It is probably correct to say that the big majority of readers of these words think of mount Sinai as the place where the Judgement will take place when the Lord comes again “to judge the quick and the dead”. Over the years this has become almost an integral part of Christadelphian thinking on eschatology.

The idea is usually based upon three Old Testament passages. These—it is now submitted—do not actually contain the idea which has often been confidently derived from them. It is proposed to re-examine them in the light of other Scriptures.

“The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of his saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them” (Deuteronomy 33: 2).

“The hill of God is as the hill of Bashan . . . this is the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea the Lord will dwell in it for ever. The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as m Sinai, in the holy place (or as RVm, Sinai is in the sanctuary)” (Psalm

“God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise”. (Habakkuk 3: 3).

This, so far as can be ascertained, is all the evidence for Sinai being the place of judgement.

Deuteronomy 33, it is claimed, has never been fulfilled (e.g. vv. 8, 12); therefore its reference is to an event yet future.

Psalm 68 is certainly Messianic and the verses quoted require the inclusion of Sinai in the “programme”.

Habakkuk 3 is certainly a prophecy; the Hebrew text includes a future tense: “God will come from Teman”. Therefore the words have reference to some theophany not yet known in the days of the prophet.

Over against these arguments the following points are worthy of note:

1. To say that Deuteronomy 33 has never yet had fulfilment is a sweeping assertion calling for much more pointed evidence than is usually cited. Indeed the context of the verse quoted above is quite clearly that of Israel in the wilderness: “ Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (v. 4). Do these words also refer to the gathering of the saints in Christ at Sinai? It is hard to believe that they do. From the beginning to the end of this long chapter the reference is plainly to natural Israel. Until the rest of it has received full and detailed interpretation on other lines, the application of verse 2 to a future judgement must be regarded as precarious.
2. The mention of “ten thousand of saints” has been misleading to many. Yet these “saints” or “holy ones” (RV) are clearly angels, as the parallel passage in Psalms 68 plainly asserts; compare also Eureka II 551.
3. The “hill of God” spoken of in Psalm 68 is not Sinai but Zion. Several considerations put this conclusion beyond dispute. The next verse speaks of it as “the hill which God desireth to dwell in; yea, the Lord will dwell in it for ever”; and a later passage celebrates “thy temple at Jerusalem” (v. 29). The historical background to the Psalm points the same way. This (like 24 and 30) is one of the Psalms, which celebrate David’s triumphal inauguration of the tabernacle on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (see especially vv. 24-29). Here historical perspective is specially emphasized. The bringing of the ark to Zion is seen as the culmination of an important phase of the divine purpose, which began with Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and continued with their wilderness experiences and their struggle up to a consolidated nationhood in the Land of Promise. Thus, if Psalm 68 refers to the day and place of Judgement at all, it points to Jerusalem and not to Sinai.
4. In Habakkuk 3, once again, the historical element, embedded in the prophecy has not been adequately appreciated. The first 15 verses of this Psalm are shot through with historical allusions to God’s mighty acts on behalf of His people in former days. The whole point of this prayer of the prophet is to insist with an importunity not to be gainsaid: “Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known”, i.e. what You did, Lord, so majestically for Your people in times past, deign to repeat now in the time of their affliction. Hence the immediate allusion to Sinai and the wilderness journey: “God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran”.
5. It is easy to overlook that the future tense of verse 3: “ God will come . . . “ — a phrase which is made to bear the entire weight of the argument at this point—can also be read as a Hebrew Jussive: “Let God come . . .” And since this is the prayer of Habakkuk: “cause thy work to live”, this reading is almost certainly the correct one.
6. The idea of a Last-Day repeat of the wilderness journey and conquest of the Land under Jesus-Joshua has surely been pressed further than Scripture warrants. The familiar words of Micah 7:15 should read: “As in the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things” (RV). This certainly suggests that the wonders of the days of Moses will be matched by equal marvels in the time of Christ’s glory. But neither this language nor any other prophecy seems to require a direct and detailed fulfilment of those experiences as a type of the promised blessing of the saints. (The note by Bro. C. C. Walker on page 449 of Elpis Israel 1924 edition should by all means be consulted.) Indeed such Scriptures as Revelation 7:15-17 seem quite definite in taking the wilderness history as foreshadowing of the saints during their mortal probation.
7. The last and most important observation of all to be made on this question is this: Even if it were conceded altogether that the three Scriptures under review are definitely prophecies of the Last Days, one is still constrained to enquire: Where do they say one single word about the judgement of the saints? So far as can be seen that is an element of the prophecy which is there only by implication, if that; perhaps intuition might be a more appropriate word, or maybe even, conjecture. Is such considerable uncertainty a fit and proper ground for a precise belief (amounting to conviction in the minds of many) concerning so solemn and awful an occasion as the Day of Judgement?

By contrast, it may be asked whether Paul would have written as he did in his allegory of the two mountains and the two women, if he had held any such belief that Sinai would be the place of judgement and immortalisation of the saints: “The one (covenant) from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is (i.e. corresponds to) Hagar. For this Hagar is (i.e. symbolizes the same as) mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is (i.e. in Paul’s day wedded to a slavish adherence to the Law of Moses), and is in bondage with her children”.

Paul’s exposition on the one hand and the glory of the saints at Sinai on the other appear as two incompatibles.

There is one very plain and familiar Scripture which, perhaps by its very familiarity, has been continually by-passed in the study of this subject, and this in itself appears to be decisive that the judgement will take place in Jerusalem: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats” (Matthew 25:31, 32).

Attempts have been made (on the strength of the phrase “all nations”) to give this parabolic picture of judgement a national, as distinct from an individual, application. Indeed, going further than that, the very results of Messiah’s judgement have sometimes been announced beforehand, with Protestant countries on the right hand, and Papal and Communist countries on the left!

Whether this is a right dividing of the nations may be left to the Messiah himself. Whether this is a right dividing of the Word of God may be safely left to the reader. Even if the words: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” were not decisive enough in themselves, it would only be necessary to consider whether at any time, even with the Chosen Race itself, God’s eternal salvation has ever been offered on any basis save that of individual faith and repentance.

It is to be noted, then, that this judgement—the Judgement—is to take place when the King sits “on the throne of his glory”. That throne, as all readers are already aware, is to be in Jerusalem, not in Sinai.

Further, when the force of certain other prophetic Scriptures is appreciated, it would seem that Sinai is excluded altogether from this programme of the future.

When the Shekinah Glory departed from the first temple, the prophet Ezekiel chronicled its removal in a series of deliberate stages. In vision he saw the Glory remove from the Sanctuary to “the threshold of the House” thence to “the east gate”, thence to “the mountain (the mount of Olives), which is on the east side of the city”, and thence to heaven—”the vision went up from me” (Ezekiel 10:4, 19 and 11:23, 24). With the new Temple completed, the Glory is to return by the same route—first descending to the Mount of Olives, and then entering the Temple by the east gate (43: 2, 4).

All this, it has often been observed, is accurately typical of Jesus, the Glory of Jehovah. In the temple he declared: “Your House is left unto you desolate, until . . .” Thence he went to the Mount of Olives, and looking across the glen he foretold destruction and desolation. Later, from the Mount of Olives he ascended to heaven and in the time of his manifestation “his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives”, from which spot he will enter the City of the Great King.

Is there here any possible room for a judgement at Sinai and for the ensuing complicated manoeuvres, which a rigid and almost literal adherence to the wilderness type would require?

Whatever element of doubt may still exist in the minds of readers concerning Sinai and judgement, there is one related consideration of even higher importance about which Scripture speaks with such clarity as hardly to allow of any possible doubt or alternative: the saints will receive their immortality at Jerusalem.[8]

The evidence for this[9] is remarkably copious and explicit. It needs no explanation; it can be left to speak for itself:

1. “And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that is cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces” (Isaiah 25: 7, 8). The New Testament quotes these words with reference to the resurrection and the ultimate blessing of the saints (1 Corinthians 15:54; Revelation 7:17; and 21:4). “In this mountain” can only be “mount Zion and Jerusalem” (24:23).
2. In Psalm 133 “brethren dwelling together in unity” (saints of God united with their great High Priest) are compared to “the dew (symbol of the Holy Spirit) that cometh down on the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore”.
3. Psalm 87: 5, 6: “And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her, and the Most High himself shall establish her. The Lord shall count when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there”. When, it may be asked, has God reckoned natural birth in Jerusalem an outstanding blessing? The words must surely speak of the day when “His foundation is in the holy mountains”.
4. Isaiah 4: 2, 3: “In that day the Branch of the Lord shall be beautiful and glorious . . . And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even everyone that is written unto life (RVm) in Jerusalem”.
5. Joel 2: 28, 32: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh . . . in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance . . .” The fact that the primary fulfilment of these words was appointed for Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) is in itself more than a hint as to its greater fulfilment yet to come.
6. Psalm 102:18-21: “This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the Lord. For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the Lord behold the earth; to hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death; to declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem”.
7. Matthew 27: 52, 53: “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many”. The significance of the details of this typical resurrection will not be lost on the observant reader.

It may, then, be fairly safely concluded that probably the Judgement of the Saints will take place at Jerusalem, not at Sinai, and that almost certainly they will receive their great blessing, “even life for evermore”, in the Holy City.

The actual duration of the Judgement has often been a matter for speculation, as also has the actual nature of that “Great Assize”. On the basis of Daniel’s 1260 and 1335 “days” (Daniel 12:7, 12) the idea is hinted at in Elpis Israel (1st edition pp. 322-5, but excluded by later editors) of a Judgement period of 75 years.[10]

The language of Matthew 25 seems to exclude all possibility of such a long drawn-out procedure. The Judgement will be “as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats”. Even though sheep and goats are zoologically remarkably alike[11] the fact still remains that an eastern shepherd (and even a western townee!) can distinguish the two at a glance. There is no need to examine the animal this way and that in an attempt to ascertain its species accurately!

So also, one may be fairly confident, there will be no prolonged investigation necessary in the Day to decide whether this or that is “sheep” or “goat”. In fact the phrase “Great Assize” is a hopeless misnomer, because of its implications of slow patient cross-examination and weighing of pros and cons concerning the prisoner in the dock.

Jesus will know at a glance which are his and which are not. And even without a glance, for both sheep and goats betray their true character as soon as they open their mouths. It is even thus in the Lord’s parable: “When saw we thee . . .?”

[8] Eureka II 553 is surely in error in placing the immortalisation of the saints at Sinai.

[9] For which the present writer remains deeply indebted to the late beloved and esteemed brother Will Watkins.

[10] But Dr. Thomas’s ambiguous wording here might possibly mean a 75-year period of judgement on the nations.

[11] Perhaps the Lord, not unaware of this fact, intended it to carry added significance in his parable!

The prophetic periods included as details in Daniel’s visions have long been recognized as among the most exciting features of his prophecy. Their close connection with the time of the end is undeniable. Consequently students eager to know “when shall be the end of these wonders” and reluctant to believe their Lord when he said: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven”, have indulged in an electronic orgy of ingenious computation in a laudable attempt to identify the precise time of the return of Christ.

Such zeal is wholly praiseworthy, but it is to be doubted whether it is well-directed. Certainly the fruits of these efforts have been piling up in ecclesial waste-paper baskets for the past century. A re-examination of these prophetic periods from a rather different point of view may not be amiss.

There are four of these periods mentioned:

1. “A time, times and the dividing of time”—the duration of the little horn’s power to persecute: chapter 7:25. This recurs in 12:7.
2. 2300 days “to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot”; 8:13, 14.
3. 1290 days, and
4. 1335 days, closely associated with the “time, times and an half” in 12:7,11,12.

The first of these meets the student of Revelation in Revelation 12:14. It is generally agreed that “a time, times and an half” and “forty and two months” (Revelation 11:2) and 1260 days (Revelation 11:3) are equivalent; all of them represent 3 12 years of 360 days each. It can be mentioned in passing that no satisfactory explanation of two associated problems has (to the present writer’s knowledge) ever been advanced—why a “year” of 360 days should be used, when the ancients from the time of Daniel onwards certainly knew that this was 5¾ days in error; and what special significance is intended by the three variants of the same period: 3~ years, 42 months, 1260 days.

The classical approach to all these prophetic periods has been on the assumption that each day represents a year. The difficulties inherent in such a method of interpretation do not seem to have been adequately considered.

There are several:

1. If the intention behind the use of days instead of years was to save Daniel from overmuch discouragement, then its use was not only morally questionable but its effect was actually cancelled out by other explicit assertions: e.g. Daniel 8:26, 27.
2. The book of Daniel nowhere supplies a hint that a year for a day is the proper basis of interpretation. In Daniel 4:16 “seven times” means “seven literal years”. And if the Seventy Weeks prophecy of chapter 9 be cited as adequate evidence, it must be stressed in reply that neither days, weeks nor years are actually mentioned there. The phrase is, literally, “seventy sevens”.
3. In the only other places where the Bible used a day to represent a year (Numbers 14:33, 34; Ezekiel 4:4-6), this is explicitly stated. There is nothing to match these statements in the Book of Daniel.
4. The fruits of the application of the “year for a day” theory are singularly unsatisfying, even though~ questionable assumptions are often made in the process. In a previous chapter the termination of the 3½ “years” of Daniel 7 at A.D. 1870 was found to be not altogether satisfactory since (i) the persecuting power of the Pope ended long before that date, and (ii) the extra century which has elapsed since 1870 goes unaccounted for.
5. The starting points of these periods have to be selected in very arbitrary fashion. It may not unreasonably be asked why the 1260, I290 and 1335 periods of Daniel 12 are usually given as their beginning the epoch of Mohammedan ascendancy in Palestine. The clues supplied in Daniel 12 hardly suggest this: “from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up” (12:11) can hardly be applied in fairness to the Mohammedan epoch, since (i) the daily sacrifice was taken away by the Romans in A.D. 70 and (ii) Jesus himself gave a Roman application to the words: “the abomination that maketh desolate” (Matthew 24:15=Luke 21: 20).
6. Similarly, the 2300 days of Daniel 8:13, 14 requires to be dated from the time that “the sanctuary and the host are trodden underfoot”. Yet if the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the temple be used, the period runs out too soon; whilst if the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus be selected, the result is distressingly and indeed impossibly late. Attempts to cope with this difficulty have taken two forms. One stresses that the original is, literally, “two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings”, which may conceivably mean 1150days. But this becomes impossibly short, so that even the unwarranted expedient of a Mohammedan starting point is of no avail. Others have preferred the dubious Septuagint reading of 2400 days, but this does not materially ease the difficulty of the application either, as a little mental arithmetic will speedily shew.
7. Jesus was a far better expositor of Bible prophecy than any of his twentieth century disciples. He had the Book of Daniel. Nevertheless he declared: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (Mark 13: 32). If Jesus could not use the Book of Daniel to learn the time of the end, what hope for anyone else?

In view of the fact that criticisms such as the foregoing can be so readily multiplied and when also regard is had to the accumulated wrecks of discredited computations, it is not altogether to be wondered at that this field of Bible study is in the doldrums, either a ground for puzzlement and vague speculation or the butt of open ribaldry because of the futility of the results arrived at. Is it possible that there is another, different, way of making sense of these enigmatic prophecies?

In an earlier chapter it was pointed out that the prophecies of Daniel all seem to include a gap in the historical fulfilment. It was also shewn that the “Seventy Weeks” prophecy left a period of 3½ years unaccounted for at its end. Since this 32 years is exactly equivalent to the “time, times and a half” of Daniel 12 and Revelation 12, there is here a pointed suggestion that the prophetic periods of Daniel are intended to be taken as meaning precisely what they say, and not on the basis of a year for a day. In that case, the 1260,1290, 1335 days are to be regarded as indicating the duration of “the time of trouble such as never was” which is to engulf the people of Israel immediately before the manifestation of their Messiah.

It has also been shewn earlier in this study that many prophecies speak of a third war between Jews and Arabs in which Israel will be overrun by their implacable enemies. Putting the two ideas together, it would now appear that the duration of this final down-treading of Israel will be for a period of 31 years during which all the fruits of their national resurrection will be wrested from them or destroyed. From this desperate situation of black hopelessness only their Messiah will be able to save them.

With this idea as a working hypothesis—a hypothesis, be it noted, which has been suggested in the first place by Scripture itself—it is interesting and even exciting to go back and review the prophecies where this 32 year period is involved.

Daniel 12:1 foretells for Israel “a time of trouble such as never was”. It is “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7). During this period specified in 12:7 as “a time, times and an half”, “Many (in Israel) shall be purified, and made white, and tried” (v. 10). “When he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be accomplished” (v. 7).

According to this interpretation, the little horn of Daniel 7 (in its final fulfilment) is this same persecutor of the Last Days: “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (7:21). These “saints” are the Jews, the “holy people” (the same word is so translated and so used concerning Israel in chapter 8:24).

This persecutor will “speak great words against the most High”. The application of these words to the Papacy is hardly self-evident inasmuch as the Catholic Church is Christian, after a fashion, and in this 20th century is the main contender for a theistic philosophy of life against atheistic communism. But the relevance of this prophecy to a Russia-directed overthrow of the new State of Israel needs no demonstrating.

“And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time”, after which period of 3 2 years “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High” (7: 27). Possibly, though not certainly, there is a distinction here between “the people of the saints” (those who “live and reign with Christ”) and “the saints of the most High” (the nation of Israel). But this is not a conclusion that can be insisted on.

In any case the visions of Daniel are now seen to be solidly—and appropriately—Jewish in their reference. No one could question the appositeness of such a scheme of interpretation. Would any wish to do so? Papal and Mohammedan interpretations fly out of the window, and the purpose of God is revealed once again as an essentially Jewish purpose made known through Jewish prophets in a Jewish context. In chapter 8 reasons will be given for believing that the corresponding passages in Revelation are to be given a similar reference.

The existence of the gap in the continuity of the Daniel prophecies now finds a simple and more than adequate explanation: THE VISIONS CONCERN THE EXPERIENCES OF ISRAEL IN THEIR OWN LAND. When Israel is cast off and scattered the detail of the prophecies ceases, just as in the wilderness when Israel was punished for lack of faith in God’s promises there was a period of 38 years of wilderness wanderings of which no single detail is recorded.

It is now possible to see the familiar words “the times of the Gentiles” as having yet another significance. Besides referring to the long period of Israel’s scattering, they also describe specially the literal “time, times, and an half” of down-treading of Jerusalem in the Last Days. The word “times” in Luke 21:24 is the same as in the Septuagint version of Daniel. There can be little doubt that Jesus was making deliberate reference to Daniel especially since he had just quoted words “spoken by Daniel the prophet (whoso readeth, let him understand)”.

One last and important conclusion remains to be brought to the reader’s attention. It will be evident that if the viewpoint advocated here is correct, there now remains no material on which to base a computation of the date of the return of the Lord. All the prophetic periods of Daniel and Revelation are now seen to describe a comparatively short epoch immediately before the coming of Messiah. The gap in the prophecies is of unspecifiable duration. It is not possible to know beforehand when the vital 31 years will begin. Hence it is still true that “of that day and hour knoweth no man”. These things “the Father hath kept in his own power”. But with his saints there is the power of prayer: “Ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, give him no rest until he make Jerusalem a joy and a praise in the earth”.

Preface

The studies of “The Last Days” brought together here have often been asked for since the Christadelphian Isolation League circulated them. Through the kind help and encouragement of Brother Roger Heming they are now made available in a handier form.

It is hoped that these chapters serve to stimulate in those who read a greater enthusiasm for what the Bible teaches about the imminent End of the Age— “set your hope perfectly on the grace that is being brought unto you in the revelation of Jesus Christ”.

Judging by the speed with which the first edition of this little book was exhausted, it may be said to have had a good reception, even though its unconventional character has been in the nature of a shock to some. The continuing demand makes it difficult to refuse a further issue.

Some misunderstandings have arisen out of the brevity of these studies. For this reason, and also in response to many requests for further help in this field of Bible prophecy, it is hoped to publish (June, 1969) another volume on similar lines.

Readers are assured that there is nothing in this or in any other writing by the author, which in the slightest degree controverts or questions any part of the well-established Statement of Faith. Those propositions, it is believed are irrefutable. But there is room for a re-assessment of some expositions, which have been overtaken by the march of events.

The help of Sister Muriel Palmer in getting this compilation ready for circulation has been considerable. I am very grateful to her.

JANUARY 1969

The studies of “The Last Days” brought together here have often been asked for since the Christadelphian Isolation League circulated them. Through the kind help and encouragement of Brother Roger Heming they are now made available in a handier form.

It is hoped that these chapters serve to stimulate in those who read a greater enthusiasm for what the Bible teaches about the imminent End of the Age— “set your hope perfectly on the grace that is being brought unto you in the revelation of Jesus Christ”.

Judging by the speed with which the first edition of this little book was exhausted, it may be said to have had a good reception, even though its unconventional character has been in the nature of a shock to some. The continuing demand makes it difficult to refuse a further issue.

Some misunderstandings have arisen out of the brevity of these studies. For this reason, and also in response to many requests for further help in this field of Bible prophecy, it is hoped to publish (June, 1969) another volume on similar lines.

Readers are assured that there is nothing in this or in any other writing by the author, which in the slightest degree controverts or questions any part of the well-established Statement of Faith. Those propositions, it is believed are irrefutable. But there is room for a re-assessment of some expositions, which have been overtaken by the march of events.

The help of Sister Muriel Palmer in getting this compilation ready for circulation has been considerable. I am very grateful to her.

JANUARY 1969

For many years it has been almost a dogma among Christadelphian students of Bible prophecy that World War III, the great conflict, which is to herald, the coming of the Lord, will begin with a Russian invasion of Palestine. This, of course, on the basis of Ezekiel 38. Yet, whilst there is nothing known to the present writer which is decisive in favour of such a conclusion, there are certain considerations which suggest that that familiar Ezekiel prophecy be fulfilled after Christ is enthroned in Zion.

For instance, the sequence of the chapters (Ezekiel 37 to 40) points strongly towards such a conclusion. Chapter 37 has the “resurrection” of Israel and their re-establishment in the land of their fathers. Next, there is a picture of “David my servant” ruling over them in righteousness. It is a spiritual, as well as a national, revival of Israel. Then chapter 38 continues with its vigorous portrayal of an invasion which meets with due retribution, as the fuller picture of Ezekiel 39 shews. After this, appropriately, is the detailed picture of Zion as the centre of worship—”a house of prayer for all nations”. [1]

To put the northern invasion before the coming of the Messiah is to seriously dislocate this sequence. On the other hand, to accept the order of events suggested by the order of the chapters means at once the elimination of certain long-standing difficulties. The motive for the invasion is given thus: “to take a spoil, and to take a prey . . . against the people that have gotten cattle and goods . . . Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?”

The efforts of prophetic expositors (including the present writer on more than one occasion) in an attempt to impart reality to these words in the wrong framework have varied from the ingenious to the ludicrous. Perhaps the favourite device has been to read the words “goods” as meaning “oil” especially. But this will hardly do, for there is almost no oil in Israel. The best supplies of oil are in an altogether different direction. If Gog goes into Israel for oil, he has lost his bearings!

Alternatively, emphasis is put on the immense value of Palestine as the strategically important land bridge between the continents. This is doubtless true, though now of less and less importance as the powers become more and more committed to nuclear war. But in any case this, if valid, is a vastly different consideration from that intimated in the words just cited. The prophecy does not say: “I will go to the land of unwalled villages because I covet its geography”.

Instead of these shifts it is manifestly much more satisfactory to accept the sequence which Ezekiel himself supplies and to take his chapter 38 as having a fulfilment after the Lord has come to be King of the Jews’ and after he has already raised his people to a pitch of prosperity (see Isaiah 60) such as would make chapter 38 the natural and inevitable sequel of chapter 37.

Yet another difficulty evaporates with the one just discussed. The invaded people are described as being “at rest, dwelling safely (RV securely), all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates”.

Under the domination of the old hypothesis, the best that the present; writer used to be able to make of these words was to read them as a contrast between the realization of Jewish nationalism as it is today in their proud little state of Israel, and the ancient terror and restriction of the ghetto life which

Jews have had to put up with for the best part of two milleniums.

Yet this is at best an exegete’s expedient. A glance at any newspaper published since 1948 will provide evidence that Israel, ringed round by implacable Arab foes, will never be “at rest”, will never “dwell securely”, will never abandon their “bars and gates” (their defensive armaments), until the ancient hostility between Esau and Jacob has been finally ended by the lasting acceptance by Esau of Jacob’s right to the Land (as in Genesis 33 and 36).

There is also a purely Biblical argument of considerable force, which seems to have suffered from quite unwarrantable neglect. Revelation 19 has a vivid symbolic picture of the Word of God going forth against nations whom he is to “rule with a rod of iron”. He rides at the head of the armies of heaven in the character of King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. At this time an angel cries to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven: “Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of the mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them . . .” (Revelation 19:13-18). What is this but the culmination of the destruction described in Ezekiel 39? “Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come . . . Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth” (Ezekiel 39:17, 18).

These passages are the only two places in Scripture where such an idea and such phrases meet the reader. If the principle of interpretation of Scripture by Scripture is worth anything, one of two conclusions seems to be inescapable — either that Ezekiel 39 is to be fulfilled after the Lord’s coming in glory, or that immediately before and after his coming two similar divine judgements are to be visited upon the warring enemies of Jehovah. Of the two the former is obviously the more preferable and the more likely.

In conclusion, the question may be asked: Over against the arguments adduced in this study, what points of positive evidence are available in support of the more usual assumption that Ezekiel 38, 39 are to be fulfilled before the Lord comes.

Are there any?

[1] How many are aware that in Eureka II 557, and III 405, 602 precisely this interpretation is given to Ezekiel 38?

It is the purpose of this chapter to suggest that, contrary to common expectation, the last great conflict before the coming of the Lord will be between Jew and Arab, and not (as is often thought) between Jew and Russian. Just as there are weaknesses (pointed out in chapter 1) in the hypothesis of a Gog-Magog invasion of Israel before the coming of the Lord, so there is a corresponding strength about the repeated emphasis in the prophets on an Arab victory over the Jews. Whilst many students of prophecy have lately found anticipations in Scripture of the present Arab-Jew antagonism, few seem to have taken these prophetic foreshadowings to their logical conclusion. The evidence — Biblical, not political — calls for re-examination.

First, it is taken as a conclusion requiring no proof that the prophecies of the last days concerning Edom are about the Arabs since so many of the Arab tribes are descended from Esau and because ancient Edom is unquestionably Arab territory today.

The first of these prophecies calling for attention is Ezekiel 35, 36. The words here are remarkably explicit: “I will make thee perpetual desolations, and thy cities shall not be inhabited, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. Because thou hast said, These two nations (i.e. Edom and Israel) and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the Lord was there: therefore as I live, saith the Lord, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thine hatred against them; an d I will make myself known among them, when I have judged thee” (Ezekiel 35:9-11).

A careful consideration of these words shews that certain events are clearly implied:

1. The annexation of Israel by Arab foes.
2. A divine judgement on these boastful enemies to be followed immediately by
3. The manifestation of divine glory among the Jews.

Almost every verse in the chapter reinforces these conclusions.

Ezekiel 36 is, if anything, even more emphatic. There, Edom is pictured as gloating over a recent triumph: “Aha, even the ancient high places are ours in possession” (v. 2). For this, divine judgement is pronounced “against all Edom, which have appointed my land into their possession with the joy of all their heart” (v. 5).

But, by contrast, there is to be re-gathering and blessing for Israel: “But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to my people Israel; for they are at hand to come” (v. 8).

What is specially impressive is that this Arab desolation of the Land is represented as Israel’s last agony before the fulfilment of all their ancient hopes: “Thou (land of Israel) shalt devour men no more . . . neither will I cause men to hear in thee the shame of the heathen any more, neither shalt thou hear the reproach of the people any more, neither shalt thou cause thy nations to call any more” (vv. 14, 15).

The logical conclusion seems to be that the Arab conquest of Israel will be the last that it will experience.

The prophecy of Obadiah “concerning Edom”, has exactly the same shape, so that reinforcement of this conclusion just reached is only to be evaded by denying altogether a last-day application of the prophecy. “For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever” (v. 10).

There is the same emphasis on the unlawful possession of Israel’s territory: “Thou shouldest not have entered into the gate of my people in the day of their calamity” (v. 13).

Therefore judgement from the Lord must inevitably follow: “For the day of the Lord is upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually . . . they shall be as though they had not been” (vv. 15, 16).

Nevertheless Israel will be delivered: “Upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions” (v. 17).

The ensuing verses (vv.18, 19) indicate that the whole of the Land promised to Abraham will be restored

“and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s” (v. 21).

Thus, again, Israel’s final tribulation appears to come from Arab enemies.

Many as a prophecy of Israel’s calamity also have read psalm 83 in the Last Days. Doubtless it had its origin in the historical circumstances of the reign of Hezekiah or Jehoshaphat, but few readers of these words would limit its reference to such a time, any more than they would insist on the application of Psalm 72 to Solomon only.

Psalm 83, then, describes a highly successful confederacy against the people of God: “They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. They have said, Come, let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel be no more in remembrance” (vv. 3, 4). Then follows a long and impressive list of names of the hostile peoples—all of them Arab peoples, or modern Arab territories: Edom, the Ishmaelites, Moab and the Hagarenes, Gebal, Ammon, Amalek, the Philistines, Tyre, Asshur, the children of Lot (vv. 6-8). And the plea for divine succour (vv. 9-11) is based not, as is so commonly the case elsewhere, on God’s mighty deliverance from Egypt under Moses, but on His rescue of His people from Arab oppressions—Sisera and Jabin, the Midianites, Oreb and Zeeb, Zebah and Zalmunna. And the Psalm ends with the words: “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth”. Such words require reference to the end of this era.

Further evidence may be adduced from Jeremiah 30, 31. “The time of Jacob’s trouble” (30: 7) is one out of which he is to be saved, so that “strangers shall no more serve themselves of him; but they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king (the Messiah: ch. 23:5, 6), whom I will raise up unto them” (30:8, 9). The Hebrew word here-translated “trouble” is the same as that used in Genesis 32:7: “Thy brother Esau cometh to meet thee and four hundred men with him. Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed “. In the ensuing prophecy in Jeremiah 31: 7-22 about the re-gathering of Israel phrase after phrase goes back to the Genesis narrative of Jacob’s return to the Land in fear because of Syrian foes behind him and Edomite foes coming to meet him. About twenty of these allusions are traceable. The obvious intention is to represent that return of Israel the patriarch as a type of the return of Israel the nation.

Read thus the prophecy carries a strong implication that in the great “time of Jacob’s trouble”, it will be Arab (Esau) hostility and opposition, which must be feared rather than Russian.

The familiar details of Zechariah 14 harmonize with this view . . . “and the city shall be taken . . . and half the city (i.e. half of the population of the city) shall go forth into captivity . . . Then shall the Lord go forth . . .” (Zechariah 14:2, 3).

It is not unreasonable to identify this “captivity” of Israel in the Last Days with that described in Joel 3 :1-8. If this equation is correct, then the gathering of the hostile nations for retribution in “the valley of Jehoshaphat” (Joel 3 :2) is highly appropriate also inasmuch as the great deliverance in King Jehoshaphat’s time was from a fearsome invasion by “Ammon and Moab, and mount Seir (Edom)” (2 Chronicles 20:10).

This prophecy of Joel concludes with the words: “Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land” (3:19).

From the foregoing accumulation of Bible evidence it can be justly claimed that a fair case is to be made out for believing that the great climax of Israel’s history is to come not with the crushing of a tiny Jewish state by a Russian steam-roller, but by the fulfilment of the great historic types of Genesis— Ishmael against Isaac, Esau against Jacob. The ultimate outcome of this clash is assured, both in type and prophecy. But first Israel must learn, through the bitterest experience of all, to abandon all reliance on working out its own salvation. As yet the Jews shew no sign whatever of assimilating the vital lesson that cleverness and industry can never be any substitute for humble faith in the God of their fathers.

The Book of Daniel contains five separate visions or prophecies. These, on careful examination, are found to have several characteristics in common. For instance, in the brief explanatory passages they are all given a “continuous historical” fulfilment. Also, they are all Messianic—they all find their great climax in the appearance of Messiah the Prince. Yet another feature, which they have in common, is this — they all include a long gap or break in the continuity of the fulfilment.

All students of the prophecy have noticed this in chapter 11. Early in that chapter the vision merges into a long sequence of literal historical detail.[2]

This impressive sequence of detail continues to the period of the Maccabees, and then all at once the reader finds himself transported to the Last Days — “a time of trouble such as never was”, and the day of resurrection (ch. 12:1, 2—the continuity into chapter 12 is undeniable).

Somewhere, then, the continuous character of the revelation breaks off, and at a leap one is taken to the end of the age. Students of prophecy have been unanimous in their recognition of this fact. Some put the break at the end of verse 35, most at the end of verse 39; but all are agreed that the gap is there.

The ram and he-goat vision of chapter 8 is almost as explicit in making similar requirements. The explanation of the prophecy begins at verse 19: “I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation”. Then for three verses the exposition of the details proceeds in a “continuous historic” fashion presenting little difficulty.

Then, “in the latter time of their kingdom (i.e. of the four Greek kingdoms), a king of fierce countenance shall stand up”. At first, the student may be inclined to apply this to Rome, which power certainly destroyed “the holy people” and “the Prince of princes” himself. But this interpretation is vetoed by the words: “but he shall be broken without hand” (i.e. by divine power; compare chapter 2:34). This fact, combined with the clear assurance that “the vision belongeth to the time of the end” (v. 17 RV), requires that this “king of fierce countenance” be looked for in the Last Days—though doubtless Antiochus Epiphancs (vv. 9-12) or the hard power of Rome provide a vivid prototype.

It would seem then that the true exposition of verse 25 will equate this ruthless king with the Beast of Revelation 17 who, with his ten allies, is to make war with the Lamb and suffer destruction at his hands (Revelation 17:14). But whether this equation be correct or not, the gap in the prophecy is certainly there.

The same approach is now seen to provide a much more realistic view of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

The commonly accepted interpretation has the following scheme (roughly):

With the first four items here, there can be no quarrel. But the fifth is hardly so satisfactory, since in the vision the feet with their ten toes are to be destroyed by the Stone, the Messiah, whereas throughout the long period indicated they have been vigorously engaged in destroying one another.

It is more reasonable, surely, to regard the ten toes as representing the ten kingdoms in existence at the time of Messiah’s coming. Once again, as in chapter 8, there is an equation with the ten kings who give their power and strength unto the Beast (Revelation 17: 14). Read thus, Daniel 2 provides the ten kings and Daniel 8 foretells the Beast—the two visions are complementary here.

If this alternative interpretation be accepted—and it is to be noted that it also avoids the anomaly of having the least important part of the metallic anatomy represent by far the longest period—then once again the gap in the continuity of the historical fulfilment is plainly there, between the iron representing Rome and the mixed iron and clay representing the discrete powers of the time of the end.

The problem of Daniel 7 is more complex and calls for more detailed treatment than this chapter will allow. All that can be said at the moment is that probably the familiar “Papacy” interpretation of the little horn is at best only a partial or preliminary fulfilment. An impressive case can be made for the view that the little horn represents a power which will oppress the Jews (the “saints”, the holy people; Daniel 8:24) in the Last Days immediately before the coming of their Messiah—in other words, that the little horn and the other ten correspond to the Beast and ten Kings of Revelation 17:12-14.

If this were so, then once again there appears a noteworthy gap in the prophetic sequence of Daniel 7 between the fourth kingdom (Rome) and the sensational developments of the Last Days.

To sum up so far—it may be taken as almost certain that the prophecies of Daniel 11 and 8 require a gap in the historical fulfilment, that of Daniel 2 probably has the same feature, whilst Daniel 7, even if it does not require a similar view, at any rate lends itself readily to the same scheme of interpretation. To put the matter thus is probably to understate the case.

Students of the Olivet prophecy will already have recognized that what is being argued for here is the existence in Daniel’s prophecies of the same gap which exists so markedly in the words of Jesus there: “and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. This is A.D. 70, and its ghastly consequences. The next words transport the reader to the day of Christ’s return: “And there shall be signs in the sun, moon, and stars; and upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity . . .”. Would any first-century student of the words of Jesus have even the smallest reason for suspecting the existence of a 1900-year gap between those two sentences?

Now back to Daniel. An examination of the famous “Seventy Weeks” prophecy in chapter 9 reveals the possible existence of the same kind of gap. The precise dating of the fulfilment does not affect the issue under consideration. The prophecy is explicit that “in the midst of the (seventieth) seven he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease” (Daniel 9:27). This can only mean that the cutting off of “Messiah the Prince” was to correspond to a time of 37~ years from the end of the full period of 490 years.

The question promptly thrusts itself forward: What is the significance of the remaining 3½ years?

The usual answer that this leads on to the death of Stephen and the conversion of Paul simply will not do. It is too obviously make-shift — for the following reasons:

1. This prophecy is about “Messiah the Prince” and his great work. To have the climax of the prophecy concerned with one of his disciples is bathos, even though that disciple be Stephen or Paul.
2. There is absolutely no evidence available to demonstrate that Stephen died or that Saul was converted precisely 3½ years after the crucifixion. The guesses of the “experts” about the dating of the events mentioned range from one to ten years after the death of Christ.
3. The climax of the “seventy weeks” is to be to “finish transgression (in ‘thy people’ and ‘thy holy city’), to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24). Is this language appropriate to the death of Stephen?

Is it possible, then, that the prophetic gap already clearly discernible in several other revelations is asserting itself here also, and that the outstanding 3½ years represent a deferment to the Last Days when the words of verse 24 just quoted will receive an abundant literal fulfilment in connection with the people of Israel and “the holy city”?

Such a possibility opens up the way to sensational re-interpretation of a number of Bible prophecies. It is proposed to explore some of these in later studies.

[2] Detail so full and complete as to lead conservative scholars such as C. H. H. Wright and Boutflower to speculate that here the original prophecy has been replaced by a targum or commentary.

Part 10: Chapters 235 to 258

Select a chapter:

• 234. “It is finished” (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46; John 19:28-30)*
• 235. Not a bone broken (John 19:31-34)*
• 236. Blood and Water (John 19:34)
• 237. Burial (Matt. 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42)*
• 238. The Guard at the Tomb (Matt. 27:62-66)
• 239. “At the Rising of the Sun” (Matt. 28:1-4; Mark 16:1)
• 240. “A Vision of Angels” (Matt. 28:5-8; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-9; John 20:1-3)
• 241. Peter and John (John20:4-l0)
• 242. “Rabboni!” John 20:11-18.
• 243. “Held by the Feet” (Matt. 28:9, 10)
• 244. The Message and its Reception (Mark 16:10, 11; Luke 24:9-12; John 20:18)
• 245. Scared Men (Matt. 28:11-15)
• 246. “Of Whom Speaketh the Prophet This?”
• 247. To Emmaus (Luke 24:13-33)
• 248. “Yea, Yea … Nay, Nay” (Luke 24:33-35; Mark 16:12)
• 249. “Help Thou Mine Unbelief” (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23)
• 250. Seeing Is Believing (John 20:24-29)
• 251. “I go a-fishing” (John 21:1-11)
• 252. Miracles, miracles, miracles (John 21:1-11)
• 253. Fishes – 153 of them (John 21:11)
• 255. “Follow Me” (John 21:19-23)
• 256. In Galilee (Matt. 28:16-18; Luke 24:45-48)
• 257. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:49; John 21:24, 25; Acts 1:6-8)
• 260. Symbolism in John’s Gospel

Even though the majority opinion of the disciples had settled once again into a mood of scepticism about their Lord’s resurrection, this did not mean an end to discussion about it, for when a man knows the truth about Christ he is not readily silenced concerning it. Especially is this the case when that truth appears to be answered only by blind and seemingly wilful prejudice. Men in this condition cannot appreciate the deep satisfaction and abiding happiness which can be theirs through the knowledge of Christ. They must be shown. For their own sake they must be made to realize how wonderful is the truth they now hold at arm’s length. So the talk went on ceaselessly.

Among them there was now a group of at least three, but maybe as many as eight in number, who were convinced that their Lord was alive. Their persuasions were making but little headway when, suddenly Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, saying: “Peace be unto you.” But there was no peace. Instead, only immediate consternation and confusion. Luke’s words: “they were terrified and affrighted … troubled … thoughts (rationalistic explanations) arising in their minds.”

The door was shut fast—they knew this for certain — and had remained shut. (This is clearly implied by the Greek of John 20:19). Then how could it be their Lord himself, even though they heard his voice! The hypothesis of hallucination, which had seemed adequate enough to explain the stories told by the others, was useless now to discount the evidence of their own senses. So in their bewilderment and panic they fell back on the universal inheritance of stupid tales about ghosts and spirits. That must be it! There were even some people known to assert that Samuel appeared thus to King Saul in ancient days. Then what more likely than a like appearance by their prophet who had been so much greater than Samuel?

Thus they convinced themselves (AV of v.37 is too weak here), and cowered away from this apparition in fear, whilst the few who knew better kept an awed but glad silence, waiting for Jesus to exorcise an unbelief which they had grappled with in vain. “Why have you been troubled, and still continue so?” he chided, with reference to their chaotic confused state of mind all through that day. And why do explanations and arguments even now arise in your minds?” Yet still most of them “believed not for joy.” ‘It’s too good to be true’ was their continuing reaction.

It was Joseph and his brethren over again: “I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him, for they were troubled at his presence … Behold, your eyes see … it is my mouth that speaketh unto you” (Genesis 45:3,12).

Jesus went on with the most matter-of-fact appeal imaginable: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” In Eden the instruction had been: “Touch not, lest ye die.” But now it was.-“Handle me, and live!” And in the time of the Patriarchs, Jacob, seeking to be accepted as the first-born, feared that “my father peradventure will feel me” (LXX). But here was “the first-born from the dead” challenging the same test to vindicate his claim to the Promise.

Flesh and bones

From the Lord’s expression “flesh and bones” and Paul’s contrasting phrase: “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” the inference has often been made that the resurrection body was, and will be, devoid of blood, which has ever been the vehicle of mortal, natural life (Leviticus 17:11). This argument is inconclusive. The conclusion drawn maybe correct, but the evidence is inadequate for dogmatism. Paul’s phrase about “flesh and blood” (1 Cor. 15:50) has no reference to the fluid which flows in a man’s veins. It is the familiar Bible expression which indicates mortal human nature. In such passages as Matthew 16:17 and Galatians 1:16 reference to literal blood and literal flesh leads to absurdity. The risen Jesus may have had blood in his veins without that blood being the fundamental principle of his new immortality. But at this time the challenge was that they handle what they could fee/-the flesh of his arm, and the bones of his fingers.

There were also subtle overtones to the use of these words just now. Doubtless they were designed to recall how the first Adam, raised from sleep, greeted the bride whom God had provided to be a helpmeet for him: “this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Again, when David was brought back from his tribulations and ‘death’ after he had been rejected by the nation which should never have ceased to honour him, he greeted those nearest him thus: “Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh” (2 Samuel 19:12). Perhaps these were Bible passages which Jesus had already “opened” to the two on the way to Emmaus.

It may safely be assumed that at first none of the disciples was courageous enough to take up the Lord’s challenge. Who was the first to do so? Was it Mary who had handled him already? Or was it Peter, once again the leader in loyalty to the Lord he loved? Almost certainly it was not John, for he had been convinced by the empty tomb, and now he quietly waited for his brethren to join him in a new and higher understanding of their risen Master.

So Jesus “showed them his hands and his feet” – and also his side. (John 20:20).

Even now the majority hesitated to abandon their incredulity. So Jesus seated himself at the table and asked for food. Someone pushed a plate towards him, and slowly, deliberately, whilst every eye in the room was on him, he ate a portion of fish. Then, reaching across, he rounded off a fragmentary meal with a piece of honeycomb. (Half a dozen of the “better” manuscripts omit this detail. But it is so obviously not an invention that those manuscripts censure themselves by the omission).

What more could he do to convince them he was really, truly, bodily, alive? Thus, by “infallible proofs” which he provided for their senses, Jesus swept away all unbelief.

Resurrection and eating

In the New Testament there is a remarkable consistency about the way in which the eating of food is unobtrusively associated with resurrection. When Jairus’s daughter was restored to life, Jesus immediately commanded to give her food (Mark 5:43). Lazarus, raised from corruption, is next mentioned reclining at the meal table in the company of Jesus. The Book of Acts twice emphasizes that Jesus shared meals with his disciples after he was risen (1 :4 RVm; 10:41). This will also be the experience of the saints in Christ in the day of their resurrection: “that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Luke 22:30). “I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me (Revelation 3:20; Luke 12:37 requires a future application for these words) “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life” (Revelation 2:7).

“Then were the disciples glad.” The words must rank as one of the most telling understatements in the whole volume of Scripture. As conviction seeped into their minds, the disciples would be hard put to find adequate expression for their joy. Ejaculations of praise and thanks to God would be instinctive. But soon they would fall to discussing amongst themselves—since they could not al I ta Ik with Jesus at once — the amazing implications behind this resurrection of their Lord. Here was the final proof that he was the Messiah. Their exultant interpretation of his royal entry into Jerusalem only a week earlier had not been far wrong. Now doubtless, at this time, he would restore again the kingdom to Israel. No longer need they fear arrest by the authorities. The future, which only an hour ago had been dark and cheerless, was now dazzlingly bright, full of comfort and promise. Now Jesus repeated to them his “Peace be unto you.” The confusion was stilled. The doubts were gone, it was peace indeed which they now experienced.

But Jesus said nothing to them about establishing the kingdom. Instead he spoke of a mission full of responsibility: “As my Father hath sent me, even so I send you.” As he, anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, had gone about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, God being with him (Acts 10:38), so now they were to take up the same divine work. They were to be ambassadors for Christ. In his stead they were to beseech men: “Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

Earlier, during the Lord’s own ministry they had served an apprenticeship to this high calling. Temporarily endowed with the Holy Spirit’s credentials for the work, they had gone forth to welcoming towns and villages, and had returned exultant at the encouraging response they had met with. Now the responsibility was to be vastly greater, the field of activity incomparably wider, but the reception of the message by no means as encouraging. “As my Father hath sent me…”! The Father loved the Son as no son had ever been loved, yet He sent him to suffer and die. “Even so send I you.” Within months they would begin to learn the meaning of the words. No more shut doors to give them secrecy and hiding from the chief priests and rulers. But instead a fearless open witness before all men, whether they listened in sympathy or plotted in resentment.

The Holy Spirit

“And when he had said this, he breathed on them (literally: he in-breathed them; s.w. Gen. 2:7), and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Spirit.” The action was a deliberate reminiscence of Genesis. Like the angel of the Lord in Genesis he was now imparting spiritual life and power to the New Creation which had been hitherto until this moment earthy and lifeless. “Thou sendest forth thy breath (spirit)), they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth.”

These words of Jesus are usually taken to be a further promise and anticipation of the heavenly gift which came upon them at Pentecost: “You are to receive the Holy Spirit.” Probably, then, Christ’s in-breathing was not only a symbolic “kiss of life” but an immediate imparting of heavenly guidance and wisdom (cp. Acts 1:2). However, it is not to b» assumed that the dramatic powers of the Holy Spirit which they were able to display in later days were now theirs from this moment onwards. This was “in-breathing,” not the “rushing mighty wind” manifest with the flame of fire at Pentecost.

The mysterious commission which accompanied this gift has been gravely misunderstood in Christian orthodoxy: “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Here, some would claim, is the founding of an episcopacy descending from the apostles. Others with equal confidence make these words the sole basis for the validity of priestly absolution. Yet only ten of the apostles were present. Then was Thomas (and also Matthias and Paul) left without the authority these words imparted? And since the two from Emmaus, and the women, were certainly present, they must have shared whatever special blessing was intended by the Lord’s words and action.

Here, then, was the Lord’s extension to the entire church of a responsibility and authority. It was also a warning deliberately couched in terms which, like his allusion to “flesh and bones” and his breathing on them, was intended to take their minds back to Genesis. When Eve succumbed to temptation and thus brought herself under condemnation, Adam had it in his power to intercede for her or even die for her; but instead he too reached out and grasped the forbidden fruit and shared her sin. Now in the New Creation, the same situation would present its challenge: “Whose soever sins ye remit (through the preaching of the gospel and ministry of the saving grace of Christ), they are remitted unto them. But whose soever sins you hold on to, they are retained —to your account.” Over the ensuing years, the early church taught immense numbers of people – both Jews and ignorant pagans — the gospel of the forgiveness of sins and the hope of life in Christ. But they saw also the onset of spiritual decay; all kinds of false ideas and evil practices were increasingly tolerated. And for such lapses the church was, and today is, held accountable.

Alternatively, there was in these words of Christ that which he had foreshadowed in earlier days: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). The context of these words concerns decisions made by the Body of Christ. But it is important to note that there the Greek text implies decisions already made in heaven and through the power of the Holy Spirit made operative in the life of the believers: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall have been (already) bound in heaven.”

It seems probable, therefore, that this authority of remitting and retaining sins which Jesus now imparted, covered such powers as the preaching of the gospel (1 Peter 2:5) to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28), decision who should be accepted for baptism (Acts 10:48), and the exercise of discipline in the community (Acts 5:3; 1 Corinthians 5:3).

A wonderful new life, a vitally important work, and a high responsibility were now opening out before these disciples who only a short while before had trembled in fear of a high-priest’s reprisals for the finding of an empty tomb.

MOTES: Luke 24:36-43

37.	Terrified; s.w. Ex. 19:16.
	Supposed, Gk. is stronger than this: they felt sure.
38.	Thoughts. See the use of the same word in 9:46; Rom. 14:1; Phil. 2:14; 1 Tim. 2:8.
39.	Handle me. See on this word in “Bible Studies”, HAW 17.01. Hoskyns observes that neither here nor at Jn. 20:23; 21:23 is there any hint of Jesus leaving the disciples.
	The reader is tempted to continue on with 24:44-49 as though part of the narrative just considered. But there are decisive reasons for believing that these verses belong to the end of the Forty Days.
	See: Behold; a strange word to use regarding flesh and bones.

John 20:19-23

19.	Shut, Gk. pf. implies and stayed shut.
	Lit: into the midst. What does this imply?
21.	Sent… send. Two different Gk. words. Remarkably, the first is apostello (s.w. Heb. 3:1), the other word seems to imply sent, yet in a sense, accompanied.

The excited disciples lost no time in setting out to return to Jerusalem. The news the women had brought from the tomb, that they had seen a vision of angels and heard announcement of the Lord’s resurrection, was questioned no longer. But now they themselves had better news to tell, for they had not only seen Jesus but had been in his company for hours. More than this, the meaning of his resurrection had been unfolded to them through incomparable exposition of Holy Scripture. Now they understood why it behoved the Christ—their Jesus—to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day. The sufferings of Christ, which made little sense when considered by themselves, now became the great satisfaction of their souls when seen in conjunction with “the glory that should follow.”

All this was news incomparable. It must be told as speedily and as fully as possible. Always this is the proper reaction when a man leams the truth about Christ. He cannot keep it to himself. He must share it with others. And when, with the passing of time, he learns yet more about Christ, this too he must share with those capable of appreciating it. This is fellowship at its highest and best.

The night walk back to Jerusalem was undertaken without any qualms. They did not fear the dangers from which they had dissuaded Jesus, for now they knew him to be with them, though invisible: “He shall be with them, walking in the way.” (Is. 35:8 RVm) And in the eastern sky the Passover full moon climbed higher to lighten their journey with its soft splendour. Not that they had any eyes for its loveliness. There was far too much of their new knowledge about Jesus to be talked over – one reassuring, pregnant detail after another.

Meanwhile, there was comparable excitement among the disciples back in Jerusalem. They had gathered together in the upper room to discuss with varying degrees of conviction the accumulating evidence that their Lord was risen. Although the story of the women about their encounter with the angels was first written off as delusion and fantasy, the unshakable conviction of Mary that she had seen the Lord, heard him speak, and had handled him, made a deep impression. But then Peter joined them, telling most circumstantially not only his own knowledge of the empty tomb but also that more recently Jesus had appeared to him in person with gracious reassurance e that for a man who loved as Peter loved there was complete forgiveness, even for one who had denied as he so shamefully did on Thursday night.

This latest accession of evidence and especially the complete transformation in Peter (it was almost a transfiguration) was sufficient to satisfy them. Doubts were thrust away. A great surge of gladness swept over them, and they fell to talking excitedly about whether Jesus would manifest himself again to them

The big exception to this conversion of mind was Thomas. He stubbornly refused to credit these stories of the impossible. What had seized them all that they should thus allow themselves to be swept away by a wave of mass hysteria? Only a week before, all that excited enthusiasm over the Lord’s triumphal entry into the city had come to nothing. The coming kingdom of Messiah, son of David, had faded out into a week of futile argument and disputation, with its ghastly anticlimax at Golgotha. Then wasn’t it time they faced facts instead of deluding themselves with their wishful fantasies?

So Thomas doggedly insisted that for his part he would stick to hard facts. Let Jesus appear again and in so real a fashion that Thomas himself could insert a finger into the nail-pierced hands — then, and then only, would he believe these stories about resurrection.

Even as they were arguing there came a frantic beating on the door, and urgent voices clamoured for admission. Every one’s heart stood still with apprehension. The fears, already expressed, that they would be held accountable by the chief priests for the disappearance of their Leader’s body, flashed once again through the minds of all — but only for a brief moment. A second later the voice of Cleopas was recognized and the door thrown open in welcome.

As the two from Emmaus entered, their own message was drowned in a chorus of eager reassurances: “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.” When their own story was told, and told again, detail by detail, the excitement intensified. Thomas, still unconvinced, lost patience with the rest and went off into the night. (Thomas’ departure is a necessary inference from Luke 24:35 and John 20:24).

Not all whom he left behind were completely convinced, and when the facts were combed over, doubt began to grow afresh. It is possible that Mark’s phrase about disbelief (16:13) is intended to suggest this present division of the disciples into two groups – those who believed and those who didn’t (see ch. 249).

Perhaps their discussion went something like this: (what follows here is, of course, pure imagination).

“At what time, do you say, did you last see Jesus at your meal table?”

“Just as it fell dark. Of this we are sure!”

“Simon, when was it that the Lord appeared to you?”

“Less than an hour after dark.”

“But how can a man be in two places so far apart within so short a time? Consider how long it took these two to come from Emmaus, and they came as fast as their feet would travel.”

“There is something else as well. Cleopas, you say that one moment he was with you at the table breaking bread, and the next moment he was gone?”

“Yes, it was just so. It happened within a second.”

“You saw him get up from his seat and walk out of the house?”

“No, I’m sure he didn’t, for we never took our eyes off him. One moment he was there, the next moment he was gone.”

“But does that make sense? If he was the dead Jesus come to life again, he couldn’t vanish like that. Surely that shows that it was just your imagination playing tricks with you — and all because of your tremendous eagerness to see the Lord again. That must be it. And we were mistaken in thinking that God restored him to us. Your story doesn’t hold water.”

“Neither believed they them,” is Mark’s curt summary of their ultimate attitude.

NOTES: Luke 24:34-35

35.	They told. Not only the detailed story but also its meaning: Jude 7, 15; Acts 15:12,14; 10:8; 21:19.
	Made known in the breaking of bread; which experience would tell the discerning that the Bridegroom was not taken away from them:Mt. 9:15.

Mark 16:12

12.	In another form. A number of passages suggest that this might not mean a different physical appearance, but the change of demeanour and attitude which would be inevitable when the Lord became immortal: Phil. 2:6,7; Dan. 4:33; 5:6,10; 7:28.