“In like manner also, (I command) that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with restraint and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…” (1Ti 2:9).

This word “apparel” includes more than dress. It may be translated “deportment” or “bearing”. Actions are very much a part of this “apparel”! This reminds us of so many Biblical passages showing clothing as a symbol of our life in the Truth (Job 29:14; Psa 132:9; 1Pe 5:5; Isa 11:5; Rev 19:7,8). Paul is looking for modesty that is firmly rooted in the character — not the “modesty” of a showy affectation. “Sobriety” denotes soundness of mind and judgment. It is a habitual, inner self-government, which puts a constant rein upon the natural desires and passions. Sobriety puts into action what the “modesty” recognizes to be proper.

With such qualities of modesty and restraint the sister must adorn herself, so as to be pleasing in God’s sight.

“The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1Sa 16:7).

God sees the thoughts and intents of our hearts (Heb 4:12), and our “adornments” must be those characteristics in which He finds delight. These verses are specially for the women, but the ultimate application is for all: “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1Pe 3:3,4).

Paul is commending the virtue of self-restraint: the refusal to conform to the foolish fashions of a vain and changing world. How closely should a brother or sister conform to the fashions of the world, as to dress, makeup, and so forth? Men and women are born, make changes while they live, grow old and die; and others come to take their places. This world’s fashions come and go, and the only sure thing about them is that nothing will remain the same for long. But the Almighty God of heaven never changes. In this is sufficient reason to shun (as much as is practical and reasonable) the passing fancies of a godless world.

By slavishly following the fashions of this world, we are showing our misplaced dependence upon it. We are showing that we regard the favor of the world as of greater value than the favor of God. We think more of the world’s fellowship than we do of God’s fellowship.

Furthermore, stylish dress, elaborate hair-styles and excessive makeup, which imitate the changing fashions of today, give the impression to others of a similarity of thought and behavior. This is not something which a believer in Christ should wish to imply. As much as is practical we must show our separateness from the world. Thus we should be modest, neat, and tasteful — not skimpy on the clothes, not excessive in our spending, not elaborate and time-consuming in our personal grooming. The overall key — and especially is this true for the sisters — is modesty (not seductiveness) in apparel, and in deportment.

How easy it is, and with what a sense of comradeship (it seems) can one join one’s friends in a group for a few drinks. What harm is there, provided one is “temperate”? Did not Paul advise the young Timothy to “use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine oft infirmities”?

The trouble with drinking is that it is not in the nature of the young, generally, to be temperate. And drink clouds the mind; it over-stimulates the senses and weakens the self-control. A car can be an instrument of death in the hands of someone who drinks to excess.

Drink can arouse excessive merriment in some and bad temper in other. The most violent quarrels occur in bars.

Paul used a phrase which aptly described the weakness of will which can be caused by drinking: “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess” (Eph 5:18). It is in the nature of alcoholic beverages that they encourage “excess” in many different ways — all of which are negative.

It is not so much that we should never touch wine and the like, but the company, the places and the dangers must ever be in our minds.

“Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man” (Luk 21:34-36).

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers… nor drunkards… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1Co 6:9,10; cp Gal 5:19-21).

The loathsome effects of excessive strong drink are described — almost humorously — in the book of Proverbs:

“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. ‘They hit me,’ you will say, ‘but I’m not hurt! They beat me, but I don’t feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?’ ” (Pro 23:29-35).

Present-day abstainers are in very good Scriptural company: John the Baptist was one of the greatest men who ever lived (Mat 11:11), and he was a teetotaler (Luk 1:15; 7:33). The leaders of the early ecclesias were commanded to be “sober”, “not given to wine” (1Ti 3:1,2; Tit 1:7). Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s wine (Dan 1:8). The Nazarites also vowed to separate themselves from every product of the grape (Num 6:3).

The moral issue from the Biblical standpoint is therefore simply this: A brother under the influence of alcohol is a brother who deliberately deprives himself of the ability to “serve the law of God with his mind” (Rom 7:25). God has graciously given us a knowledge of the Truth: an understanding of His laws, as well as a spirit “of power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (2Ti 1:7). Are we acting lawfully when we knowingly engage in a practice which will deprive us of soundness of mind, and bring us under its power (1Co 6:2), exposing us to the uncontrolled workings of the flesh? Is this the way to “flee from sin”?

---

Also, see Lesson, Addiction.

---

A member of Alcoholics Anonymous once sent columnist Ann Landers the following:

We drank for happiness and became unhappy. We drank for joy and became miserable. We drank for sociability and became argumentative. We drank for sophistication and became obnoxious. We drank for friendship and made enemies. We drank for sleep and awakened without rest. We drank for strength and felt weak. We drank “medicinally” and acquired health problems. We drank for relaxation and got the shakes. We drank for bravery and became afraid. We drank for confidence and became doubtful. We drank to make conversation easier and slurred our speech. We drank to feel heavenly and ended up feeling like hell. We drank to forget and were forever haunted. We drank for freedom and became slaves. We drank to erase problems and saw them multiply. We drank to cope with life and invited death.

It is a good rule that the saint should keep his body pure from smoking and excess drinking. And he should certainly keep his body clean of drugs either of the narcotic or stimulant types unless it be under proper medical attention.

In such a drug-accustomed world as ours, is it any wonder that foolish young people, scared of the violence and uncertainties of the world into which they have been born, should turn to drugs that will take them into a dream world? Unfortunately there is always the awakening to an even more terrible mental state as one becomes addicted to drugs.

What is not realized even by the habitual user of “hard” drugs, is that he has set himself on a course of moral, spiritual, and physical deterioration which may result in irreparable damage to the brain, lungs, liver, kidneys, and bladder. Or the victim may find himself suffering from asthma, heart disease, or other serious ailments.

One of the worst dangers of drugs is that different people react to them in different ways. A few “pep” pills have made some people feel over-confident and led them into silly actions. Others have become vicious and brutal, in a few cases to the extent of murder; whilst others have become so depressed by the pills as to commit suicide.

We have to work in the world, or we may have to leave home for further study. But wherever we find ourselves, and however young we may be, we are ministers of the Word and lights in the world. It should be our business to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, meanwhile keeping ourselves “unspotted from the world”.

The world can be a cruel place; it is also a testing ground. But we have the assurance that, if we are loyal to our spiritual heritage, we shall with the Father’s help conquer the world:

“Whosoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

---

Also, see Lesson, Addiction .

Mar 9:32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

Joh 4:27,33 Just then his disciples returned and were surprised to find him talking with a woman. But no one asked, “What do you want?” or “Why are you talking with her?”… Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?”

Joh 12:20-22 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.

Joh 13:22-24 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.”

Joh 21:12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord.

During the last generation of the first century, the “fellowship situation” can best be described as chaotic. Paul’s last writings are far from optimistic, and John’s letters show an elderly apostle — the last of his generation — contending against the practices of men who scarcely if at all deserve the name ‘brother’ (AE, “Problems of Fellowship in the First Century Ecclesia”, Xd 108:210).

Such a man was Diotrephes — characteristic of a certain spirit within the ecclesias. Diotrephes was domineering, self-assertive, and arrogant. Defying the loving authority of the aged John, he could — so it seems — “cast out” of fellowship (ct Joh 6:37) with impunity those associating with the apostles, or, for that matter, anyone of whom he disapproved. Like some modern brethren of the same stamp, he also “cast out” those who failed to “cast out” the brethren he had “cast out” — in the ultimate extension of the “guilt-by-association” syndrome.

AE in his article points out that, with ease of communication in the Roman Empire, it was common for preachers to travel from ecclesia to ecclesia on lengthy missionary journeys. Such activities posed problems of fellowship then as now. Wherever the ecclesia was to which Diotrephes belonged, it included as members both those who rejected these preacher brethren, and those who welcomed them. John appears, then, to be presuming on his almost universal standing in the brotherhood, when he “interferes” in a tricky internal affair of another ecclesia. Notice, however, that his “interference” — if it may be so termed — is not for the disfellowshiping of any individual, but rather is for the acceptance of “the brethren” (3Jo 1:5). And John does not even counsel the disfellowship of the despicable Diotrephes!

The phrase “casting out” (3Jo 1:10) is a very harsh and cruel term: “If the Master himself was able to conduct most of his preaching within the synagogue system, however grudgingly received by those in power, he had no illusions as to the long-term fate of the church following his ascension to the Father. ‘Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils (Greek Sanhedrins, ie local courts) and flog you in their synagogues’ (Mat 10:17, RSV)” (AE, ibid 16).

Examine closely and without prejudice this first-century picture of inter-ecclesial affairs. How similar it is to our own day: an imperfectly joined network of congregations, with no universally recognized leader (even the apostles met frequent opposition); an arrangement calling for forbearance and patience and tolerance, not to mention the occasional compromise! Certainly not the place for would-be leaders to issue “bulls” of excommunication either against or on behalf of uninformed brethren.

Notice that even the apostle John does not declare, ‘Disfellowship Diotrephes.’ Notice also the presumed “conflict”: Gaius will receive “the brethren”; Diotrephes will not receive them. And yet they are considered — by no less than an inspired apostle — to be “in fellowship” with one another. Sometimes inconsistencies and anomalies exist in our midst. Patience and love are required to “sort out” these issues, without destroying or driving away those who have not quite “got it right”!

“Wherever there is intolerance; wherever we find conditions of communion among Christians imposed, which Christ hath not clearly enjoined; wherever creeds and modes of worship are enforced by human power, and men made to forfeit any of their civil rights, or are stigmatized on these accounts, there is the spirit which is not of God. Wherever one Christian, or a number of Christians, assumes the seat of authority and judgment in the Church of Christ, wherever they call for fire to destroy those who dissent from them, or only exclude them from their communion and affection, there is a portion of the spirit of Anti-christ, which has so long opposed itself to the benign principles of the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace, has been the cause of so many evils to humanity, and the occasion of making the inconsiderate esteem the amiable yet distinct and uncompromising religion of Jesus, as a source of mischief, instead of benevolence… Alas, how much of this spirit remains amongst us all! How few have learned that, ‘In Christ circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God’ ” (JT, Herald, 1850).

Joh 2:22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Joh 2:17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” [ Psalm 69:9 ]

Joh 4:31-34 Meanwhile his disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat something.” But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Then his disciples said to each other, “Could someone have brought him food?” “My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

Joh 6:19 When they had rowed three or three and a half miles, [ Greek rowed twenty-five or thirty stadia (about 5 or 6 kilometers) ] they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were terrified.

Joh 8:27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.

Joh 12:16 At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

Joh 13:7 Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

Joh 14:4-9 You know the way to the place where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know [ Some early manuscripts If you really have known me, you will know ] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” 14:8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Joh 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.

Joh 16:17 Some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?”

Mat 16:7-11 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.” Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

Mar 8:17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

Luk 22:38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Luk 24:8 Then they remembered his words.

Luk 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

This is one of the mottoes which through long and perhaps careless use acquires almost the force of Scripture. Under this heading or something similar, some brethren would contend that great distances and lack of personal interaction do not mitigate one’s “fellowship” responsibility at all. In other words, an ecclesia (or an individual for that matter) must become acquainted with the facts in any alleged wrongdoing no matter where around the world, and take “fellowship” action, just as if the problem were local.

The especially sad thing about this line of reasoning is that it appeals for support to the very principles that should be the most uplifting and comforting to a believer in Christ — that is, the essential worldwide unity of faith of believers with Christ and one another — and makes these wonderful ideals the basis for unwarranted and hasty dismemberment of the spiritual Body. In the ultimate sense, neither distance nor time is a barrier to Biblical “fellowship”, for it was Christ himself who told the disciples, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Mat 28:20). But only a very impractical person — or one thoroughly bent on a negative course of action — could fail to comprehend that distance, as well as time, can be a mitigating factor in the ability of fallible mortals to get at all the facts of a doubtful and disputed matter. Sometimes it is the course of wisdom to admit one’s inability to judge aright; sometimes the wisest words are simply: ‘I just don’t know for sure’.

Although in certain circumstances RR is made out as a foremost exponent of this unrealistic fellowship approach, it is clear when considering all of his actions and writings that the practical outworking of such a “cut-and-dried” approach was quite different from the impression given by a few random citations. An actual example, which concerned the brethren in my locality, serves well as illustration:

In 1883 a group of Texas brethren submitted a “position paper” concerning a regional controversy to The Christadelphian, requesting its publication. (The exact nature of the difficulty is irrelevant to our present purposes.) Brother Roberts printed the ecclesial news only, omitting the statement as to fellowship difficulties in Texas. The comments he added to the correspondence give his reason:

“The publication of your statement would only raise a controversy, which could not only do no good to any of us, but involve others in troubles best localized. We can afford to refer all doubtful matters to the tribunal of Christ, not doubtful, perhaps, to those who see clearly on the spot, but doubtful to those at a distance, who can only see them through the medium of conflicting representations” (“Fraternal Gathering”, Xd 20:528).

If it appears that this position is at variance with RR’s thoughts elsewhere given, I can only say that it is not my desire to portray anyone long deceased — especially one of the spiritual stature of Robert Roberts — as inconsistent. However, it should never be forgotten that no man, no matter how wise in the Bible, no matter how well respected for his work’s sake, no man (but Christ) has ever been perfect, or perfectly consistent.

A balanced view of Christadelphian history leads to startling, but understandable, conclusions: When controversies plagued large centers of Christadelphians — like Birmingham, London, or Adelaide — and touched brethren in editorial capacity, or otherwise well-known or influential, then those troubles were quickly exported to the most remote corners. But when a similar controversy arose in an isolated area, Texas for example, it was generally localized and ignored; thus it died out after a few unsettling years. There seems to be no more rational explanation as to why the “partial inspiration” question, for example, is still extant, but the “priesthood” question and other esoteric matters died well-deserved deaths. One is forced to the belief that the latter-day body of Christ would have been much better off had more such questions been localized, and ecclesias at a distance been allowed to concern themselves with their own affairs only.

“We must keep firmly to two rules, which might be considered by extremists to be contradictory, but which are complementary. All ecclesias as a basis of co-operation must acknowledge the same fundamental truths, while at the same time each ecclesia must have the right of judging any doubtful case. The first maintains the truth; the second provides for an ecclesia taking account of all the factors in any borderline case, these factors being only known to the members of that ecclesia. There must be mutual respect for each other’s judgments” (JC, “A House Divided”, Xd 94:187).

“When fire breaks out there is need for calm, careful action. Panic is disastrous. Fanning of the flames is foolish. Spreading the fire to other places would be criminal. When controversy breaks out there is need for calm, careful thought, and all the facts of the fire drill have their spiritual counterpart. Our history as a community sadly illustrates the dangers of spreading controversy, and the evil of provoking controversy…. Let us be on the Lord’s side to fight for unity, to put out fires of controversy, to rebuke those who would spread the fires afield. Together let us all pray that Christ may not be divided today” (H Osborn, “Is Christ Divided?”, Xd 102:214).

The story of David’s victory over the Philistine giant Goliath is an enacted parable of the promise of Gen 3:15 (the seed of the woman crushing the head, and power, of the serpent). It is also a powerful and provocative “picture of redemption”.

David’s defeat of Goliath typifies the work of Christ in two different, though related, aspects: (1) Christ’s moral victory over the power of sin in himself, and (2) Christ’s coming military victory over sin its political forms. It was necessary that Christ first conquer the “world” in himself, by subduing the lusts of the flesh, so that he might be qualified to conquer the nations and rule over them. Both these victories, the one past, the other yet future — are beautifully outlined in the stirring drama on 1Sa 17. In this epic encounter between faith and force, Holy Spirit and human nature, the heavenly and the earthly, we see all the redemptive purpose of Almighty God, unfolding from Eden onward.

“Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war” (1Sa 17:1). The name “Philistine” has found a place in the English language as a common noun, describing those who are ignorant and uncultured, those who are “of the earth, and earthy” (1Co 15:47), without the least aspiration toward higher things.

The Philistines pitched their tents in “Ephes Dammim”, which signifies “the border of blood”. This site was a little south of Jerusalem and halfway over toward the Mediterranean Sea, at the border between the Israelite hills and the Philistine plain. The “border of blood” marked the crest, or high point, of human power — the point where it was to be broken and turned back. “This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt” (Job 38:11). As such, “Ephes Dammim” typifies Golgotha in the past, and Armageddon in the future: the sites where “sin” reaches its high-water mark and is afterward repulsed by the Hand of God. (Linguistically, Ephes Dammim is closely related to “Aceldama” — the “field of blood”, where the traitor Judas met his fate: Acts 1:19.)

“The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them” (1Sa 17:3).

Mountains in Scripture often represent military powers (Zec 6:1), while valleys are places of sorrow, humiliation, and trial — and sometimes of destruction, such as the valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:12), where the serpent-power of the Gentiles will be broken. Like David, Jesus had to go into “the valley of the shadow of death” (Psa 23:4) to conquer the “giant” of sin. Figuratively, too, Israel will have to go through the “valley of Achor (trouble)” (Hos 2:15), and the “valley of Baca (tears)” (Psa 84:5-7) before finally reaching the Kingdom of God.

“Goliath” (1Sa 17:4) means “exile”; he was from “Gath”, which means “winepress”. The Philistine giant was, like Cain (Gen 4:14,16), an exile from God because of sin. He was trodden down by David, even as all human power and pride will be trodden down by Christ in the great “winepress” of the wrath of God (Isa 63:3; Rev 14:19). Goliath’s height was six cubits (the number of man: compare the “666” in Rev 13:18). He was covered with bronze — symbolic of the flesh. He was the human equivalent of the bronze, or brass, serpent of Num 21 — the power of sin destroyed by Christ on the cross (John 3:14). He was arrayed in armor and weapons of the flesh, in contrast to the spiritual arsenal of Eph 6:13-17, which was David’s trust (1Sa 17:45), as well as Christ’s.

This mighty champion of the flesh came out into the valley between the two armies, every day for forty days, to defy the God of Israel. It was a sad, shameful spectacle; not a man of Israel , not even King Saul (himself a giant: 1Sa 10:23!), had the faith and courage to confront this blasphemer (1Sa 17:11).

---

Now comes a sudden break in the narrative (v 12), introducing the second antagonist in this epic struggle: David, a young man, a shepherd of Bethlehem (v 15), had been sent by his father to take provisions to his three older brothers serving in Saul’s army (vv 17-19).

David, when he came to his brothers, was met with mockery and derision (v 28). Likewise Jesus, when he came to save his brothers from the “giant” of sin, met the same ridicule. How much natural man needs salvation; yet how little he realizes it!

The boy David could not understand the inaction of Saul’s men: “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (v 26).

The words of the shepherd boy come to the ears of the distraught king, who is so desperate that he sends for him. And the poor shepherd boy says to the mighty king: “Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him” (v 32).

Saul reasons according to the flesh, which is fatally obsessed with size and natural advantage:

“You are not able…” (v 33).

BUT WHY NOT, IF GOD IS WITH HIM? “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31). How often do we forget the strength of faith, and make the same mistake — tentative, timid, and even afraid? How often do we forget that, if God is on our side, then nothing can stand in our way!

David wisely refuses Saul’s offer of armor. The children of the Spirit are no match for the children of the flesh if they attempt to meet them on their own ground and do battle with their own weapons. The “seed of the woman” will always be outclassed by the “seed of the serpent” in numbers, experience, prestige, and learning. Their defense — and offense — must be in the “shield” of faith and the “sword” of the Spirit (Eph 6:16,17)!

For his weapon, David took his sling and then chose five smooth stones out of the brook (1Sa 17:40). (Why five? was it because Goliath had four brothers — 2Sa 21:15-21 — also giants?) The sling, made of animal skin, would require a death for its preparation. Like the garments that God prepared to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness after their sin, the sling also typified a sacrificial death. The sling (suggesting a sacrificial death) gave all the power to the stone which David hurled against the giant. The stone which brought down Goliath typifies Christ: he is the stone rejected by the builders, but later made the cornerstone of God’s building (Psa 118:22). He is also the stone cut out of the mountain of human flesh WITHOUT HANDS (ie, born of a woman without human father: Gen 3:15), which smote and destroyed Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Dan 2:34), and then filled the whole earth.

The smiting of the “dream” image in Daniel 2 is parallel to David’s smiting of Goliath, with one significant difference : one stone smote Goliath in the HEAD (cp Gen 3:15), which symbolizes the vital life center. The other strikes the image on the FEET, symbolizing the time when destruction is accomplished — the end of the age. But, each time, the end result is the same: the Image of “Sin” destroyed, and Israel saved.

The Nebuchadnezzar image represents the accumulated history of the four great empires that collectively make up the “serpent-power” of the Kingdom of Men, which oppressed God’s kingdom of Israel. David’s selection of FIVE smooth stones relates his victory to the FIFTH great Kingdom: the Kingdom of God that will finally conquer all and fill the earth with His glory.

“Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground” (1Sa 17:49). On this verse the old Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, quaintly writes: “See how frail and uncertain life is, even when it thinks itself best fortified, and how quickly, how easily, and with how small a matter, the passage may be opened for life to go out and death to enter.”

This was the typical fulfillment of the Edenic promise that the woman’s seed should crush the serpent’s head. The antitype stretches from the cross to the military destruction of the last vestiges of human misrule and oppression, when Christ returns.

“David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword” (v 51). And he brought the head to Jerusalem (v 54). Jerusalem proper was still in the hands of the Jebusites (2Sa 5:6-10). We know that Goliath’s sword was kept at Nob (1Sa 21:9), very near Jerusalem (cp Isa 10:32; Neh 11:32). So probably Goliath’s head was buried there too. Nob may be identical with Golgotha (‘the place of a skull’). David’s act symbolized the destruction of the head of sin, accomplished by Jesus in his own body on the cross, and finalized at Golgotha just outside the walls of Jerusalem. (Ancient Hebrew tradition suggests that Golgotha was so named because it was the burial place of Goliath’s head.)

David’s act also prefigures the cutting off of all mortal ruling power, and the transferring of all the world’s headship to Jerusalem, “the city of the great king” (Mat 5:35).

“Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron” (1Sa 17:52).

David’s wonderful feat revitalized the army of Israel, which then went on to rout the Philistines. Those who were powerless and afraid to face Goliath received new strength and courage in the victory of David. Like David, Jesus was the only one capable of winning the special victory over the “serpent”. Yet his victory over that “devil” — like David’s over Goliath — delivered his brethren who — previously — “all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb 2:15).

“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?… The sting of death is sin… But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Co 15:55-57).

“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife” (1Co 7:10,11).

In relation to brothers and sisters in Christ, we believe divorce is contrary to the commandments of Christ; and that if a believer is divorced, remarriage to another partner should be out of the question as long as any possibility remains for a reconciliation.

“But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman”, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Gen 20:20b-25).

“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate'” (Mat 19:3-6).

God’s purpose was clearly that man and woman joined together in marriage should be joined together for life. Only the death of one of the parties should terminate the bond. It is easy to see various reasons for this. The very method of Eve’s formation (“bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”) laid the basis for this indissolubility; the mental and moral qualities of man call for it; and the purposes of marriage in the increase and nurture of the race demand it.

It is plain that estrangements and separations between husbands and wives, whenever and wherever they exist, are incompatible with the high standard of conduct which the Bible sets forth. In the light of this exalted teaching, it is considered that where estrangement is threatened between husband and wife it is a Christian duty to seek patiently and actively a renewal or resumption of normal relationship.

Not only is this the duty of husband to wife and wife to husband, but also of those who can offer wise counsel with patient understanding. Where estrangement followed by separation has already happened, and while reunion is still a possibility, the pursuit of divorce and remarriage is a definite negation of the teaching of the Lord — because the successful pursuit of such a “solution” removes forever the possibility of reconciliation. These considerations apply with added force where there are children to consider.

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery, and anyone who marries a woman so divorced commits adultery” (Mat 5:31,32).

” ‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’ Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery'” (Mat 19:7-9).

Divorce obtained by a brother or sister on any ground except that allowed by Jesus is a sin which cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, the ecclesia should not exclude the possibility of true repentance after the fact.

Furthermore, while remarriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, are contrary to the highest ideals as expressed by Christ, it is possible to envision circumstances in which it would be unjust for an ecclesia to lay down a course of action without discrimination.

In dealing with all who come short of the divine ideal, our aim should be, not only to admonish and rebuke, but also to restore. While trying to maintain to the fullest the high standards of Christ’s teaching, we must beware of slipping unconsciously into an attitude toward offenders which the Lord would condemn. To achieve the right balance in these matters in the spirit of our Lord’s teaching, calls for prayerful and persistent effort and humility of mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong formula:

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

Right formula:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now to the passages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Joe Hill and George Booker)