The prologue to John’s gospel has a strange mystifying feature quite without parallel anywhere else. It is broken up into three separate pieces which alternate with three short sections about the work and character of John the Baptist:

Either set of three sections reads consecutively with a smoothness which is immediately apparent.

Why John should give the introduction to his gospel this shape is not easy to fathom, but the fact of it is almost self-evident.

The Lamp and the Light

John was not the Light, not the effulgent Glory of the Living God. He was only a lamp, burning and shining (5:35). There is a strange paradox here, for men use a lamp to illuminate what is in the dark; yet John the lamp was God’s way of lighting the path to the Light of the World. And Israel needed it, because they were a people sitting in darkness. But do men need anyone to bear witness to them concerning Him who is the Light of the World? ‘Surely’, says A. T. Robertson, “men can tell light from darkness!” But he adds the immediate comment: “No, that is precisely what men cannot do.”

So John’s assignment from God was to teach men to believe in Jesus as the true Light, the Shekinah Glory of God, who was to be revealed. He came “that all men through him might believe.” But first they needed to learn not to believe in themselves. Accordingly, an essential part of John’s message was: “All flesh .is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field” (Is. 40:6). This truth they were wondrous slow to learn. Consequently, even though a man of John’s character must inevitably make a tremendous impression on the people, so that they flocked in their thousands to hear him, his message was either not received at all (by the rulers), or was taken up (by the people) only to be let go again.

Even so, there was a lasting impact on some, for, years later in far-off Ephesus, Paul found a handful of believers who held tenaciously (although in some respects imperfectly) to the teaching of John as it had somehow reached them there (Acts 19:1-7).

For such a reason, doubtless, it was necessary for the writer of the gospel to emphasize: “He was not that Light. . .The true Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” This RVm reading of John 1:9 is equally possible with the more familiar reading. It is only a matter of re-punctuating the Greek text.

The Type and the True

This reference to Jesus as “the true Light” uses a word which implies, not the true in contrast to the false, but that which is the reality in contrast to type or shadow. Thus the phrase implies that Jesus was the more profound fulfilment of all that was signified by the appearances of the Shekinah Glory to God’s people in the wilderness.

This entire passage (v.6-18) is so shot through with typical allusions to Moses and Israel and the angel of the covenant in the wilderness that it taxes the powers of the expositor to set out the sequence of ideas in a coherent intelligible fashion. The device of parallel columns might help the reader to trace the allusiveness of John’s writing:

The mission of John the Baptist is introduced with emphasis and exactness: “a man sent from God.” The Greek phrase implies: “from beside God”. Yet no one, except Mormons with their peculiar “personal-pre-existence” doctrine, believes that John came down from heaven. This is a particularly clear and useful instance of the characteristic Johannine idiom which, through being so often disregarded, has led to the Athanasian doctrine of Christ’s personal pre-existence in heaven.

Other examples, which no more prove the pre-existence of Christ than this passage (1:6) proves a pre-existence of John, are these:

1. “I came out from God . . . from the Father” (16:27,28).
2. “I am from him” (7:29).
3. “The only begotten of (from) the Father” (1:14)
4. “Whatsoever things thou hast given me are of thee” (17:7-same construction).
5. “I came out from thee” (17:8-the same again).

All of these, and more, use the same form of words, but orthodox theologians disregard the true meaning of the idiom because they want to.

The writer is nevertheless careful to omit the definite article, as at the end of verse 1 — not para tou theou, but para theou. Thus, in yet another way, he warns his reader away from assuming that the Baptist or his Lord made a personal descent from heaven. Compare Peter’s phrase: “holy men of God (para theou)” (2 Pet. 1:21), an exact parallel to the examples already cited.

John’s function, as repeated again and again in this first chapter, was that of witness to Christ.

His message concerning repentance and baptism has relatively meagre mention. John himself was “not that Light”. Always, in all four gospels, this contrast between John and Jesus is insisted on. The Baptist’s preaching was “in order that all men through him might believe.”

This admirably chosen preposition is given excellent force in the rest of this chapter. Priests and Levites from Jerusalem are bidden look away to one greater than John. And his imperative: “Behold the Lamb of God”, spoken to his own disciples, lost him their loyalty (v.36, 37), as he intended it should (cp. also 1 Cor. 3:5).

But “all men” did not and do not believe. It is simply not true that “he (the true Light) lighteth every man.” There are but few who want or can appreciate the illumination Christ brings. Again there is need to appreciate the force of John’s idiom (and it is not only his), that instead of “all” carrying the usual sense of “all without any exception”, it is not infrequently used to mean “all without distinction, all kinds of men”.

For instance:

1. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples” (13:35).
2. “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me” (12:32).
3. “All the people came unto him (in the temple)” (8:2).

So the meaning here (in 1:7,9) is that the gospel is not for Pharisees and scribes only, but for publicans and harlots also; not confined to Israel, but for all manner of Gentiles—barbarian, Scythian, bond and free: “that whosoever believeth in me should not abide in darkness” (12:46) The Light of God’s Shekinah was not meant for Israel only (Is. 49:6).

Yet another problem phrase underlines this basic truth. “He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” It is fashionable nowadays to insist on the RVm reading: “The true Light, which lighteth every man, was coming into the world.” But for three reasons this may safely be treated as inferior:

1. The order of the words in the Greek text.
2. John Lighfoot’s demonstration that “every man coming into the world” was a much used rabbinic expression for “every kind of person”.
3. The very emphatic past continuous verb is utterly inappropriate with reference to Jesus (and the next three verses require reference to Jesus).

A triple mention of “the world” (kosmos) now introduces another Johannine idiom. Here, as with “all”, there is no universalism, but instead a very limited meaning: the Jewish world. This can bequickly demonstrated by examples:

1. “Behold, the world is gone out after him”, wailed certain Pharisees after the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:19). At that time the wide world did not even know that Jesus existed,
2. “Show thyself to the world” (7:4), jeered his brothers as they urged him to get busy with a big appeal at the Feast of Tabernacles.
3. “This is the condemnation (of Jewry), that light is come into the world, and men (Jews) loved darkness rather than light” (3:19).
4. Other examples: Jn. 1:29; 8:26; 15:19; 17:14.

And now yet another idiom: “The world was made by him”-literally: “The kosmos became through him.” In what sense was the Jewish world made through Christ?

There is special need here to appreciate the full efficacy of the redeeming work of Christ—that the forgiveness of sins, even for those who lived and died B.C., is through Christ, and only through him. His sacrifice is as efficacious to cover the sin of Noah, Daniel and Job-yes, and of Adam and Eve-as it is today to wash away the sins of one about to be baptized into his Name.

Consider four very significant passages:

1. ‘Jesus Christ, whom God set forth (RVm: purposed) to be a propitiatory sacrifice through faith in his blood, to declare his (God’s) righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3: 25).
2. “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).
3. “And many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection…” (Mt. 27:52,53). The evident intention here is to stress that the death and resurrection of Jesus were efficacious to raise from the dead even those who died before he did.
4. Genesis 3:15 is careful to emphasize that the Seed of the woman crushes not just the seed of the serpent but the head of the serpent itself. Right back to its fountain-head sin is overcome through Christ. Even Adam and Eve have their sin forgiven because of their declared faith in him, the promised Seed (3:20,21; 4:1).

It is in this vitally important sense that the world of Israel was made (came into being) through Christ. Apart from him that crucial covenant sacrifice offered at Sinai, when the people were consecrated to their God, had no meaning. The sequence there, in Exodus 24, needs to be considered. Israel was shut out from the presence of God. Bounds were set around the mount where He manifested Himself. Then came the building of an altar and the offering of the covenant-sacrifice. The blood was sprinkled on both altar and people. At the same time all gave their assent to the book of the Covenant. And then, only then, could the representatives of the nation ascend into the mount and eat a meal of fellowship in the very presence of the Glory of God (Ex. 24:4-11). But except there had been some rudimentary understanding of what lay behind the covenant-sacrifice, that shedding of blood would have been of no real value whatever.

Rejected

All this and all similar significant transactions in later days lie behind John’s trenchant phrase: “the world was made by him”. Yet with what mordant sadness does he go on to record: “and the world knew him not.” This is repeated: “He came unto his own—his own Land and Holy City, his own Temple, his own inheritance as Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God—and his own people received him not.” How this is underlined by John’s dramatic use of the same word “received”. “And they took Jesus/and led him away” (19:16, cp. also Lk. 20:14,15). They received him, but only to crucify him!

But whilst the nation as a whole turned its back on the Son of God, there were those, a faithful remnant, who did receive him.

Sons of God – New Born

“And whosoever received him (even them that believe and go on believing in his name), to them gave he authority, warrant, sanction to become sons of God” (v.12)

Gentiles, called by the gospel, especially needed this authentication of their new status as sons of God. Jews were confident that they already had this status, yet in truth they needed the same authorization.

The ‘Name” to be believed in makes a profitable investigation, worthy of the attention of any Bible student. Is it the Divine Name declared at Sinai (Ex. 34:6), the fulness of which is expressed in the Son of God? Or is it his name Jesus Christ, the Saviour from sin, and the promised King? Or is it his name Son of God which calls men to become sons of God? (cp. Is. 56:5). Whichever it is, the ideas inevitably overlap.

These who are sons of God through believing necessarily experience a New Birth. No man born and living in a completely natural way can be a son of God. He must be born “not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (v.13). The first and third expressions in this triad allude to the mother and father in a normal begettal, and they are united by “the will of the flesh”, which applies to both.

Attempts have been made to use these words as a proof-text of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, which is not otherwise taught explicitly in John’s gospel. It is true that a very few manuscripts and some of the earliest of the Fathers read: “which was born”, with reference to Jesus. But the mass of evidence the other way is not to be set aside. Yet is is easy to see how this changed reading came about. The early church had the wit to see that what is true of the redeemed must also be true of the Redeemer. Almost certainly John had this in mind when he wrote the words. So, less directly, it is valid to see an implication of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in these words. Later (3:3,4) the apostle was to record, with evident satisfaction, the Lord’s personal teaching how a man is to be born again—from above, and not by the will of the flesh (cp. also 1 Pet. 1:23).

The Word born “flesh”

The hint which John has just given concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus is accompanied by a needful corrective of extreme or mistaken views concerning his nature. His was “the glory from the only begotten of the Father”, truly; nevertheless the Word was born “flesh”, that is (according to the very common usage of the New Testament) with ordinary human nature, sharing the fallen nature of Adam with all its propensities to evil, yet-the marvel of it!-always living a God-ward life: “the Word was with God”! Here was God manifest in flesh (and not stone; Ex. 34:4), so that the prophet seeing this before, and marvelling at it, could exclaim: “Behold, your God!” (Is. 40:5-9).

This Word of God “tabernacled” among us. Once again, like the True Light, the figure is that of Israel in the wilderness: “we beheld his Glory. . .full of grace and truth”. Here John’s hendiadys is equivalent to “true grace”; and since in so many places “grace” is the inspired Scripture’s way of alluding to undeserved forgiveness from God (Study 12) the allusion may be traced with confidence to the Shekinah Glory of God shining forth from above the Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle and thus signifying the forgiveness which God extended to His people on their Day of Atonement. Typically this was enacted in a Tabernacle which shared the punishment of God’s people in the wilderness. Its outward appearance was goat’s hair, a fitting symbol of the unattractive character of human nature. In the spiritual reality the heavenly Glory found expression in one who was born flesh. There was no beauty that they should desire him. Yet in him, and only in him, was the true forgiveness possible. He was “full of grace and truth”.

The Glory of the Lord

The apostle’s commentary on this message of John uses language appropriate to the same idea. Indeed apart from allusion to the Shekinah Glory it is difficult to interpret without falling into unhelpful vagueness: “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace” (v.16). When, almost a year after the crossing of the Red Sea, the Tabernacle was completed and consecrated, “the glory of the Lord fil/edthe tabernacle” (Ex. 40:34,36,38). It is this word “filled” which the apostle picked up in order to expound it out of his own personal experience. Jesus had shown himself to be the Sanctuary of God filled with the Holy Spirit; and just as the priests were unable to enter the Tabernacle until the glory lifted from within to above it, so also the ensuing ministry of the apostles (note that plural pronoun “we”) could not take up where Jesus left off until the ascension of the Lord and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

“Grace for Grace”

Similarly, the vague mysterious expression “grace for (that is, instead of) grace” now falls into place, the two main ideas associated with “grace” in the NT. are the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Study 12). Both of these meanings make very good sense in this place. In Christ there is true forgiveness of sins, as against that which is typically foreshadowed through the sacrifices of the Tabernacle. Also, over against the Glory of God in the Tabernacle and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on Moses’ seventy helpers (Num 11:24ff), there is the glorifying or Jesus offer his resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Moses and Christ

The emphasis on Christ as the fulfilment of all that the Mosiac system was intended to teach is now stated more explicitly: “The law was given (a Hebraism for “appointed”) through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Here, as already suggested, “grace and truth” may be a hendiadys for “true grace”, that is “true forgiveness of sins”, in contrast to the typical teaching about this through the sacrifices under the Law (cp. “in spirit and in truth”; 4:23).

Alternatively, “grace and truth” may be the New Testament equivalent of the familiar Old Testament phrase “mercy and truth” which in every one of its occurrences refers to the covenants made by God with Abraham and with David. In that case the meaning is: “The law was revealed to Moses, but-greater than-that-Jesus Christ has brought the fulfilment of the Promises.”

This contrast is now summed up in a powerful allusion to Moses’ experience of seeing a veiled manifestation of the Glory of God whilst he was hidden in a cleft of the rock (Ex. 33:22). “No man hath seen (and goes on seeing) God at any time”, not even Moses/ for the theophany he beheld was specifically limited (v.22, 23). When the covenant was made at Sinai a theophany was not only heard but also seen (Ex. 24:10,11); but that was only transitory. But Jesus, the only begotten Son (contrast v.12), at the time of John’s writing had ascended into “the bosom of the Father.” John, the beloved disciple, had himself lain in Jesus’ bosom! (Jn. 13:23). Therefore who better qualified than he to “declare” Jesus? And Jesus being permanently so much more intimate with the Father than Moses ever was, what was the magnitude of the revelation of God which he could “declare”? (Mt. 11:27). The idea makes a wonderful climax to the build-up of allusions in this prologue.

Men used to talk (and still do) about the subtle philosophical ideas woven into this opening section of John’s gospel. All that is so much unmitigated rubbish. The first qualification for a proper understanding of this preliminary enunciation of the theme of the fourth gospel is an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament. It cannot be too strongly stressed that a sound appreciation of John’s gospel depends, most of all, on a clear recognition of the way in which, from start to finish, it sets Moses and Christ side by side, both for the sake of contrast and also to put beyond all argument that Jesus is greater than Moses; he is the fulfilment of all that Moses stood for.

In the last few years before the apostles passed off the scene one of the most serious problems they had to cope with was created by the intensive “counter-reformation” mounted by Judaism against Christianity (see: “The Jewish Plot”, by H.A.W.) It lured (or browbeat) many Jewish believers back to Moses and the synagogue. John’s gospel and epistles such as Colossians and Hebrews were written with the express purpose of stemming that drift. Hence John’s enunciation of the main theme of his gospel.

Notes: John 1:6-18

The ideas associated with the baptism which was the central feature of John’s ministry are often vague or quite mistaken, so perhaps it may be worth-while to re-examine the gospels’ teaching about it.

Statements can be found in many of the commentaries to the effect that John was merely making use of a familiar existing rite or institution in order to emphasize that his converts were converted; e.g. Carr in Cambridge Greek Testament: “In baptizing John introduced no new custom, for ceremonial ablution or baptism was practised in all ancient religions… Among the Jews proselytes were baptized on admission to the Mosaic covenant. John’s baptism was the outward sign of the purification and life-giving change, and contained the promise of forgiveness of sins.”

Most of this is either incorrect or misleading. Other religions may have had ceremonial washings, but these were not baptisms, nor is it conceivable that there was any sort of connection between John’s baptism and any of them. Neither is there any evidence that at this time the Jews administered a form of baptism to converts to their faith. So far as is known, this came in as a Jewish practice after the first century. True, a mikveh has been excavated at Masada, but it is certain that the meaning and purpose of such washings had no resemblance to the baptism John administered.

If indeed the Jews were already familiar with baptism as a religious observance it is difficult to see why Josephus should give John the distinctive title of “Baptist” (Jos. Ant.18.5.2).

Something New: Christian Baptism

That John’s baptism was altogether new is strongly implied by the reaction of the Jewish leaders. “The Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem… and they asked him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?” (Jn. 1:19,25). The words imply the introduction of something completely new. If baptism of proselytes was already known, John’s baptism was no innovation and there was no ground at all for either indignation or mystification.

All the available evidence points to a different conclusion-that it was a completely new ordinance, and that it was essentially Christian baptism, pointing forward to the death of Christ, just as baptism now looks back to that crucial event.

A Rite of Forgiveness

The first and clearest point to be made in support of this interpretation is that this baptism was “for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4). This, by itself, should be regarded as decisive, for there is no forgiveness of sins apart from Christ (Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 22:16). So this must have been essentially a Christian baptism. Clearly John proclaimed not only a royal Messiah but also a suffering Messiah. It has been suggested that against the background of this teaching he baptized his converts into “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29,36 definitely implies that he had instructed his disciples about “the Lamb of God’). In any case, this “baptism for the remission of sins” is evidently something more efficacious than the Mosaic sacrificial system.

It is noteworthy that the introduction to Mark’s gospel announces “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” and then for the next nine verses talks about John and his mission, with four explicit references to baptism. And Jesus himself declared that “the law and the prophets were until John: from that time the kingdom of God is preached” (Lk. 16:16).

Making Messiah manifest

John’s own declaration of the purpose and aim of the baptism he administered was this: “I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (Jn. 1:31). These words will carry more than one interpretation. Either John meant that the Messiah could only be manifest to a nation showing repentance (as will assuredly be the case when he comes again). Or, the rite of baptism was a means of manifesting Messiah to the people; it had no meaning apart from Him. Which?

Four other passages for the discerning:

• John’s role was clearly enunciated by his father’s inspired prophecy: “Thou, child… shalt go before the face of the Lord… to give knowledge of salvation unto his people in the remission of sins” (Lk. 1:77).
• “Now (before the death of Christ) ye are clean through the word I have spoken unto you” (Jn. 15:3). How could they be “clean” except through a baptism (based on the Lord’s teaching) already experienced before the death of Christ?
• “He that is bathed (RV) needeth not save to wash his feet” (Jn. 13:10). Here are the correlated blessings of Baptism and the Breaking of Bread.
• “Then are the children (Jesus and Peter) free” (Mt. 17:26). What difference between the status of Peter and his fellow-Jews except that he had become a child of God through baptism?

The Lord’s own baptism

Christ’s own baptism at the hands of John is difficult to make sense of if this new sacrament was simply intended to be an expression of repentance, the turning over of a new leaf. The commentaries mostly dodge the question. But Jesus said: “Thus it becometh us (himself and all others receiving baptism) to fulfil all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15). He needed this baptism. As one of fallen Adam’s race he needed to be associated with the regeneration, which only his own death and resurrection could bring.

Then, too, there is the problem of the baptism which Jesus himself required of his disciples during his ministry. It is mentioned alongside that of his fore-runner (Jn. 3:22,23) in a way, which makes it impossible to believe that there was any essential difference between the two. If both expressed a sharing of the blessings of forgiveness of sins that God would provide through the Messiah, there is no difficulty. And, no doubt, what was only dimly comprehended at first became much more intelligible in later days. But if this is not the idea, then what was the intention and purpose behind the baptism, which Jesus administered (through his apostles)? After Pentecost was its meaning changed?

Apollos and the men at Ephesus

The description of the work of Apollos years later is strangely incongruous apart from the interpretation argued for here. “This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25). Here was one whose knowledge of saving truth had evidently branched off from the main stream of available instruction before the Baptist’s tragic end, or he would have known more than the baptism of John. Yet he knew “the way of the Lord” and “taught diligently the things concerning Jesus” (see any modern version on this). If John’s baptism associated a man with the saving work of Jesus, no difficulty remains.

Lastly, there is the problem of the disciples of John at Ephesus who apparently accepted a second baptism-Christian baptism-at the hands of Paul (Acts 19:1-7). The narrative needs to be read with care. “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit”, they declared. But John had given this a prominent place in his teaching: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk. 3:16). So it would seem that there were marked defects in the instruction of these men so as to seriously invalidate the baptism they had received, for is not baptism an “obeying from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17)? So Paul’s insistence on fuller instruction and an ensuing true baptism appears to have been altogether necessary. In the Companion Bible Bullinger handles this problem rather differently. He repunctuates, concluding Paul’s words at the end of verse 5. The nett result is the same.

The accumulation of evidence brought together here points fairly strongly to the conclusion that there is no essential difference between John’s baptism and that which the convert to the faith of Christ receives today. Just as Christian baptism is retrospective, looking back to the death and resurrection of Christ, so the rite administered by John looked forward, with exactly the same meaning.

Instruction first

It is useful to note the various “First Principles” of the gospel which are traceable in the teaching of John:

• “All flesh is grass “(Is. 40:6-8)-the mortality of man and his need of redemption.
• “Behold the Lamb of God” (Jn. 1–29,36) -Jesus the sacrifice for men’s sins.
• Jesus the judge of all (Lk. 3:17).
• The Holy Spirit (3:16).
• Repentance (3:3; Mt. 3:2) and baptism for remission of sins (Mk. 1:4).
• The life of faith and self-denial (Lk.3: 10-14).
• The resurrection of the Redeemer; “the Word of our God shall rise up for ever” (Is. 40:8); Matthew 14:2 also implies that John had taught a doctrine of resurrection.
• The kingdom of God (Mt. 3:2; 4:17 are identical).

So the baptism men accepted from John was no baptism of ignorance. The next study will show that, like any true Christian baptism, it was preceded by personal interrogation.

Luke introduces his account of the preaching of John (3:1-2) with a catalogue of the men who exercised power in God’s Land at that time. The list has been acclaimed as the hall-mark of a thorough historian, but such an interpretation misses the main point. It is true that the details Luke supplies make possible a chronology of the ministries of John and Jesus, but the real purpose was to represent the people of God as under the thrall of the powers of evil-Tiberius Caesar, Pilate and Lysanias, the Herods, Annas and Caiaphas. What a crew! A people governed, or, rather, misgoverned by such a bunch was surely ready for the gospel of the kingdom of God. Here was hard rapacity, cynical selfishness, vice unlimited, crafty wirepulling, the pride of power, and in every one of them an utter disregard for the well-being of the two or three millions of common people over whom they were set.

Those evil days

Matthew, beginning this section of his record, achieves the same effect by a different device: “And in those days came John the Baptist” (3:1). Precisely what days are not specified, but a devout Jew who knew his Scriptures would recognize the echo of Exodus 2:11,23, when Moses went out and looked on the burdens under which his brethren laboured, the children of Israel sighing by reason of the bondage. It was “in those days” that “the word of God came upon John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (Lk. 3:2; cp. Jer. 1:1 LXX); and it was to such a man, not to any of these eminent scoundrels, that the spirit of prophecy was imparted.

It was “the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar”. This infamous Tiberius reigned as emperor from A.D. 14, but he had been associated with Augustus Caesar from A.D. 11, and the word used by Luke suggests this. So the public work of John began either In A.D. 26 or 28/29, the baptism of Jesus following fairly soon after.

Messiah’s Herald

The proclamation began, not because John thought that he had a message and that the time was ripe for its proclamation, but because of a specific divine commission: “the (spoken) word of God came upon him.” At the same time he was given a sign: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1:33). So from the earliest possible time John knew himself to be Messiah’s forerunner. It was his work and highest honour to announce him to the nation.

Yet he did not attempt any sensational demonstration in Jerusalem and the other big cities. Instead, as the news spread that after a lapse of centuries the Spirit of prophecy burned once again in Jewry, he remained in the wilderness, and the people came to him in evergrowing crowds. The bare facts are not without their symbolic value-John was preaching “in the wilderness of Judaea” and also in “the region about Jordan” that is, not far from ancient Sodom and Gomorrha. It was a people and an epoch desperately in need of his call to repentance.

An Elijah Prophet

All John’s way of life, and especially how he dressed was designed to emphasize his message. His rough camel’s hair coat and crude skin belt were a deliberate imitation of Elijah (2 Kgs. 1:8). This is more than hinted at in Luke’s phrase: “The same John”, or “John himself “-implying, like Elijah—was dressed in this way. Thus without verbal reiteration of the fact, the fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy (4:5) of an Elijah-like prophet was proclaimed to the nation.

The synoptists saw even more symbolic truth of this kind in the rough simple fare which he subsisted on. In the Bible, honey is symbolic of wisdom, human (Lev. 2:11; Pr. 25:16,27) or divine (Pr. 24:13; Ps. 19:10; 119:103; Rev. 10:9). John’s words were wisdom from God, free from any human modification or “refinement”. And was it not “wild honey” which enabled another John, the friend of David, to smite the Philistines? (1 Sam. 14:27-30).

John’s primitive diet quietly rebuked the obsession of the affluent, then and now, with food and drink. Perhaps the godly were reminded of the prophet Joel’s vivid use of a locust invasion (1:4; 2:1-11) to describe the inevitable divine judgment which must one day come on this people. And could they fail to be reminded also of Joel’s ringing call to repentance (2:12-17)?

A Message from the Old Testament

To all this symbolism was added the point-blank witness of Holy Scripture. John himself asserted unequivocally (Jn. 1:23) that he was the fulfilment of the majestic prophecy they were so familiar with in Isaiah 40. All four gospels make this their main point about John. There is no need to spend time arguing whether the words should read as in the A.V. or be re-punctuated to preserve the Hebrew parallelism: “In the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord.” The Hebrew and Greek texts allow of either. On reflection the meaning is seen to be essentially the same both ways.

But what is the meaning? Is the picture that of a diligent preparing of roads suitable for the visit of a king? Or is the idea rather that of a people preparing to meet their God by a return to Him in contrite humility? One phrase in Isaiah 40 appears to be decisive: “Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand …” For this coming the people must make themselves ready. Here, then, was a re-statement of John’s function as a herald of the Messiah.

He insisted that Messiah’s kingdom was at hand: “The kingdom of God (of heaven) has drawn near.” Yet now, two thousand years later, that kingdom has not yet come-its coming is certain but is as yet without accomplishment. On this problem here are two worthwhile comments:

“Had the nation (of Israel) continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came, received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem, King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, p.30], 11th ed.).

“He (God) makes the accomplishment of His declared purposes wait upon the prayers of His people” (R.R. in Nazareth Revis. p.16 )-and therefore upon their repentance.

But in this interpretation the way must be left open for the other idea, for in so many places in Isaiah the picture is that of a people returning from bondage, glad to seek again the fellowship of their God: “Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people” (57:14). “I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. . .They shall be turned back (i.e. repentant), they shall be greatly ashamed” (42:15-17).

Isaiah, always Isaiah

John called for a complete reversal of existing standards-valleys filled, mountains and hills to be made low, that is, an end to religious privilege, Jewry on the same level before God as all the rest of the world (cp. Is. 41:15-18; 2:12-15-the same symbolism). In the Hebrew text “the crooked shall be made straight” reads almost like: “Jacob shall be made Israel”, and it was precisely this which John sought to achieve.

Isaiah’s “Comfort ye!” also means “Repent ye!” Clearly, this is how John read his main proof-text (it is there in Mat. 3:7c also). And to this imperative he also added: “Believe” (Acts 19:4). Moreover, Isaiah (and John) foretold what a national repentance of Israel might accomplish: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh (the Gentiles included) shall see it together.” Here the LXX version reads: “shall see the salvation (the Jesus!) of God” (and in Is. 52:9,10), and this is adopted by Luke in his citation of the passage. The saving of those who are flesh, tne mere grass and flowers of the field, is the manifestation of the glory of the Lord—this is His Glory, His greatest work.

Isaiah continues, and no doubt John preached (because this Scripture specially was his text): “the grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God (Jesus, the Word made flesh) shall rise, shall be raised, for ever” (the Hebrew text uses the word for resurrection). So John taught the people to be expectant. With Isaiah, he said to the cities of Judah: “Behold, your God”—and he pointed them to one who would “feed his flock like a shepherd, and gather the lambs with his arm.”

So completely did Isaiah anticipate John’s work as a herald that Mark introduces his account of the Baptist with a masterly “confusion” of his prophetic sources: “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the way before thee” (1:2). But this quotation is from Malachi 3:1. To be sure, it is followed immediately by the familar words of Isaiah 40. But why should Mark apparently attribute Malachi’s words to Isaiah, also? A simple answer is that this is Mark’s way of expressing his conviction that the Malachi prophecy was not independent but rather was a conscious comment on or expansion of the words of Isaiah. That Mark knew that he was putting together passages from two different prophets is clear from the fact that his Malachi quotation follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (with one small significant change) whilst the words of Isaiah are the LXX Greek text verbatim.

The Isaiah prophecy is referred to (Mt. Lk) as “spoken” by the prophet. This is with reference to “the voice in the wilderness”. In the primary meaning of the prophecy, that voice was Isaiah himself. And now the “spoken word” descends from God upon His messenger John (Lk).

When the apostle John includes the Isaiah quote (1:23), he seems deliberately to switch from the LXX to a different Greek verb, as though to make allusion to Joshua’s last appeal for repentance in Israel: “Put away the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel” (24:23).

Austere, but gracious

Though John may have been dour and exacting in his demands for a drastic change of heart in Jewry, there was yet something gracious and encouraging and understanding about him. “Prepare ye the way of the Lord”, was his imperative, the Greek form of the verb requiring immediate and decisive action. But there was nothing rigid about his teaching; no spiritual strait-jacket, this. “Make his paths straight”. So whilst there was only one way of the Lord, there were several paths by which a man might draw near. But the word for “paths” means “worn tracks”. In other words, the recognized well-established ways of religion in Israel were devious. They needed to be “made straight” (Pr. 4:26 RVm).

And whilst “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” carried a solemn implication of the coming of a Judge, there was also the gracious call to experience the remission of sins through the rite of baptism which he offered. Both Mark and Luke give prominence to this, but Matthew carefully leaves it out, presumably because it is his purpose to follow on immediately with a detailed account of the baptism of Jesus, and the juxtaposition of these ideas might convey wrong impressions that Jesus, like all the rest, needed remission of sins.

(It will be shown in the next study that in all essentials John’s baptism was an anticipation of Christian baptism. For the present, attention is directed to Lk. 1:77; Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38.)

The great Isaiah 40 prophecy is, of course, a proper corrective of this misconception (that Jesus needed to have sins forgiven). It calls his work “the way of Jehovah”; it bids men prepare “a highway for our God”. And Mark’s use of Malachi is made with a significant change of pronoun. “Prepare the way before me, the Lord of hosts” becomes: “Prepare thy way before thee”. Those familiar with the doctrine of God-manifestation in Christ find no problem here. (See “He is risen indeed”, p. 73,74).

Disciples of all Kinds

The people turned out in crowds to hear the preaching of John. “Jerusalem and all Judaea”, writes Matthew, with evident allusion to John’s text in Isaiah (40:2,9). But much of this attention was fashionable curiosity regarding this man who was so different, so peremptory in his demands, and so sure of the divine authority of his message. To those who came in sincerity he taught a humble repudiation of any spirit of self-justification.

Concerning evil practices now to be put away he encouraged open confession (s.w. Acts 19:18)-to himself or before all the rest? He brought his disciples to the waters of baptism, there to reject their old way of life and to consecrate themselves to the service of the Messiah, now about to be manifested. Thus within a short time-probably a matter of months only—he built up a solid body of disciples who accepted his reforming spirit into their lives.

But there were others who came in a different frame of mind. These included Pharisees and Sadducees to whom any spirit of true self-abnegation was altogether foreign. Some of these, it is certain, were an official deputation from the religious authorities in Jerusalem, enquiring into the bona fides of this new prophet (Jn. 1:19). The findings of this commission were never published, for they could find nothing amiss with either the man or the message, and in later days Jesus reproached them openly for their lack of candour in their official attitude concerning John (Mk. 11:27-33).

Also it may be surmised that some of these religious leaders who came to John’s baptism were feigning discipleship. The real motive of these evil men was to join the new movement in pretence, with the deliberate intention of wrecking it later on from within. This was the policy they followed with the early church after the ascension of Jesus, and with no little success (e.g. Gal. 2:4). John saw through their pretensions at once, and roundly castigated them for it: “Generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (1 Th. 1:10; 2:16 Rom. 1:18). Perhaps his figure is that of snakes sliding rapidly through the undergrowth before the fierce heat of an advancing fire. But more likely John here labelled them as the seed of the serpent (Ps. 58:3-5), which in the guise of friendly adviser wrought such evil in Eden. The Messiah, the promised Seed of the woman, is soon to be manifested, John warned them, to crush in the head not only the serpent but all his evil brood (Gen. 3:15). This kind of application of the primeval prophecy is to be traced right through the New Testament-in John’s gospel and first epistle, in several of Paul’s letters, and on into Revelation.

To these men who came to him full of confidence in their own spiritual qualifications John put a peremptory demand for immediate repentance (the Greek has an aorist imperative here) and for a life of practical godliness which would make their change of heart evident not only to God but also to men.

All self-esteem must be let go. “Think not to say within yourselves (the Greek verb implies cock-sureness), we have Abraham to our father.” These men, the seed of Eden’s serpent, preened themselves on having the blood of Abraham in their veins, as though that fact could in itself make them spiritually acceptable to God. The Talmud has this: “A single Israelite is of more worth in God’s sight than all the nations of the world.” True, of course, regarding a true i Israelite but not true of these self-righteous _t charlatans.

A year or two later Christ’s counter to this ,attitude was: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (Jn. 8:39,44). The Baptist’s more withering retort was: ‘I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” It has been suggested that as he spoke John pointed to the cairn of twelve great stones which had been lifted from the bed of the Jordan when Israel crossed into the Land of Promise (Mt. 3:9; Josh. 4:3).

There is a hint here that John spoke in Aramaic, or even in Hebrew, making a play on the words for “sons” and “stones”. But there was no light-hearted joke. John’s words carried a grim message to these who vaunted their national privilege. In effect, he declared all Jewry excommunicated. To be accepted by God, every man jack of them must start life afresh in His sight, rising as a new creature from the waters of baptism, and disowning by repentance the old way of life. It may be that John’s allusion was not to Joshua’s cairn, but to “these stones”-the slabs which sealed the tombs in that vicinity, pointing well the lesson that before a man can live unto God he must first die; and this John bade them do in the waters of baptism.

Again the message came from Isaiah: “Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord (note the irony here!): consider the rock whence ye are hewn, and the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Consider Abraham your father, and Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him” (51:1,2). The point here is easy to grasp. There must be no pride in descent from Abraham, for if God called this holy couple, aged, childless, sterile, and made them into a great nation, He could do the same again-and will! For the context in Isaiah goes on to foretell the passing of the Mosaic order and the acceptance of Gentiles as seed of Abraham (v.4-8).

Vivid Metaphors

John’s warnings of impending judgment were couched in terms of two figures of speech, both culled from his favourite Isaiah. There is the picture of the lumberman shaping up with his keenly-sharpened axe precisely where the first cut shall be made for the felling of a fruitless tree (Mt.7:19;Lk. 13:7-9; Jn. 15:6). Or possibly this figure had another slant. The temple was garnished with wonderful carved work-trees large as life (1 Kgs. 6:29). It is conceivable that these pseudo-religious Pharisees and Sadducees thought of themselves as “palm trees … planted in the house of the Lord” (Ps. 92:12,13). In that case, John’s warning is a reminder of a prophecy in the Psalms of a time when men would both literally and figuratively “break down the carved work thereof with axes and hammers” and “cast fire into the sanctuary” (74:6,7).

John talked also about the threshing and winnowing of the corn, followed by the fierce blaze of burning chaff. (The temple area was a threshing floor! 2 Sam. 24:18ff). It was customary to separate wheat and chaff with the use of a large shovel called a fan. By means of this the threshed wheat was cast up into the air against the wind. The light chaff was blown down-wind, whilst the heavier grain fell to the ground near at hand. Thus the wind (or, spirit) of the Lord separated the good from the worthless. Then the chaff was burned with a blaze which was inextinguishable until there was nothing left to burn (Jer. 23:28,29). In this sense, and not in any mediaeval hell-fire sense, the fire was unquenchable.

These two figures-of trees to be cut down (literally: cut out), and of chaff to be burned to ashes-are intermingled in the prophets, as they were also in John’s admonitory preaching:

“Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Is. 5:24).

“Behold, I will make thee a sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them, and the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter them” (41:15,16).

“For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble. . .that it shall leave them neither root nor branch” (Mal. 4:1 and 3:2,3).

John may even have been implying that Messiah would deal with the unworthy as with the mighty oppressors of Israel-”like the chaff of the summer threshing floor, the wind (the Spirit) carrying them away that no place be found for them” (Dan. 2:35).

Fire or fire!

John’s preaching was not all minatory. There was also the winsome appeal of the blessings which Messiah would bring. It is remarkable that John chose to emphasize, not the alluring pictures painted by the Old Testament prophets of the Messianic Age, but another of Isaiah’s prophecies: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, (even) with fire” (Mt. 3:11). Thus John set alternatives before the people-either Messiah’s fire of regeneration, or Messiah’s unquenchable fire of destruction. It must be one or the other.

Isaiah and his contemporaries had the same choice set before them-either the purging of sin by a coal from the altar, brought by one of the Lord’s “fiery ones” (6:6,7) or the fire of judgment devouring the stubble (5:24). By and by Jesus himself was to bid men make their choice: “Every one shall be salted (as a sacrifice; Ley. 2:13) for the fire (of God’s altar);” the alternative-a Gehenna of fire “where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched” (Mk. 9:48,49).

To this day the issue is unchanged. Either the zeal of God’s house eats a man up, like the flame of the altar of consecration, or else the Lord is revealed to him in the Last Day in flaming fire, taking vengeance because he knows not God (2 Th. 1:8,9). Is there really any other alternative?

“Is he the Messiah?”

In everything John pointed men away from himself and towards the coming Messiah. “He is mightier than I … coming after me, he is preferred before me.” I am not worthy to baptize him. Even “his shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose (as he prepares for baptism), not worthy to bear them” (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:7;Jn. 1:15).

It is possible that by this figure of speech John was alluding to the Mosaic practice of loosing the sandal of one who refused his brother’s widow a (evirate marriage, thus proclaiming: ‘The Law is dead. The One who comes after me will raise up true seed to Israel. There will be no reproach possible against him.’ If this idea is correct, John was also implying that there was room for ample reproach of this kind against the priests and rabbis.

John’s campaign set the people in a state of high expectation. “All men (of every kind and character) mused in their hearts, whether he were the Christ or not.” This statement by Luke (3:15) is altogether mvstifying. Had not John explicitly disavowed all Messianic claims? Had he not plainly proclaimed himself a forerunner? And was he not a Levitical priest, with no descent from David? And since the Messiah was universally expected to be a mighty King of the Jews, how could they possibly assign such a role to John? Perhaps there was a school of thought which considered the possiblity of Messiah’s manifestation first of all in a much humbler role. The word “mused”—RV: reasoned-is almost always used in a bad sense, here perhaps hinting at Luke’s depreciation of the biblical ignorance behind these speculations. Soon John was driven to say explicitly: “I am not the Christ” (Jn. 1:20).

Counsel in Godliness

Some among the people received John’s exhortations with deep seriousness of purpose. “What then must we do?” they asked of him in response to his demand for repentance. Obsessed by the ideal of salvation by works, they pressed their enquiry: “What must we do?”

The replies which John gave to the various types of individual who recognized the need for reformation are not to be interpreted as being the gospel which he preached, but rather as examples of how the repentant spirit which he called for should express itself in what is nowadays called “practical Christianity”.

“He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none.” It was a doctrine which found little expression in Jewry, and almost none at all in the pagan world outside. Thus John stressed personal responsibility (in the spirit of the Good Samaritan) for social problems with which there is personal contact—a striking contrast with the formal institutionalised soul-less benevolence which the 20th century specialises in.

And here already, in anticipation of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, was a big emphasis on faith as the virtue which specially commends a man to God. For in those days when insurance was unknown and national health or national security schemes not even thought of, it called for real faith to believe that God would not let a man down when he tried to live in such an altruistic spirit. God is never in debt to any man, but remarkably few have the faith to believe this.

Publicans were among those who took John’s message seriously. With lively and uneasy consciences they sought his guidance, hoping doubtless that he would view with tolerance their alliance for profit’s sake with the hated Roman master-race. There is nothing amiss in itself with tax-collecting, said John, anticipating the teaching of his Master (Mt. 22:21), but you shall be tax-gatherers of a kind the world has never seen as yet-fair and reasonable, free from all rapacity. John may even have meant: ‘Collect only the sums demanded by your Roman masters. Do not add any overheads or personal surcharge for your own pockets which are already well-lined. You have already plundered the people so much that you can easlily live for the rest of your days on what you have already amassed.’

Was Matthew one of these publicans, being made ready for the better life he was soon to lead? Zaccheus in Jericho almost certainly heard this call to sanctified government service, and doubtless had many a sleepless night because of it.

Soldiers also were constantly among those who were drawn by the magnetism of this rough single-minded preacher. These men were nationalist irregulars preparing to help Barabbas in his bid for power. With three concise commandments John shot their insurrection fervour to fragments:

“Do violence to no man” (he used a word which pointedly suggests political revolution). Abandon all idea of either guerilla fighting or open war against the Roman regime, no matter how much you hate it.

Nor must you turn against those who choose to co-operate with Rome. “Neither accuse any falsely.” Cease your campaign of lies and vilification against your rulers and against all who work with them.

“Be content with your wages.” Settle down to a quiet orderly life, and cease your struggle centred on materialism and politics.

Again, all this was a remarkable anticipation of the principles of the Sermon on the Mount.

Even harlots sensed that they could find on Jordan’s banks solace for their souls and wise guidance for a new and better life (Mt. 21:32), but what John said to them is not recorded. It may be readily surmised.

John’s stirring call was heard and its power felt throughout the nation, specially in Nazareth, and even much further afield than that, for evidently some of the Dispersion who came to Jerusalem for the Feasts were drawn by the news of this preacher, and then went home to pass his message on to others (Acts 13:24,25; 18:25; 19:1-7).

“And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people” (Lk). What other things? There was the open rebuke of the vicious life of Herod (3:19). There was encouragement of his close disciples in the art of prayer (11:1), and doubtless a good deal more instruction was educed from Isaiah 40 (and later chapters) and from Malachi 3,4—the prophecies which were so pointedly about himself.

By all these means the way was being prepared.

And the signal reached not only the people but also the King in his obscurity.

Failure

Yet the sorry fact has to be faced that John’s mission turned into failure.

“The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized of him” (Lk. 7:30). “Why did ye not then believe him?” (Mt. 21:25).

“He (John) was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing tor a season to rejoice in his light” (Jn. 5:35)

The parable of the unclean spirit cast out and later returning with seven more worse than himself (Mt. 12:43-45) is a picture of the evanescent repentance and renewed corruption of “this wicked generation”.

“Elias is come already, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise also shall the Son of man suffer of them” (Mt. 17:12).

‘If ye will receive him, this is Elias which was for to come … John came neither eating nor drinking,and they say, he hath a devil” (Mt. 11:14,18). Compare also: Ez. 33:31,32.

Josephus’ Account of John the Baptist

“Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when others came to crowd about him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I mentioned, and was there put to death.” (Ant. 18.5.2). Here it is interesting to note:

1. how completely Josephus misunderstood the meaning of baptism;
2. that he believed the characteristic Greek body/soul dichotomy;
3. that he assigns a hopelessly wrong reason for the imprisonment of John.

Notes: Matthew 3:1-12.

Mark 1:2-8

Luke 3:1-18

John the Baptist and Isaiah

Why does the story of Gentile wise men honouring Jesus come in Matthew, the most Jewish gospel, when it would seem to be so much more appropriate to the theme of Luke’s gospel? The answer is:

Matthew wrote with his eye on one of the most tricky problems the early church had to face—how to fuse into one the two very different communities of Jewish and Gentile believers. So of course he had to include this superb episode. How better could he commend Gentiles to Jews than by a story such as this?

That they were Gentiles is evident from their ignorance of the Micah prophecy (v.5,6) which all Jewry knew (Jn. 7:42). It is also implied by their use of the expression: “King of the Jews”, for every New Testament occurrence of this phrase comes from a Gentile.

Errors Galore

Probably no part of the Bible narrative is so cluttered up with popular misconceptions as this is. These Magi are represented as being kings, but Matthew does not say so. They are supposed to be three in number, presumably because they presented three gifts, but again Matthew does not say three. Certain of the early fathers guessed that there were twelve of them, but that seems less likely.

They are commonly thought of as following the star all the way from their distant home, as it led them through deserts and forests, over mountains and across rivers. Yet Matthew’s record distinctly says that they saw the star in the east, and again after they left Herod. There is no hint of its continual guidance throughout their journey. Nor was the “star” either star or planet in the normal astronomical sense of the term. Nor is it likely that it guided them to Bethlehem; Mary and Joseph had surely left Bethlehem long before this, for at the time of their coming Jesus was no longer in his cradle but an active young toddler. In any case, would the wise men need a special heavenly guidance to show them the road to Bethlehem?

An Error Corrected

It may be well to settle this last point first, and the rest can be sorted out as examination of the narrative proceeds.

The very fact that dastardly Herod appointed that all the babies under the age of two should be butchered, “according to the time that he had diligently enquired of the wise men” (Mt. 2:16)-this, by itself, is sufficient indication that the Christmas-card pictures of the wise men worshipping the new-born baby, side by side with the shepherds, are sadly in error. Also the record says plainly (v. 11) that the family was in a house, not in a cave or stable or inn. Also, the word used by Matthew here means “a young child, a little boy” by contrast with Luke’s expression (2:12) meaning “a babe in arms”. Lastly, there is the undeniable fact of the sharp poverty of Mary and Joseph, witnessed by their offering for Mary’s cleansing-forty days after Jesus was born-two young pigeons, a special concession to the poorest of the people. Yet nothing is more certain than this, that if such devout people had been able to offer a lamb, they would have done so. It may be inferred, therefore, that the precious gifts including gold, out of the wise men’s “treasures” were not in their possession at this time. Also, after the visit of the wise men would it not be too dangerous for Joseph and Mary to appear in Jerusalem?

From Babylon?

Where did these wise men come from? And how did they know that the appearance of the star signified the birth of a King of the Jews? Answers to these questions are necessarily guess-work.

The most plausible suggestion is that they came from Babylon. In the Old Testament this term Magi is associated with Babylon’ (e.g. Jeremiah 39:3,13). It would be a very natural thing for Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy about Messiah the Prince to be passed on to succeeding generations there (note Dan. 5:11). That period of 490 years was now drawing to its close, as many students of the Scriptures must have known. If, also, that prophecy had come to be associated with another about “a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre out of Israel” (Num. 24:17), there would be here adequate basis for the conviction in these men that the Jews’ Messianic expectations were soon to be fulfilled. The appearance of an altogether unusual celestial phenomenon-the Chaldeans, let it be remembered, were excellent astronomers -would convince them that the time was at hand. There may be a hint of their dependence on Messianic prophecies in the Greek expression for “the east”. The LXX uses the same word to describe Messiah the Branch (Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Jer. 23:5; cp. Lk. 1:78 mg).

The “Star”

So they came to Jerusalem, seeking the King, and perhaps somewhat mystified that the entire nation was not in a state of excitement over the appearance of Messiah’s star. But, of course, it was not a star at all. A good deal of guesswork and a tremendous amount of futile mathematical computation has gone into attempts to establish that this star was a brilliant nova, or the planet Venus, or the conjunction of two, or maybe three, major planets. All such approaches fall down badly over one simple fact: the star “came and stood over where the young child was”. In other words, it guided the wise men to the very spot. But if at the same moment two people ten miles apart both attempt to identify the star which is immediately overhead, they will both pick the same star-this because of the fantastically great distances between the stars and the earth, compared with their negligibly small base line. This consideration by itself dictates the conclusion that, whatever the star was, it hung comparatively low down in the sky, say, as low as the flight of a helicopter-this, at least. Thus all astronomy is ruled out.

The best alternative suggestion is that it was another manifestation of the Shekinah Glory, which had already appeared, more proximately, to the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem. Here was a primary fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 60: “Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee … the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and fangs to the brightness of thy rising (the word for “east” in Matthew 2 also means “rising”)… they shall bring gold and frankincense, and they shall shew forth the praises of the Lord” (60:1-3,6). This prophecy hints at “myrrh” also, for the Hebrew text of the last phrase sounds like: “his drinking of myrrh shall shew the Lord” although the AV translation is correct. Here, in Isaiah 60, was evidently the Scripture, known to the wise men, which dictated their journey.

If the star of the wise men were the Shekinah Glory (see further note on v.7), it becomes easy to see why there was no excitement in the rest of the populace and no attempt by others to follow the star as the wise men did. On an earlier noteworthy occasion the Glory of the Lord was “a cloud and darkness” to the Egyptians, but “it gave light by night” to Israel (Ex. 14:20).

The same kind of thing could well have happened in Judaea.

Herod the Monster

Herod the Great-”great in energy, in magnificence, and in wickedness”-was much disturbed at the news of the birth of another King of the Jews, and he decided immediately on drastic precautionary measures. This was characteristic of the man, for he was one of the most evil and cruel men who ever lived. He had not always been like this, but in his old age at the slightest breath of suspicion he thought nothing of having even faithful servants and close relatives tortured or butchered. To live anywhere near Herod the Great was to live in peril. And now he was set on the speedy elimination of this latest threat to the security of his throne, trivial though it might seem. For these reasons “all Jerusalem was troubled with him”. The people were immediately fearful about Herod’s reactions to the news. Another holocaust?

His first problem was to find the new-born King. Since the wise men did not know, Herod could only turn to the priests and scribes for their interpretation of the ancient prophecise. The mentality of the man is not easy to understand. Apparently he fully believed that a Messiah had been foretold and that all the details written concerning him would be accurately fulfilled. Yet at the same time he did not appear to doubt his own ability to destroy this divine child before ever the prophecies of his royalty could be fulfilled. Even if the control of heaven should be demonstrated by prophecies of Messiah’s birth being fulfilled to the letter, he-Herod the Great-would see to it that divine omnipotence should not accomplish the rest. “Herod, what aileth thee?” In any case, what difference would it make to Herod if there were a new King of the Jews in a Bethlehem cradle, for Herod, now seventy and rotten with disease, would be dead and gone long before he came to maturity!

The learned men called together by Herod can hardly have been a full assembly of the Sanhedrin, for the king had lately had most of them slaughtered for their refusal to pronounce that Deuteronomy 17:15 did not invalidate his kingship. Regarding this present enquiry the rabbinic scholars were quite definite and emphatic in their opinions: The King of the Jews is to be born in Bethlehem; and, lest there by any doubt about it, (for there was another Bethlehem away north in Zebulun; Josh 19:15), this was to be Bethlehem in Judah, so Micah’s prophecy (5:2) declared explicitly. Of course, the royal Son of David must be born in the city of David.

The Micah quotation, as repeated in Matthew 2:6, is not without its problems:

• Does the Micah context really have anything to do with the birth of Christ? It was written primarily with reference to Hezekiah and his times, but once that fine man is seen as a remarkably detailed type of Christ (“Hezekiah the Great”, by H.A.W.), this difficulty shrinks considerably.
• Why the omission of “Ephratah” (= fruitful)? Its inclusion would surely have been very appropriate?
• “Little among the thousands of Judah” becomes “not least among the princes.” Here is an example of the word for “thousand” being used (by metonymy) for “captain or leader of a thousand or maybe of a family or squad of men” (see Wenham: “The Big Numbers of the Old Testament”). David, it is to be remembered, was the youngest of the sons of Jesse. Was the negative included in the quote to fend off Herod’s scorn? Or to imply that Bethlehem was upgraded by the birth of Messiah?- no longer the least!
• The Hebrew text has “come forth unto me (Jehovah),” implying that Messiah would be Son of God. It is Micah’s counterpart (along with 4: 9,10) to Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth (7: 14).
• “that shall rule (more correctly: shepherd) my people Israel” is a quotation added from 2 Samuel 5:2. It was appropriate enough as a prophecy of the ministry of Jesus, yet to come, and even more of his benign kingdom.

Why were these men of rabbinic scholarship ready to give Herod such precise information? They knew him well enough, and must have realised the purpose of his enquiries. Evidently they were reluctant to talk, for Herod “kept on demanding” (v.4 Gk.) where Messiah’s birthplace might be.

Is it not remarkable that these religious leaders did not betake themselves to Bethlehem as fast as they could go, to greet their new King? Too great a fear of Herod? But perhaps they did go-and failed in their search.

Very probably, also, as commentary on the wise men’s story of the appearance of an unusual star, one of those Bible scholars quoted another prophecy: “There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab . . . and Edom shall be a possession …” (Num. 24:17,18). Herod was an Edomite, so knowledge of such a prophecy would alarm him all the more and strengthen his resolution to thwart its accomplishment.

Guided – whither?

So, feigning a godly zeal to match that of the wise men, he asked the specific time of the star’s appearing (as though intent on some astrological divination), and he bade them share with him the secret of their discovery when they should return from Bethlehem. Eagerly they set out once again, confident that their search would soon be ended, “Herod … secretly smiling at their diligent devotion, whilst God in heaven laughed at his dissimulation”-so blithely comments Tom Fuller (17th century).

It is only a few miles along a well-travelled road, from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. No guidance whatever was needed. Yet, no sooner were they away from Herod’s palace than they saw the “star” again. The only possible inference is that at this time Jesus was no longer in Bethlehem, and these wise men had to be steered in a completely different direction. Whither? To Hebron? or north to Nazareth?

Worship and Offerings

The Greek text is beautifully emphatic in its description of the gladness of the wise men when they saw the “star” once again: “they rejoiced a great joy exceedingly”. By the aid of the “star” they were guided continuously and unerringly to the very house where Jesus was to be found. Here, rejoicing more than ever, they prostrated themselves before the holy child. It was a different kind of worship from that which regularly goes on in many a family as it takes delight in the winsome ways of its baby. By this time Jesus was probably talking. One wonders what he attempted to say to these impressive visitors.

The Magi laid before him gifts which they had brought. It is usually assumed that these had been decided upon and carefully prepared before they left their homes in the east. But the form of the text-”when they had opened their treasures”-rather suggests that they chose out from the variety of valuable commodities they carried with them those which they deemed to be most suitable—gold, frankincense and myrrh.

It is probably a mistake to seek a separate meaning behind these three gifts. The significance of the three is one and the same, for gold, frankincense and myrrh are all associated with the High Priest-he had on his forehead a golden plate: Holy to the Lord (Ex. 28:36), and in the sanctuary he carried a golden censer where incense burned, frankincense being the main ingredient (Ex. 30:34); also, his high priesthood began with his anointing with the holy oil in which myrrh was an essential element (Ex. 30:23). If this is correct, then, with extraordinary insight, these Gentile worshippers thus made glad acknowledgment that this new King of the Jews was also to be a “priest offer the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4).

Flight

Herod’s evil intentions, whether or not they were read by the wise men, were bound to be frustrated, for it was written concerning this baby Messiah: “He shall give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up… surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler” (Ps. 91:11,3). However, when these godly men were ready to depart, they prayed to heaven for guidance (so the Greek of v.12 seems to imply), and were bidden ignore Herod and return home without delay. In the LXX version the word translated “they departed” almost always has the idea of flight. In modern slang, “they cleared out”. The same word comes again in verses 13,14,22, with the same idea inherent in it.

It was not sufficient to have frustrated Herod in his immediate design. So warped was the mind of this crafty beastly old man that for Joseph and his family to stay in the country was now quite out of question. Sooner or later Herod’s gestapo would track them down. So another dream bade them flee to Egypt for safety.

It is interesting here to observe how Mary and her little Jesus quite dominate the story, although in its action they are quite passive: “the young child and his mother”-never once “your wife and child”! The phrase recurs five times. Doubtless safety could have been achieved by other means. A legion of angels could have been permanently encamped round the home of these for whom the God of heaven had special love and regard. But this is not His way. As nearly as possible the Son of God was to face life as son of man, and this from his earliest days.

So there was flight into Egypt, in order that before long God might call His Son out of Egypt, as He had called Israel out of Egypt in ancient days. Not a few, including some who should know better, find difficulty in Matthew’s quotation from Hosea 11:1. The passage, they assert, certainly refers to Israel’s deliverance in the time of Moses, and equally certainly has nothing to do with Joseph and his precious charges seeking refuge in Egypt. Such an outlook lacks insight into the subtlety of Bible prophecy. Do men, and especially those who profess a good understanding of the gospel, have to deem their own human standard of judgement more dependable than that of inspired prophets and evangelists?

Another prophecy of similar character, which Matthew might well have quoted is Psalm 80: “Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the Gentiles (the death of Herod!), and planted it (the Branch) . . . the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the Branch that thou modest strong for thyself… Let thy hand be upon the Man of thy right hand, upon the Son of man, whom thou modest strong for thyself” (v.8,15,17).

Israel was a vine which God discarded (Ez.l5:6). Instead, there was Jesus the True Vine (Jn.l5: 1).

He was the beginning of a New Israel, and from time to time the gospels are found hinting at or openly asserting a parallel with the experiences of ancient Israel, first in the life of Jesus and later (in the rest of the New Testament) in the life of the early church. Once this feature is recognized, is there any serious difficulty in Matthew’s quotation from Hosea?

Herod makes sure

Herod, that personification of human pride and cruelty, was robbed of the prey he sought. Within thirty-six hours no trace was to be found of either wise men or Messiah’s family.

It soon dawned on the king that the seekers from the east had let him down; in fact, as he saw it, they had “played tricks with him, made a fool of him” (Gk). This king of the earth had taken counsel against the Lord and against His anointed, but the Lord had him in derision. So other drastic and more comprehensive plans became necessary. The king’s only clue was that supplied by the chief priests-Bethlehem. From what the wise men had said it was a year or more since the strange sign of the Son of Man had been seen in the sky. So, allowing a good margin for error, Herod resolved that every boy in Bethlehem up to the age of two should die. And not only in Bethlehem but in the countryside round it. Had Herod heard the story of the shepherds? What did he care if it meant the fiendish slaughter of (at most) a couple of dozen harmless little boys? Was he not king, to do as he pleased? And were they not mere Jews? Thus, once again, Esau persecuted Jacob. It had happened in former days (Gen. 27:41; 1 Sam. 21:7). The next generation was to continue the tradition (Mk. 6:17; Lk. 13:31; 23:11; Acts 12:7); and the twentieth century is to see it enacted once again, more vilely than ever (Obad. 9-14; Joel 3:19; Ez. 35:5,6; Ps. 83:4,6).

This evil business at Bethlehem is underlined by Matthew with another of his characteristic citations from the Old Testament, which perhaps more than any other has been written off as a palpable misapplication of Scripture. But is that really so?

“In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children… “ (from Jer. 31:15). The difficulty has been made worse by an almost universal identification with the wrong Ramah. It is not the Ramah of Samuel, a few miles north-by-west of Jerusalem, but Ramath-Rachel, the burial place of Jacob’s wife, only a mile or so north of Bethlehem.

“Give me children, or else I die”, Rachel had very exaggeratedly lamented to her husband (Gen. 30:1). So God gave her children-and she died, bringing forth “a son of sorrow” who was to become “Son of God’s right hand” (35:18,19).

In Jeremiah’s day it seemed that the nation was being destroyed, but God’s man of faith was carried off to Egypt, his life being given him for a prey, until the day when God called him out of Egypt. Read thus, Matthew’s quote from Jer. 31:15 is perhaps not as freakish as it has been made out to be.

The lamentation and weeping in Bethlehem was heard through the land. But it carried further than that, for, as one writer very aptly puts it, “this was a sin crying to heaven for vengeance.” In his unique style Fuller describes it thus: “Here no pen can express the mothers’ sorrows for their children; whilst one stood amazed, as if she had lost her son and her senses together; another bleeds out sorrow in her eyes, to prevent festering in her heart; a third vents her passions in exclamations, and it gives her some ease, though she could not recall her dead child, to call him tyrant that murdered it. All their mourning going several ways, meet in one common misery.” Fuller goes on to refer to these slaughtered babies as “the infantry of the noble army of martyrs”. Yet this “was a small affair in Herod’s career . . . Incredible?

Anything is credible of the man who murdered his own wife and sons” (Exp. Gk. Test.).

No one was sorry when, a short time later (in B.C. 4 actually, by our current system of reckoning), Herod died in misery, full of diseases and vindictive to the end against everyone. The Jews made the day of his death a permanent feast day. And this was the man who had supplied all the resources for the rebuilding of their temple!

Return from Egypt

The news of his death soon reached Egypt, but it was only when encouraged by a further divine revelation that Joseph determined to return to Judaea. Evidently the intention was to settle in Bethlehem or near to Zacharias and Elisabeth, but then they heard that Augustus Caesar had divided up the country between three of Herod’s sons, and Archelaus, the worst of the whole bunch, was the new ruler of Judaea. Matthew’s word means “reign as king”. But when Archelaus went to Rome seeking confirmation of the title, Caesar demoted him to tetrarch. “It is remarkable how near the Evangelists often seem to be to an inaccuracy, while yet closer inspection shows them to be, in these very points, minutely accurate” (Farrar).

‘Better to be Herod’s pig than his son’, Augustus is reported to have said, making a pun on the two Greek words. The quip was intended as a censure on Herod. But Archelaus was no better. At his first passover he had three thousand Jews massacred in the temple, No wonder, then, that Joseph was scared of what might befall on their return. These Herods had long memories. So God made a concession to his fears. Another dream bade him keep away from Archelaus. Plans were changed, and instead Joseph and his family returned to Nazareth in the territory of Herod Antipas.

Yet another prophecy

Strictly, this precaution was hardly necessary, for had not the angel said to Joseph: “They (who else besides Herod?) are dead which sought the young child’s life”? Archelaus need not be feared. However, the diversion to Nazareth became also the means of fulfilment of another Old Testament prophecy: “He shall be called a Nazarene”-or so Matthew asserts.

But there is no known Scripture which has these words! Was Matthew alluding to an oral tradition which had never been included in the written Word? This is the solution supplied by some, putting emphasis on “that which was spoken by the prophets.” The intention cannot have been to make Jesus into a Nazirite like John the Baptist, for Jesus was not this, except in spirit.

It can be safely argued that the words quoted by Matthew were not known or understood by many, or Nazareth would not have been despised as it was. Therefore it is far more likely that the allusion is to Isaiah 11:1: “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots”. Nazareth means “the city of the Branch”. Evidently Matthew saw in Nazareth as the home town of Jesus the fore-shadowing of a yet greater fulfilment of that prophecy. It is rather remarkable that in September (when Jesus was born?), the sun is in the constellation of Virgo, the first of the signs of the zodiac. From very ancient times the Virgin is represented with a Branch in her hand. One of the chief stars in Virgo was called Al Zimach, i.e. Tsemach, the Branch.

But this thing was spoken by “prophets”-plural! Which prophets? The Hebrew word which makes “Nazareth” also means “preserved” (how marvellously appropriate here to one kept safe from the wrath of Herod!), and it is used in more than one prophecy regarding the Messiah (e.g. Gen. 49:26; Ps. 40:11; Is. 49:8).

So Jesus grew up in Nazareth. But the nation had already made up its mind long ago about that place: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (Jn. 1:46; cp. 1 Kgs. 9.13). Already it was settled: “There is no beauty in him that we should desire him.” As one ancient commentator puts it, “he was in some degree veiled, as it were, by the name of Nazarene, that faith might not lose its price.”

Notes: Matthew 2:1 –

The formal naming of the baby Jesus took place at the time of his circumcision on the eighth day (Lk. 2:21). Until that time Mary probably called him her Immanuel. But now “his name also was called Jesus” (v.21; Gk text). It would not have been amiss, in a way, if the baby’s name had been Joseph, “after the name of his ‘father’”, for what more complete type of the Messiah is to be found in the Old Testament? Yet, in another way, this would have been anything but suitable, for it would have very misleadingly suggested to the world that Mary’s child was the son of her husband. The Bible mentions only four who were named by divine instruction before birth: Ishmael (a type of unbelieving Jewry; Jn. 8:33-42), Isaac (a type of Christ), John the Baptist, and Jesus.

This circumcision-performed, most likely, by Zacharias at his home-declared Jesus a son of Abraham: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male child among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:10). Mede’s seventeenth century comment on this is worth quoting: “In circumcision was signified the taking away of the superfluity of sin in and through him who was yet in the loins of his ancestors. Hence Galatians 5:2: ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’. Why? Because he that received circumcision did as much as affirm that Christ is not yet come.” And of course this was still true when Jesus was circumcised, for until his resurrection the full truth of the Lord’s work of redemption was not evident to men. But in his eighth day “thus early did he suffer pain for our sakes”(Farrar).

From this eighth day and for the rest of his days it was testified to Jesus that “every man that is circumcised … is a debtor to do the whole law” (Gal. 5:3); and this Jesus did. Thus, “made of a woman, made under the law, he redeemed them that were under the law”, that any man bearing the mark of the law might “receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. 4:4,5).

Son of man

This circumcision also declared that this child of Mary, although of such a holy birth, nevertheless shared the nature of all other sons of Abraham. Any doctrine, which makes Jesus of a more pure, higher nature by birth than other men, makes this rite, applied to him, meaningless, and the record of it sadly misleading.

The same is true regarding Mary’s purification, which duly took place, according to the law of Leviticus 12, in the temple court at Jerusalem (v.22). Indeed, according to the overwhelming evidence of the manuscripts, this is specially underlined by Luke’s phrase: “the days of their purification” (RV). Here was Moses’ unflagging reminder of the “taint” about all human nature, inherited by Mary and shared by Jesus. Yet Rome talks about the “immaculate conception” of Mary, and all Christendom makes Jesus different in his essential nature from those to whom he brings redemption.

Mary’s time of uncleanness lasted for forty days, during which time she was not to go out of doors. But it is difficult to believe that she spent all that time where her baby was born. Presumably, as soon as possible, she and Joseph travelled to the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth, and spent the time there.

High Priest designate

Rather remarkably, when Luke purports to quote what is “written in the law of the Lord” about this (2:23), he includes a phrase: “shall be called holy to the Lord”, which is not found in any of the places where the Law speaks of the consecration of the firstborn. Yet this is an expression repeatedly used about the high-priest: Lev. 21:6-8; Ex. 28:36,38. Thus Luke hints at the truth which the gospel was to disclose, that through this child, later to become God’s High Priest, is a means of cleansing and redemption from all the defilement which is human nature.

Since the days of Moses the service of Levites was accepted in lieu of the firstborn (Num. 3:12,13). But since Golgotha, Levites can only find acceptance because of the Firstborn and the way in which he was (so very differently!) “brought to Jerusalem to be presented before the Lord.”

The kind of sacrifice made on Mary’s behalf tells much about this family into which Jesus was born. The offering of “a pair of (migrant) turtle doves, or two young pigeons” was the concession which the Law made to extreme poverty, where the restricted means of the family simply did not allow of the more usual offering of a lamb and a pigeon (Lev. 12:6).

Persons as devout as Mary and Joseph would obviously have brought the better offering, had they been able. So it may be safely assumed that the home in which Jesus grew up knew nothing of wealth, nor even of moderate middle-class respectability, but only a constant wearying struggle against poverty.

When Jesus was “presented unto the Lord”, would the standard redemption payment of five shekels (Num. 18:16; twenty days’ wages:Mt 20:2) be insisted on in the case of people so poor? Ginsberg is surely in error when he says that the payment was thirty shekels.

Simeon

In the temple court they were met by a venerable old man who seemed to be awaiting them. This pious witness to the Truth of God lived only in the hope of seeing the realisation of the glorious promises of God to His chosen people. He “waited for the consolation of Israel.”

One suggestion (lacking complete proof) asserts that he was not only of the line of David (and therefore related to Joseph and Mary) but also son of the famous Rabbi Hillel and the father of the Gamaliel who made such a clever tongue-in-cheek defence of the apostles when the wrath of the chief priests had been stirred up against them (Acts 5:34-40). Yet that Simeon is known to have been President of the Sanhedrin in A.D. 7, some twelve years or so later. So the usual assumption of great age at this time would have to be discarded. His prayer: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace …”, was probably a conscious imitation of Jacob’s when he again set eyes on Joseph (Gen. 46:30) -and that patriarch lived another seventeen years after that (47:28). It is rather remarkable that there is no mention of Simeon-ben-Hillel in the Mishna. Could that be because he is mentioned in Luke’s gospel?

If this identification is correct, then Simeon probably lived to be amazed by the remarkable promise of the boy Jesus in the temple just after his bar-mitzvah.

To this devout Simeon a divine revelation (s.w. Mt 2:12) had been given that he would live to see the Messiah. The divine constraint brought him in expectation into the temple court at this very time, so that he knew for certain that God’s purpose specially concerned the humble family presenting their offerings.

The Consolation of Israel

With bright-eyed gladness he took the child from his mother, and broke into a hymn of praise and thanksgiving: “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all the peoples (i .e. the tribes of I srael)” (2:29-31).

Old Testament Expectations

This was not only the rejoicing of aged Jacob, but also, by the eye of faith, the fulfilment of a prophetic psalm (Isaiah’s?) which foretold the grand accomplishment of all that God had promised to the Fathers: “The Lord hath made known his salvation … he hath remembered his mercy and his truth (i.e. his Covenants of Promise) towards the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God” (Ps. 98:2,3).

Only profound insight into the purpose of God, harnessed by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could have led Simeon to associate the tiny baby in his arms with the fulness of God’s redemption: “A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” The order of the phrases here is to be noted-first, the enlightenment of the Gentiles, after that the manifestation of God’s Shekinah Glory in Israel. The literal expression used by Simeon, “the unveiling of the nations”, may have been used with direct allusion to “the veil that is spread over all nations”, the removal of which Isaiah foretold, when “death is swallowed up in victory” (25:8). Or it may imply the unveiling of God’s hidden purpose (mystery) that Gentiles should share with Israel the salvation He provides.

There are also remarkable contacts, both verbally and in idea, with other fine passages in Isaiah. Every phrase in Isaiah 52:7-9 seems to have special relevance:

A careful reading of Isaiah 49, with the aged Simeon and Anna in mind, reveals many verbal resemblances and similarities in idea:

Note also the references to babies (v.1,15,20-23;) and “preserve thee” (v.8 Heb. nazar; cp. Nazareth).

It is easy now to understand why Simeon ejaculated: “Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy spoken word.” He was alluding to the spoken word through the prophet (Is. 49:1).

Also, it was surely with reference to the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 and his own belief in the Virgin Birth that Simeon declared: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign that shall be spoken against.” Yet how very apt these words are! Just as faithless Ahaz rejected the sign in his day, so also the nation of Israel with Jesus. It was only in mockery that they sought “a sign from heaven”, Instead they were given one out of “the depth”-the sign of the prophet Jonah. And through him-the baby now in Simeon’s arms-there will yet come a sharp discrimination between ‘those who “fall” (the Greek word suggests a corpse) and those who “rise again” (this is the usual word for resurrection).

It called for faith, truly, to believe that men’s attitude to this tiny infant was one day to settle the eternal destiny of every individual. “For judgment he was come into this world”-”that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (cp. Mat. 3:2).

Mary’s Great Test

Even his own mother was to be no exception to this searching test: “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also.” The word “also” is important here, for it implies a sword in the soul of Jesus as well. This came to pass in a literal fashion in the piercing of his side on the cross. Figuratively its effect is to be seen in the tremendous spiritual tension which built up in Jesus as the end drew near: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? shall I say, Father, save me from this hour? but for this cause came I unto this hour.”

Mary too, in lesser degree, must face the same test. It is customary to seek the fulfilment of Simeon’s prophecy regarding her in the pangs of wretchedness and helpless sorrow which assailed her soul as she stood with the other women at the foot of the cross, sharing with her firstborn all the agonies of crucifixion.

This is appropriate enough. But there was another occasion when a much worse misery overwhelmed her. Mark 3:21 tells how the family of Jesus “sought to lay hold on him” because they were convinced that he was “beside himself.” Evidently Mary allowed herself to be overborne by this ghastly misjudgement: “Then came his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him” (v.31). They wished to take him home and keep him under restraint. It is only this which can explain the brusque reply of Jesus: “Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren.”

Could there possibly have been any more bitter moment in the life of Mary than this when she was publicly thrust away by the son whose every word and slightest action had been the centre of all her waking thoughts for the past thirty years? Truly, on that day a sword pierced her soul as at no other time. Happily faith came again (one wonders just how? was John the one responsible for coaxing her back to faith in her son as Lord and Christ?), and she was with him at the end, sorrowing but now believing.

Anna

The little group consisting of Simeon, Joseph, and Mary with the baby in her arms were doubtless the centre of much attention in the temple court. But interest grew all the more when they were joined by the aged Anna, a well-known figure to multitudes, for she had lived a life of consecrated service and piety in the temple for about sixty years, so that without seeking it she had acquired a national reputation as an outstanding member of the minority in Israel who not only wished for but also devoutly prayed for the early redemption of the nation from its spiritual and political bondage. Paul refers to her as the outstanding example of one who is “a widow indeed … making prayers night and day” (1 Tim. 5:5).

Amongst the numerous throng in the temple court those who especially looked for the redemption of Jerusalem gathered round Anna as she continued the fervent praise and thanksgiving which had just been heard from the lips of Simeon.

The description of Anna as a prophetess may mean that she was a singer in the temple choir and not one who regularly gave utterance to inspired messages from God. Otherwise it is difficult to understand why none of her prophecies have been preserved. On the other hand there is evidence that the praising of God in psalms and hymns was also spoken of as prophecy (see Notes). Luke’s record about Anna seems to imply the same idea here, for after her “giving thanks unto the Lord” (2:38), she “spake of him to all them that looked for the redemption of Jerusalem.” If this suggestion is correct, it may readily be imagined what a sensation there would be in the temple area when this fine old lady lifted up her voice in an ecstatic melodious psalm of praise. Well might Luke take care to mention that Anna belonged to the tribe of Asher, for Asher means “happy”, and Anna is the only member of that tribe to make any contribution to Bible history.

Phanuel – Peniel

Yet there is so much similarity between the characters and forward-looking spirituality of Simeon and Anna that one is left wondering why the account of both is included. Does the explanation lie in the significant detail that she was the daughter of Phanuel? This is probably the New Testament form of Peniel, the place where Jacob wrestled with the angel through the night and till the morning, ultimately overcoming through his wrestling in prayer: “(, will not let thee go, except thou bless me … I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved” (Gen. 32:26,30).

Luke hints at Anna’s recapitulation of Jacob’s experiences-her “supplication night and day”; and beholding the baby Jesus she saw God face to face and by that very encounter knew her life to be preserved.

Joseph and Mary were already sufficiently conscious of the high responsibility committed to them in the care of the Son of God, but these experiences in the temple court must have sent them away in awe and wonder that they should have been chosen for such privileges as to make them almost objects of envy by people of the spiritual calibre of Simeon and Anna. Although they were the meek of the earth, their status in the sight of heaven could hardly be higher.

Notes: Luke 2:21-39

At about the age of thirty Jesus came to John for baptism. It was the age when a Levite was allowed to begin service in the temple (Nu. 4:3), the age when Joseph began his great work in Egypt (Gen. 41:46), the age when David began to reign (2 Sam. 5:4). So now Jesus made the journey from Nazareth in Galilee specifically for the formal beginning of his public life. (For Bethabara, see Study 19).

John’s Reluctance

At first the Baptist sought to deter Jesus from his intention (cp. Jn. 13: 6), for almost at once he knew Jesus to be a man of far higher holiness than himself: “I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?” How did John know this? In spite of their blood relationship, he and Jesus had grown up apart, as complete strangers. It is not even possible to postulate that they may have met from time to time, for later on John told the Pharisees: “I knew him not’ (Jn. 1: 31).

It would require no time at all for John to recognize the superior quality of Jesus. Those who came to John were not baptized indiscriminately, but only after the Baptist’s interrogation of them had satisfied him as to their sincerity and proper appreciation of what the rite involved (Mt. 3: 7). The apostle Peter makes reference to a similar practice in the early church when he alludes to baptism as the “interrogation of a good understanding” (1 Pet. 3: 21; and note the allusions to a ‘statement of faith’ in v. 18,22). All who came to John made confession of their sins also-all, that is, except Jesus, and this without any hypocrisy. So even before the sign of the Holy Spirit was given John knew that this was the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. “I have need to be baptized of thee”, he declared very emphatically. The words seem to imply that John had not been baptized as yet-waiting for Messiah to come and baptize him? And now Messiah was here. So it seems not improbable that when the two men went down into the waters of Jordan they baptized each other. More than this, one day Jesus will baptize John in the fire of the holy Spirit to an extent far surpassing anything he experienced in the days of his mortal service.

Why should Jesus be baptized?

John’s discouragement was quietly but firmly set aside: “Suffer it to be so now”, for now the status of Jesus was that of a son of Adam. It was a tacit acceptance of the correctness of John’s attitude, but yet Jesus insisted on the need for this baptism: “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” The commentators are altogether baffled by these words and by the acceptance of baptism by Jesus. One after another they make it a fulfilling of the Law of Moses. But John’s baptism was no part of the Law. In fact, it proclaimed the inadequacy of the Law. And a man of outstanding scholarship like Farrar makes no less than four separate attempts to explain why Jesus should be baptized at all, and misses the mark badly every time.

The word “us”, used by Jesus, supplies the key to a better understanding. It does not refer to Jesus and John, but to Jesus and the rest who were similarly being baptized. This is made certain, if any confirmation is necessary, by Luke’s phrases: “when all the people were baptized”, or, possibly, “during the baptizing of all the people. . . Jesus also”. By this act, then, Jesus associated himself openly with the sinners he came to save. By it he proclaimed the essential one-ness of his nature with theirs. He too needed this baptism, inasmuch as he also was a member of this fallen race needing redemption. It was an acknowledgement that the great truth taught by John: “all flesh is grass”, applied to him also. He needed the benefits of his own sacrifice. Now, as well as at the end of the days of his flesh, he was “numbered with the transgressors” (Is. 53: 12). Perhaps there is more symbolism in Mark’s mention of Jesus coming to John from “Nazareth of Galilee”, for both the town and the district had no reputation at all (Jn. 1: 46; 7: 41; 1 Kgs. 9: 11-13). By this act of baptism Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, for here was the outward symbol of his own death and resurrection. It summed up all his redeeming work.

Every Detail Symbolic

It is not easy to see why the gospels should emphasize that after baptism Jesus went up straightway out of the water. This could surely be taken for granted as a perfectly normal and natural thing. Is the detail mentioned as foreshadowing his own resurrection — an immediate leaving behind of mortality and immediate experience of Holy Spirit power and heavenly blessing?

If this inference can be pressed, then what of the further detail given by Luke that forthwith Jesus was seen to be praying continuously? Does this similarly foreshadow the priestly intercession which became his high responsibility from the time of his resurrection? In that case, it should be possible to infer that the baptismal prayer of Jesus was not primarily for himself as he now embarked on the great work of his life, but for those to whom he would minister the grace of God.

As Jesus emerged from the water, the heavens were opened (Mark’s word means “split”) and a dove came out of the sky and rested on him. It was a very remarkable happening, introduced by Matthew with his characteristic underlining: “Behold!” Some have assumed that all this was a subjective experience, with no actual phenomenon in the heavens, no literal dove, and no audible voice. This is an incorrect inference from Matthew’s words: “there appeared unto him”, for later, John stated explicitly: “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven, and it abode upon him … he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Spirit” (Jn. 1: 32,33); and Luke’s phrase is: “in bodily shape like a dove.”

The Dove

It seems probable, then, that a dove did actually alight upon Jesus, but the meaning of this was understood only by him and by John. The voice of approval speaking to Jesus was also heard and understood by none except themselves. Bystanders probably heard it as a mighty roll of thunder, as on another later occasion (Jn. 12: 29). This suggests the possibility of a sudden thunderstorm. The heavens were “split” by an intense flash of lightning, the Voice of the Lord spoke in thunder (Ps. 18: 13; 29: 3), and the windows of heaven poured forth their blessing. If disciples were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire-and this happened at Pentecost-is it conceivable that there was no such baptism for Jesus? The servant is not greater than his Master.

The voice from heaven was what Israel at Sinai had frenetically demanded should be reserved for Moses’ experience. They would have none of it. So this voice at Jordan identified Jesus as the promised Prophet like unto Moses (Dt. 18: 15-19).

A prophecy in Malachi which foretells the work of both John and Jesus has this also: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing — and not just enough” (3: 10). The words seem to be appropriate to the baptism of Jesus also, for the apostle John’s comment, with evident allusion to this passage, is: “God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him” — not just enough!

The “bodily form” of a dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit was probably intended to associate the beginning of the Lord’s public ministry with other Old Testament Scriptures. Psalm 91 was most likely written, in the first instance, with reference to Joshua. Now it had further application to another Joshua. “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. . . He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler” (v.1, 4).

Again the sending forth of first a raven and then a dove from the ark (Gen. 8: 7-12) may have its parallel in the work of John and Jesus for the inauguration of a New Creation (Is. 54: 9). Peter saw the likeness, and associated Noah’s Flood with baptism and the new life in Christ: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (as in leprosy washing; Lev. 14: 9), but the interrogation of a good understanding God-ward, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3: 21).

The Voice from Heaven

In later days the apostles also saw this twofold baptism of Jesus as declaring him to be the Messiah: “That word, I say, ye know. . . how that God anointed (Christ-ed) Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10: 38). Since the Holy Spirit is the finger of God (Study 75; Mt.12: 28; Lk. 11: 20), by this power with which Jesus was now endowed God was pointing him out as the promised Christ. This was a better anointing than Aaron received (Lev.8: 12).

The voice from heaven, understood only by John and Jesus, said this even more emphatically: “Thou art my Son, the Beloved; in thee I am well pleased.” The opening phrase is the familiar declaration of Psalm 2 vindicating the Christ when human rulers turn “against the Lord and against his anointed” (v.2).

“The Beloved” is the equivalent of John’s favourite phrase “the only-begotten Son”. It is also the description of Isaac, the eloquent prototype of the divinely born Son willing to suffer at Jerusalem (Moriah) at the behest of his Father (Gen. 22: 2). It became also Paul’s deepest expression of appreciation of the redeeming work of Christ: “He hath made us accepted in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1: 6,7).

The last phrase is doubtless from Isaiah 42: 1: “Behold my Servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him.” Here, in prophecy, is the Messiah who is ultimately to “bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” The words which follow are used by Matthew as an apt description of the humble character of the Suffering Servant of the Lord during his ministry: “He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets…” (Mt. 12: 17-21).

But there is a good deal more meaning locked up in this word “well pleased”. The Greek aorist tense used by Luke and Matthew makes pointed allusion to the act of baptism just completed. The Old Testament antecedents of the word-ratzan, ratzon- describe a sacrifice well-pleasing to God. So the heavenly declaration may also have implied: “My beloved Son by means of whom I shall receive a wholly acceptable sacrifice for the sins of men.” Thus yet again the baptism of Jesus is associated with his death and resurrection. “This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (1 Jn. 5: 6; Study 236).

From this day on, Jesus walked in the shadow of the cross.

Notes:

Matthew 3: 13-17

Mark 1: 9-11

Luke 3: 21-23

John 1:32

The angel of the Seventh Vial had been the heavenly medium for revealing to John the seven final Visions (17:1). He now repeated the scope and purpose of all that the Apocalypse was meant to do — “to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass.” This is by no means the only repetition, which the final section of the prophecy makes. A long series of allusions to chapter 1 and the letters to the churches comes in here:

There is also here a repetition of the apostle’s attempt to offer worship to the revealing angel, with the same reproach as on the earlier occasion (19:10) — “you and I, John, along with all the prophets and all the faithful, are servants together of the same Lord; offer your worship to God.” It is a warning against the adulation of those who bring help in the understanding of Revelation, whether angels or men.

A SPECIAL BLESSING

An important detail in the double repetition from chapter 1 is the blessing on him “that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book” (22:7); “blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life” (22:14). The change in pronouns is significant here. Is the first of these blessings intended for John himself as the recipient of Revelation? It is followed immediately by the words: “And I John saw these things, and heard them”. And the second blessing reads somewhat strangely, inasmuch as there is in Revelation little emphasis on “keeping commandments” but rather on “patience,” “faith,” and “overcoming” The reading given by many manuscripts here is: “Blessed are they that wash their robes”. Since this has its obvious counterpart in chapter 1 — “washed us from our sins in his own blood” (1:5) — it may safely be presumed to be the correct reading. The two passages are beautifully complementary. Robes washed in the blood of the Lamb, that is, made white at baptism through the merits of his sacrifice, need a further cleansing of a different kind in the “pure river of water of life proceeding from the throne of the Lamb” (22:1) before a man may enter in through the gates into the city.

THE INFAMOUS EXCLUDED

In sharp contrast to these who are granted “the right to the tree of life” the catalogue of evil workers, who are “without”, is repeated (21:8; 22:15). This time it includes, first on the list, “dogs,” along with “whoremongers.” There is allusion here to a blunt interdiction in Deuteronomy 23:18: “Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog (that is, a sodomite) into the house of the Lord thy God.” In the days of John there was a sordid background to words such as these, for all pagan temples had associations of just this sort. It was an accepted way of life from which the Christian must sever himself altogether. And in the Twentieth Century, devoted increasingly to a religion of sex, the lesson needs to be learned afresh. It is not unlikely, also, that the idea behind this Deuteronomy commandment was taken over in the early church for a different application: “Beware of dogs,” wrote Paul, “beware of evil workers, beware of the concision”. This word “concision” carries with it (both in Greek and in the English translation) a deliberate play on the word “circumcision “ But it means also”those who cut in pieces”. The reference is to schismatics who were already introducing fragmentation into the church with their separatist movements. It is not inappropriate that in the list of those who are excluded from the holy city should be those who would exclude their brethren from the fellowship of the faithful.

“ADDING TO” AND “TAKING FROM”

Again, also in this list of the infamous comes “whosoever loveth and maketh a lie”. The serpent is now to be excluded from Paradise forever. “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar,” warns the Book of Proverbs (30:6). It is this kind of lie which Revelation now specially denounces: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (22:18). The same warning comes no less than three times in the Book of Deuteronomy (4:2; 12:32; 24:19-21). Pentecostals and others who make glib claims to Holy Spirit guidance are among those who need pointed reminder concerning these Scriptures. But perhaps it is not necessary to look so far afield for examples. What about those who have been known to add to Revelation 20 the assumption that at the end of the Millenium Christ and his immortal saints will withdraw their presence and their power to leave the way clear for a massive Gog-Magog rebellion? Such “exposition by invention” is met with from time to time.

There is also a curse on the man who “takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy” (22:19). The most obvious sin of this kind is the denial of the inspiration of the Apocalypse (for it is this particular book of the Scripture to which reference is made, primarily), but what stands true regarding Revelation is surely valid also concerning the rest of the Oracles of God.

Is it possible, however, that even for those who have a complete conviction of the divine origin of the Apocalypse there may exist the very real danger, which these words express? Religious authorities in the time of Jesus refused to see in the Book of Jonah anything more than a story about Jonah, and they paid for their refusal with an ignorance, which became incurable. This, because they took away from the prophecy. Then how comparable may be the attitude of the interpreter of Revelation who limits the meaning of this complex prophecy to just what he himself can discern in it, steadily rejecting the idea that the greatest of all Biblical prophecies may be designed for more than one fulfilment?

“I COME QUICKLY”

Solemn though these warnings may be, they hardly compare in weight with the frequently repeated reminder in this conclusion that the Lord’s personal return as Judge of all is very near: “Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book”. There is a tone of urgency about these words, and an apparent insistence on the imminence of fulfilment. But nearly two thousand years have elapsed, and still disciples quote the words to each other with varying degrees of confidence: “Behold, I come quickly.”

“EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS”

Here is a problem, which has been almost studiously ignored by commentators of all shades of conviction, perhaps because it presents more difficulty than almost any other in the New Testament. The Appendix following this Chapter attempts a solution. There it will be suggested, with copious Bible evidence in support that the ripening of God’s purpose depends on the fervent prayers of Gentile saints and on the repentance of an unbelieving Israel. Today with all their power, the Spirit and the bride should be pleading with Christ: “Come”. And those who know the water of life, and yet hesitate to drink, should recognize their own wonderful opportunity and the responsibility which rests on them also to “hasten the coming of the Day of God” by their own “holy way of life and godliness” (2 Peter 3:11, 12).

John and the angel, representing the Spirit and the bride, offered their fervent prayers (22:17). Let readers of Revelation also continue to add theirs, and this with all urgency. The only possible response to “Surely, I come quickly” is an “Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus”, the words being not merely the expression of a pious or maybe selfish wish, but the intense plea of those who desire more than anything else to see God vindicated in His own world which at present is determined to get along without Him.

All moderately-careful readers of the Bible notice the frequent appearance in the New Testament, and especially in Revelation, of passages which read as though the writers expected the return of the Lord from heaven within a comparatively short time – certainly not after a lapse of 2,000 years! In the Apocalypse statements of this kind are particularly plain and copious:

The problem has been swept under the carpet long enough. No self-respecting commentator on Revelation can leave it ignored.

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS:

There are five ways of tackling the difficulty:

FURTHER EXAMPLES:

First then, let the magnitude of the problem be recognized. Here are the main passages (besides those already cited) with occasional brief comment:

I COME “QUICKLY”

The repeated warning: “Behold, I come quickly” (Revelation 2:5, 16 and 3:11 and 22:7, 12, 20) calls for special attention, for it has been much misunderstood – largely out of a desire to evade the obvious difficulty that the Lord was promising (in the apostle John’s day) to come soon.

The Greek word tachu and its kindred word tacheos, taken by the grammarians as its equivalent, may mean “quickly” in any of three senses:

The tendency has been to put the emphasis on the third of these, thus turning the Lord’s words into a warning that the disciple must be ever ready because his Lord’s coming will be so sudden as (possibly) to take him off his guard.

An analysis of all the occurrences of these words makes this conclusion questionable:

tachu

tacheos

Even an examination of cognate words shews a distribution not markedly different:

tachion

tachista

tachus

tachos

tachinos

“QUICKLY” MEANS “SOON”

From this catalogue it follows that (i) the meaning “suddenly” must be discarded; “I come quickly” does not mean “I come suddenly;” (ii) whilst there is better evidence for the meaning: “I come swiftly, at great speed,” this reading would be not only pointless but almost silly, (iii) the preponderance of passages, and especially the emphatic evidence of one clear example in the same book (Revelation 11:14) is decisive that the meaning “soon-in point of time” should be given primary consideration and should only be rejected if in any instance it leads to a palpably absurd interpretation.

The net result of this rather technical digression is to pick out the Revelation passages about an early return of Christ from heaven as amongst the most emphatic in the whole series. But even if they were discarded along with any others of those listed, where the reader feels that another quite different but thoroughly competent meaning can be educed, there still remains a massive hard core of these Scriptures. What is to be made of them?

WRITTEN BY INSPIRATION

That the Holy Spirit, there inspired these New Testament writers can be no manner of doubt. Then what they wrote concerning the return of their Lord must have been absolutely correct when they wrote it. How comes it, then, that their God-guided anticipations have proved to be in error? It can only be because God Himself has brought about a wholesale deferment of the consummation of His purpose, so that what was originally to have happened in or soon after A.D. 70 is to be fulfilled instead in the 20th Century.

This suggestion (put forward by Bullinger in the first instance) may seem extraordinarily difficult of acceptance. The reader is asked to curb any impatience with it until there has been a careful and unprejudiced examination of the evidence.

EXAMPLES OF DIVINE DEFERMENT

First, it is necessary to realize that similar postponements of declared developments in the divine purpose have taken place before. Here are examples:

A PRINCIPLE AND ITS CONVERSE

A careful review of these examples (and a great many more similar ones are given later in this chapter) reveals clearly the existence in every case of one of the following principles:

HOW IT OPERATES

These two principles are repeatedly insisted on in the New Testament in connection with the preaching of the Gospel, especially when that word was being proclaimed to the Chosen People. The following examples are both illuminating and provocative. They are also decisive.

1.	“Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus” (Acts 3:19, 20 R.V.). Omitting the intervening clauses in order to throw the main point (for present purposes) into sharper relief: “Repent … so that he may send the Christ … “ This shews clearly that the sending of Jesus a second time was to be a consequence conditional or, the repentance of Israel.
2.	In 2 Peter 3 the apostle addresses himself to the problem: Why the apparent delay in the Lord’s return? Not because the Lord is “slack concerning his promise, but because He is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (v. 9). According to this, there has been a deliberate withholding of fulfilment of the divine purpose, in order to give opportunity for repentance. With this compare v. 15: “And account that the long-suffering of our Lord (in not sending Christ in judgement) is (your opportunity of) salvation.”
3.	The proposition is also stated conversely in vv. 11, 12: “What manner of persons ought ye to be in holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God…” The A.V. reading of this passage is difficult to the point of impossibility. How can one “hasten unto the coming of the day of God”, since it comes to the disciple, and not he to it? The perfectly good translation suggested by both the A.V. and R.V. margins is free from this difficulty: “hastening the coming of the day of God.”[88] How? By “your holy conversation and godliness”. The idea is exactly the same as Acts 3:19, 20. With this compare also:
4.	“Ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, keep not silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth” (Isaiah 62:6 R.V.). Why all this agonizing in prayer if it not going to affect one whit the time of the bringing in of God’s new heaven and earth? Why should Jesus require his disciples to pray “Thy kingdom come,” if such prayers are of no force whatever to affect the coming of that kingdom, not even by five minutes? Have they gone studiously ignored in the counsels of heaven?
5.	“For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead”? (Romans 11:15). In other words (rather like a proportion sum in arithmetic) the cutting off of Israel has led to the Gospel being preached to the Gentiles: likewise the consequence of their being received back to God’s favour (through repentance, the only way; hence Malachi 4:5!) will be life from the dead, i.e. the resurrection – and therefore, by implication, the Second Coming of Christ.
6.	The fruitless fig-tree in the vineyard was without doubt a figure of Israel unresponsive to God. “Lord, let it alone this year also (after three fruitless years), till I shall dig it about and dung it” (Luke 13:8). The words are a clear anticipation of the all-out effort, which Jesus made in the end of his ministry to bring Israel to a sense of its responsibilities. “And if it bear fruit, well: and, if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down”. The words envisage the distinct possibility that Israel might repent and thus make divine judgement unnecessary. Thus the long period of Israel’s persecution and scattering would have been eliminated. Compare Deuteronomy 28:1, 15.
7.	“Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? … It is not for you to know the times or the seasons … But ye shall receive power … and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:6-8). It can hardly be that Jesus is here evading the issue by a deft change of subject. His answer is relevant. How? As who should say: “It is not for you to know when the kingdom will come, but this I can say – it depends on your efforts in preaching.” Thus the same conclusion as before is indicated.
8.	“And John said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias” (John 1:23). But the context of these words from Isaiah 40 is: “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned … And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together … Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him…” Hence it follows that if Israel had made straight the way of the Lord (which they didn’t), the rest of this prophecy would also have found fulfilment then. And only when Israel do make straight the way of the Lord will these words be fulfilled.
9.	“But that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:31). Either these words mean that John’s baptizing was itself a means of manifesting Christ to Israel, or they re-inforce the conclusion already reached, i.e. that through repentance and baptism Israel would bring in the reign of their Messiah.
10.	Perhaps this is the proper place to draw attention to Mark 13:32. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Yet is seems reasonable to believe that if an understanding of the chronological framing of the ages can be gained from a study of Bible “times and seasons,” then even in the days of his flesh that knowledge would have been the Lord’s, so masterly was his insight into the Word. That he did not know must surely be taken to mean that from the human point of view the precise time still remained indeterminate.
11.	In harmony with this is the significant occurrence of the Greek particle in practically every New Testament passage which speaks of the time of the Lord’s return. This small and practically untranslatable particle always imports an element of contingency or doubt into any statement where it is included, “giving to a proposition or sentence a stamp of uncertainty, and mere possibility, and indicating a dependence on circumstances” (Edward Robinson – Lexicon).
	For instance, all the Synoptists include it in connection with the statement, “There be some of them which stand here which shall not taste of death till (, it may be) they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. “ So also every New Testament quotation of Psalm 110:1 “until (, ever) I make thy foes thy footstool”. Specially forceful is the following: “Ye shall not see my henceforth, till (, the time whenever that may be) ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matthew 23: 39).
	Other passages which by the use of the same word suggest that the time of the Lord’s return would be dependent upon some unspecified contingency are: Matthew 10:23 and 12:20; Luke 19:23; 1 Corinthians 4:5 and 11:26; James 5:7; Revelation 2:25.
12.	This principle of repentance as the necessary condition for the fulfilment of God’s purposes with Israel is repeated again and again in the Old Testament. The reader should consider in succession Leviticus 26:40-42 (with its pointed references to the Promises to the Fathers); 1 Kings 8:46-53; Daniel 9:4-19, especially v. 13; Nehemiah 1: 5-11; Malachi 4:5, 6; Isaiah 17:7, 8 and 40:3 and 59:20; Zephaniah 2:3; Romans 11: 15; Ezekiel 20:42-44; Psalm 81:13; Deuteronomy 30:1-3; Jeremiah 4:1, 2.

SUMMARY SO FAR.

It is time to recapitulate.

This study has submitted a fair amount of Bible evidence for believing:

(a)         that the Apostles and the early church had an inspired expectation of an early return of Christ;

(b)         that God has, at different times in His dealings with Israel, deferred the fulfilment of His promises (or threats) beyond the time originally indicated;

(c)         that the Second Coming of the Lord is repeatedly made contingent on the repentance of God’s people and their acceptance of the Gospel.

In the light of these findings, the conclusion seems to follow that the divine intention that Jesus should come again some time in the First Century suffered a drastic postponement because of the general rejection of the Gospel, especially by Israel.

THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED.

Suppose, then, that the Lord had come in A.D. 70. The time when “Jerusalem was trodden down of the Gentiles” would have been the (3½-year) period of the Roman War, A.D. 67-70, or, just possibly, an equivalent period following immediately on A.D. 70. Into this period would have been compressed the fulfilment of all the signs indicated in the prophecies in connection with the Lord’s return, and then Christ himself would have been manifest in glory.

The big and mysterious gaps[89] in the prophecies of Daniel and elsewhere (e.g. Matthew24: 29; Isaiah 61:2; Micah 3:12-4:1, 5:2-6; 7:10,11) now find immediate explanation. They are there because the original “programme” did not include the long long period, which has elapsed between the First Century, and the Twentieth. The view now being suggested reduces to much smaller proportions a number of other difficulties in Daniel:

Happiest result of all is the elimination of the problem of the many passages anticipating an early return of Christ. Jesus himself could foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and then proceed with the utmost literality: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . signs in sun, moon, and stars… the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven.” In his Revelation he could still say: “Behold, I come quickly,” and be stating what was then a literal truth. “The souls under the altar” could be bidden to have patience “a little while.” Laodicea could be warned out of its lukewarmness by a warning that was no make-believe: “I stand at the door and knock.” And so through the entire catena of New Testament Scriptures, each separate one of which when understood any other way can be a minor trial of faith to the disciple of the Lord.

Further, the double and even treble fulfilment of large parts of Revelation is now precisely what one would expect. Deferment of the Second Coming has involved in a like wholesale deferment, a great accumulation of detailed Bible prophecies. A.D. 70 and its horrors provided an only partial fulfilment. The greater reality is yet to be.

When not one but an impressive collection of Bible problems all find one and the same solution, there is ground not only for satisfaction but for confidence in the method and result. To the reader who has followed thus far with his prejudices on leash, this must be a factor of no mean consequence. To put it bluntly, the key turns out to be a master-key, fitting several locks and opening doors hitherto shut in the face of an enquirer or susceptible only to burglarious entry.

DIFFICULTIES.

But of course arguments are raised against this view. It is therefore proposed to list some of the obvious ones – possible snags that have been brought to the attention of the present writer in the course of many a discussion – and to offer such answers as are available, so that the reader may have the main pros and cons before him.

0bjection 1: Is there not flat contradiction between the undoubted fact that God knows the end from the beginning and this suggestion of a change in the divine scheme?

Answer: Yes, there is – so far as the human mind can judge. But is the human mind fit to judge such questions, with absolute confidence of no mistake? Let is be remembered that, unlike many questions of theology which force themselves upon the reader of the Bible, this problem involves a consideration of God’s attitude to His own world. Is it to be expected that one should be able to understand the workings of the divine mind in such questions? This point, unless carefully handled, will lead to the usual interminable and ultimately unintelligible rigmarole about pre-destination and foreknowledge.

It is certain that Scripture does speak of an unchanging God (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). That Scripture also presents many examples of God altering His purpose, His “breach of promise,” is also certain. To the eight examples of this already listed on pages 4 and 5, the following might be added:

The list is almost endless. Other examples for further study are:

So far as the present writer’s limited powers of reasoning take him, there is flat contradiction between examples of this kind and the idea of divine foreknowledge. That there should be difficulty in harmonizing these is surely to be expected, when one considers that, as a dog is to a man, so is man to God. The one who is poor and of a contrite spirit and who trembles at the

Word of God will accept both truths (even though he cannot reconcile them) simply because the Word of God says so. The day will come when what seems like contradiction will be seen to be harmony.

But there can be no question which of these two ideas should, according to ,he Word itself, have most emphasis. Undoubtedly the stress must go on the possibility of God “changing His mind.” It must be for the reader’s good that the Bible teaches him to think of God in this way. The whole of the Bible’s teaching about petitionary and intercessory prayer is based on this. And without this, or with undue emphasis on the other, much in prayer is bound to become a stilted meaningless form, a pathetic piece of faithless play-acting.

Objection 2: Hasn’t the entire divine programme been laid out in Bible prophecy? How then could there possibly be any drastic modification of the kind here suggested?

Answer: It is surely short-sighted to believe that God can bring about the fulfilment of His prophecies in only one way, e.g. the curse of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:5-7) was fulfilled, but repentance turned Levi’s curse to a blessing. After all, have not quite a number of prophecies in Scripture already been fulfilled more than once and in different ways?

Further, it is quite conceivable that even such well-known prophecies as Ezekiel 37, 38 could have found a fulfilment in the First Century on similar lines to those confidently expected in the present era, for it is to be remembered that already, long before A.D. 70, many Jewish communities were buried in far-off foreign “graves” and even then looked hopefully for restoration. And so with other “Last Day” prophecies also.

Objection 3: Does not Scripture speak of “a set time to favour Zion”? Has not God “appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness”?

Answer: True, but this “set time,” this “appointed day,” need not be a precise date in history. It would be a mistake to interpret these passages as meaning that God has, so to speak, put a ring round a certain date on His calendar. To illustrate: A father may say to his son: “When you come top in your class exams at school I’ll buy you a bicycle.” Here is a “set time,” here is an “appointed day.” But it is a day fixed by certain contingencies. Similarly, “God will send Jesus Christ” when “the fulness of the Gentiles is come in.” Hence also the possibility of “hastening the coming of the day of God” by one’s “holy conversation and godliness.”

Objection 4: Do not certain passages indicate that there must be a long lapse of time before the return of Christ? e.g. Matthew 25:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Answer: Such passages are pathetically few in number. What others can be cited besides the two mentioned here? And they are inconclusive.

“After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with then.” But isn’t forty years a long time for a lord to leave his servants without personal direction? Certainly long enough for any so disposed to begin to say: “My lord delayeth his coming”.

“That day (the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ) shall not come, except there come the falling away first.” It is argued that apostasy such as the Apostle envisaged would require the growth of centuries. But such is certainly not the case. It is a big mistake to think of the apostasy as coming to fruition centuries after Constantine. It was already fully fledged before the Apostles died. Compare Acts 20:29-31; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:18, 19; 2 John 7-10; 3 John 9,10; Jude 10-19; Revelation 2,3. A careful reading of the writings of the earliest “Fathers” confirms the impression given by these New Testament warnings.

The idea advanced in this study is hardly new, though the application of it may be. Well over a century ago Dr. Thomas wrote:

“Had the nation (of Israel) continued to obey the Lord’s voice and to keep the covenant, and when Christ came, received him as king on the proclamation of the gospel, they would doubtless have been in Canaan until now; and he might have come ere this, and be now reigning in Jerusalem, King of the Jews and Lord of the nations” (Elpis Israel, p.301, 11th edition).

[88] Cp. the use of the same verb in Exodus 5:13 LXX.

[89] “The Last Days” ch. 3.

As already mentioned, when John saw the new heavens and earth, all he actually saw was “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven” (21: 1, 2). This was now made known to him in greater de

tail. Very evidently the picture set down in words in Revelation 21, 22 is symbolic. After the preceding twenty chapters the reader is prepared for this.

Here is a city, which has the same length and breadth and height (21: 16). Its encompassing wall is 72 yards thick – unless, that is, this measurement (v. 17) is intended to give the height of it, in which case the difficulty is just as great, only in a different dimension. The emphasis on foundations and gates made of all kinds of precious stones (v. 19-21) points strongly to the same conclusion. “The city was pure gold, like unto clear glass” is a further description that refuses to yield a literal meaning.

EZEKIEL’S TEMPLE

Yet it is to be noted that there are traceable at least eight distinct allusions to the temple described in Ezekiel 40 48:

The reconciliation of a literal interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 with the obvious symbolism of the last chapters of Revelation is too difficult an exercise in Bible interpretation to be attempted here.

There are also certain important differences from Ezekiel. The dimensions of the city are not the same. Five hundred reeds (Ezekiel 42:20) or twenty-five thousand reeds (48: 8, etc.), whichever measurement is chosen, is hardly the same as twelve thousand furlongs (21: 16). Nor is there any suggestion in Ezekiel that the length and breadth and height are equal.

There are also certain designed resemblances and contrasts with the tabernacle in the wilderness. As ancient Jerusalem became, so to speak, the spiritual descendant of the tabernacle, so this holy city is the glorification of the heavenly sanctuary that has been repeatedly described or alluded to in Revelation (e.g. chapters 4, 5, 7, 15). These details will be brought out as the study proceeds.

BABYLON SURPASSED

Oddly enough, there are also certain associations with Babylon, the city of judgement. This city of God is a hundred times larger in its dimensions than the hundred and twenty furlongs each way which ancient Babylon boasted. As Babylon had the Euphrates running through the middle of it[84] and the temple of Bel at its centre, so this city has a river of water of life, and the very presence of God within it. Babylon had its famous hanging gardens, but the new Jerusalem is the Paradise of God, luxuriant with trees on either side of the river. Men talked of three chariots driving abreast on top of the walls of Babylon, but the measure of these walls (height or width) is given at seventy yards or more -” according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel,” for in this city men have become “equal to the angels… being the children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36).

The problem of a symbolic city in which “the length and the breadth and the height are equal” (21:16) is resolved by reference to the tabernacle. The Holy of Holies, the dwelling place of God among His People, was a perfect cube. Hence: “I saw no sanctuary therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the sanctuary of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb” (21:22, 23). The Holy of Holies was without natural or artificial illumination. It was lit, only on the Day of Atonement, by the radiance of the Glory of God, declaring the putting away of Sill through God’s acceptance of one sin-offering for the transgressions of all the people. So this uninterrupted fulness of Glory in the New Jerusalem indicates the putting away of sin for all time, through the blood of the Lamb. And “the lamp thereof is the Lamb,” suggests that he is the Glory of God in the holy city: “With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light” (Psalm 36:9).

UNREAL DIMENSIONS

The strange symbolic dimensions of this enormous cubical city are readily accounted for. There are twelve edges to a cube, and

which is the symbolic number of the redeemed, a number already reached in chapter 7 by allocating 12,000 to each of 12 tribes.

The symbolism of an extra dimension – height, besides length and breadth – was anticipated by Paul: “that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with ali saints what is the breadth and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:17-19).

Every phrase here had reference to the sanctuary of God. The word “dwell” describes the saints as the dwelling-place of God. “Grounded” makes reference to both tabernacle and temple (e.g. 1 Kings 5:17). The three dimensions are the measures of the Holy of Holies-but “height” is also “depth”, because the purpose of the sanctuary is a two-way traffic: “angels of God ascending and descending upon” a mercy seat, which is “the Son of man.” The idea, already discussed in Chapter 41, that the life in Christ leads on to the addition of new spiritual faculties, both here and hereafter, is suggested by “the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge”. And “filled with all the fulness of God”, was what happened when “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:35), and the temple of Solomon (2 Chronicles 5:14), and the temple described by Ezekiel (43:4) and Isaiah (4:5, 6; 60:1), and especially the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21: 11, 22, 23).

THE SHEKINAH GLORY

The description of this Glory merits special attention: “the light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.” How inadequate this is as a word picture of the effulgent majesty of this radiance. In nuclear bombs men have succeeded in producing a flash of light far brighter than they dare look upon. And no wonder they dare not, for they do not know how closely they are approaching the physical expression of divine energy (Acts 26:13).

“Like a jasper stone, clear as crystal” probably refers to the diamond in its most excellent and impressive form (p. 40). This and gold (verse 18) both have associations with immortality and the divine nature (4:3). Appropriately, then, the jasper is the last stone in the breastplate of the high priest (Exodus 28: 20), but the first of the foundations of the New Jerusalem (verse 19).

A WALL OF DIAMOND

“And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass” (verse 18). The words are puzzling. The tremendous emphasis in 1 Kings 6:20-22, 30 on a gold finish to everything in the sanctuary built by Solomon suggests at least a like splendour here. But “like unto clear glass” perhaps implies solid gold, in contrast to overlaid gold (that is, gold leaf), and burnished so as to be as effective a mirror as the finest glass. Alternatively, this last phrase may be associated with the wall of jasper, and so describe the lustrous gold of the city as seen through the scintillating radiance of a diamond. Inevitably the imagination boggles at these concepts, as no doubt it is intended to do, for how can mortal man hope to fathom the transformed glories of new heavens and new earth?

Like the cities of the Anakim, walled unto heaven, which over-awed faithless Israelites when they explored the Land of Promise (Deuteronomy1: 28), this city wall is great and high (verse 12). The important difference is that this city is the Land of Promise, and the faithful are within its walls. Nothing can rob them of their inheritance.

THE GATES OF THE CITY

Besides a wall (of Salvation) great and high, there are twelve gates (of Praise; Isaiah 60:18). The tabernacle had its wall of holiness – a linen curtain of dazzling whiteness contrasting with the drab black and brown goats’ hair tents of sin-stricken Israelites. And it had a gate – but only one, which was specially associated with the camp of Levi. By contrast, here is a wall, which proclaims immortality, and gates, which give access from north, south, east and west (Luke 13:28, 29) for those who have taken on them the name of Israel and of one of its tribes.

At these gates are twelve angels. For what purpose? When Christ rose from the dead, “the angel of the Lord … rolled back the stone … and sat upon it” (Matthew 28:2). In this way the tomb which men had sealed shut was now divinely sealed open. So also in the holy city, these angels secure that “the gates shall not be shut at all by day (and there shall be no night there!)”; so the way of entry is permanently open. Then does this mean the possibility of exaltation to immortality at any time during the Millenium? It has always been assumed that there must be another resurrection and judgement at the end of the Kingdom of Christ. On what Biblical grounds?

The Book of Revelation has several references to seven angels (1: 20; 8:2; 15:7), but rather remarkably no other mention of twelve angels. When Israel were protected from Passover destruction in Egypt, twelve legions of angels were on duty that night, exercising a divine guard over the homes of twelve tribes of faithful Israelites – (Exodus 12: 23). At another Passover all of these stood ready to come to the aid of the Son of God: “Thinkest thou not that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). In the age to come, the captains of these heavenly hosts are still “ministering spirits … for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). Their work will not be ended with the resurrection.

Each of the gates is inscribed with the name of one of the sons of Jacob, who became Israel. These names are there because their owners repented of what they did to the Saviour whom God raised up for them. The story of the sons of Jacob in Egypt shews up very clearly the change of heart, which came over Joseph’s murderous brothers. They could have attempted to save themselves at Benjamin’s expense (Genesis 44:I2), but they did not. They had got rid of one favourite. Then why should they hesitate about another? Instead, their immediate return to Egypt when Joseph’s cup was discovered and the confession of their crime when they returned to Jacob (45: 26) both shew a wholesome and repentant spirit. For this their names are written for all time on the gates of pearl. And all who are prepared to shew a like humility have opportunity of a like privilege.

PRECIOUS STONES, SILVER SOCKETS

The foundations of the tabernacle were silver sockets (Exodus 26:25, 32 etc.), teaching all who came to the sanctuary that redemption was their great need and that here was the place where God provided it. There is no mention of the material of which these foundations were made, but it also may be safely presumed to be silver, “for other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). And even though the people of the New Jerusalem have no further need of redemption, they will never cease to be glad of every reminder of the fact. For this reason they will eat of the New Passover when it is “fulfilled in the kingdom of God” and they will “drink of the fruit of the vine in the Father’s kingdom” in lasting commemoration of salvation in Christ.

These twelve foundations of the city will each have as its own ornamentation one of the precious stones, which were formerly set in the breastplate of the high priest. But now the entire community of the redeemed will be openly declared to be holy and precious before God: “the city (of Jerusalem) shall be built to the Lord;” every part of it, including Gehenna and the place of the ashes, all that was formerly unclean will be made clean in the city of the New Covenant: “it shall be holy unto the Lord”, holy as the High Priest himself (Jeremiah 31: 38-40, Exodus 28:36-38). The Jeremiah passage (Septuagint) even adds mention of “precious stones”. In this city “there shall be upon the bells of the horses, Holy to the Lord; and the (earthenware) pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the (golden) bowls before the altar” (Zechariah 14:20).

Since the foundations of the wall are necessarily round the perimeter of the city it becomes almost a necessary inference that the same stones were set in the breastplate of the high priest round its perimeter and not in horizontal rows, as is more commonly represented. This, with the addition of the Divine Name in the central space, provides a small-scale replica of the camp of Israel with the tabernacle of witness at its centre.

On the foundations of the holy city are inscribed “the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” These names are there not only because the Twelve now “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” but because this spiritual Israel has been gathered in through their efforts and their preaching, and especially because they followed Christ when he was the Lamb. Therefore are they with him now, essential constituents in his city of splendour.

If indeed he needed further reassurance, John saw his own name written on one of those foundation stones (on which one?). He saw also the name of the twelfth who took the place of Judas, and so knew the answer to an enigma which has puzzled many.

A TEMPLE COURT

“And the street of the city was pure gold transparent as glass” (verse 21). The word used here means “a broad place”. The normal New Testament meaning is “a street”, but since this city which is being described is also a temple, the reference must be to the court of the temple. What in the tabernacle was bare earth or sand, and in Solomon’s temple was probably paved stone, is now “clean gold”. All the equipment of the outer court of the tabernacle was of brass, but the prophet had already declared that “for brass I (the Lord thy Saviour) will bring gold” (Isaiah 60:17).

But how can gold be transparent? Again this emphasis on two seemingly incompatible characteristics (as in verse 18) must be a way of emphasizing that the gold is burnished so as to be like a mirror. And, since the city is illuminated by neither sun nor moon nor seven-branched candlestick but by the glory of God and of the Lamb, it follows that wherever the eye travels in this city-temple there is always the lustrous radiance of the Shekinah Glory, either seen directly or perfectly reflected from gold made “clean” – this gold is “not like unto corruptible things as silver and gold”, as men refine them.

The same truth is enunciated again in yet more explicit fashion: “And there shall in no wise enter into it anything ‘common’ (that is, unsanctified) nor any person who practises abomination or falsehood” (verse 27). There were times in Israel’s history (e.g. Ezekiel 8:10, 11) when the temple was profaned with loathsome pagan practices. But that can never happen to this temple. Nor will there be any place for the lie of the serpent, for he belongs in a lake, which burns with fire and brimstone (verse 8).

Only those enter this temple whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. In the time of Ezra certain were excluded from the priesthood because their title to office could not be produced. So their claim was set-aside “till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim” to give a divine decision (Ezra 2:63). An ominous warning had been issued to the unfaithful in Sardis that they might find their names blotted out of the book of life by the One who had prevailed to take the book out of the hand of “Him who sits upon the throne”. It was a grim reminder of the awesome possibility that a man may have his name written in the book of life, and yet may also have it expunged. But not so now, as the Greek phrase beautifully emphasizes. This blessing of citizenship in the New Jerusalem is for those whose names “stand written” in the Lamb’s book of life: “thy people shall be all righteous.”

THE GLORY AND HONOUR OF THE GENTILES

Into this city-temple “they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations” (verse 26). Every sanctuary of God described in the Bible was constructed out of Gentile resources. In the wilderness the tabernacle was equipped out of the plunder brought from Egypt. The splendour of Solomon’s temple came from David’s military successes against all the nations round about, and Gentile craftsmen fashioned it. The temple built after the captivity in Babylon was equipped by the people of Babylon and the Persian king (Ezra 1:4, 6; 6:4, 8). The temple in the time of Jesus was built by Herod the Great, an Edomite. And in the age to come, the same principle will hold, both materially and spiritually: “The kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it’’.[85]

PARADISE RESTORED

There are certain outstanding resemblances between this Paradise Restored and the original Eden. There is a river of water of life, and there are trees of life (not just one tree of life). And “there shall be no more curse”, nor any serpent that “maketh a lie.” The removal of the curse of mortality (Genesis 3:17-19) refers specifically to the redeemed in the Millenium, for “the leaves (of the trees of life) are for the healing of the nations” (22:2). But the curse of “thorns and thistles” will be gone, in this wondrous epoch when “the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose” (Isaiah 35:1).

Is the reference to the trees of life to be taken literally? This is the Book of Revelation! And in Isaiah’s prophecy of “the acceptable day of the Lord,” a prophecy about the Year of Jubilee, the redeemed are “called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified … For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all nations” (61:2, 3, 11). The fruits of the Spirit, the gracious influence of the saints with Christ, will be a steady healing influence in the lives of the nations.

And the beautiful symbolism of Ezekiel 47 describes the stream of cleansing truth[86] which pours forth from the altar, the throne of God,[87] as an ever widening, ever deepening stream. Yet there are those who believe that this divine stream suddenly dries up as Christ’s reign draws to its close! But the Hebrew word for “river” (47:5) altogether prohibits such an idea.

THE GLORY OF THE LORD

As is right and fitting, this gracious vision of God’s wonderful world of tomorrow ends with a further picture of the greatest blessing the immortal saints can know: “the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him (Gk: as priests in a sanctuary): and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads”. Every phrase here is appropriate to a High Priest ministering in the Holy of Holies. Yet this is not a description of the High Priest ministering in the Holy of Holies, but of others who are now exalted to share his high honour. God is enthroned above the cherubim and the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat. Before Him is not one High Priest but many who are now exalted to share the highest privilege of all. In the Mosaic order the high priest must be always wrapped in a dense cloud of incense when entering the Holy of Holies, “that he die not” (Leviticus 16:12, 13). But these with open face – and not in a mirror – behold the glory of the Lord, because they have themselves been changed from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18). Moses, pleading for reassurance by the sight of God’s face, was hidden in the cleft of a rock and permitted to see His back, the departing glory of the Law. But these minister unafraid, seeing the very face of God and revelling in a fulness of divine fellowship. What formerly was the unique privilege of the High Priest, to wear the resplendent name of God on his forehead – “Holy to the Lord” (Exodus 28:36) – is now the royal priestly honour of them all.

“There shall be no night there” in this Holy of Holies. In the tabernacle and temple it was not so. Except when there came a dim glow from red-hot coals in the high priest’s censer and except for the brief moments on the Day of Atonement when the Shekinah Glory of God shone forth, the Holy of Holies was normally in complete darkness. It had no light of the sun, nor of the seven-branched candlestick. But in this wondrous city-temple the effulgent Glory of God will be ever present, and His immortal saints, neither abashed nor ashamed, will glory in their eternal redemption and blessedness.

[84] A Euphrates which dried up! 16:12.

[85] ‘Then why no single allusion to Gentiles or Gentile resources in Ezekiel 40-48?

[86] Septuagint Version: “waters of remission,” i.e. forgiveness.

[87] The idea of the mercy seat equates these two details, which would otherwise be contradictory; Ezekiel 47:1; Revelation 22:1.

There is something grotesquely familiar about the main events in this next vision. The dragon is brought to naught and buried in the abyss, where he is chained and sealed. Nevertheless, after a time he comes forth again and manifests himself to his disciples who are as the sand of the sea for multitude! But there are, happily, significant differences – it is not his disciples who are seen enthroned and blessed, neither does he ascend up to heaven; instead, he is cast into a Gehenna of fire.

In Revelation 12 the prototype of this dragon is fairly evidently the opposition of pagan Rome to the gospel (the Apocalypse was itself revealed at a time when Rome was persecuting the Truth of Christ). In the Last Days the counterpart to this great antagonist is probably scientific rationalism, which dominates human thought and activity today as much as the power of Rome ever did. It is the pagan religion of the Twentieth Century, making unlimited claims, working all kinds of signs and lying wonders, accepted in blind faith by millions, who now begin to rejoice in its promises of pie in the sky when this world is dead.

This wretched philosophy will receive a set-back at the coming of the Lord, which may at first seem like its final annihilation. The return from heaven of one whose name is called “The Word of God” will be the conclusive answer to the derisive question which the Serpent has put so confidently ever since Eden: “Yea, hath God said?” The fact of the existence of an Almighty God who has been ceaselessly active through all human history will be vindicated by the dramatic events in which His Son is manifest to the world. Satan’s bigoted anti-God activities will be chained, and those who now set their seal to the fact that God is true (John 3:33) will rejoice in the restraint put upon God-dishonouring thought and activity.

A LITERAL THOUSAND YEARS?

The heavenly kingdom, which now takes over the realm of the Serpent, is called in Revelation, The Thousand Years. This phrase has been almost universally read with a dogmatic literalism which is somewhat surprising in a community which has just as dogmatically insisted that the Book of Revelation is given in a multiplicity of signs and symbols requiring to be given a proper Biblical interpretation. Occasionally the question has been heard: “If prophetic periods in the Bible have to be interpreted on the basis of a day representing a year, why is it that the Thousand Years is given such a literal meaning?” But no answer to this inconsistency is ever supplied. Perhaps the idea of a Messianic reign of 360,000 years is deemed to be self-confuting.

More positively, the argument from the symbolism of the Genesis week of Creation is considered adequate support: Six thousand years of the rule of man, to be followed by a thousand years of rule by God’s Messiah. Quite apart from the fact that the most conservative archeologists are convinced that Adam was created more than six thousand years ago, there is something a trifle unsatisfactory about this analogy with Genesis 1. Is not the correspondence between the two ideas somewhat thin?

SEVEN DIVINE EPOCHS

A more probable and more satisfying development of this idea of a week of Creation emphasizes the Covenants of God rather than a rigid chronological time-table. To the Almighty people are more important than calendars. Certainly it is remarkable that God’s Covenants of Promise mark off human history into six epochs:

1. Adam to Noah.

2. Noah to Abraham.

3. Abraham to Moses.

4. Moses to David.

5. David to Jesus.

6. Jesus to Christ (the Second Coming).

The Kingdom now comes in as the appropriate climax of the sequence.

7. Christ to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28).

The symbolism of a Thousand Years now takes on a special appropriateness. The Revelation is very largely expressed in terms of the symbolism of the sanctuary. All the visions introducing the seven-fold sections and much else besides have this basis. In harmony with this the thousand suggests a link with 10 x 10 x 10 cubits, the dimensions of the Holy of Holies, which are again alluded to in the description of the new Jerusalem: “The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal” (21:16).

Considerations such as these suggest that the “Millenium” of Revelation 20 is an apocalyptic phrase for the Kingdom, rather than a hard-and-fast chronological period[78] of precisely one thousand years. At first it will be a Holy Kingdom in a world not fully consecrated.

Another detail suggesting the same conclusion is the expression: “they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years”. It is understandable that “they lived” should be a Greek aorist, for this phrase indicates the instantaneous gift of immortality. But the verb “reigned” also is in aorist tense where the continuous form of the verb would surely be expected if emphasis on the long duration of the Millenium was intended. Here the meaning appears to be: “they were made immortal, and became kings to reign in the kingdom.”

REBELLION – WHEN ?

For the sake of continuity, it is desirable to resume this exposition with a consideration here of the ultimate fate of the Dragon and his allies (20:7-10). The section that follows is reprinted from Chapter 13 of “The Last Days” (by this writer)

At the end of the millenial reign of Christ there will be a mighty rebellion against his authority. Such a conclusion seems to be perfectly clear and obvious from either a casual or a careful reading of Revelation 20. And for that reason in the minds of many it has taken on something of the character of a “First Principle” of the Faith.

Nevertheless there are big difficulties about such a conception. For instance:

A SERIOUS PROBLEM

To sum up so far, the position regarding the Gog-Magog rebellion of Revelation 20 is this:

On the one hand, the text is explicit that “when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations … Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city (Jerusalem).” Apparently nothing could be plainer.

Nevertheless, on the other hand, there are copious Scriptures (already quoted) and various associated problems and difficulties, which seem to rule out the possibility of such a rebellion.

Can it be, then, that Scripture contradicts itself? God forbid!

A CONTRADICTION HARMONIZED

The only alternative, therefore, is that a re-scrutiny of the evidence will reveal reconciliation between the two. A harmonization must be possible. No Bible student worth his salt should be content to affirm adherence to cither view without being prepared to give fair consideration to the other. Such a synthesis, the present writer believes, is possible by a re-interpretation of certain details in Revelation 20.

Familiarity with the phrases of the beloved King James Version often has the effect of hiding from students of Scripture the fact that quite a number of words in the original text have perfectly valid alternatives. “Exhortation” is also “consolation”; “hell” is “the grave”; “spirit” is “breath”; “tribe” in the Old Testament is also “rod”; “boy” is also “servant” (like the French “garçon”). The list is a long one.

In this Gog-Magog passage no less than three of these ambiguities occur. “Earth” may also be “the Land (of Israel)”; this double meaning is common in both Old and New Testaments. And “saints” may be “angels” or “Israel, the holy people”. Also – and most important of all – the word translated “expired,” “finished,” “fulfilled” (vv. 3, 5, 7) may also carry the sense of “accomplished,” “achieved,” thus giving this key phrase the meaning: “when Christ’s millenial kingdom has become fully established”.

OTHER EXAMPLES

This last point is so important that it is not to be accepted without substantial evidence. Here, then, are examples of the use of the same Greek word elsewhere in the New Testament or in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament:

Coming back to Revelation 20, a possible meaning is now seen to be this: The power of Sin is restrained during the period (seven years? forty years?) of the establishment of the Kingdom. Then comes the great Gog-Magog rebellion. Here Revelation 20 is strictly parallel with Psalm 2: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us (cp. the “great chain” of Revelation 20:1) … Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (the beloved city – Revelation 20:9).”

OTHER SCRIPTURES

Other Psalms besides Psalm 2 suggest submission to Christ only until forces can be rallied to make effective resistance to this resented King of the Jews. “As soon as they hear of me, they shall obey, the strangers shall yield themselves unto me.” Note the margin: “shall yield feigned obedience” (Psalm 18:44, and so also Psalm 66:3 and 81:15).

A further suggestion may be advanced here in harmony with the foregoing. The only passage in the Bible with any sort of resemblance to the words of Revelation 20 about Satan being shut up in the abyss is to be found in Isaiah 24:22, 23. “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days, they shall be visited. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.”

This comes at the end of a vivid prophecy of divine judgement in the Last Days.

If the two passages do actually describe the same thing, then here is further evidence that the Satanic rebellion of Revelation 20 comes immediately after the beginning of the Millenium and not at its close.

Ezekiel 38 also can now be read as the precise equivalent of Revelation 20. In an earlier chapter (Chapter 37) Biblical reasons were advanced for applying the Gog-Magog invasion to a time after the enthronement of the Messiah. The details of Revelation 20:9 correspond exactly with those in Ezekiel: “And they went up on the breadth of the Land (Ezekiel 38:9) and compassed the camp of the saints about (‘my people of Israel dwelling safely’), and the beloved city; and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them” (precisely as in Ezekiel 38:22).

This easy harmonization with other prophetic Scriptures provides additional confirmation of the validity of the interpretation proposed. Also, the picture now presented is entirely according to what might be expected. When a war-shattered world has licked its wounds and begins to realize that the Land of Israel is the headquarters of a new Power which now proclaims the hated Jews as the head of the nations and not the tail, there will be no great lapse of time before the authority of this King of the Jews is challenged. Ezekiel 38 and Revelation 20 tell of the fate of this last attempt, early in Christ’s reign, to proclaim “Glory to Man in the highest”.

[78] This is not to say that the reign of Christ will not last for precisely one thousand years. There may be a literal fulfilment also, but this should not be insisted on.