Ecclesial Guide (GB)

All ecclesias, and individuals, should have at hand a guide which, if it were read and observed, would go a long way toward solving many ecclesial problems. Unfortunately, A Guide to the Formation and Conduct of Christadelphian Ecclesias is more honored than used. It seems to be standard procedure for human nature to acknowledge the benefit of a principle in theory, but when provoked by circumstance, promptly to forget to implement that very principle which is most relevant. We all tend, under duress, to convince ourselves that rules are made for other people, and that the position in which we may suddenly find ourselves is very different from that which the framers of principles and rules envisioned. In theory, the wisdom of the words of Christ, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Mat 6:21), is unquestionable; but they are so easily set aside when we gaze in fond rapture upon a gleaming new automobile or a fine house or some exquisite new fashions. The standard, “Turn the other cheek”, is wonderfully appropriate if your friend’s cheek is the one smitten, but we can always think of good reasons why we should retaliate.

In just such a way, The Ecclesial Guide supplies those balanced judgments that are most needed when in controversy they are most easily forgotten. Though no one would say the rules are perfect, as the Bible itself is, at the very least they are dispassionate commentaries on the relevant passages dealing with ecclesial conduct. They have the benefit of being sound advice from a bystander not personally involved at all in whatever conflict is immediately at hand. Principles have a way of becoming distorted and either over-stressed or under-stressed when the holders thereof come under intense pressure.

A few brief excerpts from the relevant sections should suffice here:

32. Cases of Sin and Withdrawal: “Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not be lightly taken against any brother. It erects a barrier and inflicts a stain not easily removed. It ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of procedure have been exhausted. The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offences (Mat 18:15-17) is doubtless applicable to sin in general…”

39. Absence and Separate Meetings Unlawful: “It is… an imperative law that the brethren must be one body, and that they must submit one to another. It is a law of the house that each brother and sister must meet at the table of the Lord on the first day of the week for the breaking of bread. Nothing but denial of the truth in the assembly, or overt disobedience of the Lord’s commandments among them, can justify a brother or sister in absenting himself or herself from the breaking of bread… if the matters of difference… do not affect the question of the truth or the commandments, it is the duty of the lesser to submit to the greater number… If, instead of submitting, they separate themselves, they put themselves in a false position from which worse things than those they objected to will come. Their action means that the greater number ought to submit to the lesser, or that there should never be submission to the wishes of others, and that a disappointed minority should always leave a meeting where their wishes cannot prevail. Such a doctrine is fraught with confusion and ruin, and is inconsistent with the most elementary commandments of Christ.”

40. A Time to Separate, and How to Go about it: “It is a maxim of universal law (divine included) that no man is to be judged without a hearing. If it is true of one man, it is true of a number of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on, — suppose the aggrieved minority simply depart, without formulating their grievances, and without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either justifying or removing the causes of offence, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the minority as regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the offending majority; and if there be not a correct mode of procedure, those other ecclesias, will not have it in their power to decide upon the issue.”

41. Involved in Another Ecclesia’s Trouble: This section is too lengthy to be quoted here in full, though it is all very good and very relevant. A point certainly worth stressing: any disfellowshiped brother or ecclesia is deserving of the right of appeal to someone, and there is no weakness implied in a conscientious, even drawn-out, examination of all matters pertaining to a disagreement.

42. Ecclesias in Relation one to Another: “The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist… There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another… An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself. This is the independence not to be interfered with: but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the first. What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgment on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result — a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgment: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognize each other, because they differ in judgment about one person? What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying each other the comfort of mutual friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or speech or perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ. An ecclesia acting otherwise — demanding of another ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall endorse their decision in a case that has become the business of both — is in reality infringing that principle of ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognized in their own case. It would be to impose what might be an intolerable tyranny upon the brethren.”

Eden, Garden of

Most of the standard Bible dictionaries and commentaries agree in suggesting that the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:8) was located in the “easternmost third of the Fertile Crescent” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary 285). “Calvin, Huet, Bochart and others believed the river of Paradise to have been the united streams of the Tigris and Euphrates called the Shat-al-Arab, which flows by Bassora. Its four heads… would have been, on the north, the two separate streams of the Tigris and the Euphrates, on the south, Gihon, the eastern, and Pison, the western channels, into which the united stream again branches out below Bassora, before it falls into the sea” (Speaker’s Commentary 1:40).

With this widely-accepted view of the Garden’s location Christadelphian expositors have generally agreed: “I suspect… that it lay somewhere between the Gulf of Persia, and the junction of the Euphrates and the Tigris” (John Thomas, “Elpis Israel” 58). “A river parting into four heads… must have been below where these two rivers (Euphrates and Tigris) unite, within a hundred miles of the Persian Gulf” (Robert Roberts, “Answers to Correspondents”, The Christadelphian 34:110). “The original site seems to have been in Armenia or Mesopotamia near Babylonia” (HP Mansfield, The Christadelphian Expositor: Genesis p 60). “The cradle of human civilization was the land of Iraq, and especially the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. This is the area where Eden was” (Alan Hayward, “God’s Truth”).

Gen 2:10 reads: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.”

All of the above writers, and others besides, seem to take it for granted that Gen 2:10 should be visualized either as Figure 1, 2 or 3 [see appendix]. And for all such views, of course, a location very near the Persian Gulf is a necessity.

A Different Suggestion

It seems, however, that v 10 means something altogether different. If we were not trying to fit this verse as closely as possible to the modern geography of the Fertile Crescent, would not Figure 4 be a better approximation of the account? The most natural reading of Gen 2:10 is that one river (not two) flowed into the Garden, and four flowed out.

It is clear that Eden was a large area, of which the garden was a much smaller preserve, set apart and especially prepared by God as the home of Adam.

We know that the garden itself was in the eastern part of the region of Eden. Just where was the territory of Eden? Notice, for one thing, that Genesis does not say that Eden encompassed all of the area watered by the four rivers, but merely that the four rivers originated in Eden.

Other than Genesis 2; 3, the references to Eden and the garden are as follows:

Gen 4:16: Cain left the presence of God (ie, the area just east of the garden, where the “faces” (AV, “presence”) of the Cherubim were — Gen 3:24; 4:14,16″) and journeyed to Nod (location unknown), which seems to have been further east. There he built cities and founded what is apparently the earliest civilization. By themselves, these facts would indicate that, if we are looking for the Garden of Eden, we must first find the world’s earliest settled region (Iraq?) and then travel westward some distance. How far westward? Well, let’s look at other passages.
Gen 13:10: When Lot was separated from his kinsman Abram, he “beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as the garden of the Lord.” This verse suggests (to use the mildest term) that the Jordan River, near what is now the Dead Sea (but which was then certainly “living”), was closely related to the Garden of Eden. [It is admitted that “like” and “as” do not necessarily mean “identical with”, but rather “comparable to”. However, “likeness of”, “like unto”, “as”, and similar phrases are sometimes Biblical idioms expressing not only correspondence but identity. Compare, for examples, Rom 8:3 and Phi 2:7. (See also HA Whittaker, “Revelation: A Biblical Approach” 11.)]
Isa 51:3: “For the Lord shall comfort Zion: He will comfort all her waste places; and He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord.” This foresees a time when the areas immediately surrounding Zion will become like Eden. It is at least a valid inference that, once before, these areas had been like the Garden of Eden — but that they had fallen into a wilderness state reflective of the spiritual barrenness of the people who lived there. (Compare the same area before and after God’s overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.)
Eze 28:13: “Thou (the king of Tyre — v 12) hast been in Eden the garden of God.” Is not this parallel to v 14: “Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God”? Are the “garden of God” and the “holy mountain of God” the same?
Eze 31:9,16,18; Assyria and Egypt, because of their forays into and through the lands of Palestine and Lebanon, are characterized as “trees” in Eden and the garden of the Lord.
Eze 36:35: “And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.” Similar to Isa 51:3. Again, the promised land is equated with Eden.
Joel 2:3: “Locusts” like a fire devour the “garden of Eden” — ie, Israel! — leaving it a “desolate wilderness”.

All of the above passages connect either Eden or the garden of Eden with the land of Israel. Gen 13:10 and Isa 51:3 most specifically refer to Jerusalem and its immediate environs. Could it be that Eden proper was that same land which God promised to Abraham and his seed, “from the river of Egypt (the Nile!) unto the great river, the river Euphrates” (Gen 15:18)? [Although giving a wider meaning to “Eden”, John Thomas stresses the necessity of at least including Palestine in the term. This land, he says, has always been, and will be, the scene of conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. (See his comments on Eden in “Elpis Israel” 56,57.)] And, could it be also that the “garden of Eden” corresponds to present-day Jerusalem? [It might be objected that Jerusalem is scarcely in the eastern part of this area (Gen. 2:8). But if “Eden” is confined, say, to the territory controlled by David and Solomon, then Jerusalem might rightly be considered in the eastern portion.]

Now back to Gen 2:10. Is it possible that a river once flowed through Jerusalem and “from thence it was parted and became four heads”? Bearing in mind firstly the great changes wrought in the earth’s surface by the flood, and secondly the enormous eruptions that accompanied the downfall of the “cities of the plain”, it is not to be expected that the precise topography of the original area should any longer exist. [This same suggestion has been made by SL Hale, “Eden”, Xd 98:26. Also, Reg Osmond, “Letters to the Editor”, Ibid pp 125,126. See also David Sutcliffe, “Physical Changes in Israel in Prophecy”, Tes 45:55-61, for an interesting description of the topography of Israel — past, present, and future.]

But perhaps it looked something like Figure 5.

Thus, in the pre-deluge era, the Tigris (Hiddekel — Dan 10:5) and the Euphrates could have originated much further west, before reaching their current courses. [David Sutcliffe (Ibid) suggests this will happen again, as a result of future cataclysms at the time of Christ’s return (Zec 14:4,5).] The Pison, perhaps roughly equivalent to the modern Jordan River, could have flowed south from Jerusalem to the Gulf of Aqaba, thereby compassing Havilah or Arabia (Gen 2:11). And the Gihon (which name persists in the spring at Jerusalem — 1Ki 1:33!) could have flowed southwest toward Cush (Gen 2:13) — either Ethiopia or the Sinai Peninsula.

The Implications

This identification of the garden of Eden with Jerusalem must be no more than an unproven hypothesis. However, the implications of such a suggestion are far-flung and satisfying. And it is a good rule of Bible exposition that the best conclusion out of several possibilities is the one that sheds light on other passages. Just a few of these passages (others will readily suggest themselves):

The first altar and the first cherubim are now connected with the site where God chose to place His name — Jerusalem (Deu 12:5,11; 1Ki 8:29; 9:3; Psa 48:1,2; 87:1-3; 132:13; and others). How fitting Chat Jerusalem was His choice from the beginning, and that He always desired to dwell there!
Now there is a satisfying explanation for Melchizedek’s residence at Salem (Gen 14:18), and indeed for the presence of a whole community of true believers there.
Also, God’s call of Abram out of Ur and into Palestine was not a completely new beginning with a land randomly chosen, but rather a return to the original place of blessing! We now see, furthermore, a closer linkup between the original “seed” promise (Gen 3:15) and later ones, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Now, the ineffective fig-leaf coverings of Adam and Eve may be seen to typify the inadequate “fig-tree” covering of Israel — — cursed by Jesus in the same place (Mat 21:19-21).
How did “Golgotha” (“the place of the skull”) get its name? Two reasons are suggested: There is an ancient Jewish tradition that the body of Adam, and hence his skull, was buried there. And, the name may have been derived from “Gol-goliath” — the burial place of Goliath’s head (1Sa 17:54). [Origen, cited in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 2:1275. (It is reasonable that, if this were the site of the garden of Eden, Adam never strayed far from the cherubim, where he worshipped.)] So if the above is true, the place of Christ’s crucifixion is identical with the place of burial of the head of the antitypical “serpent” Goliath, “bruised” by David (Gen 3:15). And the scene of the last Adam’s victory over the “serpent” is identical with the scene of the first Adam’s failure. So, the site where “dominion” (Gen 1:28) was lost will also witness that “dominion” regained (See Psa 8 and all its New Testament allusions)!
The first Adam was tried in a garden, and he failed; the “last Adam” was tried in a garden, Gethsemane, and was victorious! The “first Adam” slept in a garden and then received a bride taken out of his side. The “last Adam” slept the sleep of death in a garden tomb (John 19:41), and while he “slept” — out of his pierced side (v 34) — God fashioned him a “bride”! How exciting to consider that these events all took place in the same local! [Consider also the weight of Christ’s words to the thief on the cross re “paradise” (Luke 23:43) — a “garden”!]
Now the suggestion that Christ’s judgment seat will be located at Jerusalem may be seen to have a greater relevance. (See the article, Location of Judgment seat.)
The interrelationship of Gen 3:24 with Eze 1:4-14; 10:18,19,22; 11:22,23; and 43:2-4 is now quite striking.
Ezekiel 47 and Revelation 22, with their similar visions of the pure river flowing out from the throne, through a lovely garden, with the tree of life, and from thence parting into streams that heal the waters of the Dead Sea and revitalize surrounding regions, gain so much more force when it is recognized that this is — literally — the garden of Eden restored!

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5

Elijah on Horeb (1Ki 19)

James calls Elijah “a man of like nature with ourselves” (James 5:17, RSV) and nowhere is this more evident than in Elijah’s confrontation with God on Mount Horeb. This austere prophet of the Lord had just been instrumental in a great victory for the honor of Yahweh over Baal, on Mount Carmel (1Ki 18). But from the heights of spiritual exaltation Elijah was plunged into the depths of despair when he realized that his great accomplishments had not softened the heard of Ahab, and had served only to intensify Jezebel’s hatred of him. Fleeing for his life, and yet in his despondency losing all desire to live, he came into the wilderness, to Horeb (1Ki 19:8). In a pathetic prayer Elijah reveals that he has given up on Israel, and that he sees himself as the only true believer remaining:

“I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thy altars, and slain Thine prophets with the sword, and I, even I only am left; and they seek my life, to take it away” (v 10).

We have all heard such laments as this, generally for much less reason than Elijah’s. In the circumstances we may understand his pessimism, but God saw fit to dispel the mistaken notions that led to his negative state of mind. A contemplation of this incident might also cure the state of mind of any brother who, more or less self-righteously, isolates himself from “less-worthy” brethren.

God called Elijah forth from his cave, and paraded before his awestruck eyes a tremendous panorama of God’s power — strong winds, earthquake, and fire. But the Lord was not in these; Elijah saw that something was missing. At last came a still small voice, and Elijah, bracing himself up, came out of the cave whence he had fled for fear at the previous manifestations. The soft voice had a soothing effect; now at last the frightened prophet felt the presence of God. Thus was the message driven home to him that God is best known, not in works of judgment, but in the still small voice which calls His people when properly prepared by adversity, to repentance.

And Elijah was to be that voice!

“Go, return on the way” (v 15).

Like Samuel before him, Elijah was carefully taught that wickedness is preeminently an affront against God, not against any individual (1Sa 8:7), and consequently no man (no matter how righteous) has any prerogative to turn his back on his brethren. Elijah must minister to the remnant that remains in Israel; in the midst of gross apostasy he is not to flee in fear, but rather to stand firm for God and provide a rallying point for the sheep of Israel.

“Yet I have left Me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him” (v 18).

How wrong, how seriously wrong, had been Elijah’s estimation that there were no righteous remaining in Israel. He had let his despair get the better of his judgment and he had forgotten his responsibility. It was one thing to stand strong against entrenched error on Carmel, but he had not been perceptive enough to see his duty afterward, to strengthen those who remained faithful against the evil in the midst of the nation.

This verse is cited by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, with the comment that “God hath not cast away His people” (Rom 11:2). It is a though worth remembering for all time. God knows in every age who His “seven thousand” are. In many Scriptural lessons He directs those who would flee in despair from troubles, to turn around, to “go, return on thy way” to find their brethren and strengthen them. Those who would hold firmly to the Truth in the midst of trials must combine their forces, strengthening and upbuilding one another in God’s service, sharing in good times and bad the fellowship of the saints.

Enoch and the spirits in prison

PETER’S FIRST ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE PROBLEM

With the benefit of hindsight, from having studied the more detailed argument in 2Pe, 1Pe 3:19 obviously links, in some way as yet to be defined, Christ and the Shemjaza and the 200 fallen angels of Enoch [these characters are found in Apocryphal literature, but not in the Bible, of course!].

This approach, with the linking of the events of Enoch and Christ, is somewhat different than the conditional argument of 2Pe 2:4: “For IF God spared not the angels that sinned… THEN…”

Why?

Firstly, this is not Peter’s last word on the subject; it is only the first sign of a problem that later caused a second letter to be written. It cannot be read in any way that would contradict the 2nd letter.

Secondly, we do not know why Peter’s comments are so oblique in 1Pe as compared with 2Pe. Nor the time lapse between the two. Nor when Jude wrote his letter. Perhaps the “fiery trial which is to try you” was a more pressing concern.

Thirdly, the verse is often misread to read “Christ went and preached unto the spirits in prison”. Christ did not go. 1Pe 3:18 refers to “the SPIRIT by which also [he] went and preached unto the spirits in prison”. The word “he” is not in the text, as it is not required by Greek grammar, but probably refers to Christ rather than to God.

Fourthly, alongside the Enoch reference there is a clear OT reference here to the Messianic prophecy in Isa 42:5-7: “to bring the bound and them that sit in darkness out of bonds and the prison house”.

Fifthly, Peter was probably also thinking of Isa 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those that are bound.”

So why should Christ be preaching, by the Spirit, to spirits in prison, which were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah?

The answer to that question lies in a detailed comparison of 1Pe, 2Pe, Enoch, and Isaiah, but observe in the Greek text that there is no particle between “preached” and “disbelieved/disobeyed”. This would indicate a sequential relationship — that the Spirit by which Christ “preached” was “disbelieved” in the days of Noah. It then becomes necessary to look for the Spirit of Christ c 400 BC.

Now, according to the Enoch legend, this is perfectly possible as Shemjaza and the other angels were bound in chains for 70 generations starting from an unspecified point prior to the flood, allowing Noah and his great grandfather Enoch (who interestingly was “at the ends of the earth” and not in heaven) to discuss them prior to the flood. Enoch 10 describes the proclamation judgement on another angel-gone-bad, Azazel, and the earth.

The alternative belief that Christ went, while in the grave or after his resurrection, to preach to these angels is not supported by the grammar. Peter is describing a past event.

Peter explains himself what he means by “disbelieve/disobey” in 1Pe 2:7,8; 3:1; 4:17.

It is suggested that Peter’s reference to “spirits in prison” and “the days of Noah” here is consistent with his reference in 2Pe 2:5: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.”

Note that our key words from Isa 42 and Isa 61 have just reappeared — coincidence?

If the Gospel was preached to Abraham (which we accept), then why is it not possible that Noah preached by the “quickening spirit” of Christ during his day? “The figure like whereunto baptism does now save us” (1Pe 3:21).

If that is what Peter is saying, then the way he concludes his brief reference in 1Pe 3:19 to the thorny subject of the Book of Enoch leaves no doubt whatsoever about his beliefs concerning angels: “By the resurrection of Jesus Christ; who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God: angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him”.

(JB)

Enoch, Book of

An imaginative expansion on the story of the Sons of God and the daughters of men in Gen 6:1,2.

A group of 200 angels (led by archangels Shemihazah and Azazel) descend to the earth where they take human wives and father a race of giants, or Titans. For this sin the angels are bound in Tartarus to await judgment for 70 generations. The angels ask Enoch to intercede for them, but Enoch’s requests are refused. The angels’ children cause havoc on the earth, but then are drowned in the flood. But the spirits of the giants survive to torment mankind, becoming a new class of beings — the demons. The giants’ human mothers also survive and become Sirens.

In Christ’s day the Book of Enoch was a “bestseller”, spawning a small library of derivative literature: Jubilees, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, etc. (There is a possible reference to this by Christ in Mar 12:25.)

The information presented below is drawn from AH Boulton: “The Book of Enoch” (Tes, July 1932); NActs; WSSE; and Bill Davison: “The Devil and Demons — A New Approach”.

Since the discovery of the Greek manuscript at Qumran in 1946 it is no longer possible to claim the book is an Ethiopian forgery. Enoch was obviously well known to both Peter and Jude, and there are anything up to 50 references to Enoch in their epistles to prove it beyond any doubt.

The argument:

A. Peter and Jude were opposing serious heresies (2Pe 2:1), including:

myths and fables (contrasted with inspiration);
the blaspheming of angels (contrasted with angels who do not even rebuke);
denying the coming of the Lord (“all things continue since creation”);
denying the intercessor role of Christ (Enoch not Christ goes to heaven to beg for the sheep);
financial exploitation (2Pe 2:3);
lasciviousness (2Pe 2:7,18; Jud 1:4).

B. Peter and Jude “have the more sure word of prophecy”:

More sure than what? More sure than their “cunningly devised fables”. Note that 2Pe 1:16-19 gives a lengthy description of the Transfiguration, a deliberate contrast of Peter’s real experience as a witness of Christ and hearer of God’s words “on the mountain”, with that of Enoch: “And they took and brought me to a place in which those who were there were like flaming fire, and, when they wished, they appeared as men, and they brought me to the place of darkness, and to a mountain the point of whose summit reached to heaven” (17:1,2). The point of Peter raising this as his first point in the argument is because of the contrast between the first person witness of Peter who WAS with Christ on the mountain and was shown the Kingdom, and the false teachers who were NOT on any mountain with Enoch when Enoch was shown the heavens. Cp 2Pe 3:2; Jud 1:17.

C. The teachers taught “cunningly devised fables” (2Pe 1:16; 2:12; 3:16; Jud 1:10). Both the context of 2:12 and Jude 1:10 are speaking evil of angels. The things they understand not are angels.

D. The false teachers accused angels of sin (2Pe 2:10; Jud 1:8).

E. The Book of Enoch accuses angels of sin (2Pe 2:4,9; Jud 1:5-7).

F. Peter and Jude use the book’s own illogicalities to undermine those who use it (just as Christ used Pharisee’s ideas to expose them in Luke 16):

Jude 1:14: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, (‘Enoch the seventh from Adam’ is a quote from the Book of Enoch, not from the Bible) prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Cp the Book of Enoch 1:9. The idea of using Enoch as a source to condemn the Enochites is rejected by many. But why? In Luke 16 the Pharisees’ ideas of Abraham’s Bosom are used to ridicule them. The ridicule of pagan gods and demons goes back at least to Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Another point: According to the grammar of the Greek Enoch did not prophecy “of these” (AV) or “about these men” (NIV) but “to these”; the Greek has PROEFHTEUSEN DE KAI TOUTOIS (dative), wheras if AV and NIV are right it should be PROEFHTEUSEN PERI TOUTWN (genitive). The difference can be illustrated by two exchanges between Christ and the Pharisees: Mat 26:68 has “prophesy to us!” — PROFHTEUSON HMIN (dative) and Mat 15:7 has “prophesied well concerning you” — KALWS EPROFHTEUSEN PERI UMWN (genitive).

So Enoch prophesied to those who “speak evil of those things which they know not”. How did he do this? Through the pages of their own book. As Boulton wrote concerning Jude and Enoch: “the writers of the NT were ready to use legend and folklore as Jesus was ready to use superstitious beliefs in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus”. The parallel with Luke 16 is quite telling because Christ used the Pharisees’ fantasies about Hades to attack Caiaphas (and his five brother-in-law high priests dressed in purple and linen), Jude uses the Enochites’ fantasies about angels to attack them.

G. Peter and Jude use the book’s own language to reject the teachers (2Pe 1:9; 2:17).

Also, 2Pe 2:17 and Jud 1:12,13: All the imagery and several verbatim phrases regarding the false teachers are quotes referring to the fallen angels Stars and ‘Shepherds’ in Enoch (cf. all of Enoch 96~100).

“I saw the winds on the earth carrying the clouds: I saw the paths of the angels” (Enoch 18:5,6). “I saw from whence they proceed in that place and from whence they saturate the dusty earth. And there I saw closed chambers out of which the winds are divided, the chamber of the hail and winds, the chamber of the mist, and of the clouds, and the cloud thereof hovers over the earth from the beginning of the world” (41:4,5). “And the fourth quarter, named the north, is divided into three parts: the first of them is for the dwelling of men: and the second contains seas of water, and the abysses and forests and rivers, and darkness and clouds; and the third part contains the garden of righteousness” (77:3).

“Observe and see how (in the winter) all the trees seem as though they had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do not lose their foliage but retain the old foliage from two to three years till the new comes” (3:1) “And he said unto me: ‘Enoch, why dost thou ask me regarding the fragrance of the tree, and why dost thou wish to learn the truth?’ Then I answered him saying: ‘I wish to know about everything, but especially about this tree.’ And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. And as for this fragrant tree no mortal is permitted to touch it till the great judgement, when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever. It shall then be given to the righteous and holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: it shall be transplanted to the holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King” (25:1-6). “And in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward, And shall not grow in their time, And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time” (80:3). “And high trees were rent 5 from their stems, and hurled down and sunk in the abyss” (83:4,5).

“And if He sends His anger upon you because of your deeds, ye cannot petition Him; for ye spake proud and insolent words against His righteousness: therefore ye shall have no peace. And see ye not the sailors of the ships, how their ships are tossed to and fro by the waves, and are shaken by the winds, and are in sore trouble?” (101:3-5).

H. The real heresy is the denial of Christ for Enoch (Jud 1:18,19; 2Pe 3:3,4).

The Enochites denied the second coming of Christ by referring to Jewish cosmology: “From the creation of the world and unto eternity… and through that oath are the depths made fast, and abide and stir not from their place from eternity to eternity” (69:18,19).

Worse, they made Enoch the intercessor calling for judgement (2Pe 2:1): “And this one who wrote the book carried it up, and showed it and read it before the Lord of the sheep, and implored Him on their account, and besought Him on their account as he showed Him all the doings of the shepherds, and gave testimony before Him against all the shepherds” (Enoch 89:76,77).

As one last sober point. If Peter and Jude were so opposed to those who “spoke evil of dignitaries” we also should be careful what we say of angels “who are ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb 1:14 — written by a Jew who must also have heard of the Book of Enoch).

The fact remains is that out of 300+ other references to angels in OT and NT all (meaning ALL including Psa 78:49) are unanimously describing obedient angels who are ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.

Conclusion

We have shown that the treatment of the Book of Enoch in 2Pe and Jude shows it to be a “cunningly devised fable” of those who “speak evil about things they know not” and “slander celestial beings”.

We have shown that the language used to describe the Enochites is drawn from the Book of Enoch’s own description of the “angels that sinned”, “wandering stars” and “shepherds”.

We have shown that Enoch did not prophesy to the believers “concerning” these “wandering stars” but prophesied to the false teachers present at the love feasts in the church. The false teachers, not the believers, were those who recognized the book’s authority and to whom Enoch prophesied.

We have shown that the references to the Apostles’ vision on the mountain are the answer to Enoch’s vision on the mountain, and that the Apostles had a “more sure word of prophecy” and were “dreamers” (visionaries) in fulfillment of Joel at Pentecost, not “[filthy] dreamers” like the Enochites.

We have shown that in Enoch “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” and that not only did the Enochites mock the coming, they also denied the Lord that bought them, having Enoch intercede “for the sheep”.

Most importantly we have Peter’s own testimony about angels which contradicts that of the Enochites:

1Pe 1:10-21: Even angels long to look into the things spoken by the Spirit of Christ in the OT prophets.

1Pe 3:22: Angels (AGGELOI), authorities (EXOUSIAI), and powers (DUNAMOI) are in submission to Jesus Christ who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.

2Pe 2:11: Angels, even though they are stronger and more powerful than those who slander celestial beings, do not bring slanderous accusations against them (the slanderers) in the presence of the Lord.

These three mentions show the doctrine taught by Peter and Jude: a doctrine of obedient angels, giving honor to the Spirit of Christ even before he was born, of all classes of angel in submission to Christ now, and not slandering even the worst of mankind.

The contrast with the teachings of the Enochites is only too clear on each point. We now have to make a choice as to whom to believe: the Apostles or the Enochites? We cannot believe both.

(JB).

See also (1) Lesson, Zec 3 and Enoch, and (2) Lesson, Enoch and spirits in prison.

Enoch, fate of

The fate of Enoch (Gen 5:24):

Enoch testified against the “ungodly” (Jud 1:14,15), ie Lamech, his counterpart in Cain’s line: a man of violence (Gen 4:23,24). Perhaps Lamech sought to slay Enoch, and God removed him from harm — hidden in Garden of Eden, to walk with God in even closer fellowship, as a “reward” (Heb 11:5,6). (BS 10:152,153).

What happened to Enoch? In both Gen and Heb 11:5 Enoch is treated differently than his contemporaries. Did he die? Prob “Yes!”: 1Co 15:22: “as in Adam all die”; and Rom 5:14: “death reigned from Adam to Moses.” Also, Heb 11:13: “these all died in faith”, and the five people mentioned earlier included Enoch.

If so, then what about the statement: “he was not, for God took him”? This suggests disappearance or removal, as does Heb 11:5 and the word “translated” (= transferred, or changed as to status: ie Heb 7:12). Possibly Enoch was taken away from a potential life-threatening disaster to another place to live out his life. Heb 11:4,5 sets Enoch alongside Abel who died by the hand of an assassin; both experienced God’s overshadowing care, yet one suffered and the other was delivered.

Eph summary of faith

In writing to the ecclesia in Ephesus, Paul appeals for unity of mind and fellowship among believers there based on their mutual acceptance of seven “ones”: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph 4:4-6).

The enumeration of these seven “unities” has the distinctive appearance of a “summary of faith”, a statement of faith which is wholly Biblical. Some writers (Marcus Barth, “Ephesians 4-6”, Anchor Bible, pp 462,463; Alfred Barry, “Ephesians”, Ellicott 8:36; Francis Foulkes, “The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians”, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p 112) suppose that Paul is in fact citing a concise yet precise doctrinal summary known to the worldwide church or ecclesia of his day:

One body
One Spirit
One hope
One Lord
One faith
One baptism
One God

The seven “ones” may be defined by comparing especially Paul’s use of the same words elsewhere. This produces a credible statement of essential doctrines — which defines the distinctive truths we believe, and sets that system of truth apart from various false “gospels”:

1. One body: The unity of all believers, and specifically both Jews and Gentiles, reconciled to God on the same basis (Eph 2:16). One body, bound together in love with Christ as the head (Eph 4:12-16; Rom 12:1,4,5; 1Co 12:12-27). Also, one body as “husband” and “wife”: the “great mystery” of Christ and the church, or ecclesia (Eph 5:23,28,30). Finally, the “one body” of the church is equivalent to the “one bread” of communion or fellowship with Christ (1Co 10:16,17; 11:24,27,29). Thus “one body” defines the ecclesia in terms of fellowship, both inclusively (all true believers being members) and exclusively (no others being members).

2. One Spirit: The Holy Spirit of God, by which prophets and apostles were inspired to record the one truth, and by which the Bible itself was written, validated, and preserved. This was the Spirit of truth, or the Comforter, which came to the apostles, to teach them the words of Jesus (Joh 14:17,26; 15:26; 16:13). As there is one true Spirit, or Teacher, the others must be false “spirits” or teachers (1Ti 4:11; cp 1Jo 4:1-3) when they teach other doctrines contrary to that which the apostles received and taught (Gal 1:8-11).

3. One hope: In Paul’s own words elsewhere, the one “hope” is the hope of a resurrection (Act 23:6; 24:14,15), the hope of the promises made to the fathers (Act 26:6-8; Rom 4:13-18), and the hope of Israel (Act 28:20) — that is, the kingdom of Israel restored (Act 1:6; 3:19-21; 2Sa 7:12-14; Luk 1:30-33). Thus the “one hope” must also be the hope of Christ’s appearing and kingdom (Act 1:11; Col 1:5; Tit 2:13) and the hope of eternal life (Tit 1:2; 3:7). Those who are “without Christ” have “no hope” (Eph 2:12).

4. One Lord: References to “the Lord” in Paul’s writings are too numerous to catalog here. The essence of Bible teaching about the “one Lord” might be summarized, however: Jesus is the one Lord because he is the only-begotten Son of God, and the one man in whom all mankind (that is, all believers) are included (Eph 4:11-16; 2Co 5:14-17). He was the one man to lead a perfect life, and therefore the one man capable of dying as the perfect representative sacrifice for all men. Thus he was raised from the dead (Phi 2:8-12) to become the head, or Lord, of all who would have eternal life in him (Rom 5:12,18,19). A final point: as the “one Lord”, Jesus is always personally distinct from the “one God” (Eph 4:5,6; 1Co 8:4-6; 1Ti 2:5).

5. One faith: Faith in the crucified and risen Christ is the one and only means to salvation (Act 4:12; Rom 3:22-31; Gal 3). By such faith — in prospect — even Abraham was justified, or declared righteous (Rom 4:1-5; cp Rom 3: 25 and Heb 9:15). By faith sinners may be forgiven (Rom 4:6-8), apart from their own works or acts of righteousness (Eph 2:8,9).

6. One baptism: The one baptism (ie, the only true baptism) is that which is preceded by belief in the one gospel, as defined in the list. Paul knows only one form of baptism: a burial (Rom 6:3,4; Col 2:12) in water. Baptism is the means by which believers become heirs of the promises made to Abraham and his “seed” (Gal 3:27-29).

7. One God: The last of the seven “unities” in Paul’s list is actually the first and greatest “unity”, from which all other “unities” are derived. “One God”, as distinct from even His own Son (1Co 8:6; Gal 3:19,20; 1Ti 2:5). The “one God” is the “Father” of one Divine family, all made one in Him because of His love for them, as shown through His Son (Eph 3:14-21).

The essential doctrines derived directly from Paul’s “summary of faith” in Eph 4 are listed below. The references 1 through 7 are to the preceding seven numbered “unities”. For ease of future reference, the essential doctrines are listed in the general order familiar to readers of our common statement of faith.

The Bible (the teachings and writings of prophets and apostles), the only source of truth and the only hope of eternal life (2).
One God, the Father of all (7).
The Holy Spirit, God’s power unto salvation (2).
The one Lord, Jesus, the Son of God, who is distinct from God Himself, being a man and the head of all men, by virtue of his perfectly obedient life (4).
The one Body: all men — both Jews and Gentiles — who have been reconciled to God through the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1).
The forgiveness of sins, only through faith in Christ (5).
Christ as the one mediator between God and men (4).
The second coming of Christ (3).
The resurrection of the dead (3).
The reward of the faithful with immortality (3).
The fulfillment of the promises to the fathers: eternal possession of the earth (3).
The kingdom of Israel restored (3).
The one true gospel, which cannot be altered (5).
Baptism (total immersion), only after belief of the gospel and repentance (6).
The memorial supper, expressive of fellowship (inclusive and exclusive) in the family of God (1).

Certain false doctrines are very directly and distinctly ruled out by belief in the positive teachings summarized above:

The “trinity”, and the pre-human existence and “divinity” of Christ (all being contrary to the “one God”).
The immortality of the “soul” (contrary to the “one hope”).
Heaven-going (contrary to the “one hope”).
The earth literally burned up (contrary to the “one hope”).
A superhuman fallen angel “devil” or “Satan” (contrary to both the “one God” and the “one Lord”).
Infant-sprinkling (contrary to the “one baptism”).
Universal salvation (contrary to the “one hope”).

David and Goliath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You are not able…” (v 33).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day-for-a-year principle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong formula:

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

Right formula:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now to the passages.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Joe Hill and George Booker)

Death of a princess… and a “saint”

(Written in 1997)

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

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

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

It tolls for thee.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone who truly cares!

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

There is such a man:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The death of a “saint”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the hymns sung was our Hymn 313:

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

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

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

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

The true saints?

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

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

And in the meantime?…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should we do about it?

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