1. Marry the right person. This one decision will determine 90% of your happiness or misery. If the right person isn’t available, under no circumstances marry someone else.

2. Work at something you enjoy and that is worthy of your time and talent.

3. Give people more than they expect, and do it cheerfully.

4. Become the most positive and enthusiastic person you know.

5. Be forgiving of others, and of yourself.
6. Be generous.
7. Have a grateful heart.

8. Persistence, persistence, persistence.
9. Discipline yourself to save money on even the most modest salary.

10. Treat everyone you meet like you want to be treated.

11. Commit yourself to constant improvement.

12. Commit yourself to quality.
13. Understand that happiness is not based on possessions, power, or prestige, but on relationships with people you love and respect.

14. Be loyal.
15. Be honest.
16. Be a self-starter.
17. Be decisive even if it means you will sometimes be wrong.

18. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility for every area of your life.

19. Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you will regret the things you didn’t do more than the ones you did.

20. Take good care of those you love.
21. Don’t do anything that wouldn’t make your mother proud.

The superscription on the cross:

Gospel	Quoted language?	Reason	Wording of inscription
Mat 27:37	Latin (Matt was Roman official)	Civil, legal	“Hic est Jesus rex Judaeorum” (This is Jesus the king of the Jews).
Luk 23:38	Greek	Intellectual, cultural	“This is the king of the Jews”.
Joh 19:19,20	Hebrew	Religious, national	“Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews”.
Mark 15:26	Greek, but only words common to all three	Summary of other 3, most concise	“The king of the Jews”

“His crime became his title” — the “titulus” = inscription board, commonly used in Roman executions.

The fullest title, in Hebrew — “Yeshua [Jesus] Ha-Natzr [of Nazareth] u’Melek [the King] Ha-Yehudim [of the Jews]” — spells out, as an acronym, the very name of God: “YHWH”. And for this reason, too, the leaders of Israel would demand that the title be removed!

“No book furnishes a better test than does the Song of the depth of a man’s Christianity. If his religion be in his head only, a dry form of doctrine… he will see nothing here to attract him. But if his religion have a hold on his heart, this will be a favourite portion of the word of God” (McCheyne). An ancient fable mentions the man who had the ability to turn everything he touched into gold. Some minds possess the ability to turn everything they consider into intellectual gold. On the other hand, there are minds that turn even the grace of God into an excuse for immorality (Rom 3:8; 6:1), and the most exalted truth into a lie (Rom 1:21-23; 2Th 2:10-12). This may not be too far from the meaning of Paul’s words: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted” (Tit 1:15).

What do men do — what SHOULD men do — with the Song of Songs?

It is plain that there is a distinctive erotic element in the Song of Songs. Whenever and however they were first written, and whatever else they might symbolize, the songs are about a man and woman who are deeply in love with one another, and who celebrate their love for one another in tender and poignant, yet strongly sexual, terms. It is true that euphemisms are used abundantly, but many commentators have pointed out that these euphemisms appear often in other “love songs” of the ancient Near East — where their meanings can scarcely be denied. The songs are about human love, love expressed physically and intimately.

It is this element in the Song of Songs, scarcely if at all concealed, that has caused some men to mock, and that has “turned off” other Bible students. Some students have gone so far as to question how such “literature” could ever have been included in the Bible in the first place.

It must be recognized, and remembered, that the expression of love in and through physical intimacy is — according to the Bible — one of the greatest of God’s gifts to mankind. It is a wonderful blessing, but only to be enjoyed in the bonds of marriage. Although it is, or should be, private and exclusive — it is not something of which anyone should be ashamed, and it is certainly not sinful! The descriptions of such love in the Song of Songs, even if a bit embarrassing at times, should remind us of these facts. While modesty is certainly a virtue, to go beyond this into being “Victorian” or “prudish” about sexual matters is not necessarily to be more spiritual! “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed is undefiled” (Heb 13:4).

And the erotic element in this Book serves a further purpose: it emphasizes the link, or bridge, between natural marriage and spiritual “marriage” in the Word of God. This connection is very strong, and very important.

In a blending of Old Testament and New, the “marriage of the Lamb” may be seen as God’s true marriage with His people Israel (the spiritual Israel). Here is the real reason for such pervasive Bible language as “to know God” (where, in Bible terms, “to know” one’s spouse may mean to have intimate relations with him or her), and “to be one with God” (where Adam and Eve were told to become “one flesh”).

Such terms for the spiritual union of God and His children, through Jesus’ work, are no accident; they are intended to be reminiscent of marriage. Just as there is joy to be found, naturally speaking, in human marriage… so also (and so much more so!) will there be spiritual joy in the joining together of Christ and his “bride” — physically, mentally, and emotionally — at his return.

This erotic element in the Song, then, should be no embarrassment. Rather, it is God’s promise that He will withhold “no good thing” from His loved ones (Psa 84:11; cp Psa 34:10). It is His pledge that the joys in store, at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, will far surpass any joys that they may previously have experienced or even imagined (Mat 6:33; Phi 4:19).

Different backgrounds, and frameworks, for the Song of Songs are almost as numerous as students of the book. There are perhaps more different interpretations of this Book than of any other in the Bible, including Revelation! Plainly, this is a difficult book to place in historical context, and to present in outline form. There are a number of separate short songs, which are clearly related but not necessarily sequential in time. At times it is very difficult to know for sure who is speaking, and to whom the words are being spoken; also, it is difficult to know whether the person or persons to whom the words are being spoken is/are physically present or absent at the time.

The author of the book is not stated (it is not necessarily Solomon: see Song 1:1n). This in itself allows for any number of possible backgrounds and outlines.

As to the historical, or Old Testament, background, this study (following HAW’s idea) suggests that the Song of Songs is based on King Hezekiah’s attempts to regather the remnant of the Northern Kingdom back to his own Southern Kingdom. This would include especially his effort to reclaim them for the worship of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Only a study of the whole book, in some detail, can prove (or disprove) the reasonableness of this scenario.

Other scenarios are therefore offered, in the Outlines section. The reader may find that one or more of these are perhaps more appealing as a framework for study; and to this the author can make no objection.

Whatever the historical context that gave rise to the Song of Songs in the first place, it is almost universally accepted that — in an Old Testament context — the underlying theme is the relationship between the God of Israel and His people (cp Isa 62:4,5; 64:5; Hos 2:16,19). And furthermore that — in New Testament terms — the Book is an allegory about Christ and his Bride, the church or ecclesia (cp Mat 25:1; Rom 7:4; 2Co 11:2; Eph 5:32; Rev 19:7; 21:2,9). There is a natural progression and development in these ideas. No matter where the Song of Songs is placed as to its composition and historical context, these spiritual truths will surely be recognized as the primary purpose, and most fulfilling study, of the Book.

These twin themes (of God and Israel, and Christ and the body of believers) will receive most of the attention in the verse-by-verse notes that make up the main part of the commentary.

Old Testament background: one possible view

Hezekiah inaugurated a great religious reformation: The temple was cleansed and rehabilitated; idolatry was swept away. He sent messengers throughout all 12 tribes inviting them to renew their allegiance to Yahweh and to come to Jerusalem for the Passover (2Ch 30:5-12,18,21). His intention was no doubt to reunite the nation politically as well as religiously. (The Northern Kingdom was in turmoil with devastations from the Assyrians, and this would appeal to many of the victims therefrom.)

This master plan was thwarted, however, by the invasion of Sennacherib. Only Jerusalem escaped. But the enemy host was overthrown, and there ensued a 15-year period of unmatched peace and prosperity. During this time Hezekiah’s wooing of the northern tribes would undoubtedly be resumed (although Scripture does not mention this) — this time without fear of Assyrian interference.

The first purpose of the Song of Songs, then, may have been these worthy attempts to unite at least the faithful remnant of the North with the God-given religion and kingship centered in Jerusalem. Thus the name “Shulammite” would suggest the northern tribes, and “betrothal” would suggest Hezekiah’s great Passover. In this scenario, the shepherd’s disappearance and the woman’s resultant nightmares, fears, and separations would symbolize the Assyrian invasion of the Northern Kingdom and the continuing attempts thereafter to unite nation.

Consider:

• Parallel of Jerusalem and Tirzah (Song 6:4).

• Almost all geographical allusions are to the north. En-gedi (in south) refers to the Bridegroom.

• The “Beloved” is a term which, in Hebrew, very closely echoes “David”, thus referring to the royal line of Judah.

• Solomon’s name is used because he was the last king before Hezekiah to reign over an undivided kingdom.

• The “two companies” (Song 6:12,13) suggest northern and southern kingdoms.

• Military allusions such as Song 3:8; 6:4,10 suggest a time of war.

• The 1,000 and the 200 of Song 8:11,12 are intended to represent the 10 tribes and the 2 tribes.

• The mountains of “division”, at the beginning, become at the end the mountains of “spices” (Song 8:14n) — implying unity and peace.

• The description of the “Beloved” sounds very much like a description of the Temple at Jerusalem (Song 5:10-16), to which the northern remnant is being invited to worship.

[GL Carr, in the “Tyndale OT Commentary”, refers to an ancient tradition preserved in the Mishnah, that “Hezekiah and his company… wrote the Song of Songs.” (This would match what is known about Hezekiah’s work in compiling the Proverbs in Pro 25:1.) He adds, however, that this may be understood in terms of editorial work done on an already existing body of material.]

In the “Hezekiah” scenario, “Solomon” does not refer to the real person of that name, but is a designation of spiritual significance — a royal prototype. It refers to a righteous son of Solomon, and hence son of David — one who is keenly interested in the worship at the temple built by his ancestor Solomon.

Other Hezekiah connections

Psalm 45 is the portion of Scripture that most closely resembles the Song of Songs. For various reasons, the authorship of Psalm 45 may be attributed to Hezekiah — and the bride there described could have been, in the first instance, Hephzibah (for more on this point, see George Booker’s “Psalms Studies”). From that, we quote the following:

“Psalm 45 is a ‘miniature Song of Songs’. Both Scriptures describe the marriage of a great ‘king’ to a special ‘bride’. The righteous King (vv 2,7), taken from among his fellows (v 7), but now elevated above all them to sit on God’s throne (v 6), celebrates a great marriage (vv 9-11). This is none other than ‘the marriage of the Lamb’ (Rev 19:7-9), with a ‘Bride’ out of the Gentiles (vv 11,12)! This King is also a great High Priest (cp Isa 61:1,2,10: a ‘bridegroom who decketh himself as a priest’), for (as in the Song of Songs) he is described in imagery reminiscent of the temple and its services. It is because of the surpassing sacrifice that the King-Priest has offered that his prospective Bride has been cleansed, and prepared for him (Eph 5:25-27, citing Song 4:7; cp Song 6:8,9).”

---

Other possible historical backgrounds have been suggested:

• The Song of Songs is taken to be the story of one of king Solomon’s romances, this one with a young girl of non-Jewish ancestry. In one form or another, this is probably the most common assumption about the book. (Some scholars take this to be the daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh: cp the imagery of Song 1:9 and 1Ki 3:1; 7:8. HP Mansfield follows this idea. However, it is difficult to see how the Shulammite, who seems to be a poor girl well-acquainted with labor, could be the daughter of a great king.)

• The Song is taken to be a sort of romantic “triangle”, where the king and some obscure shepherd vie for the affections of the young girl. Exponents of this viewpoint allege a distinction, in the songs, between two men, one a “king” (who would be Solomon, of course) and the other the “beloved” (who would be the shepherd). [This view is held by EW Bullinger, and is outlined in “The Companion Bible”.]

• In another view, the Shulamite is Abishag the Shunammite, the beautiful young virgin who cared for the aged king David (1Ki 1:2,4). It is supposed that after his death she is wooed by his son Solomon — but her love remains only for the father, even though he is now deceased, rather than for his less righteous son.

• RW Ask suggests that the Song is “pure allegory” — that, although written by Solomon, it bears no relation to any transaction between himself and any of his wives, but is solely an expression of spiritual love, first between God and Israel, and secondly between Christ and the church.

• Some commentators suppose that the Song of Songs is a compilation of several different love songs (the number most often used is seven), songs that are unrelated to one another. But evidence of unity within the book argues against its being a collection of poems that have merely a general similarity to one another.

---

The historical background of the Song of Songs may be distinguished from the Old Testament theme. The underlying theme of the Book, in OT terms, is the great love of the God of Israel for His people — even when they were forgetful of him. It is noteworthy that the Song was traditionally read at the time of Passover — because that feast commemorated the purest expression of God’s covenant love. This love was expressed in the promises to Abraham and the fathers, when He delivered His children out of slavery in Egypt, and solemnly “betrothed” them to Himself at Sinai. (Hosea 1-3 corroborates this picture — there, plainly, the relationship of a real man and his wife is made to describe, typically, the relationship between God Himself and His people Israel. Throughout the Old Testament the idea of a marriage union between God and His people occurs repeatedly, and the most frequent metaphor for religious apostasy is drawn from the crime of adultery: cp Exo 34:15,16; Num 15:39; Psa 73:27; Eze 16:23; Jer 3:11.)

“The Song of Songs is unique in Scripture. It portrays Christ’s intense, overflowing love for the Ecclesia (and hers for him) expressed intimately in the first person. It is so different from Psalms, which are largely Christ’s feelings toward God: his struggles, his overcomings. Some Psalms come close, like Psalm 45, but with far less detail and intimacy — and expressed more distantly in the third person. The Song expresses Christ’s need for the Ecclesia: the motivation that his great love for her gives him. Does Christ have need? Does God have need? Are they not perfectly satisfied and self-sufficient? God is love, and the fullness of love requires an object worthy of it.

“This is what God is creating, in infinite divine patience, through the travail of the ages. God loves all His creation. Not a sparrow falls unnoticed by Him Who lovingly oversees immensity and eternity. Ninety-nine percent of all the beauty of Creation — even on earth, let alone the vast universe — is for Him alone, and is never seen by human eye. Snowflakes fell in untold myriads of trillions for thousands of years before the microscope revealed to man that each one is a glorious treasure of delicate, intricate beauty. And a snowflake is but for a moment. But the pure and holy perfection of the Redeemed will be the crowning beauty of all the works of God. The multitudinous Christ will be the most beautiful of all the beauties of the universe: the richest of eternal beauties, formed out of common clay…

“This Song is for teaching and/or for comfort. It is to teach us that these two spiritual qualities are what we must devote our lives to developing — ‘Let us be glad and rejoice… the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his Bride hath made herself ready” (Rev 19:7). The true Bride will have made herself ready. She will conform to the Beauty and Love herein portrayed. There will be a ready and prepared Bride, perfect in beauty, without spot or blemish, waiting to welcome her Lord. We see her in this Song being greeted and praised and embraced by the Bridegroom, and invited to be with him for ever. If we fit into the picture; if we are in full harmony and compliance; if this is where all our heart and interest and labors and efforts center, then this Song is for our joy and comfort.

“If, however, this is not so, and our minds and time and interests and activities are turned elsewhere, then this Song is for warning and instruction, and not for comfort at all. There is no comfort to be taken unless we are faithfully laboring to the utmost of our ability. There will be a Bride of perfect Beauty and Love. Whether, in that great Day, we are part of that Bride, or part of the vast multitude turned weeping away, depends entirely upon what we devote our life to” (GVG).

---

“The two characters of this Song are Solomon, the Peace Giver, and Shulamith, the Peace-Receiver. Both names are related to Peace. Peace is of one fabric with Love and Beauty. He is the Prince of Peace: that ‘peace of God’ transcending comprehension (Phi 4:7); the ‘great peace’ that they alone enjoy who manifest in all their lives that they ‘love His law’ (Psa 119:165); the peace that none can take from them — ‘peace with God’: life’s ultimate consummation (Rom 5:1).

“The purpose of this Song is to develop the mind of the Spirit. This will not come naturally, however long we are just ‘in the Truth’. It requires intense effort and study and meditation and practice — just like anything worthwhile does. What time and labor and trouble and care people will so eagerly put into getting the things of this life! — and then expect the infinitely greatest thing of all to be handed to them without effort. What blind and pitiful folly!” (GVG).

---

“Solomon”: the name conjures up images of… the Temple of God; wisdom, a light for the Gentiles (eg, the queen of Sheba). The initial fulfillment of the promises to David, glory, majesty, wealth. All of this points to the One who said of himself that he was “greater than Solomon” (Mat 12:42). Solomon is an imperfect type — but a great type nonetheless — of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Names:

(1) The Bride refers to Christ throughout as her “Beloved” or “Lover”. But she does not (often?) speak directly to him. Instead, she talks about him, because:

1. she is separated from him,
2. she yearns for him,
3. she dreams of him,
4. she looks for him, and
5. she waits for him to return.

(2) But Christ speaks directly to the Bride, and refers to her in changing/expanding/deepening terms. She is:

1. the fairest, the most beautiful of women (Song 1:8),
2. his “love”, his companion, his friend (Song 2),
3. all fair, flawless, his spouse (Song 4),
4. the “Shulamite” (feminine counterpart of Solomon/peace) (Song 6),
5. and the prince’s daughter (Song 7) — suggesting royalty, majesty, and rulership.

The Song of Songs is perhaps the most unique book in the whole Bible. As in Esther, there is no direct mention of God, but God is to be found throughout the Book. In the Song, the chief character is the one who is the “greater than Solomon” — God manifest in the flesh (Joh 1:14).

The purpose of this book of love is to create a certain frame of mind… a sweetness of character, disposed toward gentleness and kindness and affection. The spiritual is taught by means of the natural. Spiritual love is seen in — and mirrored by — the natural expressions of love. The eternal spiritual reality is more meaningful by far than the passing natural shadow that represents it (2Co 4:16-18).

The Song depicts the relationship between Christ and the ecclesia:

• the beauty of character of Christ; and
• the required “beauty” of the Bride…

so that the contemplation of the one (Christ) may generate the development of the other (ie, a Christ-like character in those who will constitute the ecclesia).

The following Song of Christ and the Bride catches something of this New Testament theme — couched in Song of Songs language:

Christ: Arise and come away, my love, The winter now is past; The singing of the birds is come; The earth is green at last.

Bride: I rise and follow you, Belov’d, At last the shadows flee: The roses and the lilies grow Under the apple tree.

Christ: Arise and come away, my love, The air is sweet outside. The scent of blossoms on the wind Is carried far and wide.

Bride: For my Belov’d is young and fair, And my Belov’d is mine, The altogether lovely One, Both human and divine.

Christ: How beautiful you are, and fair, Your desire is all toward me; A spring shut up, a fountain sealed, Until your Lord you see.

Bride: Your lips are milk and honeycomb, Your love is pure delight, And I have waited much too long, Alone, for you at night.

Christ: For love is stronger far than death; And you, my precious dove, Are set a seal upon my heart And on my hands, my love.

Bride: I rise and follow you, Belov’d. The winter now is past; The singing of the birds is come; The earth is green at last.

* How to read the book as a whole:

First, as a progression, vaguely discerned:

(1) Acquaintance (2) Interest (3) Deepening of the relationship (4) Betrothal (5) Separation (6) Waiting (7) Seeking (8) Finding (9) Final reunion.

This answers, generally, to our developing relationship with Christ:

(A) Learning the Truth (#s 1-3) (B) Baptism (# 4) (C) Probation, while Christ is in heaven (#s 5-7) (D) Christ’s return and kingdom (#s 8,9)

So the basic NT story is as follows:

1. The good shepherd = Christ, in the days of his flesh.
2. The Shulamite = the church, or ecclesia.

3. Their courtship = ministry of Christ; preaching by apostles.

4. Disappearance of shepherd = Christ’s ascension to heaven.

5. “Dreams” of Shulamite about his return = the longing of saints (in all ages since) for the coming of their Lord.

6. Watchmen’s treatment of the Bride = persecution/tribulations of the church in Christ’s absence.

7. The shepherd returning as King = Christ returning in his glory (accompanied by angels)

8. Wedding feast = “marriage supper of Lamb”.

---

Possible outline narrative:

(a) Song 1:2-6: The end of the story first? (This is the same device as used in Rev, several times, for example.) The bride is brought by her husband (“Solomon”, “prince of peace”) into his royal palace. She speaks with awe of her surroundings, and apologizes for her sun-burnt complexion. She has gone through many trials, but now (at last) she has reached her destination: the home of her Beloved.

Now… how did this come about? In answer, we return to the beginning of the story…

(b) Song 1:7 — Song 2:17: The real beginning of the story: a sequence of courting scenes. The humble “shepherd” whom the maiden loves (Song 1:7,8) is in fact a king (notice how HE speaks in Song 1:9,10,12; although he appears as a shepherd, the imagery and figures of speech he uses betrays his true, royal, identity). She imagines their home and their life together (Song 1:16,17). Then they are alternately together/apart/together/apart, etc (Song 2).

(c) Song 3:1-4 and Song 5:2-8: While seeking her “Beloved”, the maiden is mocked and beaten by the “watchmen” (Song 3:3; 5:6,7). She suffers much because of her love, while the object of that love is absent. (Notice the repetition and alternating of themes in this sequence.)

(d) Song 4:1-7: The “Beloved” describes her “beauty”.

(e) Song 4:8,9,15,16: He proposes to her, and she accepts.

(f) Song 5:9-16: She is separated (again?), and describes her “Beloved” to the “daughters of Jerusalem”, in terms of unrestrained enthusiasm.

(g) Song 3:6-11 and Song 6:11,12: She is almost “surprised” (when at last she finds him) that her “Beloved” (the “simple” shepherd) has been transformed into the great “Solomon” (the King of Peace). The shepherd has returned in his true character, as a great and mighty King!

(h) Song 6:13 — Song 7:9: The wedding festival, with the “guests”: the friends of the Bride (her companions, the virgins, the “daughters of Jerusalem”) and the friends of the Groom (the angels? the mighty warriors?) (Song 6:13).

(i) Song 7:10 — Song 8:14: A series of vignettes: pictures of the “honeymoon”.

…And so, back to the beginning/end (Song 1:2-6): The king ushers his lovely bride into the royal palace…

---

Another possible outline

This outline takes the wedding itself as the backbone of the book, with various remembrances, or “flashbacks”, to earlier times (the courtship, and separations).

1. The beginning of love: Song 1:1 – 5:1

(a) The wedding day (beginning): Song 1:1 – 2:7

(1) Shulamite in the palace (Song 1:1-8) (2) At the banquet table (Song 1:9-14) (3) In the bridal chamber (Song 1:15 – 2:7)

(b) Reflections on a courtship: Song 2:8 – 3:5

(1) A springtime visit (Song 2:8-13) (2) The little foxes (Song 2:14-17) (3) A dream: on counting the cost (Song 3:1-5)

(c) The wedding day (continued): Song 3:6 – 5:1

(1) The wedding procession (Song 3:6-11) (2) The wedding night (Song 4:1 – 5:1)

2. The development of oneness: Song 5:2 – 8:14

(a) A dream of love refused: Song 5:2 – 8:4

(1) The dream (Song 5:2-8) (2) A change of attitude (Song 5:9 – 6:3) (3) The return of Solomon (Song 6:4-10) (4) Shulamite in the garden (Song 6:11-13a) (5) The dance of the Mahanaim (Song 6:13b – 8:4)

(b) A vacation in the country: Song 8:5-14

(The outline is followed, in large part, by JS Baxter in “Explore the Book”, and RG Moulton in “Modern Readers’ Bible”.)

---

RW Ask suggests an outline consisting of 12 separate songs:

• The Bride in the King’s chambers (1:2-8)
• The Bridegroom and the Bride in a garden retreat (1:9–2:7)

• The Bridegroom’s call and her response (2:8-17)

• The Bride’s midnight search for her beloved (3:1-5)
• A state visit to the Bride — in which he praises her beauty (3:6–4:7)

• The Bride is compared to a lovely garden (4:8–5:1)

• The Bride’s portrait of her Beloved and his reply (5:2–6:10)

• She is overtaken by a sudden impulse to hide herself (6:11-13)

• The Virgins describe the Bride (7:1-9)
• The Bride’s invitation to the Bridegroom (7:10-8:4)

• Love unquenchable (8:5-7)

• Conclusion (8:8-14)

In this he follows Mason Good, Thomas Percy, and Joseph Bush, and is in turn followed by HP Mansfield. In order to avoid some of the confusion as to time sequence of the songs, HPM turns the 12 songs into two complete cycles of six songs each, the first six subtitled “The Bride selected from Israel”, and the last six “The Bride selected from the Gentiles”.

Christendom Admits “Immortal Soul” UnBiblical, and Based On Greek Philosophy

When we turn to works of reference by the learned expositors of the immortal soul theory, we see how this “believing a lie” works out quite naturally. Most of them make no attempt to conceal the fact that scriptural teaching and popular theology are very different regarding the meaning of “soul.” They are in fact, proud that they have developed many “improvements” upon what they consider the partial and hazy conceptions voiced by the “Holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2Pe 1:21).

We soon find that we are forced to choose between Scripture teaching and orthodox Christianity. It is very fortunate for us that the issue is so clear-cut, and that the leading exponents of the immortal soul theory are so frank in admission of its non-Biblical origin. Webster’s Dictionary says:

“The Christian conception of the soul derives from the Greek, especially as modified by the mystery cults, as well as from the Bible…

“The more exact determination of the Christian conception was reserved for the Church Fathers, especially Saint Augustine, who taught that it is simple, immaterial and spiritual, devoid of quality and spatial extension. He argued its immortality from the fact that it is the repository of imperishable truth.”

Funk & Wagnall Dictionary is even more to the point:

“Among the ancient Hebrews ‘soul’ was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible…

“It was Augustine especially who, in part on religious grounds and in part as the disciple of the later Greek Philosophy, taught the simple, immaterial and spiritual nature of the human soul — a view which has remained that of the scholastic philosophy and of Christian theologians down to the present time.”

Hasting’s well-known Bible Dictionary freely admits:

“Soul is throughout a great part of the Bible simply the equivalent of ‘life’ embodied in living creature. In the earlier usage of the OT it has no reference to the later philosophical meaning — the animating principle — still less to the idea of an ‘immaterial nature’ which will survive the body.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:

“Soul has various shades of meaning in the OT , which may be summarized as follows: Soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, appetite, emotion and passion.

“Nephesh or soul, can only denote the individual life with a material organization or body.

“In the NT ‘psuche’ appears under more or less similar conditions as in the OT .”

Young’s Concordance defines both nephesh and psuche as “animal soul.”

Strong’s Concordance defines nephesh as, “A breathing creature, an animal; or, abstractly vitality.” Psuche it likewise defines as “The animal, sentient principle.”

The noted lexicographer Parkhurst (himself a believer in immortal soulism) says:

“As a noun nephesh hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess that I can find no passages where it hath undoubtedly this meaning.

“Gen 35:18, 1Ki 17:21,22 and Psa 16:10 seem fairest for this signification. But may not nephesh in the three former passages be most properly rendered ‘breath,’ and in the last, ‘a breathing or animal frame’?”

These quotations show clearly that the immortal soul doctrine is generally admitted by its supporters to be entirely different from the BIBLE meaning of soul, and based mainly upon GREEK PHILOSOPHY.

---

Is God’s Word A Final, Infallible Authority?

The issue then is this: is the Word of God to be our final authority, or is religious truth something to be gradually developed by man’s speculation on the basis of pagan Greek philosophy?

For nearly 2,000 years, the bulk of Christendom, beginning with the Church Fathers, have favored the latter, but there have always been a few who have regarded the Bible as wholly inspired by God, consistent from beginning to end, and the only possible source of true knowledge of such things as life, death and the nature and destiny of man.

A Bible that is anything less than this is NO BIBLE AT ALL. And the Bible itself leaves no room for compromise. It takes a bold and unequivocal stand throughout as the direct Word of God in every part [Isa 8:20; Jer 36:1-4; 1Co 2:9-13; Gal 1:11,12; 2Ti 3:16,17; Heb 1:1,2; 2Pe 1:19-21; Rev 1:1,2]. We must accept it as that, or else throw it away entirely as the most brazen and blasphemous of falsehoods.

Those who take the middle ground are the Bible’s greatest enemies, and this unfortunately includes the vast majority of professing Christians. They dare not openly deny its divinity, because it is so obviously divine, but they seek to rob it of all power by spinning an endless web of theories around it that confuse the mind and distract the attention, and obscure its plain, clear teaching.

It is impossible in any one consideration to fully examine the Biblical use and meaning of “soul.” But it is possible to lay the foundation by demonstrating that popular theology on the subject is admittedly derived from other sources than the Bible, and is at direct variance with it.

The Bible meaning of “soul” (which modern writers mention briefly in passing), is regarded by them as a rather amusing phase of ancient Hebrew speculation, hardly worthy of serious attention, and which no one laying claim to “modern” learning would dare allow his name to be associated with.

The following brief outline of the BIBLICAL use of the term is for those few to whom the Bible is still the one unique Book among millions — the wholly inspired divine message to man — one v of which is worth more than countless volumes of the cloudy, inconclusive speculations of human philosophy and “modern wisdom.” [1Co 1:17; 2:16; 3:18-20].  

---

The Original Words Translated “Soul”

In the OT Hebrew, the original word for soul is nephesh. In the NT Greek it is psuche. Both mean the same thing and are used interchangeably. One is used to translate the other.

Nephesh occurs about 750 times. About 500 times it is translated “soul” in the Authorized Version. The other 250 times it is translated by over 40 different English words, as shown on the chart.

Psuche occurs about 100 times, and is translated similarly.

It is quite obvious at the outset that a word of such broad application, including all the animal kingdom, all its bodily [and] physical aspects, CANNOT POSSIBLY indicate some immortal essence in man distinguishing him from the lower creation.

It is clear from the words used to translate it that it is related throughout to ANIMAL BODIES, including man, and this will become more and more clear as we consider some of the passages in which it is used.

It can be readily seen, too, that with such a range of meaning the translators could do much to color the various passages by their choice of English words — using one set of terms when used of animals and another when of man.

On the other hand, it is evident that in an article of this kind, it is impossible to quote sufficient of the 850 occurrences to fully illustrate the word, and that by choosing obscure, borderline passages, a very distorted picture could be drawn.

Therefore, only a careful, individual investigation, seeking divine guidance, can bring solid, durable conviction and enlightenment. THERE IS NO SHORTCUT TO THE ENLIGHTENED FAITH THAT LEADS TO SALVATION.

For instance, soul is used in relation to God. He says: “My servant in whom MY SOUL delighteth” (Isa 42:1). But examination will show that this is a very exceptional, isolated use, and is a figure of speech that has no bearing on the literal meaning of soul. The expression “my soul” is often used simply as an emphatic term meaning “myself,” because of its undeniable animal basis. Clearly it is in this secondary sense of emphasis only [that] it is used of God.

The Scriptures Cannot Be Broken

As in the case of most other Biblical subjects, we find ourselves taken back to the opening chapters of Genesis when we begin to examine the meaning of soul.

There the foundations for many things are laid, and lost indeed are those poor “modern” thinkers who dismiss these early books of the Bible as folklore and fairy tales.

Here again, let us courageously face the consequences of our convictions. Christ put his seal upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures as the unbreakable Word of God. He said:

“The SCRIPTURES CANNOT BE BROKEN” (John 10:35).

And again (John 5:47): “If ye believe not Moses’ writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

If we reject Moses’ writings, let us at least be consistent and reject Christ’s too. If we believe in Christ, let us give those Holy Writings he endorses our full assurance of faith.

---

Nephesh First Used of Animals

THE FIRST FOUR OCCURRENCES OF THE WORD “NEPHESH” RELATE EXCLUSIVELY TO ANIMALS. That is a good fact to start with and to remember. A good foundation. Let us get them firmly in our mind:

Gen 1:20: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life” (The word “life” here is nephesh — soul).

Next verse: “And God created great whales, and every living creature (nephesh — soul) that moveth, which the water brought forth abundantly.”

V 24: “The living creature (nephesh) after his kind, cattle and creeping things.”

V 30: “Every beast… every foul… everything that creepeth, wherein there is life (nephesh).”

---

Then Used of Man

Then, having prepared our understanding by applying nephesh four times to every species of living creature on the earth, the Scriptures’ next use of the word is in the record of the creation of man (Gen 2:7): “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” (and that in itself is a phrase to be well noted when we consider the nature and composition of man)

“The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh).”

(EXACTLY THE SAME WORD as four times already applied to animals: Man, formed of the dust of the ground, became a living soul (an animal, breathing creature) when God breathed into him the breath of life.)

Now the usual response at this point from the immortal soulist is to switch over to the word spirit, and abandon the argument based on soul. Our present subject, is however, SOUL, and we hope to thoroughly dispose of that, but in passing it may be mentioned that exactly the same remarks apply to “spirit.” It, too, in these early foundation chapters of Genesis, is used of animals alone, and also of men and animals together, and to the same point Solomon says (Ecc 3:19): “Man and beasts… they have all ONE spirit.”

In applying both these words, soul AND spirit, to animals as well as to men, the Scriptures seem to be taking especial care to protect us from erroneous conceptions, if only we will heed and accept its divine guidance, and not depend upon the Greek philosophers against whose teachings the Apostle Paul so bitterly contended and so vehemently warned.  

---

Man and Animals Together Indiscriminately

We have considered the first five occurrences. Of the next eight, six are applied to animals. There are seven places where the word is applied to man and animals together without distinction. An interesting example is Num 31:28:

“Levy a tribute… one SOUL (nephesh) of 500, both of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses…”

One more typical passage of the use of soul for animals before we go on, Pro 12:10:

“A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh — SOUL) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”

Surely we can consider it definitely established, therefore, that there is no difference between men and animals in the matter of being or having souls. This IS VERY IMPORTANT. It is one of the first principles of Scripture. If we have not definitely fixed this in our minds, let us keep going back over these facts and passages and stick with them. They are worth more than all the volumes ever written of Greek or modern philosophy.

---

Adam’s Sentence “Dust Thou Art”

The sentence passed on Adam is in full accord with the record of his creation from the dust (Gen 3:19):

“Dust THOU art, and unto dust shalt THOU return.”

The sentence was passed upon the conscious, thinking, sinning individual — the LIVING SOUL, created from dust, and animated by breath from God. This is in harmony with the general expression of the dispensation of God’s justice, as expressed through Ezekiel:

“The soul that sinneth, IT SHALL DIE” (Eze 18:4).

Any attempt to transfer this sentence from the thinking, responsible Adam to his mere body is such an obviously weak subterfuge as not to be worthy of serious consideration.

And finally, we note, in passing, very distinctly that in this first pronouncement of the wages of sin, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ETERNAL TORTURE — but on the contrary, the sentence is dissolution into original dust.

---

Nephesh: Physical Functions of Fleshly Creatures

Now a few passages to show that soul (Hebrew: nephesh) is not some immaterial essence, but is applied to the ordinary, natural functions of fleshly creatures:

• Pro 6:30: “Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul (nephesh) when he is hungry.”

• Isa 29:8: “A hungry man dreameth, and behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul (nephesh) is empty — a thirsty man dreameth, and behold, he drinketh, but he awaketh, and his soul (nephesh) hath appetite.”

• Lev 17:10-11: “I will even set my face against that soul (nephesh) that eateth blood… For the life (nephesh — soul) of the flesh is in the blood…”

• Deu 12:20-23: “Thy soul (nephesh) longeth to eat flesh thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul (nephesh) lusteth after… the blood is the life (nephesh — soul); and thou mayest not eat the life (nephesh — soul)…”

It is clear that the immortal soulists’ only solution is to do what they have done, and regard the Bible as merely the speculations of partially enlightened men. They could not possibly agree with Peter’s statement (2Pe 1:21), that:

“Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Souls Subject to Death

Now we reach what perhaps may be termed the climax of the subject — the soul’s relation to death. The term “immortal soul” expresses one side of the argument. “Immortal” means “not subject to death.” That is the stand of Plato and orthodox Christendom.

Let us look at what GOD says. Now it would have been quite possible for the Scriptures never to have mentioned soul in connection with death. Many other terms and expressions could have been used. So that when we find that in nearly 300 places (one-third of the total uses of the word) souls are described as being mortal, subject to death, from which they can be saved and delivered, it is quite clear that God is taking special pains to give us correct ideas on this subject, and remove all excuse for believing in “immortal souls” after the manner of the unenlightened heathen. Examples of this are:

• Psa 22:20: “Deliver my soul (nephash) from the sword…”

• Jer 38:17: “If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the King of Babylon’s princes, then thy soul (nephesh) shall live…”

• 1Sa 19:11: “If thou save not thy life (nephesh — soul) tonight, tomorrow thou shalt be slain.”

• 1Ki 19:10: “…they seek my life (nephesh) to take it.”

• Est 7:7: “Haman stood up to make request for his life (nephesh)…”

• Psa 22:29: “…none can keep alive his own soul (nephesh).”

One out of every three occurrences of the word are of this character — referring to its mortality and liability to death. How could the immortal soul theory be more strikingly disproved? The most prominent fact regarding the soul that is forced upon our attention throughout is its frailty and danger of destruction. Upon this is based the one great lesson of Scripture:

“Hear, and your soul (nephesh) shall live” (Isa 55:3).

---

Souls Killed

Let us go further. In 32 passages, souls (nephesh) are spoken of as being KILLED BY MAN. Examples are:

Jos 10:28: “Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, and all the souls (nephesh) that were therein…”

This is repeated in vv 30,32,35,37, and 39.

Deu 27:25: “Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person (nephesh — soul).”

Let us look particularly at Lev 24:17-18. The AV reads:

“…he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.”

In the original, nephesh occurs here four times, as follows:

“He that smiteth the nephesh (soul) of a man, shall surely be put to death. And he that smiteth the nephesh (soul) of a beast shall make it good; nephesh for nephesh.”

Here again the translators have, by inconsistent and biased translation, obscured another clear divine lesson in the meaning of nephesh, or “soul.”

---

Souls Dead

One more step, and then we are as far away from the immortal soul theory as it is possible to be — in 13 places souls (nephesh) are said to be actually DEAD.

Examples are:

• Num 6:6: “…he shall come at no dead body (nephesh).”

• Lev 21:11: “Neither shall he go in to any dead body (nephesh)…”

These are parts of the Mosaic regulations concerning uncleanness and defilement by contact with corpses.

NT and OT In Harmony

All references quoted so far have been from the OT. That is the foundation of the New, and the word “soul” occurs in the Old seven times as often as in the New. It is ignoring the foundation work of the OT that has prevented so many from understanding the New.

The Bible is one single, indivisible unit. It cannot be broken up and a part cast aside. Only when it is regarded as one equally inspired and equally divine book can it be properly understood. God has varied His commands at different times to different people, but statements of FACT and TRUTH never change from beginning to end.

“Soul” in the NT cannot be considered apart from soul in the Old. Considering them together, we find them in complete harmony. As in the Old, so in the New, “soul” is used of animals; it is spoken of as dying; it is used for the mind, the heart, the appetite and the emotions.

---

“Living Soul” Equals “Natural Body”

Whenever speakers in the NT quote from passages in the Old containing the Hebrew word nephesh, they use the Greek word psuche. One outstanding example will illustrate this. In 1Co 15, beginning at v 42, Paul makes a contrast between corruption and incorruption, weakness and power, mortality and immortality. Then (v 44) he says:

“There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.”

The word “natural” here is psuchikos — soulish, from psuche — soul. He continues, v 45:

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul (psuche)…”

He is quoting Gen 2:7 which we have considered. In v 46, he calls this living soul, “that which is natural.” In v 47, he calls it “of the earth, earthy.” In v 50, he calls it “flesh and blood” and “corruption.” Paul’s conception of soul fits perfectly with what we have already discovered.

Similarly souls are applied to animals, and souls die, in the NT just as in the Old. In Rev 8:9, we read:

“And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life (psuche — soul), died…”

Rev 16:3: “…every living soul (psuche) died in the sea.”

And “soul” is used for natural life and function, as in the Old. In Mat 6:25, Jesus says:

“…Take NO THOUGHT for your life (psuche — soul), what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink…”

The soul here is clearly that which is supported by eating and drinking. Acts 15:25,26 we read: “…Our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives (psuche) for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In faithfully serving Christ, they certainly could not have been hazarding immortal souls, but they WERE hazarding their scriptural souls — their natural lives and bodies.

The same applies to Paul’s words in Acts 20:24: “…neither count I my life (psuche) dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy…”

And Jesus’ words (John 10:15): “…I lay down my life (psuche) for the sheep.”

And Phi 2:30: “…for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, NOT REGARDING his life (psuche)…”

In all these, psuche is used in the common sense of natural life, and cannot be harmonized with the immortal soul idea.

---

“Not Able to Kill the Soul”

Now, as in the Old [Testament], so in the New [Testament], there are a few passages where the use of the word could possibly be made to fit with the immortal soul idea. There are none, of course, that prove or even support this idea — that would be impossible as we can see from the basic meaning and general use of the word — -but there are some where it could be read in if the rest is ignored.

The passage most frequently quoted is Mat 10:28:

“…fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to DESTROY both soul and body in Gehenna.”

Now it is rather peculiar at the outset that the one passage most quoted to support the indestructible soul theory is the very one that speaks of the soul being DESTROYED, but, we find that these people do not regard “destroyed” as meaning destroyed, but the opposite — eternally preserved.

And we find further that they do not regard “death” as meaning death, but “eternal LIFE in misery.” We can see that with definitions such as this we could make anything prove anything.

We have seen that according to the Scriptures elsewhere, a man can and DOES kill the soul. We have looked at several passages to this effect, and there are many others. The first use of the word in the NT (Mat 2:20) speaks of Herod “seeking the young child’s life” (psuche — soul). The first appearance in the gospel of Mark is similar. Jesus says (Mark 3:4): “…is it lawful… on the sabbath… to save life (psuche), or to kill?…”

Paul in Rom 11:3 quotes Elijah as saying: “…I am left alone, and they seek my life (psuche).”

What is meant here by saying that man cannot kill the soul? Are the Scriptures contradictory? Of course they are not. We must use wisdom to discern them properly. There is no difficulty in understanding what Christ means, if we sincerely seek a scriptural solution. Man can kill the body, but this has no permanent effect on our ultimate existence. To the faithful, this is but a brief sleep [Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2; Mat 9:24; 27:52; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 1Co 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1Th 4:13-15; 5:10; 2Pe 3:4; Deu 31:16; 2Sa 7:12; 1Ki 1:21; Job 7:21; 14:12; Psa 13:31 Jer 51:39, 57; Acts 13:36; 1Ki 2:10; 11:21,43; 14:20,31; 15:8,24; 16:6,28; 22:4050; 2Ki 8:24; 10:35; 13:9, 13; 14:16,22,29; 15:7,22,38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6; 2Ch 9:31; 12:16; 14:1; 16:13; 21:1; 26:2,23; 27:9; 28:27; 32:33; 33:20; Job 3:13; Mat 25:5]. In this sense, the ultimate, eternal sense, man can not kill the soul, or life. But God on the other hand is able to blot us out of existence forever and make all our memory to perish [Deu 32:39; 1Sa 2:6; Ecc 9:4-6; Psa 31:12; 88:5; Isa 26:14; Ecc 8:10].

---

Summary

Now, to sum up the points that have been covered:

1. We have seen that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is admittedly traced to heathen Greek philosophers, and its followers are quite willing to concede that the Bible meaning of soul is something very different.

2. The issue is clear and there is no middle ground — we must choose between Bible teaching and human speculation.

3. The words nephesh and psuche, translated “soul,” occur 850 times in the Bible and in not one case is there any suggestion of immortality.

4. The translators have used over 40 words in translation and a glance at this list shows how far different the Bible soul is from the orthodox one.

5. The word is first used of ANIMALS.
6. One-third of all its occurrences speak of it in terms indicating its mortality and subjection to death.

7. It is often spoken of as being killed by man, and it is several times spoken of as actually being dead, and being handled and touched in a dead state.

ANYTHING MORE DIFFERENT FROM THE IMMORTAL SOUL THEORY, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE.

---

Salvation Requires Devotion, and Diligent Application to Truth

In conclusion, let us urge two points of action: FIRST, make a thorough, scriptural examination of the word “soul.” The word occurs 850 times. Make the effort to trace them through. Compare them with the general, hazy ideas on the subject. It takes time, but there is no other way. God requires us to work and search.

And SECOND, having determined the facts of what we are — perishing creatures of dust — investigate God’s great offer of what we may become: “…There is a natural (soul) body, and there is a spiritual body” [1Co 15:44].

“…As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” [1Co 15:49].

“…this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality… then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory” [1Co 15:53-54].

These glorious words of the Apostle Paul will be fulfilled someday in the great joyful host of the redeemed, as they stand assembled before the judge of all the earth [Rev 5:9-14; 14:1-5; Gen 18:25; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom 2:16; 14:10; 1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1,8; 1Pe 4:5].

For all others it will be: “As the beasts that perish” [Psa 49:12,20].

“Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed upon them… and their beauty shall consume in the grave…” [Psa 49:5.14].

Let US choose the path of wisdom and life.

(GVG)

Speak gently! It is better far to rule by love than fear; Speak gently! Let no harsh words mar the good we might do here.

Speak gently! For love whispers low the vows that true hearts bind; And gently friendship’s accents flow — affection’s voice is kind.

Speak gently to the young, for they will have enough to bear. Pass through this life as best they may, it’s full of anxious care.

Speak gently to the aged one, grieve not the careworn heart; The sands of time are nearly run, let each in peace depart.

Speak gently to the erring; they may have toiled in vain. Perhaps unkindness made them so — Oh, win them back again!

Speak gently. He who gave his life to bend man’s stubborn will, When elements were in fierce strife, said to them, “Peace! Be still.”

Speak gently. ‘Tis a little thing dropped in the heart’s deep well. The good, the joy, which it may bring — eternity will tell.

There are many among us with an intense interest in the study of prophecy, and everything possible should be done to encourage them. However, as the years pass and more and more divergent interpretations are bantered back and forth, it seems that the entire subject has become a stumbling-block for some. There seem to be more and more “non-student” brethren who are hindered rather than helped by the uncertainty of conflicting opinions. Is this because we sometimes lose sight of the true purpose of Bible prophecy — that is, to prepare us for the coming of Christ? An open policy in regard to non-essentials is a good thing, certainly better than a strict adherence to tradition, come what may. But let each writer or speaker be careful to point out that in such areas his predictions are his alone and are not infallible. Let each conjecture be “salted with (a grain of) salt”; thereby the failure of one will be less likely to “turn off” your audience or reflect unfavorably on the indisputable truths you hold.

There is probably a large section of Christadelphia who would say, “I have no head for prophecy.” To them we would reply, “Perhaps not, but have you a heart for Christ? Surely if you love Christ, you will love his appearing although you think you have no capacity for prophetic exercises”. An affectionate wife may have no head for her husband’s business affairs, but she has a heart for his return from the office each evening. His appointment book may baffle her, but she knows his footstep and recognizes his voice. The saint who feels lost in the Apocalyptic realm should not take pride in his ignorance, of course. But neither should he be unduly discouraged. If only he has affection for his Lord and Master, and a firm resolve to keep his commandments, even the novice may entertain the most fervent desire to see him. This is the paramount hope of each of us — to be accepted by Christ when he comes, not to guess correctly what will happen before he arrives!

The great apostle said to the Thessalonian brethren by way of commendation, “Ye turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven” (1Th 1:9,10). Evidently, these new brethren had quite an imperfect knowledge of prophecy, since they were perplexed about the “simple” matter of resurrection in the divine time-table (4:13). Yet at the same time, they were in perfect possession of the greatest hope of the ecclesia — even the return of God’s Son! Let us by all means study prophecy, and even disagree if we must; but let us not lose sight of our objective. Let us emphasize the unencumbered hope of the true believer, the coming of the bridegroom. This simple desire, not the names and the dates and the numbers, is the spirit and essence of all Bible prophecy. Robert Roberts succinctly expressed this thought:

“The signs of the times — the events and movements among the nations that indicate the near approach of the Lord… are very interesting and challenge research while we are waiting; but let him appear, and that instant we shall cease all care about the drying of the Euphrates, the increasing aggrandisement of Russia, and so forth” (“My Days and My Ways”).

At some point in the near future, all our personal appraisals of current events will become suddenly meaningless; we will stand before Christ awaiting his direction — to the right hand or to the left. If our present study of God’s word — whether prophecy or otherwise — has not prepared us, and helped us to prepare others, for that awesome day, then it will have been time wasted. Prophecy is devalued in its fulfillment, but faith and hope and love abide forever. If our lives have manifested these qualities, then we may have been wrong in some of our political expectations, but it will hardly matter. We may have known only in part, but then by the Father’s grace we shall know even as also we are known.