The mighty city of Babylon, situated along both banks of the great river Euphrates, controlled one of the greatest empires of ancient times in the middle of the sixth century BC. The great king Nebuchadnezzar had set the stage for empire by his far-flung conquests seventy years earlier. Among his exploits was the sacking of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jews. Now his grandson Belshazzar sat as lord over Nebuchadnezzar’s legacy — the proud ruler of a proud city.

Daniel 5 tells of a great feast prepared by Belshazzar for one thousand of his lords and captains. In the midst of this drunken revelry he offered toasts to the Babylonian idols of wood and stone out of the same holy vessels taken from the Jewish temple by his grandfather (vv 1-4). Such a blasphemous insult to the God Of Israel, the only true God, could not go unnoticed by Heaven. In the same hour there appeared a disembodied hand writing on the wall of the banquet hall, and the haughty king was in a moment reduced to a quivering fear (vv 5,6).

What could the words possibly mean? A search was begun for someone, anyone, who could interpret this divine message. Finally the “queen” (probably the young king’s mother) remembered Daniel, the prophet of Israel and wise counselor of Nebuchadnezzar, now about 90 years old and in retirement. With great haste he was summoned to the banquet hall, now in excited disarray, to explain the curious vision (vv 11-16).

The old servant of God stood before the frightened young king, his eyes ablaze: “Your grandfather was lifted up in pride to challenge the one true God, the God of my people. And God cast him down, and drove him into madness for seven years, until he recognized that the most high God — and He alone — rules in the kingdom of men! But you, Belshazzar, have not learned this lesson. By relating his mistakes, you have doomed your kingdom.”

Daniel now turned to the mysterious words engraven on the wall, and quickly revealed their import (vv 25-28):

“Mene” (numbering): “Your number is up! God has counted out your years, and finished them,”

“Tekel” (weighed): “You are weighed in the balances of divine judgment and found wanting.”

“Peres” (divided): “Your kingdom is to be broken up and given to the Persians.”

At that very moment the Persians, the longtime rivals of Babylon, were entering the “impregnable” city. History records that Cyrus and his field commander Darius diverted the course of the Euphrates and, guided by two deserters, marched their army through the dry river-bed into the very heart of the vast city. Because of carelessness — or perhaps the festive atmosphere of the evening — the watchmen had left open and unattended the river gates opening into the city. Unimpeded, the Persians stormed the palace, where they slaughtered Belshazzar and his lords in their drunken and confused stupor — as Jeremiah had prophesied years before:

“In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they ray rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord” (Jer 51:39,57).

The warnings in this incident for our modern world are pointed. “Babel” (Gen 11), or “Babylon”, has always designated, in Scripture, idolatrous and tyrannical powers, powers odious to God. From the beginning it was a place where men gathered to rebel against God, building a tower to mark their great accomplishments, and as a means of worshipping themselves. The name itself means “confusion”, for there God confounded the languages of those first proud men; ever since, “Babylon” has stood for the confusion of this unenlightened world, which cares not to retain God in its knowledge (Rom 1:28).

In short, our modern world is “Babylon”, in all its forms: There is a religious “Babylon” (usually identified as a great false church in interpretations of Revelation) that, by its erroneous teachings and its near-deification of its leader, denies in reality the one true God, while figuratively drinking from the “vessels” of His house. There are political “Babylon”, that afflict and oppress God’s people Israel, and brutally stifle all free expression of the individual, religious and otherwise. And there are “Babylonian”‘ societies (like our own!) that ignore God and His claims while exalting man, building “towers” of human accomplishments, and degrading the higher aspirations of man’s spirit in debauchery and trivial pleasure-seeking.

The fall of Babylon is not just an obscure Sunday-school story. It is a parable of the impending fate of our modern world. Notice that in Rev 16, “Armageddon” and the second coming of Christ are accompanied by another drying up of the “Euphrates” (v 12), and the remembrance by God of great Babylon, “to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath” (v 19). The next two chapters of Revelation detail the fall of modern “Babylon” in all its religious, political, and commercial splendor, so that — finally — “the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” (19:6)!

If in fact history is soon to be re-enacted on a grand scale, what are God’s servants to do in the meanwhile? Surely they should stand in spirit with Daniel, who boldly proclaimed to a wicked Babylon that “the most High ruleth in the kingdom men” (Daniel 4:17,25; 5:21), and that one day He would take affairs into His own hands. And they should attentively observe the “handwriting on the wall” in these days, what Jesus called “the signs of the times”, that foretell divine judgments on a wicked world. As they hear of “wars and rumors of wars”, economic distress, Middle East turmoil, and “third world” instability, they are not to despair, as do others, but to lift up their heads in anticipation of coming redemption (Luke 21:25-28).

Cyrus the Persian conqueror captured the gate and then the city of Babylon. It was said prophetically of Christ that, as Abraham’s seed, he would “possess the gate of his enemies” (Gen 22; 17). It cannot be said how that Christ has possessed the gate of his enemies, for wicked and ungodly men still rule the world.

But when the kingdom of God is about to be established, Christ will subdue all world kingdoms as surely as Cyrus subdued ancient Babylon:

“He shall break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel” (Psa 2:9).

“Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle” (Zec 14:3).

“He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth” (Psa 72:8).

Then shall this world proclamation be made for all peoples to know and accept:

“The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord; and of His Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever” (Rev 11:15).

Paul said that the gospel encompasses the blessing of all nations in Abraham’s seed (Gal 3:8), and that by “Abraham’s seed” he meant the singular seed Christ (v 16). First this blessing applies to individuals, and the true gospel has been preached in many nations for the repentance of faith. But the blessing of all nations has not yet been accomplished, for we see the nations still subjected to wicked and cruel rulers. In some countries there is an appearance of good government, but underneath we see sadly that it is rottenness and corruption, the will and lusts of the flesh in absolute control. There is no true fear of God with most world leaders, but mere lip service only.

All nations are not now blessed in Abraham and his seed Christ, but they will be:

“Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness and princes shall rule in judgment… the eyes of them that see shall not be dim and the ears of them that hear shall hearken” (Isa 32:1-3).

“In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book: the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness” (Isa 29:13).

“Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing” (Isa 35:6).

“Many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord” (Zec 3:22).

“He shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper… His name shall endure for ever. His name shall be continued as long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in him; all nations shall call him blessed” (Psa 72:12,17).

Modern political leaders, some no doubt with the best of intentions, proclaim “New Deals” and “Great Societies”. But the true and lasting blessing of mankind can never come by human efforts. It can only come when “Babylon” is overthrown finally and for all time, and when the nations “learn righteousness” under the righteous rule of Christ.

Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon was followed immediately by a decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its repopulation by the Jews (Ezra 1:1-4). In like manner, Jesus Christ’s coming conquest of latter-day “Babylon” will signal a massive rebuilding of Jerusalem and Israel. Jews who have been persecuted and scattered across the face of the earth will return to Israel to be incorporated into what Micah the prophet calls “the first dominion” of God’s kingdom (Mic 4:8), which will be the kingdom of Israel restored (Acts 1:6-11; 3:19-21), but on an immensely grander scale than before. This rill be facilitated by the righteous rule of Christ and the immortalized saints. The law of God will go forth from a revitalized Jerusalem, backed up God’s power in His glorified “children”. War and turmoil and famine and unrest will in short order be things of the past (Isa 2 :2-4).

And that lovely prophecy will be fulfilled at last:

“And there shall come forth a rod cut of the stern of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out or his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and under-standing, the spirit of counsel and night, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the reek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa 11:1-9).

Surely, in our own day, the “handwriting is on the wall”. The foundations of our world, weakened by a thousand minor tremors, will collapse utterly in the final great “earthquake”. But for those who believe and trust in God, there is no fear in such a prospect, but only abiding hope.

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7).

And because we can read and understand those “secrets” in God’s Holy Book, we have no reason to fear, but every reason to rejoice, at the unfolding of His purpose with the nations.

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until” the day dawn” (2Pe 1:19).

That new “day” will soon dawn, and with it will come changes unimaginable for those who have denied God in this present evil age. Now, before it is too late, while the divine warning may still be read on the printed page of Holy Scripture, let us take steps to insure our admittance into God’s new world.

“As distinctive among the writings of the NT as Hebrews is, we actually know very little about its origin, its author, and its first readers. The traditional and ancient designation of the book as ‘The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews’, found, for example, at the head of the book in the KJV, is not a part of the original document, but is rather an opinion of the early church that first comes to expression in the Eastern church (Alexandria) late in the second century and in the Western church two centuries after that. Moreover, this ascription appears to have been inferred from the document itself, much in the manner of modern scholarship, rather than derived from any independent tradition about its origin. The result is that we are left to draw such conclusions as we can from the actual contents of Hebrews” (NIBC).

“The epistle was used by Clement of Rome and probably also by Polycarp and Hermas. Therefore the author was an early Christian. The earliest reference to authorship is a statement of Clement of Alexandria that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated the work into Greek (quoted in Eusebius, Eccl Hist 6:14:2). When it was accepted as part of the NT, this was partly at least because contemporaries held Paul to be the author. This view, however, appears to rest on no reliable evidence but rather to be a deduction from the facts that Paul was a prolific writer of epistles and that Hebrews is a noble writing that must have had a distinguished author. But both the language and thought forms are unlike those of Paul. The Greek is polished; Paul’s is rugged, though vigorous. This book moves in the context of Levitical symbolism, about which Paul elsewhere says nothing. The same argument also tells against Clement of Alexandria’s view that Luke translated it. While there are some interesting coincidences of language between Hebrews and Luke-Acts, there are also some differences. And it is incredible that if Luke knew Hebrews, he should have made no reference whatever to its teaching either in his Gospel or in the Acts. [The mention of Timothy, in Heb 13:23, also suggests Paul’s authorship.]

“None of the early writers who cites the epistle mentions its author. Nor does internal evidence help us much. The author was plainly a teacher, a second generation Christian (Heb 2:3). The style is unlike that of any other NT document; consequently, we have nothing more to go on to determine authorship than conjecture. Though many suggestions have been made, it will suffice to mention only a few of them. The allegation that Barnabas was the author is as old as Tertullian, but little can be said in its support. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:36), and there is much about Levitical ritual in the epistle. Again, in Acts 4:36 Barnabas was called ‘huios parakleseos’ (‘son of encouragement’); and in Heb 13:22 the epistle refers to itself as ‘my word of exhortation’ [or ‘encouragement’: the sw]. But it is hard to see Heb 2:3 as applying to Barnabas.

“Luther suggested that Apollos was the author. A number of modern scholars support this view. Apollos was an eloquent man (Acts 18:24), and there is indeed eloquence in this epistle. Apollos came from Alexandria, a center where allegorical interpretation, which might be said to be akin to the method used in Hebrews, flourished. Apollos had ‘a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures’ (Acts 18:24), a description particularly appropriate for the author, who did not simply use the ‘proof-text’ method but applied a thorough knowledge of Scripture in an original manner. Apollos must remain a possible author, but the evidence is far from conclusive.

“Harnack thought that Priscilla probably wrote the epistle. His strong point is that this would account for the suppression of the author’s name. It was a man’s world, and there would be every reason for keeping it quiet that a woman had written an epistle intended to be authoritative and to have wide circulation. Priscilla and her husband were cultured Hellenistic Jews, and the woman who could instruct Apollos in the faith (Acts 18:26) was no mean teacher. The interest in the tabernacle would be natural in a family whose living came from tentmaking (Acts 18:3), and the outlook of a pilgrim would be natural to one who did so much traveling. All this is interesting but plainly it falls far short of proof. And against it stands the masculine participle ‘diegoumenon’ (‘to tell’) used of the author in Heb 11:32.

“In the end we must agree that we have no certain evidence about the authorship of Hebrews. Who wrote it remains unknown to us. We can scarcely improve on the words of Origen’s conclusion, that ‘who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth’ (Eusebius, Eccl Hist 6:25:14)” (EBC).

Author: Unknown, but possibly Paul: In the West, from 4th cent, Paul was universally accepted as author. In the East, Origen, late in life, quotes Heb as Paul’s. Throughout ancient times no other name was ever put forward as author. [See Lesson, Heb, authorship.]

Recipients: Quite probably the Jerusalem Jewish-Christians, who were in some danger — at least as individuals — of leaving the Truth and returning to Judaism. (It is possible, however, that the letter was sent originally to Jewish Christians in Rome.)

Time: Shortly before AD 70, because of the way in which Temple ritual is described in the present (rather than the past) tense. Moreover, the letter seems to be a warning that all this system would soon pass away!

Summary: The major purpose of the letter to warn the readers of a danger and to exhort them to faithfulness (thus the frequent applications, eg, Heb 2:1-3; 3:6,12-14; 4:1,11-13; 6:1-12; 10:26-31,35-39; 12:3-17; 13:9). To further this purpose, this letter presents the superiority of the new covenant over the old covenant as seen in the Law of Moses. It is sometimes called the “book of better things” because of the frequent description of the new covenant as better or superior to that Law. The letter demonstrate that Jesus was the fulfillment of the symbols in the law and prophecies of the Messiah. With Jesus sacrificed as a sinless man, the need for repeated animal sacrifice was removed and the temporary priesthood replaced by the eternal priesthood of Jesus.

Key verse: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Heb 1:1).

Outline

In Num 13:22, concerning the report of the twelve spies, there occurs an interesting parenthesis:

“Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.”

What is the purpose of such a statement? Let us look more closely at each of these two cities, and perhaps a pattern will emerge.

Hebron

The name signifies an “Alliance” and may have originated in the events of Gen 13. When Abram and Lot became separated (vv 9,11), Abram and Yahweh were joined together (v 18). Abram’s reception of the great land promise was followed by his dwelling at Hebron, where he built an altar. From this time forward Hebron figures prominently in the history of Abraham’s family. Sarah died there and was buried in the cave of Machpelah (23:2,19). Of all the land in Canaan this cave at Hebron became the sole possession of Abraham. God promised him all the land for an everlasting inheritance, but in his mortal life Abraham received nothing as a gift (Acts 7:5); this one possession of the patriarch was purchased! He showed his faith in future blessing by reaching out to grasp this token or “earnest” of the promise — the cave at Hebron. Here he buried his wife; here he was buried, and his sons after him, as if to say, “When we awake from the dead, let us first cast our eyes upon the place where Yahweh gave us His great promise.”

In later times Hebron became the possession of Caleb, the Gentile who wholly followed the Lord God of Israel (Jos 14:14). The name Caleb signifies “dog”. In a beautiful preview of the fullness of God’s plan, the Jewish “Saviour” (Joshua) blessed the Gentile “dog” (Caleb) in the city of “alliance and fellowship” (Hebron) (v 13). When God’s people claimed the land of promise, Hebron was dedicated as one of the cities of refuge (Jos 20:7). David reigned in Hebron for seven and one-half years at the beginning of his kingdom. Hebron is still populated today, one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world.

Zoan

This name signifies a “Departure”. Zoan was the city of the Egyptian princes, or priests (Isa 19:11,13). It was the site of Yahweh’s great signs and wonders on behalf of His children in the days of the exodus (Psa 78:12,43). From this “departure” point God brought out His people by His servant Moses (Acts 7:36,37).

In summary, then, Hebron is the city of Abraham, the city of the everlasting covenant — while Zoan is the city of Moses, and the city of bondage from which God delivered His people. Zoan therefore can be seen as a type of the law of Moses, which held man in bondage, while Hebron is a type of “the gospel preached beforehand unto Abraham” (Gal 3:8) — that is, salvation by faith in the promises. Though God’s nation had its first experience with Zoan, Hebron was the older city. And though God’s nation found themselves first in bondage to the law, the gospel of Abraham was the older of God’s pronouncements, and therefore of the greater consequence (Gal 3:17).

All of this, it would seem, is implied in this brief parenthesis of Num 13:22. Hebron is indeed the older of the two cities, by the covenant-period, a symbolic seven years. Zoan is long since become a wilderness, but no doubt Hebron will continue its existence into the millennium — the symbol of God’s offer of fellowship to man on the basis of faith.

It was the time of the great reformation which the zeal of Hezekiah had set going. The appeal had gone out to all the tribes of Israel, regardless of boundaries or political loyalties, that they come up to Jerusalem to keep the Passover after the manner of their fathers. And although the messengers of the king had met with much derision and contempt, there were also many in the region of Galilee who responded and came with gladness to join in their new surge of godliness.

But there were hindrances of many kinds, with the result that it was not found possible to hold the Feast at the normal time — the fourteenth of the first month. However, the Law of Moses provided for a second celebration a month later (a kind of supplementary Breaking of Bread!) for the benefit of those who were unclean through contact with the dead or who were away on a journey when the proper time came round. Strictly speaking, neither of these “exceptive clauses” applied to these late-comers from the north. Even less were they a valid excuse for the people of Judah and Jerusalem.

Nevertheless the Feast went forward in the second month with zeal and rejoicing. It was not that king or priests or people were ignorant of what the Law laid down. There was no disposition to cover up or evade the technical infringement with any kind of clever argument. Rather, the issue became quite simply this: ‘Is it better for us and more to the honor and glory of God that we keep the Passover with an irregularity of procedure, or that we do not keep it at all this year?’ Faced with this alternative — especially in such circumstances — the proper decision was obvious.

Yet it was not to be denied that some commandment of the Law was infringed. Had they desisted altogether, still the Law said that the Passover must be kept. Had they kept it in the second month, then they were found guilty of appropriating to themselves the concessions of Num 9:10 which clearly did not apply in their case. Also, many of those coming from the north were not ceremonially purified to keep the Passover (2Ch 30:18). Here the Law was infringed again in unmistakable fashion. Yet the Feast was kept, “for Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary’, and the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.”

None would dispute that, infringements and irregularities aside, Hezekiah and the people did the right thing — or, rather, the best thing possible — in the circumstances.

This kind of tension between two conflicting laws and principles of God’s appointing, both of which apply in a given case, is not uncommon. It happened under the Law of Moses, as for example the dilemma of circumcision on the eight day when it chanced to fall on a Sabbath; Jesus entered into several controversies between the traditional interpretations of the Sabbath law and his own greater law of loving service to mankind.

Similar situations are not unusual in the life of the disciple today. If a young Christadelphian is commanded by his unbelieving parents to miss the Breaking of Bread so as to accompany them on a visit to an aged relative, which commandment does he break: “Do this in remembrance of me”, or “Honour thy father and thy mother”?

Is it right to buy some magazine which will further one’s study of the Signs of the Times if this means giving indirect support to some unrighteous cause which that publication happens to advocate?

Should an ecclesia spend thousands of dollars on the purchase of a fine organ to enhance its worship and praise of God if a quarter of its members believe that this money should be devoted instead, say, to the Bible Mission?

We begin to see now the bearing of the foregoing considerations on the vexed question of fellowship. Without any doubt, division and fragmentation arise because brethren resolve in different irreconcilable fashion yet another conflict of principles:

‘Here is the beginning of apostasy,’ says one; ‘I cannot with clear conscience belong to a community which tolerates such denials of truth; no matter what the cost, the Faith must be kept pure.’ And he gathers round him some of like persuasion and goes away to make a fresh, clean start — until the day when a like situation recurs once more, and then the process begins all over again.

Says another: ‘Here is teaching which grieves me very much and which may well show itself ultimately to be destructive of our Faith. I do not like it. I am worried by it. Then I must do all in my power to counteract it. Since my brethren who are in a better position than I to exercise a good influence do nothing about it, ought I not to withdraw for the sake of purity of the Faith? But then, there is also my responsibility to the rest who do not assess the situation as urgently as I do. These sheep, what shall they do? Have I no duty to them, to nurture and guide and warn them?’

Thus the conflict rages in the minds and hearts of faithful men. Undefiled separateness? Or love of the brethren in time of difficulty? This is the great issue. How is it to be resolved? Some have one solution, some another, and the outcome is mutual recrimination and division. Stark tragedy!

What, then, is the right way, and therefore the best way, to resolve this greatest of all spiritual contests for the loyalty of the believer? Whatever decision is reached, it is almost certain that a serious disadvantage will be involved. One evaluation, however, seems quite suitable in facilitating our choice, and this is the test of Jesus: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Apply this test, then, to the “purity-at-all-costs” school of thought. What fruits have been gathered from this tree? The largely unchallenged assumption that root-and-branch disfellowship en masse is demanded by the Bible has left a phenomenal trail of Christadelphian wreckage scattered across the past century. Even at the present day several small boats toss on the waves, when united effort to manage one adequate vessel and keep it seaworthy would be an obvious policy of sanity. More than this, an invariable result of every crusade of every seceder has been a long-sustained campaign of harsh criticism and self-righteous censure against those from whom the separation has been made. “By their fruits ye shall know them!” What a contrast with Daniel who, belonging to a nation hardened in apostasy and riddled with guilt, prayed for them and for himself as though he shared their sin and their condemnation.

So the “separatist” solution has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. But the more “broad-minded” school of thought may also be lacking when “fruits” are considered, for false teachers if allowed to run wild do damage to others as well as themselves, and the lines of demarcation between Truth and Error may become blurred.

Is there an alternative to either of these extremes? As long as an ecclesia holds to a true foundation of faith, that ecclesia should not be abandoned. There may be unfaithfulness latent in any ecclesia, but if the formal basis of fellowship is sound, then as long as faithful brethren exist there, they should continue an unfaltering witness against error. This was the function of the prophets in a decadent Israel, and the counsel of the apostles to ecclesias with doctrinal and moral problems in the first century.

Such an attitude of mind and the solution here proposed can hardly be altogether satisfactory to the out-and-out idealist, but like Hezekiah he must learn to make the best of imperfect situations. The great evils are schism and apathy. Let us shun both, and choose instead the middle road, of loving, careful, unceasing entreaty and witness for truth. If we do this then we have the assurance that Hezekiah had, that God will pardon the failings of those who prepare their hearts to serve Him, even though their service may prove less than perfect. [From “Conflict of Loyalties”, by HAW (Tes 38:377-380).]

A tunnel was constructed from the spring at Gihon — what is now called the Virgin’s Fountain — under the city walls and through the rock to the southern end of the city of Jerusalem, to the pool of Siloam. This would be a difficult feat in these days of sophisticated surveying and measuring equipment. It was even more remarkable for the times of Hezekiah, because the impending invasion meant there was very little time, and gangs of workmen had to start from either end. When the tunnel was complete, the spring outside the city was blocked up and the water flowed into the city.

“And when Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib was come, and that he was purposed to fight against Jerusalem, he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the city: and they did help him. So there was gathered much people together, who stopped all the fountains and the brook that ran through the midst of the land, saying, Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much water?” (2Ch 32:2-4).

“And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” (2Ki 20:20).

The watercourse was a tremendous feat of engineering by any standards. At one time, critics of the Bible said openly that it was impossible, because of the great difficulty of the project: this was another example, they said, of the way in which Bible accounts had become exaggerated and then recorded as historical fact. This argument cannot be used against the Bible today because the watercourse has been discovered.

An Arab boy accidentally fell into the Pool of Siloam and discovered the underwater opening of the tunnel. Just as the new London Bridge has a commemorative plaque marking its official opening, so a plaque had been placed on the wall of the tunnel. This inscription is written in the old Hebrew script of the time of Hezekiah and part of the tablet, which is now in the Istanbul Museum, reads as follows:

‘Now this is the history of the excavations. While the excavators were still lifting up the pick, each towards his neighbour, and while there were yet three cubits to excavate, there was heard the voice of one man calling to his neighbour: for there was an excess of rock on the right hand. And when on the day of excavations the excavators had struck pick against pick, one against another, the waters floweth from the spring to the Pool, a distance of 1,200 cubits. One hundred cubits was the height of the rock above the head of the miners’.

We cannot deny the existence of Hezekiah’s watercourse because, as Keller describes, it is there —

‘a narrow passage about two feet wide and barely 5 feet high… cut through limestone. It can only be negotiated with rubber boots and a slight stoop. Water knee-deep rushes to meet you. For about 500 yards the passage winds imperceptibly uphill. It ends at the Virgin’s Fountain, Jerusalem’s water supply since ancient times. In Biblical days it was called the Fountain of Gihon.’

[The Bible as History — Keller, Hodder & Stoughton.]

The Greek word “homoioma” [likeness] plays an important role in the statements about Christ in Rom and Phi — in expressing both the “divinity” and the humanity of the Son of God.

• Rom 5:14 asserts that mankind as a whole, like Adam, has been subjected to the rule of death, even if it has not sinned in exactly the same way as he (epi tou homoiomati). Adam is the type of Christ, the Last Adam (cf 1Co 15:45). What Christ brings about by grace surpasses by far the equivalent effect of the fall of the first man.

• Rom 6:5 presents certain difficulties of exegesis: “For if we have been united with him in a death like his [tou homoiomati tou thanatou autou], we shall certainly be united in a resurrection like his” (RSV). The interpretation depends on whether one understands “homoioma” in this verse concretely as a picture, the symbolic representation of something else (ie baptism as representing something else), or as the actual realization of an event by means of a symbolic representation (ie, in some real and meaningful sense, believers “die” when baptized into Christ). If one prefers the second alternative, the text would mean: “In the act of baptism the death of Jesus Christ is present, although in a different form from that on Golgotha,” and we are “received into the same saving event”… (NIDNTT)

• Rom 8:3: “What the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: God… sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [en homoiomati sarkos hamartias] and for sin… condemned sin in the flesh” (RSV). Here is Christ being born, and thus coming, into the very arena of human nature, because it was only there — in that arena — that he could confront the power of sin (or the “devil”: Heb 2:14,15) and defeat it along the lines and on the terms intended by the Father. Did Jesus then come in the ABSOLUTE IDENTITY of sinful flesh? Yes, and no. Yes, as to the substance of that body which he possessed. But perhaps… No, as to that body and flesh being “sinful” — his flesh was not “sinful” in the sense of sinning or having sinned. However, this requires a further caveat: the flesh, or the body, of Jesus may be said to have been “sinful” in the sense that — as the principle of that flesh operated in other human beings — it led inevitably to actual sin… metonymical “sin”. And so God made him, Jesus, to be “sin” (in his sinful flesh), even though Jesus knew no sin (actually, by commission): 2Co 5:19-21.

• Similarly in Phi 2:7, Jesus is described as “being born in the likeness of men [en homoiomati anthropon genomenos]” (RSV). He was conceived in human form, and became like man. This “likeness” was real and not merely apparent. What has already been said about Rom. 8:3 applies here unequivocally. Christ was in fact conceived as a historically unique, unambiguously human being. He was in fact delivered to death, the curse of sinful men (cf Gal 3:13), although he himself was sinless (cf Heb 4:15). Thus at a specific point in time, and in a specific arena, or body (ie, “in his flesh”), he broke the power of sin and death.