course is to withdraw from them, while anyone who has reservations as to the correctness of such severity must be regarded as a partaker of the evil deeds and should be treated in like manner. There is no justification for such ideas in the Bible” (IC, An Appeal to Christadelphians, p 5).

An appealing final thought arises in relation to this incident. The adversaries of Christ were insidious, and it is almost certain that secret inquiries had been made into his early life and that the peculiar circumstances of his begettal had been uncovered. This would naturally suggest to the minds of his foes the possibility of illegitimacy. This “secret”, as they saw it, might be exploited to discredit the dangerous teachings of the man. It is possible, then, to see this whole incident as contrived by the Lord’s enemies. The woman was caught in the very act, but where was the man? Perhaps he was even one of the conspirators, who enticed and compromised a betrothed woman (Deu 22:23,24) only as a pretense for his friends to confront Jesus.

So if Jesus had said, “Yes, let her be stoned”, the retort would have immediately come back: “Then what should be done with your mother?” — for Mary had been a betrothed virgin at the time of his conception (Mat 1:18,19).

Other such base insinuations, in this very chapter, may be seen in the same light: “Where is thy father?” (Joh 8:19), and “WE be not born of fornication” [as some are!] (Joh 8:41).

Let us leave this account then with this final point for meditation. When we are hasty in seeking out “stones” to cast at our brethren, let us remember that many men have been unjustly accused, and that appearances are often deceiving! (Christ himself died as a “criminal”!) How childishly wrong we can be in our blusterings against the “sins” of others, when we cannot possibly know all the attendant facts. Better to leave such matters to the One who is without sin, the One who can and will judge perfectly when the time comes, and from whose eyes no sin whether open or secret can be hid.

Collyer on Fellowship

The question has been raised whether it is possible to find scriptural principles to give us clear and unmistakable guidance in the matter of fellowship. Of course, there are some obvious truths which are recognized by all men and women who are Scripturally enlightened. There are errors of doctrine and offences of practice so serious that all enlightened men and women would agree that we cannot fellowship them. There are, on the other hand, errors so slight that no one would think of making them a cause of division. Between the two extremes there is more debatable ground and the difficulties arise in determining where the line should be drawn.

In time of strife there is a natural tendency for men to exaggerate and indulge in parody. It has been so in the brotherhood. “If you are going to tolerate this”, one party says, “you may as well fellowship a man who does not believe the Gospel, or one who steals.” “If you are going to cut off for this”, another party may reply, “you may as well withdraw from a brother because he does not agree with you as to the king of the North, or because he has been known to visit a Natural History museum.”

Such efforts of satirical exaggeration may relieve the feelings of disputants, but for every other purpose they are worse than useless in a serious discussion. They simply present the familiar spectacle of extremes begetting extremes, and they lead to a chaotic condition of the mind in which principles are ignored and men form arbitrary judgments according to their feelings for the moment and the subject which is most to the front.

Perhaps the first scriptural principle that we should note in this matter is that God sometimes leaves men to try them and prove all that is in their hearts. Even when the Apostles possessed the power of the Spirit in such large measure, they were not relieved of this difficulty of forming judgments. There was a difference of opinion between the Apostles Paul and Peter as to how far Jewish prejudices might be conciliated in the attitude taken toward Gentile believers. Evidently the Apostle Peter was in the wrong, withdrawing himself from some of the Gentile brethren, not on principle but for fear of what some of the Jews might say. Inspiration did not relieve these men from the onus of individual judgments and decisions or they would not have experienced the trials and temptations necessary for the formation of character. In writing their epistles, however, the Holy Spirit was their constant guide, and these writings bear witness regarding the truth of this dispute. The epistles of the two men are in agreement. There is no disputing there.

We may assume then that in these days also it is the will of God that we should experience some difficulty in applying scriptural principles to the circumstances of our own times. We must try to be honest and faithful in our application and on our guard against the fleshly feelings that so continually come to the front in time of strife.

There is another principle that needs to be mentioned before considering what the Bible has to say regarding fellowship. All should pay earnest heed to the scripture now cited and reflect upon the truth stated regarding human weakness.

It is wrong to “watch for iniquity”, and yet in time of strife it is the most natural thing in the world to do. If a fleshly politician is angry with another over a dispute in parliament, how delighted he is if he can find some discreditable story about his rival. How ready he is to believe the ill report and to put the worst possible construction upon it. It may have nothing whatever to do with the original quarrel, but that does not matter. Anything will serve as a weapon in the fight.

This is, of course, sheer diabolism, but unfortunately it is characteristic of human nature, and we are all tinged with it. It comes out the worst when a man is half conscious of having a weak case and is making desperate efforts to convince himself that he does well to be angry. If he believes in the Bible he needs then to remember that all who watch for iniquity and make a man an offender for a word shall be cut off (Isa 29:20). It is usually an easy matter to collect reports derogatory to any man or any body of men. There is quite a temptation to use these “make weights” in time of controversy, especially if the original cause of dispute is slight. One on the defensive can be kept busy chasing the false reports and unfair interpretations, but never succeeding in catching one before the next is on the wing.

In a court of law a litigant is tied down to the actual charge. It is useless for him to try to fatten out his suit by all sorts of complaints remote from the original accusation. We are free from any such legal restrictions now, but it is well to remember that we have to go before a judgment seat far more searching than any ever set up by man, and for “every idle word” that we have spoken we shall have to give account. Do not let us watch for iniquity, then, either in those we accuse of specific errors or in those who accuse us. Such watching inevitably leads to countless idle and evil words.

Coming now to the matter of fellowship, we cannot make a better start than by taking all the passages of Scripture in which the word occurs. Truly it is not safe to assume that a word is used in the Bible in exactly the sense that men employ it now. The story is told of a theologian who, when challenged to show any scriptural warrant for the modern ceremony of confirmation, made a full list of all the passages in which the word confirmation occurs, and triumphantly exhibited it as conclusive proof. This was foolish as an argument, for he was assuming a meaning for the word quite remote from the original intention of the writers. Nevertheless, an earnest seeker after truth might have found that list of passages very helpful as showing the manner in which the early believers were confirmed in their faith.

We desire to use the word and to treat the doctrine of fellowship in accordance with scripture teaching. We may find benefit therefore in considering all the passages in which we have the word in our English rendering of the New Testament. In each case sufficient is quoted to bring the teaching to the memory of all persistent readers of the word. Any who fail to remember the connection can easily find the passages.

Act 2:42. “Continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayers.”
1Co 1:9: “God is faithful, by whom ye are called unto the fellowship
of his Son Jesus Christ.”
2Co 8:4. “The fellowship of the ministering to the saints.”
Gal 2:9. “They gave the right hand of fellowship.”
Eph 3:9. “The fellowship of the mystery.”
Phi 1:3-6. “I thank God upon every remembrance of you always in every prayer of mine for you all, making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now.”
Phi 2:1. “Fellowship of the Spirit.” (Connection of idea, comfort, love, and mercy in Christ).
Phi 3:10. “Fellowship of his sufferings.”
1Jo 1:3. “That ye may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.”
1Jo 1:6. “If we say we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie”; v 7, “But if we walk in light… we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

In addition to these passages there are one or two other examples where a slightly different word is given the same English rendering.

2Co 6:14. “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?”
Eph 5:11. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them; for it is a shame even to speak of those things that are done of them in secret.” (Fornication, uncleanness, covetousness. See context.)

Surely these passages give us explicit teaching of vital truths that are often forgotten.

The fellowship to which we are called is a fellowship of the Gospel. It is a fellowship with the Father and the Son, and it is a fellowship to which God has called us (1Co 1:9). This is, of course, quite in harmony with the statement of the Lord Jesus: “No man can come unto me except the Father who hath sent me draw him.”

Surely these passages should lead us to the conclusion that fellowship in the Gospel is a sacred matter not for a moment to be treated like the ordinary fellowships of the world. If men have been called to this fellowship by God Himself, we need clear scriptural ground before we cut them off from it.

We will next consider the commands regarding the matter of withdrawal. There are two of these commands that have often been quoted with very little regard to the context. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness”, clearly may involve withdrawal, and it has been quoted in that connection. The context, as we have already seen, speaks of the works of darkness in question, evil wrought in secret of which it is a shame even to speak.

The other command referred to is the admonition to withdraw from those whose walk is disorderly (2Th 3). The context shows that the immediate reference is to men who did no honest work, but were “busybodies”. The Apostle goes on to say in more general terms, “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

There was the explicit command to withdraw from the one who so grievously offended in Corinth, and one of the objects stated and made clear in both the letters of the Apostle to that church was that the sinner himself might be brought to sincere repentance and salvation.

There is another direct command as to withdrawal in 1Ti 6. The immediate reference is to the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds eager for worldly gain rather than godliness. There are several commands which clearly require a refusal to fellowship those who have not the doctrine of Christ or who depart from any element of the Truth. It should not be difficult to form a sound judgment as to where to draw the line in these matters. As Dr Thomas remarked, the first principles of the Truth are few and simple. Moreover, they are so opposed to all fleshly wisdom that from the natural standpoint they do not seem attractive. If men are prepared to accept them at all, it should not be difficult to accept them as a whole.

In actual experience, the divisions on doctrinal points in these latter days have illustrated this fact. New theories have been brought forward and have come into collision with first principles. The unity of first principles has been revealed in the strongest light. Where the right spirit has prevailed the new idea has been repudiated as soon as its true character has been revealed. Sometimes, however, there is a wrong spirit; worse still, there is personal feeling. Then there is hardly a limit to the possibilities of evil that may surge round the dispute or of the monstrosities into which the confused thought may grow. An illustration of what is meant was furnished some years ago. A well-known brother put forward an idea in a Bible class, and although he was quite unconscious of the fact, he raised an issue affecting a principle of God’s dealing with men. An older brother took the matter up in the right spirit, and after some discussion the younger student of the Word saw his way more clearly and repudiated the idea that he had expressed. Some years later, the one who had instructed him espoused the discarded theory, and with hidden causes at work to urge him forward, he elaborated it until division was inevitable for the sake of purity and peace. It is doubtful whether anyone living now holds the theory as it was put forward in time of strife. It played its part of mischief and destruction, and then it passed into the shadow of forgotten things.

For many years there has been unanimity among us as to the first principles of the Truth. New theories which menaced those first principles and caused division have not endured for the final judgment. They have perished of their own weakness, and if any of the pamphlets which caused such havoc are still extant, they are only retained as curiosities, not quoted by a single living soul as standard expositions of the Truth. There is a lesson for us in this.

Another series of scripture injunctions that we do well to call to mind in connection with the matter of fellowship is in condemnation of contention. We are required to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints, but we are not expected to contend among ourselves. Strife and debate are ranked among the evil works of the flesh (2Co 12:20; Jam 3:14-16). In the letter to the Galatians there is a terrible warning as to the results of such strife (Gal 5:15). We must be careful then to see that our contending is for the Faith and not merely a strife of words to no profit.

Yet another series of commands must be remembered. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again.” “Judge nothing before the time until the Lord come who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness” (1Co 4). “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom 14:4). “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law thou art not a doer of the law but a judge.”

Some might despairingly raise the question, How can we reconcile these very serious warnings against judging each other with the plain commands to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness and to withdraw from those who are disorderly?

The answer is that the very plainness of these commands helps us, for Scripture passes judgment on such matters. Truly we have to apply the judgment of Scripture, and there is danger of mistake in the application. It is the will of God that such responsibility should be ours and we must discharge the duty as faithfully as we can. We must try to remember the teaching of the Word as a whole, and we must be honest in the application of specific rules. If one quotes the passage regarding unfruitful works of darkness, things done in secret “of which it is a shame even to speak”, and applies the passage to one well reported of for good works, the only real complaint against him being that he is too reluctant to be severe with offenders, surely it is evident that in such an application there is the most amazing perversity. If one in resentment of a difference in judgment as to the precise application of these commands denounces his brother as guilty of disorderly walk, repudiation of the faith and re-crucifixion of the Lord, it is difficult to believe in such a case that there is even an attempt to find righteous judgment.

The time has come to use great plainness of speech regarding this vital matter of fellowship in the Gospel. There has been much failure to realize the sanctity of the fellowship of the Father and the Son to which God has called us. There has also been a failure to understand the real meaning of brotherly love. It has been thought of as a weak, sleep-inducing sentimentality which may stand in the way of faithfulness to God.

An amazing but most illuminating comment was made by a brother who advocated withdrawal from some who were alleged to be no longer worthy of fellowship. There were doubts, he said, as to the faithfulness of these brethren, so let us “give to the Lord the benefit of the doubt, and cut them off”. It seemed that any tendency toward maintaining unity was regarded as sentimental weakness, the motion to withdraw was zeal for the Lord. It seemed that there was no recognition of the possibility that we might sin against God in wrongful cutting off of members called by Him to the fellowship of the Gospel. If there were doubts as to the standing of those accused, we should be giving the Lord the benefit of the doubt by cutting them off!

Surely everyone should know that we can give nothing to God but the tribute of our obedience, that we can only learn of Him through His Word, and that all the commandments are equally authoritative. And surely everyone must know that for every one passage of Scripture commanding withdrawal from workers of evil, there are scores of commands to love and to be forbearing and long-suffering; exhortations to be meek, temperate, kind, courteous, pitiful, to comfort the feeble, build up the weak, restore the faulty; to be rooted and grounded in love, to bear one another’s burdens, to esteem others better than ourselves; to do all things without murmuring and disputing, and to be at peace among ourselves.

When we urge the law of love we do not mean sentimental human affection with all its partiality, its inconsistency and blindness. We mean love after the pattern set by the Lord Jesus who died for a church full of imperfection and who, under the very shadow of the cross, gave comfort to his faulty disciples. This law of love so incessantly urged upon us in the Word of God is the most soul-searching and the most difficult of all the commands. It involves a crucifixion of the flesh far more complete than that which comes to us from the bitterest criticisms of misguided opponents. If we ignore these commands while giving an extreme and unjustifiable application of the command to withdraw from the disorderly, we sin doubly. We sin in that which we do and that which we neglect.

From the testimonies cited, it is surely safe to draw the following principles.

Fellowship in the Gospel is a fellowship with the Father and the Son, to which God calls us. It is therefore a sacred matter to be treated with reverent care.
If we join ourselves to the world we join that which God has ordained to be separate (2Co 6).
If we cut off brethren from fellowship without scriptural warrant we put asunder that which God has joined (1Co 12; Eph 5:30).
We must at all times remember the warnings against judging each other and the countless exhortations to love and forbearance.
There are times when on the judgment of the inspired apostles we are called upon to withdraw from offenders. From those who turn from any element of the Faith (2Jo 1:10); from those who by perverse disputings cause wrath, strife of words, railings, evil surmisings (1Ti 4:6); from those who are guilty of moral offences (1Co 5:11); such to be restored in love after repentance (2Co 2:7,8).
That all unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin not unto death. Many such offences are to be reproved or rebuked and left to the judgment of the Lord (1Ti 5:20; Tit 1:13; 1Co 4:5).
That in this sacred fellowship with the Father and the Son we can have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus will cleanse us from all sin.

Are these principles helpful? Are they fairly stated? If you think not, then take your Bible, put in a few hours’ study yourself and try to draw up a more faithful summary. Add such scripture as you think may be necessary, but do not ignore any of the testimonies referred to here.

In time of strife some may agitate that we cut off some of the Lord’s servants who are judged beforehand to be unworthy. Some may be frightened by the suggestion that to decline shows them to be weak in the faith. Well, “to the law and the testimony”, that is the only guide. Have these brethren denied any element of the faith? Are they guilty of perverse disputings which are making your ecclesial life impossible? Have they been guilty of any of those moral lapses mentioned by the apostle? In short, is there any scriptural principle which justifies you in saying, “These men were called by God to the fellowship of the Gospel, but they are now taking such a position that Scripture requires me to take the extreme step of cutting them off”?

Perhaps there is no one charge that can so easily be tested, but rather a multitude of alleged offences which in the aggregate are regarded as providing a cause. Beware of these “many and grievous charges”. It is easy to bring charges against any body of men to show that their general standard of conduct is inferior to that of others. Whether true, half true, or wholly false, such accusations are difficult to judge. Fortunately we are not called upon to judge. Rather are we required to refrain. We have responsibilities in our own ecclesia to make it a real light-stand, but there is nothing in scripture to suggest that we are called upon to make a detailed examination of the way of life in other towns. Smyrna was not held responsible for the sins of Laodicea, and Smyrna would have been at fault if it had attempted to pass judgment. It was the Lord who judged.

Brethren need not be distressed by the thought that they are bound to pass judgment when others have fallen out. We need not take sides at all, indeed there are disputes in which those at a distance cannot possibly take sides. If some brethren in misplaced zeal insist on an unscriptural division, the whole responsibility lies with them. If they cut our brethren off they cut us off. Clearly we cannot seek their fellowship while they have cut off the body to which we belong. It is equally clear that they alone can repair the breach. We can say with perfect truth, “We have not cut you off, you have cut us off.” The old man of the flesh hates to make such a confession, but it expresses a distinction which may make all the difference between life and death in the day of account.

If there is in these days a Laodicean church, the Lord will pass judgment on it. He is the only one qualified, and God has committed all judgment to him. We need to be very careful how we even form an opinion on such matters. A thousand times more careful how we speak and write.

(PrPr)

FELLOWSHIP

THROUGH belief and obedience of the Gospel we are privileged to have fellowship with the Lord Jesus. We can even be his friends if we will obey all his commands. This scriptural use of the words is quite in harmony with the meanings they bear when employed in merely human relationships. Fellowship is on the basis of one definite cohesive capacity or profession; friendship is more, comprehensive. Fellowship may bring together the most diverse individuals so long as they conform in the one particular. A fellow of the Royal College of Organists must be an expert with the organ, but his religious and political opinions are of no consequence. The fellows may be of such diverse temperaments, tastes, and connections that they could not agree together for an afternoon, and they could never form real friendships. These diversities do not matter in the least so long as they have passed the test which gives them fellowship.

This principle holds good in the fellowship of the Truth. The most completely different temperaments are drawn together; men who on a worldly basis could never even be acquaintances meet at the one table as fellows and brethren. In the world they might be at the opposite ends of society; at the Lord’s table they are equals, for they are fellows on the same basis. Here, however, the Truth transcends all other kinds of fellowship. It is an entity so complete and so beautiful that when properly apprehended it can break through all barriers and fuse the most divergent temperaments. Under the influence of the enlightened love that it brings, individual differences are moulded towards a common ideal and men become friends of each other because each is trying to be the friend of Christ.

It would seem that this fellowship is a matter too sacred for the adjudication of man. Only the Lord can give the privilege, and only he can take it away. In the final sense this is certainly the case; but as custodians of God’s Truth, members of the Church of Christ are called upon to take such disciplinary measures as may be necessary for the preservation of purity in both doctrine and practice, even to the extreme of refusing fellowship to offenders.

We are given explicit instructions as to the principles by which we must be guided in these matters, but we are necessarily left with a considerable margin for judgment in the application of those principles. We are told to withhold fellowship from those who do not accept the full truth regarding Christ’s redemptive work, and we are instructed to withdraw from those who are guilty of disorderly walk.

An example is given in the treatment of an offender. In the church at Corinth there was a man who committed a sin, exceptionally vile even for that city of loose morals. We are told that the brethren were puffed up perhaps using the sin of the erring brother as an effective background for a gratifying exhibition of their own virtue. Their proper attitude should have been one of sorrow because of the wrong done and the necessary severance that must follow.

Quite definitely the apostle instructed the brethren to withdraw from the offender — for that is plainly involved in the words, “hand over to Satan.” With equal clearness the apostle indicates that the first object should be the purging and correcting of the transgressor that he might eventually be saved.

In the latter-day history of the Truth there have been several divisions caused through the introduction of a false doctrine. As brother Roberts pointed out not long before his death, the main divisions were caused by attacks on the fundamental truths of Christ’s redemptive work. The “no will” theory was in effect a denial of Christ’s trial and perfect obedience. The “renunciation” theory was in effect a denial that “Christ came in the flesh.” The “theories of inspiration” attacked the Word and therefore made a direct attack upon Christ. The divergent views regarding resurrectional responsibility were never treated as serious until in an attempt to formulate a coherent theory it became plain how closely the matter was connected with the redemptive work of Christ.

There have also been many cases of withdrawal from individual members for individual offences. In many cases the right spirit has prevailed, the right effect has been produced; the transgressor has been delivered from overmuch sorrow and “in the spirit of meekness” has been restored.

On the other hand, it must be sorrowfully confessed that there have been divisions over matters that should never have caused any trouble and there have been times when the right spirit has not prevailed. Moreover, there has often been great confusion of thought as to the principles which govern fellowship, and there is danger that brethren may be led into grave errors in their attempts to be consistent. If, therefore, we can have a little clear thinking and speaking on this matter many may be helped.

First, we can state positively that no rules can be laid down in such a manner as to spare us all trouble in the application. The most illogical opinions regarding fellowship have been expressed just when brethren have tried to be most logical. Sometimes one has attempted to draw up a series of propositions on such lines as these: (1) To do thus and so contravenes the law of Christ; (2) One who contravenes the law of Christ is not fit for fellowship; (3) Therefore, however painful the duty, we must withdraw from him; (4) Those who refuse to support a motion for withdrawal are defending wrong-doing, and therefore are partakers of the evil deeds; (5) Therefore we must withdraw from them too.

Even such crude reasoning as this would be accounted sound and logical by some. It is possible that many brethren might examine the propositions for some time before they detected the fundamental error. That error turns on the meaning of the word ‘fit’. The fact is we are none of us fit for fellowship with Christ if our personal record is to be the test. A man who was among the greatest of the prophets testified that he was not fit to untie the thong of the Lord’s sandal. Where, then, do we stand? If we were to take fitness in that sense no brother or sister of intelligence would ever dare to withdraw from anyone, while at the same time daring to claim the fellowship of Christ. We are not left to our own sense of fitness, however. We are given instructions that we must withdraw from those who are disorderly; not withdrawing in the spirit of self-righteous men preserving ourselves from contamination, but with the hope of saving the offender. It certainly does not follow that every offence against the law of Christ must be punished in this way, for in many things we all offend. We have to deal with each case as it arises, asking the question, “What would the Lord have us do?” and acting faithfully to the answer of our conscience. We can readily agree on the principles involved. When a member transgresses we may all agree that some disciplinary measures are necessary; but if we make use of our powers at all, it is improbable that we shall all agree in our judgment as to the exact course to take. In such matters we all have to be “subject one to another,” which is the beautiful scriptural way of putting the idea harshly expressed in the modern phrase that “majorities must rule.” When there is no difference of principle but only variability of judgment in the application of a principle, this subjection in love one to another is the only workable method.

This brings us to another point in connection with which there has been much confusion of thought. Some brethren have reasoned as if withdrawal from a transgressor was the only way of expressing disapproval. It has been repeatedly assumed that if a brother is hesitant to the point of weakness in supporting a motion for withdrawal, he is necessarily weak in his views of the error that has called forth the motion. If he argues against cutting off from fellowship, he is regarded as supporting the sinner in his evil way.

I suppose it has always been so in this unreasonable world. Little more than a century ago, men were hanged for sheep stealing in this country. At one time boys of sixteen were hanged for stealing as small a sum as five shillings. If I say that such punishment was wrong am I supporting thieving? No one would say so now; but, doubtless, at one time such charges were brought against the first men who suggested counsels of moderation. And after the milder men had protested with wearying re-iteration that they condemned thieving as fully as any of their neighbours, critics would come back with a repetition of the charge, “These men say it is right to steal.”

I am sorry to use such a crude illustration, but if it serves to clear the thoughts of any distressed reader the roughness may well be excused.

There are many scriptural ways of dealing with the offences of brethren. Withdrawal, or cutting off from fellowship, is the most drastic of all. We may entreat brethren, or reprove them privately, and so leave the matter. In some cases of error everyone would agree that nothing more is needed. We may take others with us, and finally bring a matter before the ecclesia. We may, as an ecclesia, rebuke an offender ‘before all, that others also may fear,’ or, finally, we may if we feel confident that this is what the Lord would approve — cut the offender off from fellowship.

Are we to make it a test of fellowship that there must be unanimity of judgment as to the appropriate method of dealing with an offender?

When we withdraw from a member for prolonged absence from the table is there to be a division, and an extension of cutting off, because all cannot agree that the time has come for action? Are we to cut off those who refuse to support one of these painful motions because of some real or fancied special circumstances in the case? Assuredly not. These are not matters of principle but of application, and the proper course is for all of us to be subject one to another.

Finally, to make this matter as plain as words can make it, let us briefly review the history of the last thirty years in the Brotherhood.

It is about thirty years since the ecclesias throughout the country began to treat certain offences more severely than had been their wont. It was argued-quite soundly, as I think — that for a brother to take a course which bound him to an alien or any body of aliens was a more serious offence than any ordinary failure in a moment of temptation. Among offences of this class, marriage with an unbeliever is, perhaps, most prominent. It is certainly condemned most directly in scripture, and it has unquestionably been of more frequent occurrence than any other sin of similar character. This will serve as well as any matter to illustrate the point, and as I have been urged by a worthy brother to make my position quite clear on this subject it will be well to make this choice.

At one time the general practice was to reprove or rebuke any who offended by marrying outside the Truth, but to go no further than rebuke. In some ecclesias — I believe it was so in London — the rebuke took a public form. Marriages of brethren and sisters were announced to the meeting with appropriate words of goodwill and commendation to the blessing of God. Marriages outside the faith were only referred to that grave disapproval might be expressed.

Nearly thirty years ago the Leicester ecclesia passed a resolution deciding to go further and to withdraw from offenders. I supported that resolution in a very intemperate speech which, for fiery zeal and merciless condemnation, would be hard to beat.

May I assure the brethren that while I would never think of using such language now, I feel a horror at the bare idea of marriage outside the Truth such as the ignorant and zealous stripling could never have felt. It is a sin against the law of Christ, a sin against the life partner, a sin against the children; and in addition to all this it is a renunciation of the greatest joy that life has to offer. If the more drastic rules of later days have saved any young people from this fatal error in the establishment of their homes, surely the severity is justified.

There is, however, a grave danger that growing severity may go too far. It may come to be regarded as the test of soundness in principle, and then weak men will vote for harsher measures than they think are right in the effort to appear strong. When Christ was writing on the ground before he spoke, what would have been our attitude if we had been called upon to express an opinion? We might have been merciless for fear of merciless accusations.

When an ecclesia changes its constitutional practice in dealing with certain offences, all members must certainly be loyal in the sense of not opposing the constitutional action. A faithful brother will not remain a member of the ecclesia if he feels that a matter of principle is involved. He will not be coerced into doing wrong. If, however, it is not a matter of principle, but only of application, he will be subject in love to the others.

Now in these matters which have caused such agitation there is not any difference as to the principle. All recognise that it is wrong to marry an alien or to enter bond service to Gentile power. It is true that in the stress of argument some have even appeared to defend unholy marriages, but the extremes of heated discussion should not, be treated too seriously. In quiet moments all agree as to the fault; even the offenders admit it. We cannot reasonably require that a brother who has married outside the Truth shall say that he is sorry. To ask for such a confession is going too far. Usually, however, he will admit the principle that he has violated. He will recognise that he has given way to a human passion, and in the grip of that passion has broken the law. But while we all agree on these principles there never has been and there never can be unanimity as to the disciplinary measures the Lord would have us take in all these cases. Some of the best and strongest of brethren have urged that we should rebuke offenders with all humility, but not cut them off from the one anchorage that can save them. The Lord has left us to judge for ourselves in these applications of his principles, I know of no workable method but the scriptural one of being subject to one another in love.

It will be a sad day for the Truth if any considerable body of brethren shall ever insist that in future there shall be no liberty of conscience. That when a decision has been reached to treat certain offenders in the most drastic way permitted to us, all who have any scruples as to the correctness of the ecclesial decision must stifle them, must actively support the drastic action and confess that it is not only a permissible action but right, without any mental reservation whatever. Such a demand as this is certainly entirely new in the latter-day history of the Truth, although it is not new if we review the bitter history of past ages.

We may mention one more matter in which there has been confusion of thought. Some have suggested that they may be forced into a position in which they have only a choice of two evils. They say that they may be forced into withdrawing from one section or another, although in neither case do they feel that the withdrawal is right.

It is not true that you can be placed in such a dilemma. You never are forced to cut off any whom you regard as sound in the Faith. To do so would surely be a terrible sin, far worse than the error of those who act with honest but mistaken zeal. You may be forced into a position in which others will cut you off, but that is a different matter altogether. The wrong done is not your responsibility, and if you maintain the right spirit, presently the fever will pass away and wounds will be healed.

There is only one sound course in this matter of fellowship. Stick to “true principles,” and do not strive about “uncertain details.” Pray for divine guidance, but do not neglect the divine guidance which is near, in our memories and on our shelves. Try to keep in their proper place the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Then, when there is a difference of judgment in the application of principles, and you have to record your vote on a motion for withdrawal, vote for what you think is right though your dearest friends should cut you off for it.

IC (The Christadelphian 60:261-265)

Chalcedon Creed

The decree resulting from the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

We then, following the holy Father, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood, in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the manhood; one the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets form the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Cherubim

What is the derivation of the Heb word “cherub”? One possibility: “cherub” = ke-rab: the conjunction of two Heb words: (a) ke: the likeness of; and (b) rab: greatness, or a great number (cp “Rabbi”). Thus cherubim (the plural) sig a great and mighty multitude, in whom God is manifested. This might refer to an angelic company or the company of the redeemed. All of the places of worship have cherubim associated with them (Gen 3:24; Exo 25:13-22; 26:31,33; 1Ki 6:23-35) — suggesting that the great cherubic multitude will be finally revealed through their true worship of the Almighty.

The cherubim were associated with chariots (1Ch 28:18) — the ancient vehicles of war, suggesting that their manifestation will be accompanied by a great battle. (JT suggests the word cherub is related to the Heb word “rekab”, or “chariot”.)

Therefore, the cherubim speak of the sureness of God’s purpose, covenants, and provisions, and His promise to fill the earth eventually with His glory, in the persons of many resurrected Spirit-beings. This salvation is the hope of all creation, and the cherubim in Eze 1 are pictured with four heads:

The lion: the head of all wild creatures;
The ox: the head of all tame creatures;
The eagle: the head of all birds; and,
Man: the supreme head of all God’s creation (Gen 1:26,28), who has been promised dominion over the earth.

Christ in Psa 51:5

Does Psa 51:5 apply to David or to all of us? Does it apply to Christ?

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (KJV).

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (RSV).

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV).

I believe the first phrase refers to David’s birth, and the last phrase refers to his conception. But was it David’s mother who was “in sin”, as KJV and RSV imply, or was it David himself who was “sinful”, as NIV implies? Surely the latter.

The title of Psa 51 testifies that it has to do with the sin of David with Bathsheba; like Psalms 6, 32, 38, 102, 130, and 143, it is a psalm of profound penitence.

Is David making an excuse in verse 5 — ie, “I can’t help myself; I was conceived and born in sin!” In view of the abject admissions of sin elsewhere in the psalm, this doesn’t seem reasonable.

Is David blaming his mother for his own sin — ie, “I was conceived out of wedlock; therefore it is my mother’s fault that I am a sinner!” Again, this doesn’t make sense in view of his other admissions of his own sin.

Or… is David simply describing the legacy of “sin” in his own human nature, not as an irresistible impulse to do evil, as something which he was powerless to resist, but as an inclination toward evil which he failed to resist? (I would think this must be the case.)

In the same sense we are all “sinful at birth, sinful from the time [our] mothers conceived [us]”.

Was this also true of Jesus? Of course. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one” (Job 14:4).

“How then can man be righteous before God? How can he who is born of woman be clean? Behold, even the moon is not bright and the stars are not clean in his sight; how much less man, who is a maggot, and the son of man, who is a worm!” (Job 25:4-6). Can such words properly be applied to Jesus? He applies similar words to himself, if we understand Psa 22 as his words prophetically: “But I am a worm, and no man; scorned by men, and despised by the people” (v 6).

“Now Joshua (surely a type of Jesus?) was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, ‘Remove the filthy garments from him.’ And to him he said, ‘Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with rich apparel’ ” (Zech 3:3,4). Jesus as the true high priest was clothed in, symbolically, “filthy garments”, which are equated with “iniquity”; when were these “filthy garments” taken away? At his resurrection, both literally and figuratively.

Was Jesus, like all of us, conceived in “sin”, and born in “sin”? Of course. How else explain the offerings for cleansing from childbirth? Or the ceremonial “uncleanness” of menstruation — unless it be connected with childbirth? Or the need for circumcision, along with another offering, even for the baby Jesus? Or, for that matter, the need for baptism: “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness…”? Or, again, the need for the high priest to offer for himself as well as the sins of the people whom he represents?

But how could Jesus be connected with the confessions of sin committed which we find in Psa 51 (eg, vv 2,3,5,7,9)? He can, in the sense that he shared the weaknesses and temptations of human nature (‘tempted in all points like we are…compassed with infirmity…learned obedience…”: Heb 4:15; 5:2,3; etc.), and in the sense that such words were prophecies of his bearing the burden of human sin (cp John 1:29; 2Co 5:21; 1Pe 2:22,24; Rom 8:3; Heb 2:14,15). From this point of view, all the verses in Psa 51 listed above are truly Messianic.

Of course, the verses of confession in Psa 51 need to be read regarding Jesus with a different slant from what David meant when writing about himself, or from what we mean when praying about ourselves. But this is a normal characteristic of Messianic prophecy. For example, the “leprosy” expressions of Isa 53 have an obvious figurative meaning with reference to Jesus and the sin-disease, but they fit Hezekiah, the prototype, in a strictly literal fashion.

There are, in fact, quite a number of psalms with Scripturally-attested Messianic application, in which “sin” and “iniquity” are associated with the subject. Some examples:

Psa 40: Vv 6-8 are cited as prophetic of Christ in Heb 10:7-9. But v 12 reads: “Mine iniquities have taken hold of me.”
Psa 41: V 9 is applied to Christ in Mark 14:18 and John 13:18. But v 4 reads: “I have sinned against thee.”
Psa 69: Vv 4,8,9,21,22, and 25 all have NT Messianic citations. Yet v 5 speaks of “my foolishness… my sins.”

Here are three undeniably Messianic psalms. Yet each contains phrases that seem at first glance inappropriate to a sinless Messiah. How should we deal with such “problems”? Some might argue, for example, that Psa 69:1-4 and Psa 69:6-36 are all Messianic (surely they are!), but that Psa 69:5 alone out of the whole psalm applies only to David. But is this really a satisfactory or satisfying way of handling Scripture? Does it not in fact create more problems than it solves?

This approach (ie, of applying the terms “sin” and “iniquity” in such passages to the nature Christ bore) was regularly followed by the earliest Christadelphian expositors. John Thomas, as an example, wrote the following:

“Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written… [here JT quotes Job 25:4; 14:4; 15:14-16; 2Co 5:21; Rom 8:3]… Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and ‘not one’ can bring a clean body out of a defiled body; for ‘that,’ says Jesus himself, ‘which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John 3:6)…

“Speaking of the conception and preparation of the Seed, the prophet as a typical person, says, ‘Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Psa 51:5). This is nothing more than affirming that he was born of sinful flesh; and not of the pure and incorruptible angelic nature” (“Elpis Israel” 127,128).

Christ in the Psalms

Psalms Patterns

First of all, a look at the patterns in the major divisions of the Psalms.

Book	Psalms	Closes with…
1	1-41	Benediction; double “Amen” (41:13).
2	42-72	Benediction; double “Amen” (72:18-20).
3	73-89	Benediction; double “Amen” (89:52).
4	90-106	Benediction; “Amen; “Hallelujah” (106:48).
5	107-150	Last 5 psalms, each beginning and ending with “Hallelujah”.

The first 2 “Books” are predominantly by and about David (at least 55 of 72).
But the last 3 “Books” have very few psalms which are definitely by and about David (18 of 78).
Notice, however: The word “of” in the titles (as in “of the sons of Korah” or “of Asaph”, etc) may mean “for”. Thus, a Psalm [composed by David… or by someone else] would be designated as being written for the use of the sons of Korah, or Asaph, etc [the temple musicians, or servants].

The 5 “Books” were probably compiled at different times, and then later joined together in one large volume. With this we might compare the development of a hymnbook by a community (not being written necessarily in order, but composed at different times by different authors, and then at a later date — or dates — being compiled into its final form).

This would explain:

Why Psa 72:20 says: “The prayers of David are ended“, when others of his psalms appear later in the Book.
Why some psalms are virtually exact duplicates of others (14/53; 57 and 60/108).
…And why there are so few of David’s psalms in the last half of the whole Book.

Pro 25:1 suggests that Hezekiah (perhaps along with Isaiah?) supervised much of the compilation of the Proverbs. And Isa 38:9,20 suggests that at least some (and possibly many) of the Psalms are songs of Hezekiah. (Other Talmudic writers refer to traditions to the effect that Hezekiah was also responsible for compiling and editing the books of Isaiah, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.) This all suggests that, along with David, Hezekiah is a primary subject of the Psalms.

Who are the Psalms about?

Many of the Psalms are cited in the New Testament as being prophetic of the life and work and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus. But many others are not directly quoted in the New Testament. The question is: how do we read those psalms? Do they have any New Testament application?

First of all, a little work with marginal references or the like — with cross-references and parallels between psalms — will suggest that even those psalms not linked by direct quote to Jesus Christ could still be considered, generally, to be about him!

But of course the Psalms were, in the first instance, about the experiences of the individual writers and composers. The writer of many psalms was David, “the sweet psalmist of Israel”; other psalms were probably written by Hezekiah (and others). So we ought to remind ourselves of the basic outlines of the lives of David (and Hezekiah) — especially with regard to their suitability as types of the Messiah.

David as a type of the Messiah

The shepherd boy who laid down his life for his sheep.
The young man anointed king by a great prophet.
The brave warrior who went down into the “valley of death” and slew the great giant who enslaved his people — when all Israel cowered in their tents.
The man who, because of his great deeds and sterling character, was envied and hated by the reigning king.
The “criminal” who was chased and persecuted, and his life threatened, because he was God’s Anointed.
The man who at last emerged in triumph from a cave to be crowned head over all Israel.
The man who gathered many faithful Gentiles, and later gave them positions of great authority in Israel.
The king who expanded his kingdom in all directions, until it won the allegiance of all surrounding nations and became a great empire.
And the king who received the promise of a “Son” [not Solomon!] who would sit on his throne forever.

Hezekiah as a type of the Messiah

(Much of this outline may be derived from a study of the Book of Isaiah. Read in its historical context, the book is first of all a commentary on the life and times of Hezekiah, and his role in the salvation of Judah from the Assyrian invasion. It is in the particulars of his life — the primary fulfillment of Isaiah, if you will — that the pattern is established for understanding the ultimate fulfillment of the Book in Jesus Christ.) {The student who wishes to read more about this theme is directed to Hezekiah the Great or Isaiah, by Harry Whittaker, or The Songs of Degrees, by George Booker.]

A child of promise (“Immanuel”), his great work was prophesied beforehand.
He came to a nation estranged from God.
He cleansed the temple of God, and sanctified the priests for renewed worship.
He called worshipers from the north and from Jerusalem to keep a new Passover.
Even the defiled were accepted through his faith and merits and prayers.
He offered sacrifices for himself and for the people.
He provided living water (“Siloam”, Hezekiah’s Conduit) to a people ready to perish.
He was afflicted with an incurable sickness (possibly leprosy — the “sin-disease”), and was in danger of dying without a “seed”.
But by a mighty manifestation of the Glory of the Lord, he was miraculously healed on the third day.
The great Invading Adversary was destroyed, and Israel was saved, through his faith.
Afterward, the Land was freed from its enemies, the captives and exiles were restored…
…And the king was acknowledged as the Anointed of Yahweh by all nations.

Introduction

The outlines now help us to appreciate a basic point: if a man, in the fundamental outlines of his life, is seen to be a type or pattern of Jesus Christ, then it follows, reasonably, that his writings — about his experiences and feelings, and even his prayers — are part of that overall pattern. So, if David slaying the giant Goliath is interpreted in the New Testament as Christ’s victory over sin (and it is!), then the psalms composed by David commemorating that event must also be prophetic of Christ. Or… if Hezekiah’s being smitten with leprosy and healed the third day is typical of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead on the third day (as it surely is!), then the psalms composed by or about Hezekiah at that time must also be typical of Jesus Christ.

So — when we read history in this way — the last step in Psalms study is surely obvious: The Psalms are not just about David (or Hezekiah)… and certainly not just about you and me. They are ESPECIALLY about Christ.

Indeed, the Psalms are a sort of “fifth gospel”; whereas Matthew, Mark, Luke and John record the external, observable facts of the life of Jesus, the Psalms are his “internal” biography. The first four “gospels” tell us what he did and said, but the fifth “gospel” very often tells what he thought. And this is an indispensable perspective for those who are commanded to develop the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5). The Psalms, being also prophetic, can tell us what Christ will do.

The following outline uses the typical guidelines of the lives of David and Hezekiah in the Psalms, and thereby seek to explain and amplify, on a Biblical basis, the story of our Saviour’s life, death, resurrection, priesthood, and second coming and kingdom.

I SAW THE SON

I heard what they said, So politically correct, so properly right: But I saw not him of whom they spake, And I wondered.

I heard the others who spoke and sang, Deliberately warm and moving, But shallowly repetitious. Of him I saw but little, And I wondered.

I went to the Palace of the Psalms, And there he was! Clearly to be seen, and audible. By the far-seeing eyes of the prophets I saw him as a babe with his mother; And as a young, old Man, I heard the voice of his Father.

I saw the son in obedient beauty. Living and radiant in the glory of his Father. I heard him in prayer, moving, wholly submissive, Even in reproach and consuming sorrow, Yet triumphant. The Amen.

I went to the Tomb Where they buried sin and death And learned that though he slept, He was supremely guarded against corruption. And I wept tears of boundless joy.

I saw him rise, Wonderfully Father-like, And heard him speak to his brethren.

I saw him ascend And arrive at the right hand of Power, In everlasting joy, Regal and priestly.

I saw him return, To reign amongst his enemies Until the earth was filled with his Father’s glory. There was another with him: His Bride, redeemed And with a beauty that was both his and hers. And I wondered.

In the Palace of the Psalms I prayed and worshiped Until there was no longer “I” but only he.

“Titus” (The Christadelphian, Dec, 1998)

BEGINNINGS

Luke 1:26-38: The story of the conception and birth of Christ might be appreciated in the light of Psa 139: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well, my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” (Psa 139:13-17, RSV).

The phrases” knit together” and “intricately wrought” are the same words used of the woven pattern on the veil of the Tabernacle, and the embroidery of the door hangings, the coat of the High Priest, and the veil of the Most Holy (Exo 26:31,36; 27:16; 28:39; 36:37; 38:18; 39:29; cp Heb 10:20).

Christ is the true tabernacle, or temple of God (Mat 12:6; John 1:14; 2:19; Col 2:9; Heb 8:2; 9:7,8,11). Even as the fabrics were specially selected, and specially worked, until the desired effect was achieved in the curtains and furnishings and priestly garments of tabernacle and temple — so that God Himself might be exalted, and eternal principles taught in figurative language — so out of the “fabric” of human nature, the Master Craftsman skillfully selected and wove together… the perfect “tabernacle”, the perfect “temple” — His Son!

Modern science has begun to penetrate into the mysteries of DNA, the genetic code imprinted on the human chromosome, and to see — as through a glass darkly — the building blocks of human life. Surely we may stand in awe at the amazing complexity, and the supreme design, in such a system. And especially may we be brought to our knees in admiration — for the intricate “design” that became God’s Only-begotten Son. “Fearfully and wonderfully made” indeed!

Other references in Psalms to the Virgin Birth:

Psa 22:9,10: The AV mg has: “kept me safe”. This was fulfilled in Mat 2:13-16.
Psa 69:8: “My brethren” = “my mother’s children”, but not “my father’s children” — implying that Jesus had no human father!
Psa 71:6: “You brought me forth, or upheld me from the womb!”
Psa 86:16 / Psa 116:16: Cp with Luke 1:38,48: Mary is the “handmaiden” of the LORD, and in these words she gives her consent which is necessary for the conception of the unique child in her womb.
Psa 89:26,27: “I will appoint him my firstborn”. Cp Col 1:15,18. The “first Adam” and “last Adam”: referring to the one who is “firstborn” not just by his birth, but by his special selection by his Father, and especially by his overcoming of sin and death.
Psa 110:3: Why does David call him “Lord”? Because, though born after David, Jesus is greater than he — being the son of the Most High. See v 3: “From the womb before the morning I begat thee” (LXX).
Psa 132:11: “From your belly” (AV mg) — ie, not “loins” (as of paternal origin), but “womb” (maternal origin). This is the same word in 2Sa 7:12. Cp with Luke 1:42.

Mat 1:20,21: “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” With this compare Psa 130:1-8; 131:1-3 (RSV: “as a child quieted at its mother’s breast”). Psa 130:8 is especially apt: “He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins.”

Mat 2:1,2,9-11: A (not necessarily “the”!) fulfillment of Psa 72:9-11,15? Surely the preeminent fulfillment of Psa 72 is in the Kingdom Age. But in the meantime notice how beautifully the coming of the “wise men” fits the psalm: there are kings from the east (from Arab countries), bringing gifts to God’s special King, including gold.

Luke 2:40-49: The boy (or young man) realizes that his place is “in my Father’s house”. Alongside this, consider the passages in the Psalms expressing the cherished desire to dwell in the house of God: Psa 27:4; 48:1-3,12,13; 63:1-3; 84:1-4; 122:1-4,6,7.

Matt 3:13-17; 4:1: Jesus is baptized, and immediately taken by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted. Compare this with Moses’ Psa 90:5-12: his commentary about the generation that was first “baptized” in the Red Sea, and then afterward perished in the wilderness. Secondly, compare this with Joshua’s (this is a guess) Psa 91:1-7: a commentary about the generation that survived the wilderness to enter the Promised Land. Other points of comparison:

Compare the 40 years there with the 40 days here.
Psa 91:11,12 refers to the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.
Psa 91:13: Cp with Mark 1:13 (Psa 8:6,7; Gen 1:28: Jesus exercises dominion over the wild beasts).

Jesus under the law of condemnation because of his sinful flesh: First of all, generally: Jesus had not committed sin — so why the need to be baptized (as described in the section above)? The answer: because he possessed “sinful nature”. Thus Mat 4 (his wilderness temptation) explains Mat 3:13-17 (his baptism).

Christ’s nature is seen in the accounts of his conception, his birth, his baptism, and his wilderness temptation (1Pe 2:24; 2Co 5:21; Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3; Heb 2:14).

Many of the psalms mention, in passing, the sin and/or weakness of the psalmist. Whereas, on first glance, this would appear to have nothing to do with Jesus (who of course committed no sin), it is quite possible to see such passages — at least some of them — as “roundabout” allusions to the weak, sin-prone human nature which beset Jesus, for which he sought the help of his Heavenly Father to overcome: Psa 6:2,6-8; 18:23; 25:7,11,18 (cp vv 5,15); 38:2-10; 40:12 (cp vv 6-8); 41:4 (cp v 9); 69:5 (cp vv 4,8,9,21,22,25); 51:5 ; 89:50.

(The sin-nature of Christ is dealt with extensively in Psalms Studies, by George Booker, Vol 1, pp 47, 48, 108, 154, 155, 184, 220, 229, 230, 297, 298, 397, and 398; and Vol 2, pp 532 and 598.)

Psa 40:6-8 is quoted in Heb 10:7-9: “Mine ear you have digged” (Exo 21:5,6; Deu 15:16,17) becomes “a body prepared” (Heb 10:5). Why? See Rom 6:6; 7:24; 8:23; Rev 18:13; Jude 9. In Greek, “body” may be a way of describing a “slave”.

Psa 40:8: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” This leads to a consideration of Jesus as the word of God (Deu 17:18-20)…

JESUS AS “THE WORD OF GOD”

First of all, it should be mentioned that — in the New Testament — the Greek “ktisis” (“creation”) quite often refers to the NEW “creation” in Christ. How is this NEW “creation” brought about? By the spoken, written, or proclaimed “word of God” — even as the original “creation” of Genesis was set in motion by “And God said!”

But especially is the NEW “creation” called into being by the “Word of God” made flesh (John 1:14) — Jesus Christ. Jesus is the greatest “Word of God” (John 1:1,14; 1Jo 1:1,2; Heb 4:12,13; Rev 19:11,13). By him were all things (ie, all things in God’s New Creation) created (John 1:3,4 — see how this is improved by a repunctuation:

“Through him (ie Christ himself) all things were made. Without him (Christ) nothing was made. What has been made was ‘life in him’, and that life was the light of men.”

Read this way, it may be seen that John’s focus is unequivocally on the spiritual creation (‘life in him’) and not the earlier, physical, creation of Genesis.

Other passages where Jesus Christ is the “creator” of God’s new “creation”: Col 1:15-18 (cp 2:12; 3:1,10); 1Co 8:6; Heb 1:1-3.

Certain passages in the Psalms can be read in this light:

Psa 33:6,9,10,11: Notice how “a new song” (v 3) is closely connected with the “New Creation” (cp Psa 40:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Isa 42:10; and esp Rev 5:9). Here, cp v 6 (“with the breath of his mouth”) with John 20:22: “And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’.”
Psa 107:20: God’s Word, sent to heal men (John 1:9-12). Cp also Luke 7:7: the centurion’s servant. The Son of man can heal with a word only, even at a distance.
Psa 147:15,18: The Kingdom Age: “He sends his command to the earth; his word runs swiftly.” Even as the prophets “ran swiftly” to bring the “word of God” to Israel (cp Hab 2:2; Dan 12:4; Gal 2:2; 2Th 3:1; Pro 25:11), so the “word” of command from the greatest “prophet” Jesus (who is himself the “Word of God”) will run swiftly through the earth, proclaiming peace and righteousness in the Kingdom of his Father.

Jesus in Psalm 119:

Psalm 119 is the preeminent psalm extolling “the word of God” — surely, then, it speaks to the mind and character of the man who was preeminently the “word of God” made flesh (John 1:14)!

Probably written (or compiled) by Hezekiah, Psalm 119 runs the gamut of all the Hebrew letters. Each of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet is represented by a stanza of 8 verses, in an “acrostic” form in which each of the 8 verses begins with that particular Hebrew letter. Thus, at 176 verses (22 times 8), Psalm 119 is the longest “chapter” in the whole Bible.

Key features of Psalm 119, pointing to Jesus Christ:

The man of Psalm 119 is sorely tried, but in his trials he recognized his Father’s loving discipline for his good (vv 50,67,71,75,107,153).
He has to suffer contempt (vv 22,39,42) and even ill-treatment (vv 121,134) because of his adherence to the law.
He is despised and persecuted by the authorities (vv 23,161).
He is mocked, lied against, and opposed by men of position and power, whom he designates as “the proud” or “the wicked” (vv 51,61,68,78,84,85,86,95,122,150,157).
He is in danger of his life (vv 87,109).
He is confronted by laxity and apostasy (vv 113,126,158), and also by evil example calculated to draw him from his faith into the way of evil (vv 29,37,115), but he resists all such temptations.
The indifference of others to God’s Law arouses in him burning indignation (v 53) and profound sorrow (v 136).
Surrounded by difficulties of many kinds, he seeks refuge in prayer, looking for a fuller understanding of God’s will, for strength to keep the law, and for relief from the distressing circumstances that threaten to destroy him.

MINISTRY

John 2:13-17: Jesus’ early cleansing of the Temple. “Zeal for your house will consume me” is a citation of Psa 69:9. The “for” at the beginning of Psa 69:9 — linking it with v 8 (“I am a stranger to my brothers”) — suggests that this consuming passion for the things of God was the reason for Jesus’ early alienation from his family (Mark 3:21,31-35; Mat 10:36; cp also Psa 27:10).

Compare also Psa 146:9: “He frustrates the ways of the wicked”: “frustrates” signifies “to turn upside down”, and suggests Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers.

John 4:14 / 7:37,38 / 19:34: References to “springs” of living waters invokes such passages as Psa 36:9; 46:4; 87:7. Also, Isa 12:1; Zech 13:1; Eze 47:1-5; Rev 22:1. (The latter two Psalms passages probably referred, in the first instance, to Hezekiah’s Conduit, and the Gihon spring.)

Continual plots against the life of Jesus: Saul’s attempts on David’s life — the background of many of the Psalms — provide the pattern for the continual plots against the life of Jesus. These psalms include, among others: Psalms 34, 52-54, 56, 57, 59, and 140.

Sermon on the Mount: Just as the Sermon of the Mount contains the “Beatitudes” (or blessings), so the Psalms contain an extensive list of “Beatitudes” or blessings: Psalms 1:1; 2:12; 32:1,2; 33:12; 34:8; 40:4; 41:1; 65:4; 84:4,5,12; 89:15; 94:12; 106:3; 112:1; 118:26; 119:1,2; 128:1,4.

In addition, the whole of Mat 5-7 proves to be an extended commentary on Psalm 15:

Psalm 15	Matthew 5-7
1. Who shall dwell?	5:3-12. Principles of blessedness
2. Walketh uprightly	5:13-16. Walks in the light
2. Worketh righteousness	5:17-20. Righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees.
2. Speaketh truth in heart	5:21-6:34. An extended contrast between outward forms and religion practiced in the heart
2. Backbiteth not	7:1-5. Teaching of mote and beam
3. Nor doeth evil	5:43-48. Love your enemies
2. Who condemns the vile person	7:15-23. By their fruits ye shall know them
4. Sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not	5:33-37. Let your communication be ‘Yea, yea; Nay, nay’
1. Putteth not money to usury	5:38-42. Gives without expecting a reward
5. He that doeth these things shall never be removed	7:24-27. Doeth… build on a rock… fall not

Luke 7:36-50: Cp another combination of “tears” and a “bottle” in Psa 56:8. Here is a story to be worked out in some beautiful detail — a story of sin and repentance, tears and remembrance, forgiveness and renewal.

Mark 4:37-41; 5:1-16: First, the storm at sea (Psa 107:23-31); then, the “storm” in the mind of Legion. He who can calm the one can calm the other! The “troubled sea” of Isa 57:20 and Rev 13:1 becomes the “sea of glass” in Rev 4:6; 15:2; 21:18. The Psalms portray a God who can calm the storms, of the nations and of the lives of individual believers — and this is what His Son does in the Gospels: cp Psalms 65:7,8; 89:9; 93:3,4.

The feedings of the multitudes (Mat 14:13-21; 15:32-39; cp John 6:1-15,22-59): Here is Israel, fed once again by “manna” in the “wilderness”. Christ, not Moses, provides the true “bread of life”:

Psalm 78		John 6
7,32	Believe his wondrous works	28,29
9,41,57	Turned back	66
11	Forgot his works / Not because of the miracle	26
17-19	Provoked; “Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?”	30,31
20	Water, bread, flesh	35,52
22	Believed not	36
23	Opened the doors of heaven / Comes down from heaven	33,41,58
24,25	Rained down manna from heaven / Bread of god… comes down from heaven	33,58
31	The wrath of God / Your fathers died	49
36,37	Heart not right / Evermore give us this bread	34
39	Flesh, a wind / Spirit, flesh	63
41	The Holy One of Israel	69 (RV)
56-72	Greatly abhorred Israel, chose David / “Him hath God the Father sealed”	27

John 8:46; 10:32: David’s protests of innocence were only relatively true of him, but they were absolutely true of Jesus. Examples: Psa 7:1-11; 59:3.

Jesus as the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-21): Jesus’ description of himself as the Good Shepherd plainly invokes Psa 23: where Jesus is typically foreshadowed, first as the Lamb; and then, as the Shepherd! Also cp Psa 95:7; 100:3 — and Psa 8: where the Shepherd lays down his life to save his “flock” from that beast of prey, Goliath!

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30-38): Jesus quotes Psa 82 to prove that mortal men (including the Messiah) may be referred to as Elohim, “God” or “gods” (Psa 82:1,6,7; cp Psa 58:1; 97:7; 138:1).

Luke 10:17-24: The return of the 70:

Luke 10	Psalm 8
17. Subject unto us through thy name	2. How excellent is thy name 6. All things under his feet
18. I saw Satan fall 19. Tread on serpents and scorpions (v. 3: wolves; 9:58: foxes)	6-8. All… beasts of the field… under his feet 2. To still the enemy
20. Your names written in heaven	1. Thy glory upon the heavens
21. Lord of heaven and earth 21. Babes	Heavens… all the earth 2. Babes and sucklings
22. All things are delivered to me 22. The Son	6. All things under his feet 4. Son of man
24. Prophets and kings	David: both prophet and king

THE LAST WEEK

John 11:35: The death of Lazarus provokes the tears of Jesus. Jesus’ tears also flow for the prospect of Jerusalem’s sufferings (Luke 19:41), and in the stress of the temptation in Gethsemane (Heb 5:7). The tears of Jesus in the Psalms: Psa 6:6; 39:12; 42:3; 56:8; 69:10; 116:8.

Luke 18:18-24: Jesus talks with the rich young ruler: “One thing you lack!” — that is, Jesus as your Shepherd (Psa 23:1). Thus, “Come, follow me”… as the sheep follows the Shepherd.

Mat 19:28: The apostles sitting upon twelve thrones is the subject of Psa 122:5. (The twelve tribes of Israel are alluded to in Psa 122:4.)

Mat 26:12: “She has anointed me for my burial” – the high priest’s anointing of Psa 133. This psalm also suggests the anointing of the high priest preparatory to his entering the most holy place on the Day of Atonement.

This anointing was also done in anticipation of his resurrection (cp Psa 45:6-8,11).

Mat 21:12-16 / Mark 11:15-19 / Luk 19:45: Here is the second temple cleansing (cp Psa 69:9 again). The other sacrifices are driven away; Christ is soon to become the one true sacrifice… and so “the zeal for your house has consumed me” (as though he were an offering on the altar).

Mark 12:28-37: Jesus uses Psalm 110: “The Lord said to my Lord… ” “And afterward they asked him no more questions.”

Mat 23:38: “Your house is left unto you desolate” (Psa 69:25). The singular fulfillment is that of Judas; the plural fulfillment is that of the whole house of Israel.

Mat 24:2: “Not one stone upon another.” Cp the extended warning of Psa 49 (vv 6,7,11-15). This warning was directed against Egypt in the first place. But now, in the eyes of the Lord, Israel has become the new “Egypt”!

Luke 21:28: “Lift up your heads… your redemption draweth nigh”. Even as David brought the Ark of God’s Glory into Jerusalem, Jesus recreated this scene on “Palm Sunday” — when he entered the city of Jerusalem in the triumphal procession of a conquering king:

Luke 21	Psalm 24
25. The sea and the waves roaring	2. The sea and the floods
36. Stand before the Son of Man	3. Stand in his holy place
13:34. Commanded the porter to watch	7,9. Lift up your heads, O ye gates (ie, gate-keepers).
28. Your redemption draws nigh	5. Righteousness from the God of his salvation
Mat 24;32. He shall send his angels to gather his elect	10. The Lord of hosts.

Other psalms portray this same scene: Psalms 15, 30, 68, 87, and 132.

The Passover in the upper room: The thoughts of Jesus at the Last Supper may be extracted from the Psalms:

Psa 102 in detail: this is a “Passover” psalm (vv 13,15,18-20).
From the “Passover Hallel” (Psa 113-118): consider especially Psa 116:3,12-19; 118:10,14,17,19,22-27.

John 15:18-25: “They hated me without a cause”: Psa 35:11,12,19; Psa 69:4.

Jesus in Gethsemane: David — in his great trial — left Jerusalem and passed over Kedron (and Jordan: 2Sa 17:22), fleeing from Absalom (Psa 42; 43). Fulfilling this pattern, we see Jesus passing over Kedron to Gethsemane (cp Psa 42:5,11; 43:5 with Mat 26:38.

A number of other psalms seem to be based on the “Absalom” experiences of David, and thus point to the same New Testament scenario: Psalms 3; 4; 11; 23; 28; 31; 35; 38; 39; 41; 55; 61; 64; 69; 71; 84; 88; 94; 109; 140; 141.

Consider especially Psa 55:2-7,13,14,21; Psa 88 (all!); Psa 94:16-23.

ARREST AND TRIAL

John 18:2-6: “They [those who came to arrest Jesus] drew back and fell to the ground”: compare Psa 9:3; 27:2.

John 18:12: “Sorrows of death” (Psa 18:4,5) = “cords of death” (AV mg, RV); cp Psa 116:3 (sw) and Psa 118:27 — a figure for sacrifice: “Bind [the sacrifice] with cords… [and carry it] to the horns of the altar…”

The imprecations of Psalm 109: Would David (or Christ!) utter such imprecations (curses; invocations of evil or judgment) even upon his enemies?

Consider one example (Psa 109): Vv 1-5 = “they”; vv 6-19 = “he… him”; and vv 20-29 = “they” again! If the word “saying” is added in v 5, then vv 6-19 may be read as the curses thrown at David by his enemies (“they” = Shimei, Ahithophel, and/or Absalom). But such curses rebounded upon the enemies themselves (cp v 29: “Let them cover themselves with their own confusion”; also cp Psa 7:15,16; 915; 35:8).

Was it the same with David’s “son” Jesus? First, vv 6-19 can be read as the curses upon Christ spoken by his enemies (Caiaphas, the Pharisees, and/or Judas). Then, secondly, as the same curses returning, by God’s providence, upon their own heads. As to Jesus, see esp v 6 (“stand at right hand” suggests a trial!), vv 7,8,13. As to Judas, see esp v 8 (Acts 1:20), vv 16,17,18 (Acts 1:18). Far from wishing the destruction of Judas, Jesus must have felt intense grief for him (cp Psa 35:14 with vv 8,11,12,19) — a detail not readily apparent in the Gospels themselves.

Mark 14:55-57: The false witnesses brought against Jesus are suggested by Psa 27:12; 35:11,12,19; 64:8. (Note: why were the witnesses confused and contradictory of one another? Because, when the key witness — Judas — refused to testify, the whole prosecution strategy fell apart! In the hasty scramble to find and “coach” new witnesses, confusion resulted, and was easily brought out — probably by cross-examination by someone like Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea.)

Mark 14:61,62: ‘You will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power’ – this is Psa 110:1! In the great Day to come, Jesus tells them, our roles will be reversed: I will be the Judge, and YOU will be the JUDGED!

Jews and Gentiles participate together in the trial and death of Jesus: (1) Jews: Annas, Caiaphas, Herod, Judas; (2) Gentiles: Pilate, Roman soldiers. This is the counterpart of Jew (Saul) and Gentile (Doeg) joining forces against David (Psa 52, title; 53:1-3 quoted in Rom 3:10-12; and Psa 10:7 quoted in Rom 3:14). See also Psa 2:1 (quoted in Acts 4:24-28).

Mat 27:26: The scourging of Jesus (cp Isa 50:6; 53:5). See Psa 129:3: notice how Jesus identifies with the very land of Israel — ravaged and plowed under by its enemies.

CRUCIFIXION

Psalm 8: First, David’s victory over Goliath — which in turn prefigured Jesus’ victory over “Sin” — thus explaining the use of Psa 8 in Heb 2:5-15.

What happened to the robe of Jesus (John 19:23-25)? Was it purchased back from the Roman soldiers, washed, and then left for him in the tomb? ‘He will need this later.’ See Psa 30:11 (“you removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy”); and cp Zech 3:3,5: Joshua the high priest exchanges his filthy clothes for clean.

Also, Psa 133 offers the robes of the High Priest as a symbol of unity, and of the whole body of believers. Why? Because, as the high priest entered the most holy place on the Day of Atonement, he went there as the representative of the whole house of Israel, bearing along with his official garments the stones, or insignias, which symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel. In like fashion, the special robe of Jesus — without seam — signified the whole house of Israel which HE represented. [Compare the words of the soldiers, almost “prophetic” in their significance: “Let’s not tear (Greek “schizo”, ie, make a schism!) it”: v 24.]

“Natural” phenomena at the Crucifixion: Clouds, darkness, earthquake, storm: Psa 18:7-15 (cp vv 4-6,49,50); Psa 29:3-9.

The thoughts (and words) of Christ on the cross (Matt 27:46 / Mark 15:34; John 19:30): From “Eli… Eli” to “It is finished!”. This is Psa 22:1-21 (Christ in darkness: cp Matt 27:45), and Psa 22:22-31 (Christ in light).

Luke 23:46: “Into thine hands I commit my spirit”: Christ’s last words seemingly refer to Psa 31:5.

Putting this together with the previous paragraph, the question is suggested: did Jesus recite all of Psa 22:1 through 31:5 while on the cross?

The reasonableness of this suggestion must be tested by a review of the actual psalms. Consider, for examples, the fitness of these verses to the circumstances of the crucifixion: Psa 23:4; 24:3-5; 26:2,6; 27:2,3,5,6; 29:3-9 (darkness and storm); Psa 30:5,9,11; 31:5.

The AV puts this verse (Psa 31:5) in the past tense: “Thou HAST redeemed me…” In the light of v 5a {“Into your hands I commit my spirit”), these words (along with Psa 30:1-3) may be read as the first words spoken by our Lord when he came to life again in the tomb. (So the first half and the last half of Psa 31:5 were quoted by Christ in order, yet almost three days apart, and on either side of the great gulf of death!)

John 19:31-36: “Not a bone broken” is Passover language, referring to the lamb: Psa 6:2; 22:14; 34:20; 35:10.

But how does this square with Psa 51:8? Possibly, “broken bones” in Psa 51 should be seen not as literal, but as figurative — considered as simply parallel to “broken spirit” and “broken heart” of v 16.

Mat 27:57-61: The burial of Jesus, in the rock-hewn tomb: Psa 57:1 (notice the Passover imagery: vv 1,2,3,6,8) echoes this burial.

Jesus was first of all in a virgin womb; and now, finally, he is in a “virgin” tomb — where no body had ever been laid (John 19:41). With this may be compared Psa 139:13 (“you knit me together in my mother’s womb”), and Psa 139:15 (“I was woven together in the depths of the earth”: the tomb?) — as though Jesus had two “births”: the first from his mother’s virgin womb, and the last from the “virgin” tomb.

RESURRECTION

While many Psalms passages might be cited here — eg, those that speak of victory and blessing and divine care and protection, etc — only a few will be mentioned:

Psa 2:7: “This day have I begotten thee.” To which day does this refer? How is this verse used in Heb 1:5 and 5:5? In Heb 5:5 it is connected with Christ being made a High Priest. Thus it is more reasonable to see “this day” as being the day of his resurrection rather than the day of his birth.
Psa 16:8-11: God’s Son is made so as “not to see corruption” (John 19:41). In Psa 16, the “path of life” = “the way to the tree of life” (Gen 3:24; cp John 14:6). And “God’s right hand” = the place of blessing and authority (cp Psa 110:1,4; Heb 12:2,3).
Psa 126:5,6: Those who weep now will rejoice in time of harvest, when the “seed” that has been planted (Jesus, buried) will bring forth new life: cp with John 16:21,22; 12:24.

THE “NEW CREATION” IN CHRIST

Again, as above, many Psalms passages might be cited — specifically those that have to do with:

the blessing of a faithful remnant, through the work of a faithful individual;
God’s saving His people out of bondage in Egypt, into a new life as His nation;
the blessing of children;
a song (or a “new” song) of praise to Yahweh.

Only a few will be highlighted here:

Psa 22:30,31: “A seed shall serve him” (cp Isa 53:10). The man who dies without a generation or descendants will nevertheless have a ‘seed” that will live and serve and worship him.
Psa 87: “Born in Zion”! Those who were born elsewhere will, through their faith, be treated as though they have been “born” (or reborn!) in Zion, or Jerusalem. They will be the “children of Jerusalem” because they are the children of God.
Psa 127:3-5: “Children” are the LORD’s heritage… they speak with the enemies in the “gate”. The “gate” is, generally, the place of meeting and settling legal matters; here, specifically, it may refer to the gate of Christ’s enemy (death!), which would be the great stone rolled away from the door of his tomb (cp Gen 22:17; Rev 1:18).
Psa 128:3,6: “Olive shoots around your table… your children’s children… peace upon Israel. “For example, Peter’s converts at Pentecost and after (Acts 2:41; 5:14; etc.).

Other “New Creation” passages in the Psalms: 102:18; 103:22; 104:30 (see John 20:21,22); Psa 145:9,10.

ASCENSION

Mark 16:19: Cp Psa 16:11; 110:1. Psa 110:1 became the standard Ascension passage of the early church; it is used in Acts 2:34-36; 7:55,56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:19-22; 2:6. Compare 1Ti 3:16 and 1Pe 3:22 with Mark 16:19.

Also, see Psa 68:18: “You ascended on high.”

PRIESTHOOD

Psa 110 again (and v 4 especially): Verse 1 is cited in Rom 8:34 — where Paul adds: “who also makes intercession for us”, thus alluding to Christ’s role as a Melchizedek high priest (see Psa 110:4): see also Heb 5:6; 7:1-24; 10:12,13.

The “sit down” of Psa 110 emphasizes that the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ was a one-time, once-and-for-all, perfect sacrifice — not the ongoing continual offering of many sacrifices which characterized the Law of Moses. “But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool” (Heb 10:12,13). The footstool alluded to here is also mentioned in Psa 99:5; 132:7 — where the glorified and exalted Christ rules over his former enemies.

Psa 65 — a psalm for the Day of Atonement — pictures the congregation waiting outside the Temple for the appearance of the high priest (v 1; cp Heb 9:24-28); cp also v 4: the man who approaches unto God. A similar view is also found in Psa 67:1 and Psa 85:2,8.

SECOND COMING

Psa 2:1-4,9: “Shepherd them” (LXX): cp Rev 2:27. The One who is a Shepherd will also be a King: a “Shepherd-King”. (The “shepherd-king” motif is developed, rather exotically, in the Song of Songs; there, it would seem the young woman falls in love with a shepherd, only to learn — somewhat later — that her beloved is also the king!)

Psa 9 (all): Especially read vv 7-10,17-20.

Psa 29: “Voice” occurs seven times in this psalm (cp seven-fold trumpet blast of Rev 8; 9).

Psa 47 (all): The trumpet points to resurrection!

Where will the Judgment Seat be?

50:4,5: The saints will be gathered to judgment.
87:5: Saints “reborn” in Jerusalem: the rebirth of resurrection and glorification.
133:3: “There (mount Zion) the Lord commands the blessing of life for evermore.” Cp with Gal 4:24-27 — where Sinai is contrasted with Zion!
1:4; 35:5: The “chaff” is separated from the wheat at the “threshing floor” (Psa 72:16). Where was the threshing floor? At the property of Ornan the Jebusite, on Mount Zion or Mount Moriah: 2Sa 24:18. To carry this figure further, the good grain is gathered into God’s granary of the Kingdom, while the chaff is burned up in “Gehenna” (literally located right next to the Temple Mount).

One of Christ’s first tasks when he returns will be to save the remnant of Israel from the hands of their Arab enemies: Psa 60:8,9/108:9,10; Psa 83 (all).

Revelation 11 echoes Psalm 79:

Psalm 79		Revelation 11
1	The heathen are come into thine inheritance… they have defiled	2
2	The dead bodies of thy servants	8,9
2	The flesh of thy saints… the beasts of the earth	7
3	None to bury them	9
4	A reproach to our neighbors, a scorn and a derision	10
5.	How long, O LORD?	11
6	Pour out your wrath upon the heathen	18 (and 16:1)
11	Let the sighings of your prisoners come before you	11
12	Render sevenfold… into their bosom	The 7 vials of Rev 16
13	We will give thee thanks for ever	17

THE KINGDOM

All passages in the Psalms that speak of material blessings, of peace and prosperity, and of the nations acknowledging the rule of Yahweh may, of course, be considered Kingdom passages. From those we select:

“THE LORD REIGNETH”: See all of Psalms 93, 97, 99, and 145. The songs of joy, and songs of praise, call to mind the Lamb and the 144,000 on Mount Zion.
“Coronation” hymns such as Psalms 20 and 21 were probably composed on the occasion of David’s ascension to the throne of Israel, and are easily seen as prophetic types of Christ ascending to the throne prepared for him by God.
The last part of Psalm 22 (vv 22-31) is a vision of the King in his Glory. It was this vision that sustained the Lord Jesus on the cross: “For the joy set before him [he] endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2):

Psalm 22	Revelation 19
22. In the midst of the congregation will I praise thee	4. The four and twenty elders
23. Ye that fear the Lord, praise him	5. Praise our God, all ye servants
25. In the great congregation	6. The voice of a great multitude
22. I will declare Thy name unto my brethren	6. Alleluia, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth
26. The meek shall eat and be satisfied	7,9. The marriage supper of the Lamb

Psalm 45 is a miniature Song of Songs. Both Scriptures describe the marriage of a great “king” to a special “bride”. The righteous King (vv 2,7), taken from among his fellows (v 7), but now elevated above all them to sit on God’s throne (v 6), celebrates a great marriage (vv 9-11). This is of course “the marriage of the Lamb” (Rev 19:7-9), with his “Bride” taken out of the Gentiles (vv 11,12)! This King is also a great high priest (cp Isa 61: 1,2,10: “as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest”), for (as also in the Song of Songs) he is described in imagery reminiscent of the temple and its services. It is because of the surpassing sacrifice that the King-Priest has offered that his prospective Bride has been cleansed, and prepared for him (Eph 5:25-27, citing Song 4:7; cp Song 6:8,9).
Psa 46:4: Compare with Eze 47:1-5 (the living waters); Zech 14:8; and Rev 22:1.
Psa 134 pictures the immortalized saints (cp Psa 133) congregating with Christ on mount Zion (cp Rev 14).
Gentiles especially will praise the LORD in that day. This is the theme of all of Psa 117, as well as Psa 57:9; 67:2,4; 72:11,17; 96:3,10; 98:2; 108:3.

Christ’s resurrection, reality

Act 1:3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
Act 1:22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
Act 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
Act 2:32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
Act 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
Act 4:2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead.
Act 4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.
Act 4:33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead — whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Act 10:40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.
Act 13:30 But God raised him from the dead,
Act 17:18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
Act 17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
Act 26:8 Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?
Act 26:22 But I have had God’s help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen…
Rom 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Rom 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
1Co 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
2Co 4:14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle — sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
Eph 1:20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms…
Phi 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
1Th 1:10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead– Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.
1Pe 1:21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Christ’s words on the cross

Consider parallels with Psalms:

Mat 27:45,46 and Mar 15:34 // Psa 22:1.

Then, later, Joh 19:30 // Psa 22:31.

Therefore, Jesus must have recited all of Psa 22 on the cross.

Were these the very last words of Christ on the cross?

What about Luk 23:46 // Psa 31:5?

Did Jesus recite ALL of Psa 22:1 through Psa 31:5 while on the cross?

Consider: Psa 23:4; 26:2,6; 27:2,3,5,6; 29:3-5 (storm and darkness of Mat 27:45?); Psa 30:5,9,11; 31:5a…

And, finally (3 days later!)… Psa 31:5b!

Christ, preexistence of?

General considerations:

The doctrine of the “preexistence” of Christ depends almost entirely on one book of the NT, John. Was John the only NT writer to understand this “truth”, or to be inspired in this matter? Other fundamental Bible teachings are found scattered throughout the Bible. Could it be that John has been misunderstood?
Consider the contrast with Matt and Luke, where the straightforward teaching is that Jesus began life as a little baby in a manger. Cp Luk 1:32: “He SHALL BE great… SHALL BE called Son of the Highest”, with Luk 2:11: “A Savior, which IS Christ the Lord.”
Did Jeremiah preexist (Jer 1:5)? Did John the Baptist preexist (Joh 1:6). Did the saints preexist (Eph 1:4)?
Rev 13:8: “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”: But did Christ die before the world began? Of course not. The language signifies only that it was in God’s plan from the beginning that His Son would in the future die!
1Pe 1:19,20: “A lamb without blemish, foreordained before the foundation of the world, but manifested in these last days”: Foreordained in the beginning, but not then actually formed!
The idiom of John is not ordinary English: consider, eg, “life… death” in 1Jo 3:14; “beneath… above” in Joh 8:23; “overcome the world” in Joh 16:33; etc. (Such language is not at all common in the other gospels.)
Consider Christ’s plain human nature and his sacrifice: How can that which is immortal become mortal? How could Jesus be “tempted in all points like us his brethren” if he had the memory of life in heaven? And how could an “eternal, preexistent god” actually die!?
1Co 15:46: “First natural, and then spiritual”. And Christ was the firstfruits of this process!

Christmas

Most of the present historical anniversaries that the world keeps are ghostly hangovers from the time when the Mother of Harlots held undisputed sway over “times and seasons,” and the “bodies and souls of men.” AND many of them were borrowed by the Catholic Church from paganism.

Many, of course, are now only unfamiliar names to most of us: Candlemass, Epiphany, St. Stephen’s, Michaelmass, All Saints, Whitsuntide, Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Plough Monday, Twelfth Night, and scores of others. But some still remain prominent, as grim relics of an age of gross and incredible superstition.

“SAINT” VALENTINE, for instance, was a romantically-minded bishop of the third century, martyred (at least according to legend) for performing “christian” marriages against the laws of the Emperor.

“SAINT” PATRICK converted Ireland to Catholicism and immortalized the shamrock by using it to demonstrate the superstition of the triple unity of the “Trinity”.

EASTER is named from a pagan Saxon goddess of spring. Many ancient heathen nations revered the egg as the symbol of the beginning of life: it is from Teuton mythology that rabbit-laid eggs appear among Easter superstitions. Dressing up in new clothes for Easter goes back to Constantine’s time. The Encyclopedia Britannica says —

“The name Easter is a survival from the old Teutonic mythology. It is derived from Eostre or Ostara, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring… There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians.”

HALLOWEEN: Of this, the Encyclopedia Britannica says —

“Hallowe’en long antedates Christianity. History shows that the main celebrations of Hallowe’en were purely Druidical [ancient Britain]. The Druids believed in the calling together of certain wicked souls on Hallowe’en by Saman, lord of death. Upon the Druidic ceremonies were grafted some of the characteristics of the Roman festival in honor of Pomona [pagan Italian goddess of fruits and gardens] held about November 1st, in which nuts and apples, representing the winter store of fruits, played an important part.”

And this became the Roman Catholic “All Hallows”, or “Festival of All Saints,” and was so passed on to a besotted world. The Encyclopedia Americana says —

“Hallowe’en is associated in the popular imagination with the prevalence of supernatural influences, and is clearly a RELIC OF PAGAN TIMES.”

CHRIST-MASS, too, we find is fundamentally of “religious” origin (if superstitious paganism can be called “religion”), but it is FAR from exclusively, or even principally, “Christian.” Most of its innumerable customs, traditions, and superstitions are of pagan origin. But the mystery-working of the Catholic Church has greatly complicated them by the addition of priests and madonnas and holy waters, and signs of the cross.

We must recognize the whole corrupt Babylonian system as a total unit, all equally part of the same Apostasy. The better we perceive, the less we will desire to have any part in heathen customs. When, by study, we come to perceive fully, we shall be shocked and revolted at the idea of having anything to do with it. We shall find it repulsive. We shall want to get as far away from it as we possibly can. Anyone who GROWS in the Truth must inevitably come to this conviction. The tragedy is that many never grow.

We find, above all things, that “Christ-Mass” has come to us in its present form as basically and primarily a Roman Catholic institution. To this great system of iniquity it owes its consolidation, establishment, permanence and popularity.

THE TIME OF THE YEAR

For the period of the year in which it is held, it is indebted to pagan sources. This time of the year — following the harvest, and centering about the winter solstice (shortest day of the year), when the days again begin to lengthen — has almost universally been a period of festivity and religious significance in the northern hemisphere ages before the spread of Christianity.

Regarding the date, most commentators agree that from many points of view, no date could be more unlikely to be that of Christ’s birth. There is no month in the year in which respectable ecclesiastical authorities have not confidently placed the birth of Jesus. The date is undeniably pagan: even Catholic authorities admit that. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1949, article “Christmas”) says —

“CHRISTMAS (the ‘Mass of Christ’) … Clement of Alexandria (about 200 AD) mentions several speculations on the date of Christ’s birth, and condemns them as superstitious… The exact day and year of Christ’s birth have never been satisfactorily settled. When the Fathers of the Church in AD 340 decided upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely (!) chose the day of the Winter Solstice, which was firmly fixed in the minds of the people, and which was their MOST IMPORTANT FESTIVAL.”

The Encyclopedia Americana (1946, article “Christmas”) says the same —

“CHRISTMAS, the ‘Mass of Christ’… In the 5th century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the Birth of Sol (the Sun)… Among the German and Celtic tribes, the Winter Solstice was considered an important point of the year, and they held their chief festival of Yule to commemorate the return of the burning-wheel (the sun).”

And Everyman’s Encyclopedia says —

“CHRISTMAS (the Mass of Christ)… It is certain that the time now fixed could not by any possibility have been the period of Jesus’ birth. The choice of this season was probably due to the general recognition that the Winter Solstice was the turning point of the year.”

THE PAGAN FOUNDATIONS

It was during the period of the ascendancy of the Roman Empire that Christ-Mass originated. Consequently we find that pagan Roman customs played the major part in fixing its date and characteristics. Its general season, however, was later found to coincide with important religious superstitions of the north European barbarians (who also worshipped the Sun and marked the Solstice), and this too played a large part in its development. Alfred Hottes, Christmas Fact and Fancy —

“The roots of Christmas observance go deeply into the folklore of the Druids, Scandinavians, Egyptians and Romans.”

The Chambers Encyclopedia records —

“Many of the beliefs and usages of the Old Germans, and also of the Romans, relating to this period, passed over from heathenism to Christianity.”

R.J. Campbell, in The Story of Christmas, declares —

“There are not a few popular observances associated with the Christmas season which have NOTHING TO DO with the Christian religion and the birth of Jesus. Most of these observances are older than Christianity, and some of them — it must be confessed — are NOT OF VERY ELEVATED ORIGIN.”

William Auld, in Christmas Traditions, notes —

“There are the green garlands, the marvelous trees, the mystic fire and lights, and customs many…still clustering about the great midwinter feast — all of which descend to us from the PAGAN CHILDHOOD OF THE RACE.”

T.G. Crippen, in Christmas and Christmas Lore, confesses —

“The Feast of the Nativity rather incorporated than supplanted various heathen festivals. It was therefore only natural that RELICS OF HEATHEN PRACTICE should survive as traditional customs.”

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics confirms this —

“MOST of the Christian customs [related to Christmas] now prevailing in Europe, or recorded from former times, are HEATHEN customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church. The Christian feast has inherited these customs from two sources: Roman and Teutonic PAGANISM.”

And the Catholic Encyclopedia (note the source) admits —

“There is NO DOUBT that the original Christian nuclei attracted PAGAN accretions.”

The Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia similarly says —

“There were non-Christian elements present in the origin of Christmas. The giving of presents was a Roman custom. The Yule-tree [modern ‘Christmas Tree’] and the Yule-log are remnants of old Teutonic NATURE WORSHIP.” All these sources, bet it noted, are friends of Christmas. They are not exposing its corrupt background: they are rather glorying in it. They regard its heathen-Catholic origin as a delightful and intriguing asset. We find exactly the same picture in standard, independent reference books. The Encyclopedia Britannica says —

“Many current customs date back to pre-Christian origins: among them are Christmas decorations. The Romans ornamented their temples and homes with green boughs and flowers for the Saturnalia [Dec. 17-23] … The Druids gathered mistletoe and hung it in their homes; the Saxons used holly and ivy.”

The Everyman’s Encyclopedia declares —

“The practice of decorating churches is pagan in its origin.” And this is from the Encyclopedia Americana —

“The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log and the wassail bowl are relics of pre-Christian times…The Christmas tree has been traced back to the Romans.”

ORIGINALLY BABYLONIAN

Alexander Hislop, in his monumental Two Babylons, goes even further back —

“The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in pagan Rome and pagan Egypt… The festivals of the Roman Church are innumerable, but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation, viz:

CHRISTMAS, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian.

“It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that, within the Christian Church, no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance…

“This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half way was very early developed. We find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own superstitions. ‘By us’, he says, ‘the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and the Matronalia are now frequented, gifts are carried to and fro, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar. Oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.’

“Upright men (continues Hislop) strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts the Apostasy went on till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under pagan superstition… THAT CHRISTMAS WAS ORIGINALLY A PAGAN FESTIVAL IS BEYOND ALL DOUBT.”

SATURNALIA: CLIMAX OF ROME’S YEAR

This period of the year was one of great festivity for the pagan Romans. First came the celebrated Saturnalia, beginning Dec. 17. This feast of the god Saturn, the Roman deity of seed and sowing, finds much mention in all commentaries on Christ-Mass. One says —

“The Roman Saturnalia was characterized by processions, singing, lighting candles, adorning houses with laurels and green trees, giving presents.” Again from the Religious Encyclopedia —

“The Saturnalia provided the model for most of the merry customs of Christmas. The time was one of general mirth. All classes exchanged gifts, the commonest being candles and dolls. Christmas inherited the general merriment: games, giving of gifts, abundance of sweetmeats, and — as to the more ceremonious elements — the burning of candles.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica relates similarly —

“Christmas customs are an evolution from times that long antedated the Christian period: a descent from seasonal, pagan, religious, and national practices … The god Saturn’s great festival was the Saturnalia. Business, public and private, was at a standstill, schools closed, presents were exchanged, the traditional ones being candles and dolls.”

Likewise the Encyclopedia Americana —

“At the commencement of this festival, a great number of candles were lighted in the temple of Saturn… no business was transacted, schools kept holiday, law courts were closed. Jests and freedom everywhere prevailed, and all ceased from their various occupations.”

Campbell, in The Story of Christmas, further says —

“The Romans adopted from earlier folk-customs the rituals which appear in their Saturnalia which have been CARRIED OVER INTO THE OBSERVANCE OF MODERN CHRISTMAS. There was giving of presents, feasting, drinking, and decorating with evergreens.”

Auld says again, in his Christmas Traditions —

“Much of the spirit of this old Roman festival of the Saturnalia passed into Christmas celebration. The early Puritans, witnessing the jolly antics of grotesque fools (the ‘Lords of Merry Disport’), never had any doubt in the matter… That transient [that is, shallow and passing] feeling which blossoms at Christmastime OWES AS MUCH TO THE KIND GOD SATURN as to the loving Son of Man… This is the Christmas which — mixed with a LITTLE, sentimental Christianity, lies so pleasantly in the genial pages of Dickens.”

BUFFOONERY AND BLASPHEMY

A major feature of the pagan Saturnalia festival was the reversal of all order and dignities: a mock turning everything upside-down. This was carried to great lengths at Christmastime in the Church in the Middle Ages. In England it was customary to appoint a “Lord of Mirule” or “Abbot of Unreason” who presided over the blasphemous foolery. The Encyclopedia Britannica says —

“Merrymaking came to have a share in Christmas observance, even while emphasis was on the religious phase… A Lord of Misrule and his jester directed the revels, and kept them uproarious.”

The Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia adds this —

“In England an ‘Abbot of Misrule’ was chosen in every large household; in Scotland, and ‘Abbot of Unreason’. During the term of the festival he was the master of the house.”

We discover, with shock and surprise, that it was quite customary for even the clergy to let down all barriers of restraint within the Church itself at the Christmas season. Crippen relates (which seems almost unbelievable) —

“At Vespers [the evening prayers], at the end of the Magnificat [hymn of praise to God], the whole service was turned into burlesque. Dice were cast, and black puddings [blood sausage] were eaten, on the alter, ludicrous songs were sung, and old leather was burned as mock incense. In some places an ass was led into the Church, in whose honor a mock hymn was chanted, with a bray for a refrain.”

The Encyclopedia Americana confirms this, saying —

“On St. Nicholas’ Day, a ‘Boy Bishop’ was elected, who exercised a burlesque episcopal jurisdiction, and parodied ecclesiastical functions and ceremonies.”

Such is the height and stability and value of a religion grounded on sentiment and superstition. Auld adds —

“All through the Middle Ages the two rivers of RIOT and RELIGION flowed together.”

SIGALLARIA AND BRUMALIA

Following the Saturnalia in Rome was the Sigallaria, or Doll Festival, another obvious link with modern Christmas. Then on the great day, December 25th itself, came the Brumalia (from bruma: “shortest day”) — the religious observance of the sun-worshipers. This was known also as Natalis Solus Invicti: the “Birth of the Unconquerable Sun” — the date when the day began again to lengthen. It is significant that the Catholic Encyclopedia itself says —

“The well known solar feast of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on Dec. 25, has a strong claim for the responsibility of our Christmas date.”

On this point, the Encyclopedia Americana says —

“In the fifth century the Western Church ordered Christmas to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol.” And Everyman’s Encyclopedia declares —

“The observance which especially influenced the Christian Church was probably the Roman festival of the Winter Solstice, celebrated on Dec. 25.”

Then came the Kalends of January, and finally the Juvenalia (Children’s Festival), both of which have contributed their share to the modern Christ-mass. With very odd logic, but typical of the thinking of the flesh, Crippen remarks —

“Surely it was well that all these should be COMBINED IN ONE GREAT CHRISTIAN FEAST, and their ancient significance transferred in the light of the Gospel. Many customs obtained a new lease of life. In Egypt, as in Rome, the new festival would coincide with the birthday of the Sun-God. And the northern barbarians would find it practically coincident with their own Yule. It seems to have been the festival of the god Thor.”

Again from Auld —

“After the barbarians were Christianized, all the customs and SUPERSTITIONS which had belonged from time immemorial to their own Yuletide began to CLUSTER ABOUT CHRISTMAS. When the season calls up in the mind crackling fires on the hearth, lighted candles, rooms adorned with evergreens, bright berries and flowers, feast and frolic — these are the GENUINE PAGAN ELEMENTS.”

WHEN THE CATHOLICS INVENTED CHRISTMAS

Regarding the period when Catholicism originated Christmas, the Catholic Encyclopedia says it was NOT among the early festivals of the Church, because Ireneus and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, omit it from their list of feasts. The first evidence of any observance of the birth of Christ (says this same authority) appears about 200 AD in Egypt. It was not earlier than 330 AD that Dec. 25 was chosen by any “Pope”, and it was not universally accepted till long after that — for the position and authority of the “Pope” was then still far from established. In the Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, we are told —

“From the beginning of the fourth century, when the restless searchings of the nature and persons of Christ drove men’s minds into many singular errors, the Eastern Church began to feel the importance of emphasizing the actual birth of Christ by a separate festival…The date once fixed, Christmas gradually became one of the three great annual festivals of the Church.”

And from the Abbott-Conant Dictionary of Religious Knowledge —

“Christmas seems to have first appeared in the Roman Church after the middle of the fourth century. At a somewhat later period it spread into Eastern Asia. It was not received with equal readiness by all the churches. Some denounced it as an innovation… It was not till the sixth century that anything like unanimity prevailed as to the day to be observed.

“The manner in which this festival came to be observed in the Romish Church, and through it to the other churches, is as follows: In this season of the year, a series of heathen festivals occurred, the celebration of which was in many ways closely interwoven with the whole civil and social life of the Romans.

“These festivals had an import which easily admitted of being spiritualized, and transformed into a Christian sense. First came the Saturnalia, which represented the Golden Age, and abolished for a while the distinction of ranks.

“Then came the custom, peculiar to this season, of making presents, afterwards transferred to the Christmas festival.

“After the Saturnalia came the Festival of Infants [Juvenalia], at which the children were presented with images.

“Next came a festival still more analogous to Christmas, that of the shortest day [Brumalia], the Winter Solstice, the Birthday of the New Sun, about to return once more toward the earth… Hence the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was transferred to December 25.

“In the Romish Church, Christmas is a very high festival.”

HOW THE EARLY CHRISTIANS FELT

Regarding the attitude of early Christians toward such things, Auld says —

“As for the first believers, they had NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST IN ANYTHING OF THE KIND. Hope in the Lord’s imminent return from heaven in great power and glory was the flame that fired their devotion.”

In the book, The Customs of Mankind, we read —

“Christmas was originally a festival of the Winter Solstice. It was customary to hold great feasts in honor of the HEATHEN GODS. The early teachers of Christianity PROHIBITED THESE FESTIVALS as unsuited to the character of Christ. Yet the symbols and customs of the old festivals are adapted to the new, and so we find Christmas patterned with many customs of pagan origin.

“To the mind of the Puritans, Christmas smelled to heaven of idolatry… The Puritans abolished Christmas as a hateful relic of Popery.”

Tertullian — who wrote (says Encyclopedia Britannica) “in a period when a LAX SPIRIT OF CONFORMITY had seized the churches”: about 200 AD — says regarding decorating with evergreens and ceremonial candles —

“Let those who have no Light, light their lamps, let them affix to their posts laurels. YOU [Christians] are the Light of the World, a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple [by heathen wreaths].”

Crippen says —

“At the time of persecution, Christians were detected by NOT decorating their houses at the Saturnalia.”

Some conformed to the heathen customs to avoid suspicion, and to appear like their neighbors, so they would not be looked on as odd and different. This practice was strongly condemned by the early church. And Campbell relates —

“The early Christians discouraged the use of evergreen decorations in Christian homes and assemblies, because their display had long been associated with heathen festivals. Bishop Martin of Braga forbade the use of all greenery and ‘other dangerous Kalend customs’.”

Crippen remarks —

“So long as heathenism was in full vigor, the ancient Christians were puritanically jealous of anything that might seem like coquetting with idolatry. But when heathenism was declining, there was a disposition to adopt its customs. What had been heathenish became rich with Christian (!) symbol.”

Note that last statement. Auld too betrays the same perverted outlook —

“The use of evergreens is one of the happy (!) contributions which PAGANISM made to the Christian festival. At first the Church frowned upon this intrusion of paganism into the sacred season. But altogether, the ancient Church was wisely tolerant (!) in her attitude to heathen IDEAS and customs … hence the curious and interesting MIXTURES of IDEAS — pagan and Christian — which became charmingly (!) entwisted.”

After unsuccessfully fighting the adoption of pagan customs, says Campbell —

“The clergy endeavored to transform the heathen revels into amusements which — if not really more spiritual in character — had at least the merit of recognizing the authority of the Church.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms this —

“As Christianity spread among the peoples of pagan lands, many of the practices of the Winter Solstice were blended with those of Christianity, because of the liberal ruling of Pope Gregory I and the cooperation of the missionaries.”

And such was the slow but deadly course by which what was originally the faithful and holy Ecclesia of Christ exchanged purity for pleasure, and the friendship and Way of God for the friendship and ways of the world.

REFORMATION… THEN DECLENSION

In times of reformation, and attempted return to Bible ways, there have been periodic revolutions against these heathen corruptions, but they have not endured. In 529 AD, the Emperor Justinian decreed that no one should work on the Catholic festival of Christmas. At the Reformation, one thousand years later, the revulsion against the Catholic superstitions was such that laws were made against not working on Christ-mass. Crippen says —

“The leaders of the Reformation in Scotland thought the Roman Church was too bad to be mended. In their view, it must be ended, and a new beginning made strictly on the model of the New Testament.

“Now certainly the New Testament MADE NO MENTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FESTIVALS. So the new beginning included the sweeping of them all away. On Dec. 26, 1583, the Glasgow Kirk Session put 5 persons to public penance for keeping the ‘superstitious day called YULE’.”

The early Puritan settlers of America were of the same mind. Christmas, they declared, “smelt to heaven of idolatry,” and they abolished it as a “relic of Popery” [and it certainly is] . In Massachusetts in 1659, a law was passed that-

“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or in any other way, shall be fined 5 shillings.”

In their earlier, sounder days, when they valued the Bible as the Word of God, and were trying to be guided by it, the Presbyterians and Baptists were similarly opposed to these superstitious observances, on the same grounds, but they have long since drifted back to the “ways of the heathen.” In England in 1644, at a time of respect for the Word, and of revulsion against Catholicism, the observance of Christmas was forbidden by an act of Parliament.

WHEN THE CATHOLICS INVENTED CHRISTMAS

And from the Abbott-Conant Dictionary of Religious Knowledge —

“Then came the custom, peculiar to this season, of making presents, afterwards transferred to the Christmas festival.

“After the Saturnalia came the Festival of Infants [Juvenalia], at which the children were presented with images.

“In the Romish Church, Christmas is a very high festival.”

HOW THE EARLY CHRISTIANS FELT

Regarding the attitude of early Christians toward such things, Auld says —

In the book, The Customs of Mankind, we read —

“To the mind of the Puritans, Christmas smelled to heaven of idolatry… The Puritans abolished Christmas as a hateful relic of Popery.”

Crippen says —

“At the time of persecution, Christians were detected by NOT decorating their houses at the Saturnalia.”

“There can be no doubt that [some of] the early Christians also frequently shared in the frolics of their heathen neighbors; and the fathers of the Church had considerable difficulty in prevailing on their members to refrain from such unedifying pastimes. The early Christians discouraged the use of evergreen decorations in Christian homes and assemblies, because their display had long been associated with heathen festivals. Bishop Martin of Braga forbade the use of all greenery and ‘other dangerous Kalend customs’.”

Crippen remarks —

Note that last statement. Auld too betrays the same perverted outlook —

After unsuccessfully fighting the adoption of pagan customs, says Campbell —

“The clergy endeavored to transform the heathen revels into amusements which — if not really more spiritual in character — had at least the merit of recognizing the authority of the Church.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms this —

That is, instead of teaching the converts to abandon their old superstitions, and to start a clean new life solely according to the Way of God, the Church found it more practical and profitable to give the old superstitions new names, and mix Christianity with paganism. And such was the slow but deadly course by which what was originally the faithful and holy Ecclesia of Christ exchanged purity for pleasure, and the friendship and Way of God for the friendship and ways of the world.

REFORMATION .. THEN DECLENSION

“The leaders of the Reformation in Scotland thought the Roman Church was too bad to be mended. In their view, it must be ended, and a new beginning made strictly on the model of the New Testament. Now certainly the New Testament MADE NO MENTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FESTIVALS. So the new beginning included the sweeping of them all away. On Dec. 26, 1583, the Glasgow Kirk Session put 5 persons to public penance for keeping the ‘superstitious day called YULE’.”

“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or in any other way, shall be fined 5 shillings.” In their earlier, sounder days, when they valued the Bible as the Word of God, and were trying to be guided by it, the Presbyterians and Baptists were similarly opposed to these superstitious observances, on the same grounds, but they have long since drifted back to the “ways of the heathen.” In England in 1644, at a time of respect for the Word, and of revulsion against Catholicism, the observance of Christmas was forbidden by an act of Parliament.

SANTA CLAUS — CHRISTMAS TREE

The name “Santa Claus” is clearly recognizable as derived from the good Bishop “Saint Nicholas,” patron saint of beggars and thieves. In the Middle Ages, thieves were known as “clerks of St. Nicholas.” In Europe he travels about in all his bishop’s regalia riding a white horse (which he inherited through amalgamation with Scandinavian mythology from the god Wodin, who was engaged in exactly the same activities at that period of the year). His descent down the chimney is traceable to similar habits of the Norse goddess Hertha. Auld writes about St. Nicholas-

“The names and attributes of the mysterious purveyors of gifts disclose a most CONFUSED MIXTURE OF PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN NOTIONS. All kinds of bugbears and bogies figure in the European Christmas. By their names they suggest a loose connection with St. Nicholas, but by their activities they betray unmistakable relationship with the weird beings of pagan mythology.”

We have seen how the Christmas tree is traced clearly to ancient paganism. Virgil, the Roman poet, speaks of decorating pine trees in honor of Bacchus, the god of drinking and revelry. Hislop connects similar customs with Egyptian cults. And — in a strange, latter day reversal — pagan Russia has borrowed back the pagan “Christmas”‘ tree. The Moscow News reports that Moscow alone has 10,000 of such trees. Colored pictures show these “New Year”‘ trees, with all their tinsel and bright baubles and lights, to be indistinguishable from “Christmas” trees, except there are no “Christian” symbols, and the crowning Star at the top is red. And Russia’s genial “Grandfather Frost” associated with these trees, with his jolly face, and bushy white beard, and suit of red: who can distinguish him from St. Nick? He is St. Nick, stripped of his adopted Catholicism, and returned to his pagan origin. Mistletoe, of course, is well-known as inherited — and introduced into Christmas — from the Druid priesthood of ancient heathen Britain. For centuries the Church forbade its use because of the superstitions attached to it. It was so sacred a talisman that enemies meeting beneath it laid down their arms. (The world still has a relic of this heathen superstition).

Miscellaneous Christmas superstitions are far too numerous to mention. Campbell, in summing up, comes surprising close to the truth —

“There is really NOTHING IN COMMON between the mystery of the Word made flesh for man’s salvation, and the orgies of eating and drinking and horseplay associated with the paganism of pre-Christian times, and PERPETUATED AT THE CHRISTMAS SEASON in our own as well as earlier generations.

“There’s goodwill in both, but one is CARNAL, and the other SPIRITUAL.”

How do we — called out to be holy sons and daughters of the Lord — stand in relation to these confused and corrupt Catholic-Pagan things of the world? Admittedly, it all appeals powerfully to the flesh. It is “pretty”, it is exciting, it is the popular way of the crowd, it is pleasant to the senses. It is all tinsel, and hoopla, and music, and glistening stars, and twinkling lights. It has everything that attracts the shallow, juvenile, fleshly mind. The Christmas songs and Christmas stories are concocted and executed by consummate actors for the fullest emotional effect. Doubtless the children of Israel, indulging in the “pretty” Canaanite religious customs, said to themselves (or in self-excuse to others), “There really isn’t any harm. Of course I do not really mean it in a religious way. It really means nothing to me, and it is all so pretty and pleasant. I really serve the Lord, but I just like a little fun and relaxation. Why do we have to be so different?”

There is absolutely nothing scriptural about Christ-mass. Nothing like it, or leading to it, or justifying it, is ever mentioned in the Bible, or even in early “Christian” records. We have seen that it is a “religious,” blasphemous Catholic-Pagan abomination. Why should holy brethren and sisters of Christ ever want to have anything to do with such things of the Apostasy? Surely we desire holiness!

We cannot really say what part of this fleshly mixture — the Pagan part or the Catholic part — is the more objectionable to God, but either one alone should be enough to keep a child of God from having anything to do with it.

(In large part, from GVG)