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)

The following statement was prepared in 1950 by the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Christadelphian Ecclesia of that time; the author of this book having a part in drafting it. It appeared in “The Christadelphian” for July, 1950.

In dealing recently with a case of divorce and re-marriage, the Arranging Brethren of the Birmingham Central Ecclesia have given long and anxious consideration to the principles which should govern our attitude in such cases. Similar problems have arisen in other ecclesias and in existing circumstances may be expected to arise more frequently. It has therefore been suggested to our Arranging Brethren that a statement of the principles which have guided us in dealing with our own case may be of some service also to others.

A declaration of these principles was contained in a statement considered and endorsed by the Birmingham Central Ecclesia at special meetings… the declaration being in the following terms:

(1) The sanctity of the marriage relationship is set forth by Jesus and by his Apostles in very exalted terms. Its unique quality compared with other standards is based upon the fundamental principles expressed in Genesis (Gen 2:24) and is also set forth ideally in the union of Christ with his Church. In Revelation there appears the vision of the Marriage of the Lamb to his bride, for which marriage “his wife hath made herself ready” (Rev 19:7,8).

(2) The duties and obligations of husbands to wives and wives to husbands are also set forth with impressive beauty by Paul, notably in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 5:22-23) in which the love of Christ for his Church, and his giving of himself for it, is exhibited as the ideal to be emulated by wives and husbands.

(3) The teaching of the prophets reinforces these exalted views. For example, in Hosea the enormity of the sin of adultery applied in figure to Israel is denounced with severity on the one hand, while the appeal to the back-sliding nation to forsake this evil way and return to the Lord is made with extraordinary tenderness of thought and feeling. In the prophet Malachi, there is the passage, “The Lord the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away”, and the context makes it clear that God detests the insincere repentance on the part of any Israelite who has dealt treacherously with the wife of his youth. The teaching of Jesus himself as to the duties and obligations of the married state is set forth in several places in the gospels. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sets his own teaching against what was said of old time.

(4) According to Mat 5:31, Jesus said: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

In Mat 19:3-5, in answer to the question put to him by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus took them back to the divine intention at creation: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (v 6).

To the second question by the Pharisees, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” Jesus replied that it was due to the hardness of men’s hearts that Moses suffered this precept. This teaching maintains uncompromisingly the sanctity of the marriage relationship as set forth throughout the Scriptures.

(5) The disciples were astonished at the uncompromising nature of these declarations by Jesus, when according to Matthew, after he had thus declared himself, they remarked, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”. The Lord’s answer is of great significance. He recognizes that the standpoint he has put forward is beyond the strength and determination of some; he did not modify in any way what he had already taught, but added, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”.

(6) It is plain from this teaching that estrangements between husbands and wives whenever and wherever they exist are incompatible with the high standard of conduct which the Scriptures thus set forth, and still more so is the existence of separation and the pursuit of divorce. 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 of those whose relationships to these would enable them to offer wise counsel with patient understanding and due recognition of the frailty of human nature. Where estrangement followed by separation has already taken place, and while re-union is still a possibility, the pursuit of divorce proceedings and re-marriage is a negation of the teaching of the Lord, inasmuch as the successful pursuit of such proceedings removes for ever the possibility of reconciliation. These considerations apply with added force where there are children.

---

A great change having taken place in current social standards as regards marriage contracts, and ignorance of Scripture teaching having become increasingly widespread, we believe it is essential that all applicants for baptism should assent to these principles; that with applicants who have previously been divorced, or having been divorced have re-married, this assent is especially necessary; and that before baptizing such, special consideration should be given to their knowledge, state of mind and general outlook regarding these principles. There is additional need to emphasize this course of action because of the recognition of desertion by the State as a valid legal ground for seeking divorce.

Acceptance of these principles should be required of all our members, but when a brother or sister fails to observe them there inevitably arises a separate and more difficult question. What action should the ecclesia then take? It is in the answer to this question that different points of view are found. There are those who would lay down a rigid rule which would disfellowship any brother or sister who obtains a divorce or marries a divorced person in all circumstances except those provided for by the “exceptive clause” recorded by Matthew. It would follow from this that any brother or sister so offending could only be received back into fellowship if he or she separated from the other party to the marriage. Those therefore who wish to lay down a rigid rule must face this consequence of it and must be prepared to call on the parties to separate. It should be borne in mind, however, that there are circumstances in which separation creates more problems than it solves, and many brethren and sisters are, therefore, unwilling to commit themselves irrevocably to a rule which would require separation as a condition of continuance in fellowship without regard for or any consideration of such circumstances. It is the unanimous view of the Arranging Brethren that we ought not so to commit ourselves.

While it must be recognized that divorce obtained by a brother or sister on any ground except that allowed by Jesus is a sin which cannot be overlooked, the ecclesia should not exclude the possibility of repentance. Further, while re-marriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, are repugnant to the spirit of Christ’s teaching, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which it would be unjust to lay down a course of ecclesial action without discrimination. The Arranging Brethren therefore consider that the present practice in dealing with known breaches of the Lord’s commands should be maintained: where divorce, or re-marriage by a divorced person, or marriage with a divorced person, occurs, an interview should be sought, and withdrawal or other ecclesial action determined in the light of all the facts and of the principles referred to in earlier paragraphs.

In dealing with all offenders, we must remember that our aim should be, not only to admonish and rebuke, but also to restore. While endeavouring to maintain to the full the high standards of Christ’s teaching, we must beware of slipping unconsciously into an attitude towards 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.

(Written in 1997)

During the first week of September, millions in England and millions more around the world mourned the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, who died tragically in a car crash in Paris.

The sudden death of any person who is young (Diana was only 36) inspires more than ordinary grief. The tolling of church bells at unusual times has, traditionally, marked death, with each peal signaling one year in the life of the deceased. In earlier (and slower) times, farmers at work in their fields, and women at work in their homes, would pause in their daily routine when the church bells rang out. They would listen and they would count the peals: Sometimes the bells would ring for a good long time… seventy, eighty, ninety peals… and the listeners would say to themselves, “Well, those were good innings!” — meaning, ‘The deceased lived a long life.’ But at other times the bells would ring… ten, twenty, thirty peals… and then all would be silent… and the listeners would return to their chores with hearts a little heavier, realizing once more the brevity, and sadness, of life.

“Any man’s death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind. And therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls.

It tolls for thee.”

On Saturday, September 6, church bells rang out, and the whole world stopped and listened. From Westminster Abbey in London, final resting place of forty generations of British kings, sounded out words and music and prayers that were flashed around the world instantaneously. More people were brought together in that one moment, to witness that one event, than ever before in human history.

Many nations have royalty. All nations have the rich and the famous and the powerful. What made the Princess of Wales so special? In pondering that question, we may find some interesting answers.

Diana was a “fairy tale” princess, plucked from obscurity to marry her “Prince Charming” and to live happily ever after… but of course, the story didn’t end the way fairy tales should. In real life, fairy tales don’t!

But in the beginning, she captured the imagination of the world; she was young, she was rich, she was beautiful, she was fashionable, and she married the man of her dreams. What Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis had been, Diana Spencer became… only more so! In no time at all, her appearances — opening hospitals, visiting foreign dignitaries, reviewing the troops, whenever and wherever — completely overshadowed the appearances of her husband Prince Charles. And therein lay, perhaps, the seeds of the final tragedy. For Diana, young and naive, outshone everyone around her, including monarchs and future monarchs!

So, even as she captured more and more hearts with her genuine concern for, and kindness toward, the sick and the downtrodden, AIDS victims and lepers and homeless, and her tireless efforts for almost countless charities, she was losing… her husband, and her special place in the royal family. The same newspapers and tabloids and television networks that had made her an icon were chipping away at the image they had helped to create. Nothing was secret in the fish-bowl existence of the Windsor family; every whisper, every innuendo, was grist for the mill; all privacy was stripped away from her; she was lampooned and scorned by many. And a marriage — that might in ordinary circumstances have been salvaged — finally and sadly broke down. Surely there was fault on both sides, but the feeling in many quarters is that Diana was more sinned against than sinning.

In the wake of various infidelities on both sides, the marriage of Prince Charming and his Princess was lost, irretrievably. Separation led to divorce. But the Princess did not “go away”; she had such a hold on the imagination of the world that, even in exile and stripped of her royal title, she was still beloved by millions. The woman who would never be Queen of the United Kingdom became the “queen of hearts” — still the most watched, the most reported, the most photographed, person in the world. And still she persisted, despite failures in her personal life, despite what some of her family characterized as deep personal feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, to devote herself to many charities and causes, and to reach out to touch and help many of the poor and wretched of society.

Perhaps it was her very failings, and her vulnerability, that helped to endear her to so many millions. She became, in the words of her brother’s eulogy, the “standard-bearer for the rights of the downtrodden”, because so many recognized in her their own weaknesses. She was not just royalty; she was imperfect, and human, and real. She was one of them.

So she died, as she had lived, in the fast lane. And pop singers and prime ministers, and unimaginable crowds of common folks, mourned her passing, “like a candle in the wind”. And the monarch of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, who bows to no man, bowed to her coffin as it passed.

Someone who truly cares!

The outpouring of grief at the death of Diana suggests, pathetically but also promisingly, a world that is looking for someone who truly cares. A world that is looking for a leader who can truly supply what the bright and beautiful, but frail and flawed, Diana could only hint at! A world that is groping for, that desperately needs, true “Royalty”.

There is such a man:

“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mat 11:28-30).

There was a man who walked through the world, touching the lepers and the harlots and the poor and the blind and the homeless, changing lives as he went. There was a man who truly cared for all, but especially for the rejected and downtrodden and the abused — he himself was rejected and trodden down and abused because of his good deeds. There was a man who was truly “touched with the feeling of our infirmities”, for he was in all points tempted just as we are — he knew what it was like to feel the weakness of human nature, yet… marvelously … he was without sin” (Heb 4:15)!

This man was born in obscurity, but he was destined for great things. He went about Israel, proclaiming by his actions that he was a King, doing only good for others. But some of the “establishment” (who hated him) plotted and connived, and finally stripped him of his “titles” and even his clothes and his last vestige of human dignity; then they nailed him to a cross… where he died, still a young man.

“I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32).

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:14-16).

This man, being lifted up on a cross, became the true “standard-bearer for the rights of the downtrodden”. And this man, being lifted up again… three short days later, from a tomb of stone, became — and continues to this very day to be — the “King” of Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, India, Africa, Asia, Europe, and America… and the “King of love”, who reigns in all loving hearts. In the words of our Hymn 33 (which were sung at Diana’s funeral):

“The King of love my Shepherd is. Whose goodness faileth never: I nothing lack if I am his, And he is mine for ever…

“Perverse and foolish oft I strayed; But yet in love he sought me; And on his shoulders gently laid, And home, rejoicing, brought me…

“And so through all the length of days Thy goodness faileth never: Good Shepherd, may I sing thy praise Within thy house for ever.”

The whole world will witness another great spectacle, one day not too far in the future. We cannot know exactly what form it will take, although the Bible has many hints:

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Rev 1:7).

There will be aspects of a great state funeral about that event too (which could well be witnessed in a single moment by virtually all of the world’s peoples), because the great King who appears then will be recognized as the One who was crucified (will he reveal the wounds in his hands and side?: Zec 13:6)… and there will be great mourning when he comes, at least for a short while.

“And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean” (Rev 19:14).

There will be a military presence at that great event too, and beautiful horses, and armies arrayed in splendid pageantry. Mourning will give way to rejoicing, as the understanding sinks into the minds of the billions watching that this man had been dead, but now is gloriously and eternally alive… and he brings the blessings of Heaven to all his subjects!

“The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him” (Psa 72:10,11).

“Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising” (Isa 60:1-3).

Before this King the monarchs of the whole earth will prostrate themselves, laying their crowns at his feet!

Countless graves will be opened around the world, and out of the dust itself will be reconstituted living, breathing, sentient beings… Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Moses, David, apostles and prophets, and ordinary men and women… who are gathered together with untold numbers of living ones, to meet the new King before his throne. Out of the multitudes will come new “kings and priests”, and “a royal priesthood” — the true Royal Family for which the world has been waiting!

Surely there will first be a great hush among that magnificent throng — a “minute of silence”:

“The LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (Hab 2:20).

This will be the most eloquent stillness the world has ever known. Then the moment of silence will be broken with the peal of bells, ringing out liberty and life, and the notes of trumpets, sounding out victory.

And from everyone who has breath, now knowing and fully understanding the purpose of that God-given breath, voices will be raised to sing the praises of the once and future King, and the whole earth will be a “cathedral” to echo those praises:

“And they sang as it were a new song before the throne… and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth… And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest… And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Rev 14:3; 15:3,4; 21:3,4).

May that day soon come when all peoples of the earth will be united into one, with one king and one voice. “Even so. Come, Lord Jesus.”

---

The death of a “saint”

Within a few days after the death of Princess Diana, another world-famous woman died… in India. Born in Macedonia (Greece) 87 years ago, she was known to the world as Mother Teresa. She really was what Diana, in her better moments, must have aspired to be: a woman who spent her life serving the poorest of the poor, the desperately impoverished street people of one of the world’s poorest cities, Calcutta.

Widely regarded as a “living saint”, Mother Teresa was perhaps the most admired woman in the world. When she appeared, as she often did, at the side of Pope Paul II, it was the pope who stood, figuratively, in the shadow of the frail and stooped little woman.

It was fifty years ago that Sister Teresa (as she was then known) abandoned a reasonably comfortable job in a Calcutta school to go out into the filthy streets of the worst slums of the city, to teach the children who were too poor to attend regular schools. One day, as she later recalled, she found a woman “half eaten by maggots and rats” lying almost dead in the street. She sat with her, stroking her head, until the woman died.

And thus a new vocation, and a new religious order, was born. Her goal would be to minister to the “unwanted, unloved and uncared for,” and to that end she began to gather a small group of women around her, forming the Missionary Sisters of Charity. Building shelters for the dying became her special service. Poverty was her chosen way of life. When Pope Paul VI gave her the limousine he had used during a visit in 1964, she sold it — without ever stepping inside — and used the proceeds to start a leper colony. To the usual religious vows of poverty, chastity and obedience she added a fourth: a promise of “wholehearted free service to the poorest of the poor,” whom she characterized as “Christ in disguise”.

When she died, many thousands of those poor came to her elaborate state funeral, along with flocks of cardinals (the human, and Catholic, kind!). Among the Scripture passages read was Mat 25:31-40:

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ ”

Among the hymns sung was our Hymn 313:

“Abide with me; fast falls the eventide; The darkness deepens; Lord, with me abide: When other helpers fail, and comforts flee, Help of the helpless, O abide with me.

“Swift to its close ebbs out life’s little day; Earth’s joys grow dim, its glories pass away; Change and decay in all around I see; O Thou who changest not, abide with me.”

---

Once again the outpouring of grief, in Calcutta but also around the world, was tremendous. This time the natural constituency of the deceased truly was the downtrodden of the world — the people huddled in the corners of the worst slums, begging in the streets, the diseased and the deformed and the dying.

And, almost immediately, in the Vatican of Rome, half a world away, wealthy and comfortable bishops and cardinals began planning the process by which the little wisp of a woman lying in state in Calcutta might become the latest Roman Catholic “saint”.

The true saints?

We know what the Bible says. “Saints” are not made “saints” by an apostate Church! The word itself means those who have been made holy or sanctified by their faith in Christ, and by his atoning sacrifice. It is “all the church, beloved by God,” who are also “called saints” (Rom 1:7). And we know also that good works alone, no matter how numerous, cannot earn salvation in God’s Kingdom — we must believe the true gospel of Jesus Christ, and be baptized into his name.

But once again, within the space of the week, the pictures on our television sets and in our newspapers and magazines remind us of the wrenching poverty to be found in the world, and the desperate hopeless plight of so many. And of how much we all need Christ to come, to gather his true saints together, and to extend his wise and benevolent rule over all the earth.

And in the meantime?…

In the meantime, while we wait for that Kingdom to come, what should be our attitude (or should we even bother having one?) toward the awesome outpouring of grief, in London and throughout the world, at the death of Princess Diana? And again, at the different, yet eerily similar, grieving centered in Calcutta?

We “true believers” are inclined to adopt certain attitudes at such times as these. We tend to feel superior at the spectacle of so many others grasping at a false (or imperfect) hope, or even grieving because they have no hope (“We thank Thee, Lord, that we are not as these poor sinners!”). We tend to secretly (or not so secretly) laugh at the silliness of a belief system that mixes and juggles heaven-going and resurrection with no apparent regard for logic (and feel superior again). We may also tend to pull our garments about us even more tightly, and draw back even further, if possible, from a world lost in such obvious darkness and ignorance.

For every one of these attitudes there is some justification. But are they not easy (perhaps too easy?) for us to adopt? Is there something more?

As the camera pans across the oceans of people gathered in the heart of London, and again shows us the barefoot and ragged masses of India, the mind goes to Paul’s words in Rom 8:

“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (vv 20-22).

Can we not be moved by the sight of a world groaning in pain, a world mourning the loss of something it cherished? A world yearning for something more, a world desperately laboring to bring forth something… something it does not quite understand?

And why doesn’t it understand? To some degree (which each of us can only assess individually) the world does not understand what it needs, what it longs for… because we haven’t told it, or because we haven’t told it often enough, or because we haven’t told it well enough, or because we haven’t told it with sufficient sympathy and kindness and patience?

But the world — those masses upon masses of sinners of every shape and hue, part of which we saw on our TV screens in the streets of London and Calcutta: homosexual AIDS sufferers along with Baptist deacons, drug addicts and prostitutes along with social workers, the lice-ridden and the leprous, Hindus and Muslims and atheists along with Anglicans and Catholics — they all need the Kingdom. What they don’t need is our contempt, and our mocking, and our rejection. The true King, the true “Holy One”, when he walked on this earth, didn’t give them that; neither should we!

LG Sargent, one-time editor of The Christadelphian, wrote this in his exposition of the Lord’s prayer (in the section entitled “Thy kingdom come… “):

“To desire God’s kingdom and righteousness is to desire the day when all nations whom He has made shall come and worship before Him; when ‘Truth shall spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven’… It is to desire that His reign and His righteousness, like His holiness, shall be known and acknowledged throughout the earth. This desire, if it is anything more than empty words, is a desire that we may serve His purpose… To desire the kingdom merely as an end for ourselves would not be to desire God’s kingdom but our own… ”

The Kingdom, when it comes (and it surely will), will not be just a Kingdom for us — it will be a Kingdom for the whole world! Because… the whole world needs it! And if we, the “true believers”, expect to serve God’s purpose in that Kingdom, we had best be considering — seriously, right now — how best we can be serving His purpose… seriously and right now!

If aloofness from their association, and fear of their contamination, and scorn for their ignorance, and condemnation of their sins… if these are all we can summon up in our feelings toward the “world” right now… how can we expect that these attitudes will be miraculously turned off, and just as miraculously replaced with tenderness, and sympathy, and compassion for that same “world” after Christ comes, and sends us out to them to proclaim his Kingdom?

Let us go back (in our mind’s eye) right now, and look once again at those vast crowds of sorrowing people. What do we feel? What should we feel?

What should we do about it?

The man who laid down his life for the world — the man whom we memorialize in this bread and wine — can help us answer these questions.

“Can a perfect God be ‘lonely’, or could he be perfectly happy by himself? Can a perfect God ‘need’ anything?”

We are created in the image and likeness of God. Without delving into the precise meaning of the Hebrew words, it would seem that — not too fine a point here — we are like God. If we are like God, then God must be like us. I realize, of course, that this doesn’t mean we are immortal… or that we are omnipotent, or anything like that. But… whatever God is, in a perfect or well-developed sense, we are in some imperfect, developing sense, or we have the potential (and the inherent desire) to become.

So… since we human beings are social creatures, in need of social companionship, someone to talk to, someone to be with, someone to love and be loved by… then it seems to follow that God is too — only more so.

It also stands to reason that, if the angels could have completely fulfilled God’s needs socially, there would have been no reason to create man. What is the difference between the angels and man in regard to the society of God? We might suppose that there is nothing we could ever give God in this regard that the angels can’t. But then we realize that the angels cannot be disobedient to Him. Oh, even they may need time and instruction to become more familiar with the mind and desires of God, and to learn to do exactly as He wants. But eventually they succeed and get it right. And, evidently, they are constitutionally incapable of actually disobeying him. They don’t go out on their own to become “Lucifers”!

So it could be this very potential to disobey God that makes us “better” than the angels, that is, more capable than they of supplying God’s social needs. How? Perhaps because God needs love from those who can choose freely to love Him. Perhaps because this kind of love, which can be freely given or freely withheld, is what makes our company so much more fulfilling to Him than anything the angels can supply. (More fulfilling, potentially, but also more risky, I might add. Creating human beings with freewill means that, sometimes, One creates what becomes a Hitler or a Stalin…)

Does this mean God is somehow “imperfect” or “incomplete”? With what I hope is all due reverence, I would say: ‘Yes’…in the sense that God is a “becoming” God. “I will be whom I will be”, He said. “I will become what I will become.” In other words, “I am a God who continues to reveal Himself, step by step, in a long continuing process. Paramount in that process of self-revelation is My development of a relationship with My family, My children! WHY? Because I care for… because I love… because I need… My children.”

I would say that if this view of God’s mind/character is incorrect… and the austere, indifferent, self-satisfied, “complete” “god” of Mount Olympus is the correct view… then… we would not be here discussing such a question… because we wouldn’t exist… because such a “god” would never have bothered creating us. Creatures like us would just be irritants!

What? No Bible passages? There are so many…

“It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love; I lifted the yoke from their neck and bent down to feed them” (Hos 11:3,4).

How does God want Himself to be perceived by us? One way: As a strong and patient and loving father, stooping to grasp a little toddler by the hand, leading it carefully along the path… bending down to feed it. And…

“How delightful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much more pleasing is your love than wine, and the fragrance of your perfume than any spice! Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, my bride; milk and honey are under your tongue. The fragrance of your garments is like that of Lebanon” (Song 4:10,11).

…how else? As a lover desperately desirous of the company of his beloved. The Song of Songs is not just about Christ and a mystical Church. Before there was Christ and the Church, there was God and Israel. And before there was God and Israel, there was God and the individual human mind which He created.

God is looking for, yearning for a soul-mate, an eternal companion to be His sister, His bride… to share His confidences, His intimacies, His love. And there is room in His heart and His eternal purpose for an untold multitude of such companions… provided they want the role.

Oh, yes, He made all the stars in all the galaxies too!

The Hebrew text occasionally has a double negative, for emphasis: Psa 9:18; 26:9; 38:1; 75:5; Isa 38:18; Deu 7:25; 33:6; Pro 6:4; 24:12; 25:27; 30:3; Exo 20:17; 2Sa 1:21.

Author: Moses (date of writing: c 1400 BC).

Period: 1440-1400 BC.

Title: “Deuteronomy” is taken from the Latin form of the Greek word Deuteronomion, the title given to this book in the Septuagint. The word means “repetition of the law.” The Hebrew title, “elleh haddebarim” (“These are the words…”), or simply “debarim” (“Words”), is taken from the first two words of the Hebrew text of this book.

Summary: Deuteronomy is the fifth and last book of the Pentateuch. It records the repetition of the law recorded in Leviticus. It was given on the plains of Moab just prior to the entrance into the Promised Land by the nation of Israel under the command of Joshua. This was Moses’ last address to Israel as a whole prior to his death. At this time only two surviving members were left out of the generation that escaped from Egypt. Therefore, this repetition of the law was extremely important to the welfare of the new generation.

Theme: God will continue to honor His covenant. Moses calls the people to obedience and reminds them that God brought them out of Egypt, guided them and provided for them whilst they journeyed in the desert. He counsels them to be careful not to follow the pagan ways of the people of the surrounding countries.

They are given further laws and statutes to assist them in their daily life. The are told of the blessings that will come through obedience (Deu 28:1-14) and the cursings that will come through sin (Deu 28:15-68).

Deu 18:15 foretells a future great prophet, and was applied by Peter (Act 3:22) and Stephen (Act 7:37) to Jesus. Jesus referred to the book through the words “It is written…” or, “You have heard that it has been said…” (Mat 5:21, etc) — showing the importance he placed on the OT scriptures, even as he began to fulfil them as the bringer of the new covenant. His insistence that he came to fulfill the law rather than destroy it is clearly given in Mat 5:17-20.

Paul places the law in perspective for us in Rom 15:4. It was written for “our instruction… that we might have hope.”

Outline

I. First address

A.	Events at Horeb Recalled: Deu 1:1-8
B.	Appointment of Tribal Leaders: Deu 1:9-18
C.	Failing faith
	1)	Israel’s Refusal to Enter the Land: Deu 1:19-33
	2)	The Penalty for Israel’s Rebellion: Deu 1:34-45
	3)	The Desert Years: Deu 2:1-25
	4)	Defeat of King Sihon: Deu 2:26-37
	5)	Defeat of King Og: Deu 3:1-22
	6)	Moses Views Canaan from Pisgah: Deu 3:23-29
D.	Moses Commands Obedience: Deu 4:1-40
E.	Cities of Refuge East of the Jordan: Deu 4:41-43
F.	Transition to the Second Address: Deu 4:44-49

II. Second address

A.	Covenant faith
	1)	The Ten Commandments: Deu 5:1-21
	2)	Moses the Mediator of God’s Will: Deu 5:22-33
	3)	The Great Commandment: Deu 6:1-9
	4)	Caution against Disobedience: Deu 6:10-25
	5)	Conquest of Canaan: Deu 7
	6)	Lessons from the past
	7)	The Essence of the Law: Deu 10:12-22
	8)	Rewards for Obedience: Deu 11:1-32
B.	The Law
	1)	Worship of a holy people
		(a)	Pagan Shrines to Be Destroyed: Deu 12:1-12
		(b)	A Prescribed Place of Worship: Deu 12:13-28
		(c)	Warning against Idolatry: Deu 13:1-18
		(d)	Pagan Practices Forbidden: Deu 14:1-2
		(e)	Clean and Unclean Foods: Deu 14:3-21
		(f)	Regulations concerning Tithes: Deu 14:22-29
		(g)	Laws concerning the Sabbatical Year: Deu 15:1-18
		(h)	The Firstborn of Livestock: Deu 15:19-23
		(i)	The Passover Reviewed: Deu 16:1-8
		(j)	The Festival of Weeks Reviewed: Deu 16:9-12
		(k)	The Festival of Booths Reviewed: Deu 16:13-17
	2)	Duties of officials
		(a)	Municipal Judges and Officers: Deu 16:18-20
		(b)	Forbidden Forms of Worship: Deu 17:1-7
		(c)	Legal Decisions by Priests and Judges: Deu 17:8-13
		(d)	Limitations of Royal Authority: Deu 17:14-20
		(e)	Privileges of Priests and Levites: Deu 18:1-8
		(f)	Child-Sacrifice, Divination, and Magic Prohibited: Deu 18:9-14
		(g)	A New Prophet Like Moses: Deu 18:15-22
	3.	Criminal law
		(a)	Laws concerning the Cities of Refuge: Deu 19:1-13
		(b)	Property Boundaries: Deu 19:14
		(c)	Law concerning Witnesses: Deu 19:15-21
	4.	Rules of Warfare: Deu 20:1-20
	5.	Other laws
		(a)	Law concerning Murder by Persons Unknown: Deu 21:1-9
		(b)	Female Captives: Deu 21:10-14
		(c)	The Right of the Firstborn: Deu 21:15-17
		(d)	Rebellious Children: Deu 21:18-21
		(e)	Welfare: Deu 22:1-12
		(f)	Laws concerning Sexual Relations: Deu 22:13-30
		(g)	Those Excluded from the Assembly: Deu 23:1-8
		(h)	Sanitary, Ritual, and Humanitarian Precepts: Deu 23:9-25
		(i)	Laws concerning Marriage and Divorce: Deu 24:1-4
		(j)	Miscellaneous Laws: Deu 24:5-25:4
		(k)	Levirate Marriage: Deu 25:5-10
		(l)	Various Commands: Deu 25:11-19
	6.	First Fruits and Tithes: Deu 26:1-15
	7.	Concluding Exhortation: Deu 26:16-19
C.	The Inscribed Stones and Altar on Mount Ebal: Deu 27:1-10
D.	Twelve Curses: Deu 27:11-26
E.	Blessings for Obedience: Deu 28:1-14
F.	Warnings against Disobedience: Deu 28:15-68

III. Third Address

A.	The Covenant Renewed in Moab: Deu 29:1-29
B.	God’s Fidelity Assured: Deu 30:1-10
C.	Exhortation to Choose Life: Deu 30:11-20

IV. Appendixes

A.	Joshua Becomes Moses’ Successor: Deu 31:1-8
B.	The Law to Be Read Every Seventh Year: Deu 31:9-13
C.	Moses and Joshua Receive God’s Charge: Deu 31:14-39
D.	The Song of Moses: Deu 32:1-47
E.	Moses’ Death Foretold: Deu 32:48-52
F.	Moses’ Final Blessing on Israel: Deu 33:1-29
G.	Moses Dies and Is Buried in the Land of Moab: Deu 34:1-12