A first-century Man of sin (as outlined in Lesson, Man of sin, first century) can scarcely be the complete fulfillment of the words of Paul. The letters to Thessalonica are so dominated by the theme of Christ’s second coming; and the Judeo-Christian “man of sin” of Paul’s day has long passed from the scene (along with his adherents). So it is reasonable to expect that another “man of sin” will be a dominant element in the prophetic framework of the last days. There is one system, the Papacy, that is eminently “qualified” to fill this role, as the Notes on the Text which follow should demonstrate. The question remains, however: Is there a transition, and a discernible link, between the first-century “man of sin” and the Roman Catholic apostasy?

Zechariah 5 offers such a link: Some of its connections with 2Th 2 are set out below:

Zechariah 5	2 Thessalonians 2
“This is their iniquity in all the land” (v 6, RV mg).	“The mystery of iniquity doth already work” (v 7)… “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (v 10).
“A woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah (v 7).	“Sitteth in the temple of God” (v 4).
“He cast her down into the midst of the ephah: and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof” (v 8, RV).	“That which restraineth” (v 6, RV)…”there is one that restraineth now” (v 7, RV).
“This is Wickedness” (v 8, RV).	“Then shall that Wicked be revealed” (v 8).

Zec 5 appears to be a prophecy of the evils of Judaism which were manifested in New Testament times, corrupting the early ecclesias, and which eventually became firmly established in the Roman Catholic church, along with many pagan ideas.

In its immediate context, Zec 5 presents a false worship in a detailed contrast to the true worship depicted in Zec 4. Zec 5 has the house of wicked women and unclean birds in the land of Shinar (Babylon) (vv 9,11), whereas Zechariah 4 has the true house of God, the true temple (v 9), wherein are the anointed ones (v 14) and the lampstand (v 12). In the picture of the false worship, the flying roll or scroll (v 3) is a “curse” which “declares innocent” (“naqah” — not “cut off” as in AV) those who steal and swear falsely. The dimensions of this scroll of wickedness (20 cubits by 10 cubits) (v 2) are the precise dimensions of the holy place of the temple and tabernacle, indicating again the nature of this worship: a deliberate parody of that which is true.

The scroll, then, represents wicked teaching, which releases men and women from their obligation to obey God’s laws. Such teaching, with a Jewish flavor, may be traced in the Pharisees’ use of “Corban” — a legal fiction that effectively released a man of his obligation to his parents (Mark 7:6-12). By some similar misapplication of law Pharisees enriched themselves by “devouring widows’ houses” (Mat 23:14) and swearing falsely (v 16). This same attitude was carried forward into the early church and became part of the Roman Catholic apostasy. So-called saints are alleged to have accumulated large excesses of virtue which could be transferred, at a price, to sinners. The clerics, from the pope down to the parish priest, claimed the power to excuse on God’s behalf sins of lying, stealing and so on at the confessional. Hence the links between Zec 5 and the Man of Sin.

Then there is the ephah (v 6), a unit of measure. This aptly portrays Judaism in New Testament times, where everything became a matter of measure, of keeping rules and regulations, rather than of developing a character pleasing in God’s sight. Again this entered the early ecclesias and became fully developed in the Roman Catholic church. Col 2:20-22 warns against making religion a matter of rules and regulations which results only in fleshly pride when they are kept. In 1Ti 4:3 Paul prophesied of the time to come when apostasy would make rules about “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats”, these are examples of the kinds of rules and regulations which Roman Catholicism invented so that the keepers of those rules might be considered as especially virtuous. The idea of a religion of “measure” comes out in other ways too: the idea that, after attending church, the rest of one’s time is one’s own; and the idea that after a fixed sum of money has been handed over, the rest is one’s own to use exactly as one pleases.

Zec 5 is thus a portrayal of apostasy, not so much in its false doctrines as in its iniquitous practices. Hence its use in 2Th as the background for the Man of Sin prophecy. It is noteworthy that in Zec 5 it is a woman who goes to Babylon (Shinar) and builds a house there. The connection with the woman of Rev 17 is obvious. Note also the stork, the unclean bird; the “Babylon” of the Apocalypse is “a cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (Rev 18:2).

Indeed, without trying to trace actual historical links, the essential unity of the two false systems (apostate Judaism of Christ’s day and modern Roman Catholicism) is perfectly evident:

• Both are heavily dependent upon the sanctity (or presumed sanctity) of special places and special, “holy” buildings.

• Both appeal to tradition and antiquity.

• Both encourage the ideal of a spiritual “elite”, set apart and elevated above the mass of ordinary believers.

• Both teach the doctrine of “Salvation by works.”

• Both have specially consecrated priests, dressed in distinctive garments, offering incense and “sacrifices.”

• Both have well-developed machinery for extorting vast amounts of wealth under religious pretence.

As the great false religious system of the first century was destroyed by divine edict (in AD 70) so the great false religious system of the Last Days will be destroyed — by Christ in his coming in power and glory.

What is the “mark of the beast”?

The answers to such a question depend, of course, on who or what is first identified as the “beast”. In the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, many Protestant expositors so identified the Pope of Rome. This led, more or less logically, to the identification of the beast’s “mark” as the cross or crucifix, which figured so prominently in Roman Catholic worship.

In modern times, as attention turned to a possible Last Days “beast” yet to be revealed, much has been made in certain circles of computer-generated “bar codes”, or Universal Product Codes, variants of which can now be imprinted on or even implanted in people.

Perhaps a latter-day Arab/Moslem “beast” will arise in the Middle East, to defeat Israel and to subjugate the Jews, and to be in turn destroyed by the coming of Christ. Assuming this, then can we determine a Biblical basis for identifying the “mark” of such a “beast”?

“Marks” in the OT

• Gen 4:15: Was this a visible mark for all to see, or merely a divine pronouncement, to all, of vengeance to come upon anyone who harmed Cain?

• Exo 13:9.

• Deu 6:6,8; cp Deu 11:18: These were highly figurative commandments of God, to the people of Israel. His Laws were, symbolically, to be written upon their hearts (cp Pro 3:3; 6:21; 7:3; Song 8:6), but not necessarily literally upon their hands and foreheads. That is, they were to remember and do all that He had said! However, the ritually-inclined Hebrews soon proceeded to write certain passages upon little scraps of parchment and place them in leather boxes called “phylacteries” (Mat 23:5), which were strapped to their arm and around their forehead before morning prayers.

• Eze 9:3-6: This divine marking (reminiscent of Cain’s) was a mark of favor or protection. As such, its purpose ties together with the “sign” or “symbol” of God’s Law figuratively placed upon the forehead and arm of the faithful Jew. That is, those who truly kept God’s Law, and were thus “grieved” for the detestable things done by wicked men in God’s Temple, would be specially marked out by God and preserved through the coming divine judgments. Was this “mark” literal and visible? Not likely, as it was put upon certain individuals by angels, and angels would be the only ones who needed to “see” it.

The “Mark” of the Saints in Revelation

• Rev 7:3,4; cp Rev 9:4.
• Rev 14:1.

(3)         Rev 22:3,4.

The mark, or seal, upon the foreheads of God’s servants is the name of God and His Son. In other words, these servants who kept God’s Law would be marked out by Him: His Name would be upon them, and they would belong to Him, and be safe. So this Revelation usage corresponds to the OT passages cited previously.

The “Mark” of the “Beast”

With the foregoing Biblical evidence, we can reasonably expect that the “mark” of the “Beast” will be a crude parody of the true divine mark. It will be a sign (not necessarily literal and visible) by which those who worship the Beast and keep his laws will be “guaranteed” his protection!

• “He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark (charagma: a scratch or etching) on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark (charagma), which is the name of the beast or the number of his name” (Rev 13:16,17). There is certainly a religious significance to this “mark” (see Rev 13:15), but there is also a commercial significance: Today wealthy Arab nations have organized economic monopolies and even boycotts against other nations who have financial dealings with Israel. Is this the shape of things to come?

• Rev 14:9-11.

• Rev 20:4: In addition to economic boycotts, oppressive laws are being reported in Muslim nations against those who disregard the Koran and seek to hold to and practice other beliefs, such as Judaism and various forms of Christianity. Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam’s most sacred shrines. That country now executes “criminals”, those “guilty” of any of a long list of offences against Islamic law, by beheading!

Thus Arab oil-producing cartels and the uncompromising practice of Islam are two possibilities for the “mark” of the beast. Note that Islam is enforced upon all subjects as a way of life, as a political code, and not just as a “religion” in the more liberal Western sense. Where it has the power, Islam is a system which permeates every part of society.

Last Days Persecution by the Beast

In the Last Days, when the Beast overruns Israel and tramples down Jerusalem, he will probably make every effort to force his religion upon the Jews — in short, to make his “mark” (Rev 13:18; 14:9-11; 20:4) upon them in place of God’s “mark” (Exo 13:9; Deu 6:8; 11:18; Eze 9:3-6; Rev 7:3,4; 9:4; 14:1). It is not hard to envision the brutal measures — such as economic boycotts, threats and, in the extreme, beheadings — by which the practices of Islam could be forced upon all their subjects. There is, in fact, the hint that such public executions will be carried out in the great public square of Jerusalem, in front of the “Wailing Wall” adjacent to the Temple Mount (cp the “street” or “wide place”, the one great open square, of “the great city… where also their Lord was crucified”: Rev 11:7,8).

It is possible that a resurgence in the practice of Judaism (which may include the rebuilding of a Jewish temple) will precede the last and successful Arab invasion of Israel. If this proves to be the case, then the Arab defeat of Israel might lead to one of two things:

• An Arab attempt to totally destroy and demolish every vestige of Judaism by the most brutal means, or

• A more insidious Arab effort, to infiltrate and undermine the worship of the Jewish Temple by an amalgamation, in its precincts, of Judaism and Muslim principles and practices.

Either approach will spell trouble for the Jewish Christian remnant that will be developed by the Last Days preaching of “Elijah” (Rev 11:3-6). These new believers may find themselves squeezed between two systems (“orthodox” Judaism and militant Islam), both antagonistic toward the religion of Jesus. The dual persecutions of the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ in that day may, in fact, parallel (and exceed!) the dual persecutions of the Jewish believers in the first century, who were caught in a vise between the “orthodox” Judaism of Caiaphas and Annas, and the political oppression of the Roman overlords like Pilate (cp Heb 10:32-34).

Jezebel (a Zidonian, and an Arab!) and Ahab (an apostate Jewish “puppet” king) joined forces in an unholy “mixed marriage” to persecute Elijah and the righteous remnant in Israel in his day. So it is possible that a latter-day Arab “Jezebel” (Rev 2:20; cp Rev 17;18) and a latter-day Israeli “Ahab” will similarly join in persecuting the Jewish converts of the latter-day “Elijah” in the Land.

In such a time and place, it will be extremely difficult for a faithful remnant to maintain their faith in the One true God and in His Son. But such a fierce oppression as will be their lot will last no more than 3 1/2 years (Rev 11:2,3; cp Rev 12:6; 13:5; Dan 7:25; 12:7). And those who maintain their faith, their godly “mark” on the forehead, even to the point of death, will rise from the dead to receive a crown of life.

“Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God” (Rev 7:3).

“Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads” (Rev 14:1).

Those who bear in their foreheads the name of the Lamb and of his Father have the “mark” of the Lamb. They are deliberately contrasted with the people who bear, on the right arm or the forehead, the “mark of the beast” (Rev 13:16-18).

The Lamb is of course Christ. In an especially poignant scene of the Apocalypse, he is pictured as “a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain” (5:6; cp 5:12; 13:8). The “Lamb” Jesus is the Passover Lamb, slain for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1Co 5:7), bearing ever after in his body the marks of his sacrifice (John 20:25-28).

The original Passover lamb was slain in Egypt, and its blood used to mark the lintels and doorposts of the houses of the believing Israelites. Succeeding generations of Israel would readily recognize such a mark as approximating the Hebrew letter “He”, which almost by itself spells the name of God: Yod He, or YAH. It is no great stretch of the imagination, therefore, to see that every faithful house in Egypt had the name of the Father marked over its doorway, written in the blood of the Lamb! And the name of the Father, “Yah”, is — of course — the name of the Lamb too: “Yah-shua”, or Jesus!

Now, in the Book of Revelation, there are marked out, not houses, but individual men and women, each sealed, not upon the door, but in the forehead (the “door” of the mind) with the “mark” of the Lamb. These are the individuals who have opened their minds to the message of God, who have directed their thoughts into the ways of His Laws. These are they who have been touched by the blood of Christ, who have been baptized into his name and the name of his Father. These are they who, wherever they are — even in the grave itself — will be protected in the Last Days from the “Angel of Death” and will be delivered from the “Egypt” of slavery and sin. Listen to what the Lord and King Jesus promised to those who keep his word and do not deny his name:

“Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem… and I will also write on him my new name” (Rev 3:10-12).

Such is the “mark” of the Lamb! Wear it thankfully, and never seek to erase it, or hide it. It will mean your life in the age to come.

According to most NT scholars, this is the earliest of the four gospels. The Gospel of Mark portrays the person of Jesus more by his actions, and portrays him particularly as a servant.

The Gospel of Mark is evidently written for Gentiles, and for Romans in particular. Mark translates Aramaic and Hebrew phrases (Mar 3:17; 5:41; 7:34; 14:36); he transliterates familiar Latin expressions into Greek, for example, “legion” (Mar 5:9), “quadrans” (“kodrantes”: NIV mg) (Mar 12:42), “praetorium” (Mar 15:16), and “centurion” (Mar 15:39). Moreover, Mark presents Romans in a neutral (Mar 12:17; 15:1-10), and sometimes a favorable (Mar 15:39), light.

Mark begins his gospel with the statement, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mar 1:1); and the last human to speak in the gospel is the centurion who confesses at the cross, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!” (Mar 15:39).   Like the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark does not mention the name of its author.

One of the first people to identify the author was Papias (AD 60-130), a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (Turkey). Papias then noted that Mark had not followed Jesus during his lifetime, but later had written down Peter’s recollections accurately, although not always in their proper order. This will account for the problem of sequential differences between the Gospels of Matthew & Mark.

The Mark believed to have written this gospel is John Mark. He was a native of Jerusalem (Act 12:12), and later became an associate of both Peter (1Pe 5:13) and Paul (2Ti 4:11). The gospel has many characteristics of an eyewitness account, for which Peter would have been responsible (Mar 1:29-31).   It may be that as a youth Mark was present at the arrest of Jesus and that he has left an “anonymous signature” in the story of the young man who eluded arrest and fled away naked (Mar 14:51,52).   Main themes

One of the unique points about this Gospel is what some term the “messianic secret.” Mark records how, often following a miracle, Jesus would command persons healed, onlookers, disciples, and even those healed of demons to be silent about his great works (Mar 1:34; 1:44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26; 8:30; 9:9). It has long puzzled readers why Jesus, who came into the world to make himself known, would work at cross-purposes with his mission by trying to remain hidden.

A fair explanation is that Jesus’ command to silence was intended to protect himself from false expectations of the Messiah that were current at that time. It seemed most saw the “messiah” or “anointed one” as a military hero who would come to overthrow the Roman rule of Palestine; such was the crowd’s attitude at Christ’s “triumphant” entry into Jerusalem. Jesus had no intention to play the part of a great warrior; rather, he took upon himself the attitude of a servant.

Outline

1.	Mar 1:1 – 13: The Prologue
	a)	Mar 1:1 – 11: John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism
	b)	Mar 1:12 – 13: Jesus’ temptation
2.	Mar 1:14 – 10:52: The Ministry
	a)	Mar 1:14 – 20: The disciples called
	b)	Mar 1:21 – 3:12: In the synagogue; teaching and healing
	c)	Mar 3:13 – 35: Twelve chosen
	d)	Mar 4:1 – 34: Parables
	e)	Mar 4:35 – 5:43: Stilling the storm and other miracles
	f)	Mar 6:1 – 13: Further teaching
	g)	Mar 6:14 – 29: The death of John the Baptist
	h)	Mar 6:30 – 10:52: More teaching
3.	Mar 11:1 – 16:20: The Crucifixion and Resurrection
	a)	Mar 11:1 – 26: Entering Jerusalem
	b)	Mar 11:27 – 13:37: Questions and answers
	c)	Mar 14:1 – 72: The approaching suffering
	d)	Mar 15:1 – 47: The trial and the crucifixion
	e)	Mar 16:1 – 20: The resurrection and ascension

“Our Father in Heaven, we ask your gracious blessing on this couple, who have decided to bind their lives to one another, publicly and formally, and in the sight of these witnesses. In them, we see the pattern and picture of your Beloved Son, and his “Bride”, the believers of all ages — bound together for all eternity.

“Dear Father, help them — and us — realize the tremendous commitment of love and devotion and obedience involved in this choice, and give them the strength and dedication to fulfill that commitment, every day for the rest of their lives. This we pray in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.”

---

The first man was created with a remarkable potential… he was made in the “image of God”… his hands could perform complicated maneuvers; his mind could comprehend eternal things; his spirit could reach out and touch the face of God.

But something was lacking, and God Himself observed it:

“It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a companion fit for him.”

Adam needed a counterpart of himself, someone who could be a companion and a true friend.

Adam was created a social being… designed (physically and emotionally and spiritually) for togetherness. Despite all his talents and all his potential, he could realize the highest level of his being only in the company of others.

And he could most easily find true joy and fulfillment in the company of one special person: at the same time like himself and different.

“So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman”, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

This Bible passage, from Genesis 2, includes the first recorded words of a human being, and they are… a marriage vow — a recognition that God had indeed provided a perfectly suitable companion.

A wise man once said,

“Eve was made from a rib taken from Adam’s side, not from his head that she might be his superior, nor from his feet that she might be trampled on, but from his side… that she might be his equal — and from next to his heart… that she might be cherished, and loved.”

The profound nature of the marriage bond is expressed in one short phrase; “They shall be ONE flesh.” No longer each living for himself or herself, they now hold fast to one another, for the rest of their lives.

Jesus added his own commentary: “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate… I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

And again he said, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

“THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH.”

The two vital features of marriage are expressed here.

The first is total commitment, without reservation or qualification, without conditions or escape clauses. From the beginning, the One who created us all does NOT present commitment as an option. Instead, He EXPECTS commitment… in a number of ways. He expects us to make a commitment to honesty and integrity in ALL of our relationships. He expects us to make a personal commitment to love and serve Him, and to worship no false “gods”. And He expects that — if we marry — we make an unqualified, life-long commitment to our spouse.

The second vital feature of marriage is its exclusiveness. One man and one woman, bound to one another and to no one else. Belonging to each other, as is so beautifully expressed in the Old Testament Song of Songs, where the young woman rejects the advances of other shepherds, and yearns for her Beloved only — waiting for his invitation to “Come away with me…” Then she rejoices with the words: “I belong to my Beloved, and my Beloved belongs to me!”

We hear much talk about “love” all around us, and much that is CALLED “love” is nothing at all like the “love” defined in God’s Word. The desire to share physical intimacy with an attractive and responsive partner may be called “love”… but — if an absolute commitment to one another, perpetually and exclusively, is lacking — then it may be… desire, it may be… lust, it may be… temporarily satisfying… it may be amusing… it may be exciting… BUT IT IS NOT… LOVE!

And — if the primary object of either party is to indulge oneself — then the moment ANYTHING changes to that person’s dissatisfaction, whether it be one’s health, or physical appearance, or financial arrangements, or whatever! — THAT is the moment that the pressure to pull apart may start to become greater than the pressure to stay together. Hence, if there is no true legal commitment, OR no true moral and spiritual commitment… then… in effect, there is no REAL marriage!

In 1Co 13, the apostle Paul writes about genuine love, the kind upon which a true marriage must be built. While romantic love, as it is frequently thought of, can actually be very selfish… the true love Paul describes is…

“patient, it is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

THAT is the only LOVE worth having. The other is a passing shadow, a breath of wind that we feel for a moment, and then it is gone.

Sadly, many people spend their lives trying to capture that shadow, that little breeze, that fleeting feeling or illusion, only to be bitterly disappointed, time after time… because they do not understand the nature of loving commitment in true marriage.

But the love Paul describes is real, and eternal, and eternally satisfying. It never fails; it never ends. The two who stand before us today already share the fellowship of their faith in Christ and their hope for his Kingdom.

To choose a partner for life who is committed to the same ideal and the same object is truly a wonderful thing. And when that object is the service of God, then it is much, much more of a wonderful thing!

The commitment to Christ that you both have made will be the firm foundation on which you will build your marriage. No third person can be allowed to violate the exclusiveness of your relationship with one another, NO THIRD PARTY EXCEPT FOR CHRIST! He alone should be the “third party” in your marriage, who will always be present… if you let him. He will be there… if you let him… to help you through the difficulties, the rough places, that will inevitably come.

With Christ as your foundation, with the true love you have for each other, with the confidence of the commitment you are making — and realizing its profound seriousness — and with the blessing of our heavenly Father, you will build a satisfying and joyful life together.

May God bless the two of you in your commitment. All of us here join in prayer that your marriage and life together will be happy, and prosperous, and good and right. May it be a blessing to each of you, and to others. May your life together be a reflection of the “eternal marriage” that we hope to experience, one day, with Christ, as described in the Book of Revelation:

“Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: ‘Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear. (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) Then the angel said to me, ‘Write: “Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!” ‘… Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem… prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ ”

We rejoice now in THIS marriage, and we ponder the wonders and joys of that “mystery” yet to be revealed: that “marriage” to come, when those who truly believe — men and women — will be forever joined together with Jesus Christ.

---

“Our Father in Heaven, we pray that you will bless and keep this new couple, who have pledged themselves to each other in your sight. May your face shine upon them. May you give them peace, and joy. May you strengthen their faith, support their love, and reinforce their hope — as long as they both shall live, or until your Son returns. In his Name we pray. Amen.”

The Scriptures abound in warnings against alien marriage: The sons of God marrying the daughters of men resulted at last in the Flood (Gen 6-9). Abraham and Isaac, faithful sojourners looking for the Kingdom, opposed such marriages for their sons (Gen 24:3; 28:1). The Law of Moses forbade the yoking together of the clean ox and the unclean ass (Deu 22:10). Moses said to take no alien spouses (Deu 7:3,8). Solomon’s alien wives turned his heart from God (1Ki 11:1-11). Ezra (Ezr 9;10) and Nehemiah (Neh 13:23-29) tell us of the evils of such alliances, and Paul has stressed the deviation of such a union (1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14-18).

Those who are courting or are contemplating marriage must remember that complete happiness can be achieved only when it is “in the Lord”. History and experience show that where there is no unity of thought and purpose, whether it be between God and Israel, Christ and the ecclesia, or between a husband and wife, there may follow a break in fellowship and unity. How could it be otherwise? That is the sadness and the tragedy of divorce or separation.

When the Israelites were delivered from Egypt they were told that they should not “make marriages” with the peoples of Canaan. Moses gave the reason in words which are relevant today:

“Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods…” (Deu 7:3).

Paul had much the same thing to say when he wrote: “Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?”

Marriage, properly understood and lived, is a part of the divine fellowship in which love, patience, sympathy, understanding and service can be truly learned, and happy is the couple from whom these flow to the rest of the household of faith, for their reward will be the eternal blessing of the Father.

In being prepared against the “problem” of “alien marriage”, it is not sufficient merely to quote one or two passages like “only in the Lord” and “be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”. We should see far more clearly than that. It is the general realization and appreciation that to marry “outside” is willful disobedience to the Lord who bought us, and it is a failure to understand the loftiness of our calling. We are invited to be the Bride of Christ. How then can we be associated in the closest intimacy with one who is not a member of the called-out ones in Christ? The whole of the Word of God requires this necessary separateness.

The Lord knows all our circumstances and He arranges that which is best for us. If in all our ways we acknowledge Him, He will direct our paths. “Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him” and the Psalmist assures us that finally “He will give thee the desires of thine heart”. If we thus “rest in the Lord”, then we can rest assured that in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, those are the best for us in the ultimate. If other conditions were better, then the Lord would bring them to pass.

It may be, perhaps, that celibacy is best for us — the Lord knows. If, on the other hand, marriage with a true companion is the better condition, then the Lord will see to it that the proper partner comes along. Sometimes such comes to pass later on in life. Place the whole matter in the Lord’s hands and leave it there. Above all, don’t try to short-circuit the Lord: after putting it in His hands, don’t rush hastily into a marriage pretending it is the Lord’s doing. When the Lord moves in the matter there will be no mistaking it, and then one may say: “This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.”

“My Lord, who dead and buried lay, of late Made void this tomb and stood before my face; And I was first of all his ransomed race: At first I knew him not! nor pondered there By what strong means at that unseemly hour The gard’ner should with some uncanny power Have borne him hence beyond my reach. But when he spoke, calling out my name, And I beheld my Saviour standing there, My heart did leap with sheer and utter joy; ‘Twas then, O Lord, that recognition came: With tear-dimmed eyes my precious Lord to greet, I knelt in the dust to grasp his feet.”

Are Mary of Bethany, the woman of Luk 7, and Mary Magdalene all the same woman. According to HAW, this is a possibility — although not a provable certainty:

• Mary of Bethany = woman of Luk 7: Mary’s anointing, a perpetual memorial (Mat 26:13). Joh 11:2 seems to look back to an earlier incident: if not Luk 7, then what? Simon the (healed?) leper (Mar 14:3) = Simon the Pharisee of Luk 7. In Mat 26, Mary is deliberately repeating her earlier action. In Luk 7: how did Simon know what kind of woman this was (v 39)? How did she know to make good his omissions of courtesy (vv 44-46)? How did she get into the house at all? Also, see v 37: sig of “brought” (= “received”).

• Mary of Bethany = Mary Magdalene: Mary of Bethany, not mentioned re the crucifixion and resurrection, whereas Mary Magdalene is suddenly (for first time) extremely prominent. These 2 women are always mentioned at feet of Jesus: Luk 10:39-42; Joh 11:32; 12:3; 19:25; 20:17; Mat 28:9; Luk 7:38. Coincidences?

• Mary Magdalene = the woman of Luk 7: The only mention of Mary Magdalene before crucifixion comes in Luk 8:2, immediately after Luk 7:36-50. “Magdalene” possibly signifies “hair-braider”, ie harlot; also ref Luk 7:38. See Luk 8:2,3n.

(From WGos 247).

It is evident from a full consideration of the context, that the sin here is primarily a matter of personal offence, not of doctrinal divergence. (Cp v 21: “….sin against me….” and v 35: “if ye forgive not every one his brother….”) However, these vv are often considered to be the primary guideline to the pursuing and expunging of doctrinal errors from the ecclesia; so let us carefully consider the passage from that viewpoint.

“If your brother sins against you”, then you — being by Bible standard and precept “your brother’s keeper” (Gen 4:9) — are bound to warn the offender with the express purpose of turning him from his sin (Eze 3:17-21). Your love, actively manifested in an unpleasant task, may “cover a multitude of sins” (1Pe 4:8).

In such cases the offender should not be evilly thought of, or spoken of. His status and feelings will be as fully considered and respected as one’s own. Neither will he be confronted from motives and feelings personal to the visitor, but solely and purely for his own good who has transgressed.

With the object of gaining, not of sacrificing his brother, the careful brother should in the spirit of meekness strive to restore the faulty; and he should consider his own imperfections and weaknesses and consequent liability to fall into temptation (Gal 6:1). Every step which might lead to New Testament disfellowship (or withdrawal) was always intended to facilitate the repentance and reclamation of the offender. The Son of Man himself came into the world with the purpose of saving that which was lost (Mat 18:11) — and well might we be thankful that he did that very thing.

Note the special precise sequence to be followed:

(1) Tell him his fault between you and him alone. How many falter at the very first step who desire to be “peacemakers”, but instead become “peace-keepers”, ie “law enforcement officials” in the ecclesias!

(2) Then — only if he fails to hear you — go with one or two others. And should not the one or two others be those who by experience and temperament are best able to rectify the division, not simply best able to support your contention and most likely to take your side no matter what?

The two or three witnesses confirm every word. This is a necessary counterbalance to the frequent malicious tendency of the flesh to believe without verification every evil word spoken against another brother.

(3) Finally, all else failing, you should go to the ecclesia. Whose ecclesia? Yours or his? His, of course, because it is the one with primary jurisdiction in the case. Implicit in the Master’s advice is no doubt the final step: After you tell the ecclesia, you bow out; the ecclesia now being properly informed has sole authority to pursue the matter. (In our modern-day inter-ecclesial tangle, with its rapid communications and sometimes volatile differences, this point and the next become very important.)

(4) One command which is not given, but so often “read into” Mat 18: “Then tell it to all the ecclesias!” This would serve the dubious purpose of taking the “sins” (real or imagined) of your brother, whom you ostensibly sought to help, and broadcasting them to the ends of the world. This is wrong, it is malicious, and it is also a violation of the spirit of the commandment here and of the Scriptural basis of all inter-ecclesial relationships (as in Rev 2 and 3).

We should notice, in any survey of Mat 18, the related passage in the Ecclesial Guide, entitled “Cases of Sin and Withdrawal” (1949 Edition, p 24). From there we quote:

“There should be a stringent refusal to hear an evil report concerning anyone until the reporter has taken the Scriptural course….”

And in another place RR comments on the procedure: “Nothing tends more to the keeping or the restoring of peace than the observance of this law; and no law is more constantly broken. The universal impulse, when anything is supposed to be wrong, is to tell the matter to third persons. From them it spreads, with the results of causing much bad feeling which, perhaps, the original cause does not warrant and would not have produced if the aggrieved person had taken the course prescribed by Christ, and told the fault ‘between thee and him alone.’ If good men, or those who consider themselves such, would adopt the rule of refusing to listen to an evil report privately conveyed, until it had been dealt with to the last stage according to the rule prescribed by Christ, much evil would be prevented” (“Between Thee and Him Alone”, Ber 54:119).

We note how the full and complete context speaks so eloquently, not of judgment, nor of condemnation or disfellowship, but rather of reconciliation, reunion, mercy, and forgiveness:

(1) Verse 14: “It is not my Father’s will that any of these little ones [cp the children of vv 1-6] should perish.” Surely these fellowship matters are dynamite, and when wrongly handled they explode and the weak ones and the young ones “for whom Christ died” are most in danger of injury or “death”. How many young ones, it may be asked, ever perished spiritually because of that “dangerous” but little-understood “false doctrine” or improper action halfway round the globe? But how many truly became disillusioned and ultimately drifted away from the Brotherhood because of the grievous spectacle — on their own doorsteps — of envious, small-minded brethren, and their internal bickering and accusatory letters?

(2) How many times should I forgive? “Until seventy times seven” (v 22). Almost without end! And Jesus adds the parable of the debtors, with the comment that the Father in heaven will by no means forgive the unforgiving (vv 23-35). Notice the extreme contrasts in this parable. How heavily must the balance be weighted on the side of mercy in our cases!

It may also be noted that in Mat 18 there is no provision for a disgruntled, dissatisfied individual or minority to withdraw from the ecclesia because of a difference in judging a case. The ecclesia, as a body, is assumed to have the greater ability judiciously to weigh the facts and to reach a Scriptural and just decision. Most of our ecclesial “constitutions” contain a provision to this effect: “That we mutually engage to submit to the order and arrangements preferred by the greater number” (Article 5 of the Birmingham “Constitution”).

It may be confidently asserted that nearly every division in the Christadelphian world since these words were written has been brought about by a disregard of this very principle, which all have bound themselves to honor.

Finally, if it be argued that Mat 18:15-17 applies only to individual cases in one’s own ecclesia, and not to cases in other ecclesias, then I would ask: (1) Should it be easier — in view of the doctrine of the One Body and the superlative examples of and inducements to peace and unity — to judge and disfellowship thousands at a distance than individuals at home? (2) Or, put the other way round, do many brethren deserve less love and consideration than one?

This section closes with a document drawn up by several brethren in England during the “Berean” division of the 1920s, entitled “A Series of Rules proposed to govern inter-ecclesial disputes, based on Matthew 18:15-17”:

“1. That imputations against brethren affecting their fidelity to the faith ought not to be made except as commanded by Christ.

“2. That the same rule applies to ecclesias — especially as affecting inter-ecclesial co-operation.

“3. So, if a brother is convinced that a brother or brethren in an ecclesia of which he is not a member is or are advocating heresy, or otherwise in danger of rejection at the judgment seat of Christ, the proper course for such a brother to adopt is:

(a) First to see that brother ‘and tell him his fault with him alone’.

(b) If unable to adjust the matter, then it is his duty to ask the help of one or two more members of the ecclesia to whom the erring brother belongs, ‘that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

(c) Failing agreement, the case may then be considered by the ecclesia to which the erring brother belongs, in which case the brother originally moving in the matter shall have the opportunity of being present with full liberty of speech.

(d) If the matter cannot be adjusted in harmony with the wishes of the brother who has endeavored to help an erring one on his way to the kingdom, he is then at liberty to consider whether he shall refuse cooperation with them in their labors and shall respectfully notify his intention to the said brother and ecclesia in question.

(e) In case no further attempt is made by the ecclesia thus notified to adjust the matter, he may now ask the ecclesia to which he belongs to join him in refusal of cooperation.

“4. The above rules may not be possible of observance in detail where ecclesias are so far separated as to make a personal interview unfeasible, but in any case, an opportunity should be given for those who are associated with one who teaches error, to repudiate the same before exclusion from fellowship” (“So Do Unto Them”, Xd 61:455).

With the above agree also the very well-balanced remarks of Brother Roberts (“A Second Voyage to Australia”, Xd 35: 331,332), from which come the following extracts: “It ought not to be in the power of any ecclesia to pass judgment on an accused brother in his absence, unless that absence was willful. This was an elementary principle recognized in every system of law, ancient or modern, human or divine. It was a feature of British law all over the world — that no man should be condemned without the opportunity and invitation to answer the charge made against him. It used to be the same with Roman law, as casually comes out in Act 25:16: ‘It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die before that he that is accused have the accusers face to face and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him.’

“The Jews observed the same practice: ‘Doth our law judge any man before it hear him?’ (Joh 7:15)

“Lastly, Christ enjoined the same thing in the law of Mat 18 for dealing with an offending brother, only that he added the merciful requirement (absent from all human laws), that public accusation should not be made until the accused had been approached personally and privately by the accuser, and a second time with one or two others in case of failure.”

There are two extreme schools of thought as to the means by which the books of the Bible were composed. The one, which we might call the “dictation” school, implies that the authors were really no more than “secretaries” who wrote down, word for word, what God spoke to them. The other extreme declares that the authors compiled and arranged and edited various materials, part written and part oral, from many older sources. Since these sources were not necessarily “inspired” in any regular sense of the word, and since the compiler was at liberty to “pick and choose”, therefore the final result could scarcely be considered the infallible “word of God”. An “advancement” (?) upon this second school of thought is that the gospels, for example, did not take their final forms until some time in the second century, after later disciples “tinkered around” with their predecessors’ stories.

These two views more or less hold sway among modern theologians. The “scholarly” majority favor various “compilation” theories to explain the origins of the Scriptures. Among the intelligentsia, the theories tend to the use of letters and numbers as a sort of insiders’ “code”. One can sympathize with the simple Bible believer who picks up a modern text and finds listed as Bible authors — not Moses and Matthew and Mark — but some anonymous gentlemen (or committees, perhaps?) designated only as “J”, “E”, “D”, “P”, and “Q”. Then, without warning, his old friend Isaiah, right before his eyes, is “cloned” into three parts: First, Second, and Third Isaiah!

The “dictation” theory comes somewhat as a reaction to these liberal modern views. It has many advocates in mainstream American denominations. More than one major church conference has seen “pitched battles” between the apostles of “inerrancy” and the disciples of “higher criticism”.

While our sympathies tend toward the conservative in such a dispute, it seems that the “dictation” theory goes too far when it denies that the Spirit of God used the writer’s “personality” at all.

In many subtle ways the unique qualities of each writer show forth in his works. We find, for example, that Luke’s writings reveal many traces of a scientific, specifically a medical, background. We find that Paul’s writings demonstrate a wide-ranging knowledge of things Greek as well as Jewish, which accords with what we know of his education. This line of investigation, when followed up, refutes the “dictation” theory. But it also (and this may be more important) goes quite a ways toward refuting the various “compilation” theories also. If, to take another example, it can be shown that Matthew’s gospel reveals an unusual degree of interest in financial matters, then (since Matthew was a publican) the reader is given a further solid presumption that Matthew (and not a committee or some anonymous second-century disciple) did in fact write the first gospel.

Money matters in Matthew

In fact, this is precisely the case. Totaling the references to money in the first three gospels, we have the following tabulation:

Matthew, 44; Mark, 6; Luke, 22.

Luke’s total includes nine references in one parable to the “pound”, whereas Matthew has 14 references in one parable to the “talent”. If these frequent references are reduced to one word each, the totals would be: Matthew, 31; Mark, 6; Luke, 14.

The vineyard workers

Matthew alone of the gospel writers preserves the parable of the vineyard workers (Mat 20:1-16). The teaching of Christ that a man who worked one evening hour should be entitled to the same wage as one who bore “the burden and heat of the day” would strike a money-minded publican as nothing short of revolutionary. The grace of God is an unmerited gift — not parceled out so much per hour or so much per good deed — but heaped up and overflowing to any who go into the vineyard with a will to work. We can imagine the “old publican” in Matthew mumbling to himself, “You just don’t treat money that way!” How true, Matthew — but the grace of God is a different matter altogether.

The unmerciful servant

Another “money” parable given only in Matthew is that of the unmerciful servant (Mat 18:21-35). The king’s servant owed him ten thousand talents. Since, in the vineyard parable, one “penny” (denarius) was a fair day’s wage, and a talent was equal to 6,000 “pennies”, then an ordinary laborer could expect to earn one talent every twenty years! (20 years times 300 workdays per year = 6,000 days.) Assuming a wage of $4 per hour, and 8 to 10 hours per day, one talent would equal approximately $200,000; and the servant’s full debt would be $2,000,000,000 — enough to stagger even a fair-sized country! On the other hand, the debt owed to the servant by his fellow was a relatively trivial 100 denarii ($3,000)! Too much, of course, to be dismissed without a thought, but not very much after all when compared to the other debt. The enormity of the first debt tells us something about the “price” we should place upon our salvation, while the disparity between the two debts (approximately a ‘million to one’ ratio) suggests the relative ease with which we should forgive our “debtors”.

Paying tribute

In another event reported only by Matthew, the tax-collectors asked Peter, “Doth not your master pay tribute (‘didrachma’)?” Before Peter could even take up the question with Christ, Christ spoke about it to him, concluding firstly that the children of the “king” are “free” from taxation, but secondly that they must avoid offending the authorities. He then sent him off to hook a fish in whose mouth he would find a piece of money (a “stater”) large enough to pay for them both. It is notable also that the names of these two coins are found nowhere else in the Bible. We see that Matthew shows the care of an accountant in his technical designation of coins (Mat 17:24-27).

Other money matters

All three synoptic gospels relate Christ’s instructions to the disciples as they were sent forth to preach (Mat 10:9; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3). But, whereas Mark refers only to brass and Luke only to silver (“argurion”), Matthew uses three terms — gold, silver, and brass! With the carefulness of a man who must have once really loved money, he now renounces it in all its forms!

In another example of precision, Matthew is the only gospel writer who reports the exact amount of the payment made to Judas: 30 pieces of silver (Mat 26:15). Such a paltry price for which to sell one’s eternal life! And Matthew alone tells his readers that the sepulchre guards were paid “hush money” (Mat 28:12,15)! Finally, Matthew is also the only writer to record the saying about swearing by the gold in the temple (Mat 23:16,17).

Conclusion

Perhaps all these points are only minor ones. But in the honored tradition of JJ Blunt’s “Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences”, taken all together they present irresistible arguments: Contrary to the “higher” critics’ theories, there is strong internal proof that that otherwise obscure publican Matthew did indeed write the First Gospel. And, contrary to the “dictation” theory, the Holy Spirit did make use of the personalities, character traits, knowledge, and experiences of the individual writers.