The angel with a rainbow (Rev. 10: 1) has become the focus of a very remarkable interpretation, on these lines:

The angel is Christ returned in glory, yet not Christ only but his glorified saints also. There is then developed the concept of Christ and his host making a long march, after the manner of Israel under Moses, from Sinai across the wilderness and round the Dead Sea, to make a triumphant approach to Jerusalem via the Mount of Olives.

Of course, various Biblical allusions are woven into this tapestry, but support of this theme by straight unmistakable Bible evidence is very hard to find. Students are invited to ponder a few questions regarding this theory.

1. Why should the angel be assumed to be the Lord Jesus? Whenever he appears on the Apocalyptic scene he is always given a distinctive name or title (which can apply to none but he – The Lamb, the Word of God, King of Kings, Alpha and Omega) and the descriptions of the Lord Jesus (e.g. in ch. 1, 5, 17, 19) are also unique and unmistakable. Also, in all other places in the Apocalypse angels are angels- yes, even in ch.2, 3; see “Bible Studies” ch.16.6. Should not the copious similarities between this angel and the angel who appeared to Daniel be decisive that they are one and the same? Did Christ in glory appear to Daniel?
2. On what evidence can it be asserted that this angel of Rev. 10: 1 is really a multitude?
3. There is a sharp contradiction between saints made immortal at Sinai and saints made immortal in Jerusalem. Both ideas cannot be right. Then in view of the evidence cited in “Bible Studies” p. 297, which has to give way? Is there one Bible passage which says plainly that the Judgment will be at Sinai? Is there one Bible passage, which says plainly that the saints will be immortalised at Sinai?
4. Where in the Bible is the phrase: “The march of the rainbowed angel” to be found? Does Revelation say one word about this angel marching to Zion? And if it does not, why such enthusiasm for perpetuating this idea?
5. Is there, apart from a mistranslated and misapplied Micah 7: 15, a single verse which says that Christ and the saints will make a long march round the Dead Sea? (Mic. 7: 15 simply means that events as marvellous as in the time of the Exodus will happen in the Last Days.)
6. Is it not true that the idea of the march of the rainbowed angel has been built entirely out of an assumption that Israel’s experience under Moses must be repeated exactly by the New Israel under Christ? And if it were so, ought not the march to start in Egypt and not at Sinai?

There are those who will resent the posing of questions of this sort. But if indeed we stand in the best tradition of Christadelphian Bible Truth shall we not wish for – nay, insists on – a plain Scriptural demonstration all the way. We have nothing to fear from the results of a careful critical re-examination of received ideas. If they are as correct as our fundamental principles of faith certainly are, there will be nothing lost. If, however, in this field of Bible prophecy there is room for improvement in the consideration of Bible alternatives, what fools we should be to follow the methods of J.W.’s meekly accepting authoritative dictation. Is this the stuff that Christadelphians are made of?

To the present writer, some of the interpretations put forward in this little book appear to be very solidly based on Holy Scripture. Some of the conclusions suggested have the support of fair Bible evidence, but not so weightily as to warrant complete confidence. Here, as the world rushes faster and faster to its doom questions of this less certain character will sort themselves out. If, on the other hand, there is a determination to nail the f lag of prophetic interpretation to a 19th century mast, and to insist on the unquestioning acceptance of a rigid scheme of interpretation (as though it belongs to the same category as our solidly based doctrines), then we are back in the dark days of Galileo and the papacy’s geocentric universe.

What might be called the traditional interpretation of Paul’s unique prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2 goes something like this. The Man of Sin is the pope, revealed as head of a mighty corrupt system of religious apostasy. He calls himself God on earth, and makes many other comparable claims, the spiritual despot over the lives of many millions. Development in this direction was already under way, as Paul wrote (it is asserted), but as yet real progress was slow because restrained by a greater power (that of imperial Rome?) which would brook no rival. When this apostasy flowered it would be accompanied by a wide variety of signs and wonders designed to bolster up its authority, so that men unwilling to accept the spiritual authority of the gospel would find this a titillating alternative, until the great day of the manifestation of Christ in glory who will sweep away the Man of Sin and all his system with an exercise of divine power.

In some respects this interpretation seems to answer to the details in Paul’s prophecy extraordinarily well. But there are also other considerations, which should cause the modern student of the Word to pause and question.

For instance, it should be recognized honestly that as soon as Martin Luther’s Reformation (which was less than half a reformation) took place, this Scripture and Daniel 7 and the Babylon prophecies in Revelation were immediately and for the first time given papal applications. They were all splendid rods with which to beat the back of the pope. And of course the Catholic experts were not slow to assert – and demonstrate- that the boot was on the other foot, Martin Luther was the Man of Sin! From the dispassionate viewpoint of the Truth in Christ all this now looks very much like Satan rebuking Sin.

This “traditional” interpretation, then, should be seen for what it is-an inheritance from men who themselves were a long, long way from the Truth concerning many fundamental principles – principles which the young Christadelphian takes in his stride today, and should thank God fervently for. The question has to be asked in all solemnity: What likelihood is there that Protestant divines who blithely and erroneously dogmatised about the trinity, and the devil, and the nature of Christ, and the immortal soul, and hell-fire, a present kingdom of God, and episcopacy, and baptism, and a good many more teachings, should be given a marvellous insight into the most intricate mysteries of Bible prophecy such as to make them the authorities, guides and instructors of the faithful remnant who hold to the Truth in the Last Days? Any decently instructed class of Christadelphian teenagers could explain the real truth regarding these errors still held in Protestantism, and could provide the simple Bible evidence! But come to the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation – and Thessalonians – and the tables are turned: the learned fool becomes the instructor of those blessed with rich insight into God’s purpose in Christ! Is there not something rather odd about these paradoxical circumstances?

Further, when examined in greater detail this conventional Man of Sin exposition begins to look a trifle threadbare. Why should Paul spend so much time and effort (2 Th. 2: 5) warning his new converts about the corruption of their new-found faith, long centuries later?

Why should he speak of this Man of Sin as “sitting in the temple of God”? Without exception the apostles used this expression only regarding the Household of Christ. Would any believer of the Truth accept the Vatican or St. Peter’s as being “the temple of God”? But the received exposition requires this! These Thessalonian converts had learned that “the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” But by the time the popes had reached the point where their fantastic claims to divine authority began to be plausible (is not A.D. 608 the classic date?), the Truth had as good as disappeared from sight, and the pope was sitting enthroned not in the temple of God but over a system which was already rotten right through.

Again, with very obvious intention to call Judas to mind, Paul described the Man of Sin as “the son of perdition” (John 17: 12). What appropriateness, at all, is there in this? Judas was close to Christ, an able and trusted helper, “the one of the twelve” (Mark 14: 10 Gk.). No pope has ever been within a thousand spiritual miles of being a true disciple, later turned false (Psalm 55: 13,14). Then did Paul’s marvellous aptness of phrase desert him here?

Another expression lines up with this: ´´whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders.” It is impossible not to be reminded of Paul’s description elsewhere of his own ministry: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders and mighty deeds” (2 Cor. 12: 12). In the Greek text the words are identical except for the inclusion, in Thessalonians, of the word “lying”, and the substitution there for “in-working” in place of Paul’s “thorough working”. So again the most obvious explanation would appear to be that Paul was describing the personal activity of one who claimed apostolic status, but only in order to undermine the whole fabric of the Ecclesia, the true temple of God, from within.

The verb tenses in this prophecy have been given but scant attention, have even been man-handled. Most of the way, Paul wrote in the future tense. Then why the exceptions in verses 9, 10, 12?: “they received not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. . . for this cause God is sending them an in-working of error. ” A worthwhile explanation of this prophecy will find room for remarkable features of this kind. The most natural conclusion to draw is that Paul had his eye on some movement of stubborn refusal to accept the truth in Christ, which was current in his own time and had already shown its hostile attitude in very effective fashion.

From this point it is now possible to proceed more positively:

That phrase “an in-working of error” (compare v.7, 9) provides significant help. It certainly has a marvellous aptness as allusion to the Lord’s parable of the leaven (Matthew 13: 33). This is made all the more likely by the fact that there are at least six or seven other references to that gospel elsewhere in 2 Thessalonians – and a great many more than that in 1 Thessalonians! The sequence in Matthew 13 should be pondered. First, a parable about the preaching of the gospel; then another about the malicious sowing of tares – a deliberate attempt to wreck the good work by secret internal hostile activity; then a parable about leaven spreading its corrupting influence till “the whole is leavened.” Without exception every allusion in the Bible to leaven makes it a symbol of that which is evil.

This sequence, which continues through the chapter, is a prophecy of the fate of the gospel. At the time Paul wrote, the sinister process of defeating Christianity from within was already being carried through with Judaist hypocritical efficiency and devilish success.

A year or two earlier Paul had warned about “false brethren unawares brought in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal. 2: 4). Men of this kidney had deliberately followed Paul and Barnabas round the newly-formed Galatian churches in order to undo all their work, skilfully persuading inexperienced Gentile converts that they must not only believe the gospel of Christ but also accept all the obligations of the Law of Moses.

The same influential unscrupulous set had practically won over Peter and Barnabas at Antioch to their gospel of salvation by works of the Law (Gal. 2: 11-14). A year or two later the same clique were to attempt identical subversive tactics at Corinth, with almost complete success. The ecclesia there was ultimately saved to the Truth, but only after many a heartache for Paul and his helpers.

At the back of Paul’s amazing and uncharacteristic self-vindication in 2 Corinthians 11, was the need to assert himself against his detractors who had travelled to Corinth in his steps. “Such are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ (“all power and signs and lying wonders”!). And no marvel; for Satan himself (their leader) fashioneth himself into a messenger of light” (11: 13,14). Their derogation of Paul was clever and quite unprincipled: “his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible… he terrifies you by letters… rude in speech” (10: 9,10; 11: 6). The tactics are familiar. They have even been known in the ecclesias of the twentieth century: damn a healthy movement by besmirching the character of its protagonists. The method is as old as human nature.

Even though Paul had only been a few months in Thessalonica, and a few more away from it, the efficient machine of the opposition had already gone into action, creating a minor crisis among the new brethren by means of a forged letter, purporting to have come from Paul himself: “We beseech you…that ye be not soon shaken in mind (the same Greek word as in Acts 17: 13) or be troubled, neither by spirit (i.e. one claiming to speak by Holy Spirit guidance; cp. the usage in 1 John 4: 1-3; 1 Tim. 4: 1), nor by word, nor by letter as from us” (2 Th. 2: 2). For this reason it became necessary for Paul to provide undeniable authentication to his own epistles: “The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write” (3 : 17). Having had bitter samples of the opposition’s tactics before, Paul had forewarned his new converts: “Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” (2: 5). Their very existence in Christ was at stake. No wonder, then, that he gave them this rather bitter forecast of yet greater evil impending. (For more details of this sort: “Acts” H.A.W. App. 3).

Thus the picture emerges of a devilish influence at work in the early church deliberately seeking to bring to ruin the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. The evidence for this is hardly to be contested. Then was this movement, and more particularly its leader, the Man of Sin whom Paul warned against?

There is no single phrase in the prophecy, which does not answer to this hypothesis.

Obviously the leader, whom Paul calls “Satan, transforming himself into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11: 14) was a man of great personality and impressive qualifications, or how could he have undermined so quickly and easily Paul’s standing in that ecclesia? Obviously he was able to parade such qualifications as would at least rival those of Paul. (It is tempting to make guesses as to his identity. There is one N.T. character who is a good candidate). He was of near apostolic status. If not actually having Holy Spirit powers of his own (2 Th.2: 2-9; Heb. 6: 4-6), his cleverness and unscrupulous methods enabled him to match the “signs of the apostle” which had been seen in Paul. He dwelt in “the temple of God’, being accepted in many ecclesias as a believer of good standing.

But how would it be possible for even such a man to “shew himself that he is God” (verse 4)? Here the Greek word occurs without the definite article, as at the end of John 1:1. This rules out any claim to divinity, of the kind that has been made for the popes, and brings the claim to a lower level of divine authority, such as would be natural in anyone claiming Holy Spirit power and such as Paul himself normally claimed for his own work.

“The mystery of iniquity doth already work,” Paul warned; that is, the wicked secret movement is already busy among you Thessalonians as, earlier, in so many other places. But at present its influence and effectiveness were kept in check by Paul himself-“he that letteth, hindereth”. Who but Paul, would have dared to withstand Peter to the face? Before many years he was to be ‘taken out of the midst.” And then the malevolent hostility, already evident enough to Paul, though not to his apostolic colleagues in far-off Jerusalem, would show itself in its true colours.

Those Greek tenses mentioned earlier now present no difficulty whatever. Al1 the other details in this short prophecy will now be seen to chime in readily with the exposition set out here.

But, it may be objected, all these suggestions fall to the ground before one big fact- the prophecy describes a power which will be in existence till the coming of the Lord: “whom the Lord will consume with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming” (v.8).

It is agreed that the words do require this Man of Sin to meet with dramatic judgment from the Lord in person. But the idea that therefore he must have a continuous existence right up to the Last Days is pure (sic) assumption. The words mean no more than this – that this man, thoroughly responsible to the Lord of Glory, will certainly be raised in the Last Day, and condemned for his cynically evil work among the inexperienced saints whom he misled in the first century. In an earlier passage in the same epistle (1: 6-10) the same idea is readily traceable: “It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”

Here it is time to pause. There is possible (so it is submitted here) a detailed exposition of the Man of Sin prophecy with reference to a Jewish conspiracy to wreck the early church, and especially its Gentile extensions, from within. It is a fulfilment, which has strong New Testament pointers to support it, which was marvellously relevant both to the man who wrote it and those who received its warnings, and it fits into its context as a hand into a glove.

Yet even now there are other facets of the prophecy, which give it a yet greater fascination and instruction for saints in Christ today.

Since the Letters to Thessalonica are shot through with a strong emphasis on the Second Coming, it does not seem unreasonable to look for a further fulfilment of the Man of Sin prophecy in the present era, on similar lines to that already suggested.

How far does one have to look i n order to identify a movement of the kind Paul had to contend against? – one which is strongly Judaist in its emphasis, exclusive in its concept of fellowship, aggressive in its conversionism, lopsided in its enthusiasm for sacrifices rather than the Sacrifice, more at home with Moses and the Law than with Jesus and the Gospels, incomparably zealous for the pronouncements of the “rabbis”, and better at interpreting Scripture by tradition rather than by Scripture.

Those who live in “the uttermost parts of the earth” are best fitted to judge whether or not Paul’s searing prophecy about the Man of Sin has relevance to their own circumstances. And having made their assessment, they will be at least able to thank God for this fulfilment, however depressing it may be, of another sign of the nearness of their Lord’s coming.

Paul, you should have been with us in this hour also.

Those readers whose minds are set irrevocably on a continuous historical exposition of Revelation and who leave no room for any other reading of that elaborate symbolism may choose to give themselves the luxury of omitting this chapter.

But even as they do so, it might not be amiss for such to ask themselves whether this ‘received’ interpretation really is “continuous”:

Just how ‘continuous’ is the foregoing? Does not that key word have to be applied in a somewhat elastic sense?

Also, just how historical are the ‘fulfilments’ traditionally pinned on to some of the chapters in the above list? Regarding Revelation 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, just how close and how satisfying is the correspondence between prophecy and history? In quite a few places the proposed ‘fulfilment’ is anything but convincing, and is altogether too trivial. A considerable sequence of decidedly awkward questions needs to be answered

But there is no intention here to press inquiries of this sort, but only to suggest that, even if the continuous historic scheme be considered satisfactory, there is also room for more than one interpretation of the Apocalypse. There are literally scores of prophecies and typical histories in the O.T. where students of the Word are accustomed, almost as a matter of course, to look for more than one meaning. It would be a straightforward job, an easy task, to fill a volume with examples of this dual fulfilment, this foreshadowing of one set of events by another earlier set.

One feature of the Apocalypse almost shouts for this kind of approach. It is this: Omitting from present consideration Revelation 1-5 and 21-22, it is still a relatively easy matter to compile a list of well over 500 allusions or quotations from Holy Scripture in the other 17 chapters. In other fields of N.T. study such quotations from and allusions to the O.T. are, almost always, automatically assumed to be strictly relevant. They are never assumed to be casual similarities. Rather, they are picked up eagerly as God-sent clues to a fuller understanding of the text in both places, both the original and the quotation. Yet in Revelation the continuous historic method of interpretation is unable to make any worthwhile use of this vast accumulation of interpretative hints. Instead, they go virtually (but not virtuously) ignored, and instead the great stand-by is: “History tells us…” What has come over “the People of the Book” that they so readily abandon the well-proven principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture, and instead choose to be known as “the people of the history book”?

The foregoing words are written with much sadness, but they are written because they have to be.

Continuous historic fulfilment there may be, but for real progress in understanding this method cannot hold a candle to the Biblical approach.

The six Seals of Revelation 6 provide plenty of illustrations of the relative power of the two methods:

1. Verses 4-6, 12, clearly foretell war, famine, pestilence and earthquake. The same dreadful combination of horrors comes into the Olivet prophecy (Mt. 24: 6,7). And every student of that pronouncement by Jesus knows what it is about. This item by itself may be just a coincidence of judgment language. But such an explanation loses its force when a regiment of other examples ranges itself alongside.
2. Verse 8 repeats the sequence of troubles: “Power over the fourth part of the earth (the Land), to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death (i.e. pestilence), and with the beasts of the earth”. Here the Greek text uses the very words to be found in Ezekiel 14: 21 (LXX), where the immediate context sums them up as “my four sore judgments on Jerusalem”. Then, why the dogmatic insistence that when the words are quoted in Rev. 6: 8 they refer to the history of a by-no means-important segment of the third century Roman Empire?
3. In the Sixth Seal the interpretative references proliferate. Frightening signs in sun, moon, and stars (v.12, 13) positively shout for reference to Israel (e.g. Gen. 37: 9, 10; Jer. 31: 35, 36; and for copious other evidence, see “Bible Studies”, H.A.W. ch.6.01). This conclusion is strongly underlined by:
4. “as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs” (v.13). Again, if evidence is needed that this also points to Israel, see ” Bible Studies” ch.6.02. Here the identification of Seal Six with Israel’s tribulation (when?) could rest; the case has been made. But there is plenty more evidence.
5. “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together”. This quotes Is. 51: 6; Heb. 1: 11, 12, which speaks of the end of the Mosaic order.
6. Verse 15 has a long catalogue of mighty men hiding from the Glory of the Lord “in the dens and the rocks of the mountains”. This passage is derived from Isaiah 2: 19; 3: 2, a Scripture that is cited by Paul in 2 Th.1: 9 with reference to the Second Coming. The context in Isaiah is clearly judgment on Israel.
7. And these scared fugitives say “to the mountains, and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb” (v. 16). It is inconceivable that this language was intended to describe a power struggle in obscure parts of the Roman Empire, a civil war that nobody remembers today (except the few Christadelphians who read Gibbon), when the identical words were first spoken by Hosea (10: 8) in a mighty prophecy against his own people (see “Gospels”, H.A.W., p.764f.) – words which were quoted verbatim by the Lord Jesus with reference to inevitable judgment on his apostate nation (Lk.23: 30).
8. “For the great day of his wrath (the wrath of him that sits on the throne) is come, and who shall be able to stand?” (v. 17). Did the great day of God’s wrath really take place just before Constantine came to the throne? And when the question is asked: “Who shall be able to stand?” (Jesus quoting his own words about the Second Coming; Lk. 21: 36), does the answer “Of course Constantine will” sound at all convincing?

Clearly all the Bible evidence in this chapter of Revelation calls for reference to a dramatic accumulation of divine judgments against wayward Israel in the end of this age. And with the little state of Israel in the precarious situation it at present finds itself in, how long before the thunderclouds of God’s wrath burst over the Holy Land? After all, the entire corpus of Bible prophecy centres on Israel and the New age. Prophecies about Gentile nations are there in the Book only because of their intimate relation with the people of God. Then is it likely that the Apocalypse was designed and intended to go off in a completely different direction, concerning itself with Rome, Imperial and Papal, European wars and Communism and the E.E.C.?

Those students who have been impressed with the dual fulfilment of almost all Bible prophecy- a near and also remote (Messianic) fulfilment – may like to consider the possibility that the Apocalypse has a good deal to say, also, about God’s 3½ years judgments on His people in the 1st century. But that is another story not strictly relevant to the present enquiry.

Trumpets

On very similar lines to what has been explored regarding the Seals, it is possible to trace copious Biblical directives concerning the seven Trumpet visions. What follows here is a very brief summary.

1. It was first pointed out by Sir Isaac Newton that the introduction to the Trumpets (8: 1-5) makes at least five separate allusions to the Day of Atonement ceremony as it was practised in the time of the apostles. A strange anomaly, surely, if these visions refer to the barbarous hordes of Europe in the centuries of darkness! Ought not this feature to steer attention immediately to Israel? It is worth noting also that on the Day of Atonement the seven angels sounded together and not one after the other. Does not this suggest a simultaneous fulfilment of all the trumpets?
2. There is one dramatic difference from the Biblical Day of Atonement. Instead of a high-priestly blessing on the multitude waiting in silence and prayer, there is a sensational outpouring of coals of fire on “the Land”. Compare Ezekiel 10: 2: coals of fire on the city of Jerusalem.
3. The Biblical allusions scattered throughout Trumpets 1-4, when followed up with care and patience, prove to be so many interpretative leads to earlier prophecies about God’s rejection of Israel.
4. Trumpets 5 and 6 employ the vivid figure of a locust invasion swarming through the Holy Land. The similarity between Hebrew words for “locust” and “Arab” may be accidental. But what can be no accident is the long series of verbal contacts (at least 15 of them) between Revelation 8, 9 and the Prophecy of Joel. Why has this interpretative directive gone ignored? That Joel is a prophecy with both 1st century and 20th century fulfilments is a commonplace conclusion with students of prophecy. Then ought not the same to be considered for Revelation 9? That there is Messianic reference almost shouts from the facts that Trumpets 5, 6, immediately lead on to Trumpet 7 (Rev. 11:14ff) – note the phrase “cometh quickly”); and this Trumpet 7 is about the kingdom established, the Last Day Resurrection and Judgment.
5. the specific period of “five months” (9: 5,10) links very easily and exactly with the 1st century reference-the A.D. 70 siege of Jerusalem lasted precisely this length of time. And in the Messianic reference it turns out to be, equally exactly, the equivalent of Daniel’s 2300 evening – mornings (on this, see “Bible Studies”, H.A.W., ch. 4.08).

Various other Biblical clues, when followed up instead of being quietly ignored, lead all the time to conclusions harmonizing beautifully with the general pattern sketched out here.

When will the people of the Book waken up to the fact that in O.T. and N.T. prophecy there is still a vast field of revelation waiting to be explored? And there is not much time left. What deters? – laziness? or fear? or ingrained conservatism?

In this study of Ezekiel’s temple it has already been suggested:

1. that it was not intended as a temple for the age to come, but
2. for erection in Jerusalem when Israel returned from Babylon.

It is now possible to go a step further and show that there are indications that…

1. the Jews themselves so understood it and endeavored to follow the prophet’s instructions.

But first it is desirable to emphasize how much Israel were in need of a new religious code. With the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, they lost not only their temple but also everything associated with it. The ark of the covenant was gone. There was therefore no mercy seat, and therefore no Day of Atonement was possible. The holy fire, which had been unquenched since God signified His good pleasure by accepting Solomon’s sacrifices (2 Chr. 7:1), was now gone out. So the offering of true burnt offerings was likewise out of question. Neither had they a high-priest with Urim and Thummim who could give a divine judgment in time of perplexity. Indeed all the indications were that God had altogether abolished the system of worship which had been given hundreds of years earlier for the guidance and help of His people: “He hath violently taken away his tabernacle… he hath destroyed his place of assembly: the Lord hath caused the sabbaths and solemn feasts to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary… the king and her princes are among the Gentiles: the law is no more” (Lam. 2: 6,7,9).

So unless God gave His nation a new start, Israel returned from captivity would be a people spiritually adrift.

Evidently, then, Ezekiel 40-48 was designed to show the Jews how they were to worship and serve God when their seventy years of exile were expired — what kind of temple they were to fashion; the character of their priesthood; their offerings and their feasts; the due status of priest and prince; the re-allocation of the Land to the tribes; and especially, they were to be inspired with the possibilities of Jerusalem as a center for worship, not only for Israel but also for the strangers in the Land, and — more than that — as a source of spiritual blessings radiating to all the nations of the world.

The phraseology of the prophecy plainly suggests this kind of aim and intention: “Declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel….Son of man, mark well, and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears all that I say unto thee concerning all the ordinances of the house of the Lord, and all the laws thereof….And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations….Show the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities….And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, show them the form of the house….that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them” (40:4 and 44:5 and 43:10,11).

The reason why this new house of God should be revealed to Ezekiel in particular is now evident. All through the captivity the godly amongst the exiles would be able to pore over it and by it would nurture their faith in the promised restoration. By its guidance, plans would be drawn up and details worked out for the renewal of divine worship and praise in Jerusalem. What an in-spiration it would be to them during the long years “by the waters of Babylon”!

And yet there would also be the sad recognition that even when re-established on mount Zion, the service of Jehovah in such a temple could never again be considered adequate. For Ezekiel’s vision had no mention of a Day of Atonement, it gave no hint of a golden candlestick or table of shewbread before the Lord, neither was there a hint of the lavish use of gold and silver which had contributed so much to the splendor of Solomon’s temple; and the high-priestly garments for glory and for beauty were lost; and the genealogies of the priests had gone up in the flames of Nebuchadnezzar’s holocaust.

Splendid and holy as their new temple was to be, its limitations only emphasized in their minds the abiding need for a new and better order, with a Messiah who would be both Prince and Priest ministering a Sacrifice which would be all-sufficient, and not merely temporary and typical.

The hints in Ezra and Nehemiah which connect their new temple with that described by Ezekiel are interesting and instructive.

In Ezra 6:3 the details of the decree of Cyrus include the actual dimensions as given by Ezekiel — central sanctuary 60 cubits long and 60 cubits high. These are the identical measurements which are to be deduced from Eze. 41:2,4.

Further, Ezra records that when the temple was finished, “they builded and finished it according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, etc.” (6:14).

If it be asked what command of God is referred to here, there is none to which reference can be made except Ezekiel 40-48. Unless some divine instruction which is not included in the Scriptures be presupposed, there seems to be no evading the conclusion that Ezra’s temple was regarded as being an attempt to fulfill the prophecy of Ezekiel.

It is useful also to recall that Ezekiel’s scheme required that Jerusalem be developed as a sanctuary area one mile square — approximately the size of the ancient city. There was to be no rebuilding of the business or residential area of the city, but instead Ezekiel planned another city called Jehovah-Shammah south of Jerusalem.

In harmony with this scheme there are certain remarkable features about the record in Nehemiah. when the temple was erected, apparently no town buildings were constructed in the vicinity. The grant of timber from the king’s forest was “for the gates of the palace (temple) which appertained to the House, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I (Nehemiah) shall enter into” (2:8). There is no mention of ordinary civilian dwellings.

The decree of Artaxerxes similarly emphasized: “Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven (in Ezekiel 40-48?), let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven; for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?” (Ezra 7:23).

Apparently at this time other cities were being or had already been built, but not so the civilian part of Jerusalem (Neh. 11: 20). This is a very extraordinary and significant fact. It is almost as though after World War II all the cities of England were speedily and completely restored whilst all that was done in London was the patching up of St. Paul’s. Such would have been a fair parallel to the unique state of affairs existing in Judea at this time. Can anything be found to explain it except the highly probable idea that these returned captives were seeking to pattern their development of the Land on Ezekiel’s instructions.

Similarly, as Ezekiel had planned for the Levitical ministers to have cities to dwell in in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem (Ezek. 45:5 Septuagint), so under Nehemiah “the singers builded themselves villages round about Jerusalem” (Neh. 12:29). Yet “the city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded” (7:4). Indeed, the few who were now dwelling in the city did so “that in the night they may be a guard unto us, and may labor in the day” (4:22).

If Ezekiel’s prophecy be not the explanation of this remarkable state of affairs, then what is?

In harmony with all this is the record of the consecration of the wall of Jerusalem when it was completed. This was done (Neh. 12: 27-43) as a great religious celebration. The degree of holy joy implied in this part of the narrative suggests that the people saw this not just as the renewal of the walls of their ancient city, the pride of all their history, but the first stage towards accomplishing that which Ezekiel had foretold – a frame of a city a mile square which was to be all temple.

But the people of Israel were unable to carry the project through to its culmination. Their own efforts were halfhearted. They were hindered and discouraged by enemies without and the beginnings of a renewed apostasy within. Thus, bit by bit, they lost their early idealism, and though the temple was built — probably, so far as one can tell, on the pattern of that planned by Ezekiel — it never achieved that which was intended for it. The Glory of the God of Israel did not return unto it, and Ezekiel’s great ideal still goes unrealized until the day when the new Jerusalem descends from God out of heaven; and then it will find expression, not in reeds of wall and cubits of altar but in the spiritual realities which those solid facts were intended to teach.

Ezekiel’s Temple intended for the Return from Babylon, not for the Millennium

1. 13 years between ch. 39 and ch. 40 (see 32:1)
2. The land smaller than Genesis 15:18 (47:20).
3. In Ezekiel, Jerusalem not to be built except as an enormous temple. Instead, a completely new city on the site of Bethlehem. Contrast Zech. 8: 4,5, etc.
4. The Prince is not a High Priest: 45:8,9,16,22; 46:18. He has wife and family: 46:16,17. He might die: 46:17,18. Warning against oppression: 45:8; 46:18. Goes no further than the court of the priests: 46:2. Offers sacrifice for sin: 45:22; 46:10-12.
5. No uncircumcised person: 44:9. What of Gentile saints?
6. Temple for Jews only: 43:10,11.
7. Levites (priests?) degraded because of sins of their fathers: 44:10,11; contrast 18:2.
8. East gate shut six days in seven: 46:1. Contrast Isa. 60:1.
9. Warnings against fraud: 45:9-12.
10. Dan (48:1,32) omitted in Rev. 7.
11. Israel back from Babylon needed a new code. They had no ark, no mercy seat (therefore no Day of Atonement), no holy fire (therefore no sacrifice). Lam. 2:6-9. This is a new revelation for them (emphasized by 40:4; 44:5; 43:10,11).
12. Back from Babylon, they followed Ezekiel very largely. Ezra 6:3 is dimensions of 41: 2-4. Ezra 6:14 — what commandment of God, if not Ezekiel? Ezra 7: 23 — temple erected, but no town buildings. Other cities built but no dwelling in Jerusalem. Singers not in Jerusalem; compare Neh. 12:29; 11:38 with Ezek. 45:5; 48:13. The only reason for dwelling in Jerusalem, to be a guard: Neh. 4:22; contrast 7:4. The wall consecrated with sacrifices: Neh. 12: 27-43. Zechariah 8:4 probably implies no civilian dwelling in Jerusalem in his day. All 12 tribes returned: Ezek. 47:13, etc. Cp. Neh. 7:73; Ezra 8:24,25; 2:70.
13. What about 47:1-12? This must be symbolic.
14. Gentiles already in the land given “equal” inheritance.

Typist’s note: This work is, on the internal evidence, not complete. But it is all that is available. (This will probably also explain the outline form of the final section.)

For many years it has been traditional among Christadelphians that the memorable temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 will function in the Holy Land during the millennial reign of Christ. That a temple will exist during that time of blessedness would appear to be clear enough. But what kind of temple will it be?

Chapters

• A Fresh Look at Ezekiel’s Temple
• Ezekiel’s Temple not a Millennial Temple (1)
• Ezekiel’s Temple not a Millennial Temple (2)
• Ezekiel’s Temple not a Millennial Temple (3)

For many years it has been traditional among Christadelphians that the memorable temple described in Ezekiel 40-48 will function in the Holy Land during the millennial reign of Christ.

That a temple will exist during that time of blessedness would appear to be clear enough. But what kind of temple will it be?

Since the publication of a monumental work on the subject in 1892, by Henry Sulley of Nottingham, most Christadelphians have been accustomed to thinking of that temple as consisting essentially of three main parts:

• an outer set of buildings about a mile square and about 150 feet wide at any point, with massive corner towers rather like New York skyscrapers.
• an inner circle of buildings divided into thirty segments.
• a steep central mountain surmounted by an immense altar, from which comes living water to pour out of the temple buildings on the south side and form a growing river running eastwards.

It is the main point of the present study — a negative one, alas! — to suggest that such a view is altogether mistaken, that it is based on a large number of erroneous interpretations of detail in Ezekiel 40-48, and that a careful scrutiny of the exposition set out in the volume named raises so many doubts as to make it well-nigh impossible to accept the author’s thesis. To the present writer one of the most amazing features of this study is the fact that those numerous problems have not apparently been faced up to or at least have not been given wider publicity during the past seventy years. More positively, it may be possible later to suggest an alternative and less dubious interpretation of these enigmatic chapters.

For simplicity’s sake and ease of reference the criticisms to be advanced will be numbered. Page references are, of course, to the first edition of The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy by Henry Sulley.

1. Concerning the altar which is described as being “before the House” (40:47), the author, having already decided in favor of a square frame of buildings, cannot put this altar “before the House” without putting it outside the House altogether. So he asserts (very dubiously) that the Hebrew preposition really means “in the presence of,” and from this he infers that the altar will be at the center. But the word used is the ordinary Hebrew word for “before.” It is so translated scores and scores of times (Young’s Concordance does not attempt to list more than a few, and on this Strong’s is only bewildering to the student who has no Hebrew) in such phrases as “before the Lord”, “before the tabernacle”: e.g., Lev. 1:5 and 3:8. By contrast, the reconstruction of the temple on a pattern similar to that of Solomon’s temple — which is the kind of conclusion reached by practically all students of this prophecy except H. Sulley — puts the altar in the court of the temple, east of the Sanctuary and therefore literally and precisely “before the House.”
2. A second argument for this central siting of the altar is put thus, on p. 51: “This altar is hypostatically representative of the divine presence” – therefore it must be at the center! but was not the altar of burnt offering in the Tabernacle and in the First Temple just as “hypostatically representative of the divine presence”? Yet neither of those was in the center of the Sanctuary. The argument is a poor one.
3. A third argument is adduced: “this altar must of necessity be in the center, because those who approach to it in the performance of priestly duty enter the Most Holy for that purpose” (p.51). But does Ezekiel say so? The present writer has not been able to find any such statement. The author is surely assuming what he wants to prove.
4. Finally on this point: “Ezekiel gives the detailed measurements of the altar when he is in the Most Holy” — and this is mentioned on p. l51 as “confirmation of this conclusion.” Again there is something suspiciously like carelessness. For Ezekiel does not say the altar is in the Most Holy (Eze. 43:12 is about the entire temple area; cp. 42:2; and RV rightly begins a new paragraph at v. 13). Nor is it true that Ezekiel went into the Most Holy. On the contrary, when the Most Holy is being measured, Ezekiel is careful to say: “Then went he (the angel) inward, and measured….” (41:3). As a priest who was not a High Priest, Ezekiel knew that he himself had no right to enter the Most Holy.

These four points, none of them at all satisfactory, constitute all the reasons advanced for the highly revolutionary theory that the altar must be in the center of the temple. But there are other features about this altar which raise doubts in the mind.

1. Because “waters come down from under the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar” (47:1), it is inferred “that the altar must be considerably elevated.” But is one at liberty to deduce from the verb “come down” that the waters descend from the top of a mountain? The seven steps and eight steps (40: 22,31) by which the house was higher than its surroundings would be adequate to explain why the waters “come down.”
2. Ezekiel 43:17 mentions “his stairs” on the eastward side of the altar. Our author rejects this translation in favor of another just as valid: “ascent” (p. 53b.) He then proceeds: “If we adopt ascent as the meaning, it would indicate that the altar would be difficult of approach, if not, humanly speaking, inaccessible from any other than the east side.” Does this really follow?The logic of this conclusion is not easy to grasp. Yet this becomes a ground for putting the altar on a mountain peak unclimbable on three sides! When, however, it is observed that the record about Israel’s altar in the wilderness and also the detail about the throne of Solomon has the same word translated “steps” (Exod. 20:26; I Kgs. 10:19), there seems to be little enough reason for disallowing “stairs” here. The same word occurs translated “steps” in 40: 22,26,31, and the AV reading here is accepted without demur. Then why not in 43:17?
3. One is left wondering also how the priests would transport the hundreds of sacrifices to the altar-summit of this mountain. But perhaps the powers of immortality are to make light of this toil.
4. The dimensions of the altar present further grievous difficulty. In height it appears to be 2 cubits (for the lower ‘settle”) plus 4 cubits (for the greater ‘settle’) plus 4 cubits (for the altar itself) = total 10 cubits. The length and breadth (over all) = 14 cubits (43:14-17). But in these latter dimensions the word “cubit” is supplied by the translators. Their common sense conclusion that all the units are cubits is curtly discarded by our author. “But this is not the case,” he asserts, though not without reason given. And the reason given is this. “The measure of 14 cubits does not even attain to the dimensions of the altar made by Solomon.” Such a state of affairs is, to his mind, unthinkable. Yet, why should it? Solomon’s temple had gold and silver and brass in abundance, almost beyond weight, whereas in this temple there is no hint of any use at all being made of any of them. One looks for more solid argument before changing cubits into reeds, six times as long. “We have far more reason for supplying the word ‘reed’ rather than cubit.” But what that reason may be is not apparent to this reader.
5. The result of inflating the dimensions of the altar is that it is now at least 108 feet on each side — big enough to take hundreds of carcasses at once. But one is left wondering how the priest would succeed in arranging these sacrifices, at a distance of more than 50 feet away. Would he walk on the altar, or would he be equipped with modern mechanical handling plant?
6. Again, according to this view, the “horns” of the altar are small square towers at its corners, each a nine-feet cube. Why these should be termed “horns” is not very apparent. But how is the height of 9 ft. (= 2 + 4 cubits) arrived at? The 4 cubits is derived from 43:15: “And the altar shall be four cubits; and from the altar and upward shall be four cubits.” In all this context, there is no word of “horns” at all. Surely our architect’s conclusions are, to put it mildly, somewhat intuitive.
7. On p. 55a it is inferred that the altar has a trench filled with water all round it “to keep the whole structure cool and prevent fusion of the materials comprising it.” This round an altar with a great roaring fire burning hundreds of carcasses! The priest would surely be ministering in a perpetual cloud of steam. But in another place (p. 66a) it is suggested that divine fire will signify acceptance of the sacrifice. In that case the fire will surely be selective, burning sacrifices but not the altar; or else the altar itself will be unable to withstand this intense heat, even though water cooled. In the same category as this speculation is the highly imaginative and not too stimulating picture on p. 65 of the wicked being rejected and himself being “removed to the place of execution.” Yet the author writes with evident conviction on such details.
8. The acceptance of the sacrifice by fire from heaven raises another practical problem. Since the altar would obviously take an enormous number of sacrifices, how could the waiting crowd know whose offering was being found acceptable? – especially, too, since they would be at least half a mile away at the foot of the mountain! Practical problems of this nature do not seem to have received sufficient attention. If the general picture formulated about the temple described by Ezekiel were correct, would so many snags become evident?
9. One last point about the altar. Its name Ariel (43:16 mg) is accepted as meaning “the lion of God,” with this comment: “It (the altar) will typify the terror of Yahweh: and its existence in His House will be a warning to one and all not to perform the part of the wicked….” (p. 54a). But since only the priest would see it or come near to it (the rest being, as already mentioned, more than half a mile away), this does not seem wonderfully appropriate, the more so since the priest would need the warning least of all, being a “son of Zadok (righteousness)”. It seems to have been overlooked not only that “Lion of God” is condemned by its obvious unfitness as a name for an altar, but that Ariel may also mean “I will provide a ram,” with evident suitability and allusion to Gen. 22:13,14.
10. It is now time to consider the Holy Place which is taken to be a circle of thirty self-contained and identical “cellae” (as the author is fond of calling them) round the foot of the hill. What are the grounds for concluding that these buildings are circular in arrangement? One is able to discover only two points of evidence, both of which — on examination — are palpably wrong. The first is 43:12: “Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold this is the law of the House.” Apparently that phrase “round about” is taken to require a circular shape (p. 48). But the Hebrew word thus translated carries no suggestion whatever of circular shape. It is used (40:5 and 45:2) of the square enclosure of the Sanctuary, of the rectangular enclosure of the Tabernacle court (Exod. 27:17), of the circuit of the square altar (43:13). If more examples are needed: Ezek. 40:16,43 and 41:5-8,10-12; Exod. 38:16,20,31 and 40:8,33. As a point of evidence this “round about” is worthless. In any case 43:12 says: “At the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about shall be most holy,” whereas H.S. puts his circle of buildings at the foot of the hill.
11. The only other point of evidence — what is called “the leading indication of a circular form” — is 41:1: “he brought me to the temple (i.e., the holy place), and measured the posts, six cubits broad on the one side and six cubits broad on the other side, the breadth of the tabernacle.” Here the RV mg. refers to Exod. 26:25, where the breadth of the Tabernacle in the wilderness is made up of eight “boards” of one and one half cubits each. By most students this would be considered satisfactory, even though it still leaves open the question why there should be in the entrance to the holy place (as it would seem) a width identical with the Tabernacle. However our author prefers a quite different approach. He first points out that the word “tabernacle” is really “tent” (true!). And then this: “Now most tents are, and all tents were originally, round or ring-shaped” (p. 39). Is this really true? The present writer has schoolboy memories of improvised tents vastly different in shape from that of a right circular cone! And is it not a fact that the vast majority of tents in lands of the Near East were and are usually constructed on anything but that pattern? However, p. 49 goes on to develop the notion by quoting Isa. 40:22: “He stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” The rather vague comment is added: “The simile gives indication of the nature of the type from which it is drawn: namely, of a covered circular enclosed space.” But even if this highly figurative passage were admissible as evidence (which it surely isn’t), is there any reader who gets the impression that the dome of heaven looks like a hollow cone? Yet here is all the evidence the book advances for the highly revolutionary idea it propounds of a conical mountain with a circle of buildings at its base! The question has to be asked in all seriousness: Is the evidence good enough?
12. There are a number of other details about the reconstruction of this Holy Place which wrinkle the forehead: e.g., in 41:26 the word “porch” is taken to mean “porches”.
13. The word for “side-chamber” (41: 5,6) is replaced by “rib”, although in Solomon’s Temple (which should be a fairly good guide) it clearly means “side-chamber” (1 Kings 6:5).
14. On p. 38b “the cellae (chambers for singers and priests on duty: 40: 44-46) are undoubtedly the Temple mentioned in ch. 41.”
15. Again, the outside wall of the House (41:9) is shown in the elaborate diagram opposite p. 41 as being really an inside wall – but it does not really answer to the description “wall” in-asmuch as it is pictured as a series of empty spaces interspersed by “pillars” and “posts”. Also the spaces called “gates” in this outside inside wall appear to serve no useful purpose since they open on to a straight drop too high to be negotiated, for there are no stairs to correspond to those on the other side of the building.
16. On p. 42 the “winding about” (41:7) which is fairly obviously a spiral staircase to connect one floor of chambers with the next above, becomes a groined vaulting which has no “winding” — and this many centuries before groined vaulting was invented!
17. In 41:4 the measures of the Most Holy are given as: “the length, twenty cubits; and the breadth, twenty cubits.” Without any hint from the text, our author first applies this to the Holy Place instead, then he repeats the measurement three times (p. 43a), but also turns the word “breadth” into “height”, thus transforming the Most Holy twenty by twenty (exactly the same as in Solomon’s temple) into a three-storied Holy Place with three avenues twenty-cubits wide in it. Also, on p. 48 the statement is renewed that twenty by twenty are not the dimensions of the Most Holy Place but “undoubtedly” they are “the measurements that take us up to the Most Holy.” The reader can look at 41:4 again and judge for himself.
18. This turning of “breadth” into “height” crops up in several other places in the volume: e.g., from 41:14 a height of a hundred cubits for the Most Holy Place is inferred (pp. 45a and 47a); and since so far there has been only sixty cubits appropriated for the three stories, the remaining forty (or most of this) must be assigned to the foundation: “This foundation therefore, rises to a great height.” Yet 41:8 states specifically that the foundation is six cubits only! It is a comparatively easy matter to verify that the Hebrew word employed always means breadth, and never means height. If height were intended, the Hebrew language has several other words any of which would be more appropriate for the purpose than this one.
19. Even if the general idea of this temple plan were to be conceded, it now turns out that the architect’s mathematics (pp. 44, 45) are at fault in no less than four places:
20. In the second calculation on p. 44b, the outside porch (20 cubits) has been omitted. This error throws out the next calculation.
21. At the top of p. 45a, the “thirty times 5 cubits” should be “sixty times 5 cubits”, because there are 30 chambers each with a 5-cubit wall at each end.
22. The two calculations on p. 45a are in effect one and the same, the second simply being the first worked backwards. Naturally the same answer is arrived at both times, yet this is claimed as a neat check of accuracy!: “What can be more satisfactory than this?”
23. In this second calculation on p. 45a it is impressively claimed that the inner circumference (less wall space) amounts to precisely 6,224 cubits which – miraculously! – is exactly divisible by 16, thus giving 389 spaces between the “posts”. But it is not explained how these 389 spaces are to be shared between 30 cellae. 30 into 389 goes how many times?
24. The “separate place” is a part of the Temple which has, admittedly, given rise to some uncertainty. Yet it would at least appear to be clear from 41:13,14 that, wherever it might be sited, its dimensions are a hundred cubits each way. Yet in this volume it is identified with the space between the outer square and the inner circle of buildings. Could this, by any stretch of imagination, be described as “an hundred cubits long. Also the breadth….of the separate place toward the east, an hundred cubits”?
25. According to 46:22, in each corner of the court there is a boiling house, for the sacrifices, “forty cubits long, and thirty broad.” But in this volume the dimensions already adopted for the outer court will not allow of anything so small. So (perhaps permissibly) the cubits are turned into reeds. Another difficulty is that the courts formed at the corners of this square frame must themselves necessarily be square, and not 40 by 30. So the word for “long” is turned into “high”, although in 37 other places in these nine chapters the same word plainly means “long.” The result is four “monster towers….360 feet square and 480 feet high” for the boiling of sacrifices! “Such a building defies description.” Here, at least, one is inclined to agree.
26. The same tendency to make everything about the Temple as big as possible shows in quite a number of places: e.g., on p. 42, on the basis of a bit of dubious Hebrew etymology, the 20 by 20 cubits measure for the Most Holy (41:4) is blown up to something fantastically bigger — and is then applied to the Holy Place! Similarly it would appear to most readers of 47:2 that the prophet describes a trickle of water out of the sanctuary and later becoming a deepening river. Instead of this, one is invited to contemplate a complex of streams from the mountain making a circuit of the base and flowing out of a dozen gateways.
27. There are also downright errors of fact of a rather elementary kind; e.g., on p. 52 the Tyropean valley is represented as passing through the Haram area instead of the south of it; and on the same page there is the common misreading of Zech. 14:2 that only half the city of Jerusalem will be captured in the last great conflict; and facing p. 46 is an entertaining picture of palm trees growing up lattice work for all the world as though they were ivy or grape vines!
28. P. 48b: “Our business is to accept the logic of the facts, and frame our theories in harmony with them, rather than resist the evidence of the facts in order to fit a preconceived theory”!

It will be evident from the foregoing that Henry Sulley’s ideas of the pattern of the temple of Ezekiel’s prophecy are not shared by the present writer. Then what?

Briefly, and without reasons stated, it is believed that:

1. the proper understanding of Ezekiel 40-48 makes the temple rather like that of Solomon, but with significant modifications;
2. this temple will not be built in the Millennium; it was not so intended,
3. but it was for Israel on their return from Babylon;
4. it has value for saints of the present day comparable to that of Solomon’s temple and the tabernacle;
5. there will be a temple in the future age.

It is hoped to develop these investigations in a series of studies.

For many years there have been well-intentioned efforts by Christadelphians to interpret the last nine chapters of Ezekiel’s prophecy as a picture of a new temple to be built in the Land of Promise, a center of worship for all nations during the Millennial Reign of Christ. Such efforts have been confined to a comparatively small handful of students, the rest being somewhat daunted by the difficulties involved.

Because of this there has been a tendency to accept somewhat uncritically the results achieved by others — a startling exception to the normal Christadelphian way of things, that a Biblical exposition shall only be accepted when the detailed evidence has been examined bit by bit and thereafter approved or rejected.

Thus it has come about that the monumental work of Bro. Henry Sulley of Nottingham, published in 1892, has been allowed to set the pattern of Christadelphian thinking with regard to this temple. His scheme has been accepted in a remarkably uncritical spirit, largely — one imagines — because he was a well-qualified and successful architect who was deemed to be equipped well beyond the rank-and-file reader for the task of producing a definitive interpretation of the temple chapters.

The present writer is persuaded, however, that the work of that well-intentioned author was completely vitiated from the start by certain seriously mistaken presuppositions which dominated and distorted his synthesis in nearly all its main essentials.

Nor is it possible, because of technical difficulties over the production of a big set of diagrams, to go into the question as to what Ezekiel’s temple really was intended to look like. For the present it must suffice to say that the remarkable number of correspondences with Solomon’s temple in measurements and in the phrasing of the descriptions leads one to believe that essentially this temple was to be a second edition of the first temple, with certain modifications appropriate to the changed circumstances of its use.

But certainly the idea of a massive square of buildings with an inner ring (the “Holy Place”) equally magnifical, surrounding the base of an unscalable conical mountain which itself is crowned with a gigantic altar for countless animal sacrifices — this idea, it is emphasized, must be abandoned as being far away from a correct interpretation of Ezekiel’s specification. Ezekiel’s temple certainly has an enclosure about a mile square, but there is nothing to suggest that the buildings are that size. Actually the sanctuary itself is of much more modest proportions.

Probably it is the assumption that the temple was for use in the millennium which led to this mistaken notion of vast proportions. But where did that assumption come from? Primarily from the sequence of chapters in Ezekiel’s prophecy:

1. ch. 37 — the “resurrection” of Israel
2. ch. 38, 39 — the great invasion of the Land, and the final divine intervention.
3. ch. 40-48 — the temple of the future age, surely.

But a careful comparison of 32:1 with 40:1 reveals a gap of no less than thirteen years between items (b) and (c). The connection of the temple with the preceding chapters is now seen to be illusory. Chapters 40-48 stand well apart from all the rest, and are to be judged entirely on their own merits and not on context, for the context is non-existent.

When the investigation is pushed further, there soon piles up a veritable mountain of evidence all of which insists that a temple like Ezekiel’s, with ritual such as is described there, was never intended for the abiding Kingdom of God with its divine King-Priest and immortal hierarchy.

The most casual reading reveals an intention to reinstitute sacrifice, ceremonial cleansing, the observance of Sabbaths and much else that was already made familiar through the Law of Moses.

But the New Testament is almost over-emphatic in its insistence that all these things, fulfilled (filled full) in Christ, have been taken away once and for all, and that the purpose of God has no further room for anything of the kind:

1. Heb. 10:12: Christ has “offered one sacrifice for sins for ever.”
2. 10:14: “by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified (through association with him).”
3. 10:18: “where remission of these (sins) is, there is no more offering for sin.”
4. 9:9: “gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience.”

Then what could sacrifice in the kingdom achieve? If it be argued that these millennial sacrifices are not expiatory but commemorative, to remind mortals that their King of Glory once hung on a cross, the answer is fivefold:

• the King himself bearing the marks of crucifixion in his immortal body will be sufficient reminder to any doubting Thomases;
• the commemorative Bread and Wine instituted by Jesus himself will be sufficient reminder also: Luke 22: 16,18.
• Ezekiel explicitly states over and over again that the sacrifices are expiatory: e.g. 43: 19-26 and 45: 17,22.
• if commemorative sacrifices will be permissible then, why not in the period A.D. 30-70? Yet there is no mistaking Paul’s vehemence against those who thought they could achieve a marriage of convenience between Mosaic observance and faith in Christ.
• is there anywhere the slightest hint in scripture that God wants men to remember Jesus the Lamb of God through animal offerings? “The Law was added till the Seed should come” (Gal. 3: 19). The Seed has come, and accordingly the Law with all its institutions is gone for ever.

But to return to the weight of N.T. witness:

1. Heb. 7:12: “The priesthood being changed (from that of Aaron), there is also of necessity a change also of law.” If, and only if, Aaron is to resume his priesthood in the age to come, can animal sacrifices be re-instituted.
2. 7: 18,19: “The law made nothing perfect….the weakness and unprofitableness thereof”.
3. 10:9: “He taketh away the first (law), that he may establish the second.” This word “take away” is translated in twenty other places “put to death.” Is there to be a resurrection of that which the Lord has condemned to death?
4. 8:8,9: “Behold, the days come when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” That new covenant has not yet been made with the nation of Israel, but only with the true Israel of God. Nor can it be made with the Jews until they say “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” But when that covenant is made, it will be “not according to the covenant (ratified with animal sacrifices and associated with tabernacle service) that I made with your fathers….” But what Ezekiel describes is a re-institution of those very things. Therefore his code is not for Israel in the day when at last they receive the blessings of the New Covenant in Christ.
5. In Gal. 4: 9,10, Paul reproached his converts for “turning again to the weak and beggarly elements” and “observing days and months and times and years.” In that day when he rises from the dead, is he to spend his first millennium of immortality reversing that message?
6. The last witness on this is Stephen: “The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hand” (Acts 7:48).

This part of the argument is conclusive in itself. The details of Ezekiel’s vision present a picture of a system of worship utterly incompatible with the principles of redemption in Christ. The coming of Jesus as sacrifice and high-priest has made all other offering and any other mediatory priesthood utterly nugatory for all time.

If it be argued that the immortal saints are to be kings and priests in the coming age, then let it be remembered that a priest had and has other more important duties than the offering of animals. “A priest’s lips shall keep knowledge: and they should seek the law at his mouth” (Mal. 2:7). It was in this sense that Israel was intended to be “a kingdom of priests” for the evangelization and instruction of the rest of the world. This honor will have all his saints when they share his Messianic glory.

In the next part of this study it is proposed to go back to Ezekiel 40-48 and demonstrate from the details there that a Millennial fulfillment is utterly out of question.

In an earlier study, the point was stressed that the New Testament completely disallows the possibility of there ever being a future temple and ritual of the kind detailed by Ezekiel. It is now submitted that what Ezekiel himself wrote about it likewise leaves no doubt that the temple was not intended for the millennium but for the time when the Jews would return to the Land of their fathers from captivity in Babylon.

1. Who is the Prince of Ezekiel 45,46? Most assume that he is the Messiah. Others suggest that he is David. But what is stated concerning him rules out both of these possibilities. He is not a priest, certainly not a High Priest (46:2). He is to enter the Sanctuary no further than the gate of the court of the priests (46:2). He offers sacrifices for himself and for his sins (45:22 and 46:10-12). He is subject to death (46:17,18; note the word ‘inheritance’). He has a wife and sons (46:16). He is allowed to bestow gifts only from his own inheritance (46:17,18). He is warned against exercising oppression (45:8 and 46:18). A succession of princes seems to be implied (45:8). Such details require reference to a mortal prince of Israel.
2. Again, if this temple is for the millennium, its priests are certainly immortal saints in Christ. But this cannot be true of Ezekiel’s priests. They are liable to sweat (44:18). They are to drink no wine when serving in the sanctuary (v. 21); what a contrast with Matt. 26: 29! They marry — but only into the house of Israel (v. 22). They die (v. 22). They are permitted to defile themselves by contact with the dead, if it be a near relation (v. 25). They have no inheritance (v. 28). Such a catalog of facts once again rules out all reference to immortal saints in the Kingdom. Any attempt to meet this fairly substantial difficulty has been made by arguing that the sacrificing priests are spoken of only in vv. 15,16 — the sons of Zadok. These two verses, it is claimed, form a parenthesis (introduced by the word “But”) concerning the sons of Zadok, whilst the rest of the chapter, before and after, relates to a subsidiary order — the Levites — who will be given the privilege of helping in the temple administration in a sub-ordinate capacity.

This argument is all too plainly an expedient to get away from an awkward set of facts, and a quite inadequate expedient at that, as the following considerations will demonstrate:

• If this suggestion be correct, the entire section is seen to be right out of balance in its emphasis, with twenty verses (10-14, 17-31) devoted to the duties and responsibilities of these subsidiary Levites, and only two to the true (immortal) priests, “the sons of Zadok.”
• The argument for a parenthesis rests on thin air, for the Hebrew particle translated “But” which is supposed to introduce and indicate it, also begins twenty other verses in the same chapter, but is differently translated.
• A careful use of marginal references fully demonstrates that every detail that is written in Ezekiel regarding the Levites has its exact counterpart in the Pentateuch in Moses’ legislation for the priests. The only conclusion possible is that the distinction that is being made in Ezekiel is of a different kind — between priests like Jeremiah and Ezekiel who had been faithful and others who had not.

1. This introduces a further difficulty in the way of a millennial interpretation. In 44:10-14, “the Levites that went far from me, when Israel went astray” are to be degraded to less honorable duties in the Lord’s House. But in the millennium such men will not be in the Lord’s House at all, but will be cast out as an “abominable branch”.
2. What is the meaning of the exhortations and remonstrations addressed to “the house of Israel” except it be that this prophecy is specially for them and not for “saints” or “all nations”? The words speak for themselves: “declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel” (there is never any doubt about the words “these bones are the whole house of Israel”)! “And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God: O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations”. “Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel, remove violence and spoil” (40:4 and 44:6 and 45:9).
3. In 47:22,23 there is explicit legislation to ensure that strangers in the Land shall not be dis-inherited but shall have their own portion alongside the children of Israel. This is difficult to reconcile with the many promises that, in the Kingdom Age, the Land is to be for Israel, ruled over by the twelve apostles. But as a solution of the inevitable difficulty that the Jews returning from Babylon would find people of other races already settled in their territory, it is eminently sensible and just.
4. The maps that have been drawn to show how Ezekiel foretells the redivision of the Land are mostly packed with mistakes. The four most common are these:
   1. The size of the Holy Oblation — usually measured in reeds instead of in cubits. It is proposed to omit discussion of this point here because the conclusion reached in no way affects the main issue about time of fulfillment.
   2. 47:19: “And the south side southward, from Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea.” Kadesh in the Negeb is unmistakable. The great sea is certainly the Mediterranean. But many identify “the river” as being the Nile, and thus proceed to appro-priate a big piece of the land of Egypt as part of Israel’s future inheritance. But this is certainly not the true interpretation, as is proved by the mention of Kadesh. Also, the southern limit of the Land promised to the Fathers is “the river of Egypt,” which is undeniably the wadi El Arish which enters the sea just south of Gaza. Also, the Hebrew word for “river” here is that which describes a torrent and is certainly not the correct word for a mighty flood of waters like the Nile.
   3. 47:18. “The east side…shall be Jordan, from the (north) border unto the east sea.” This “east sea” is often taken to mean the Persian Gulf; and maps are drawn showing strips of Israel’s territory stretching across Arabia to the Euphrates. This just will not do. Apart from the plain simple clear fact that Jordan is specified here as the boundary, all the Bible evidence points to “the east sea” being the Dead Sea: Num. 34:3; Josh. 12:3; Joel 2:20. On this point no other conclusion is possible.
   4. Regarding the northern boundary, it has to be remembered that “the border of Damascus” and “the border of Hamath” do not mean Damascus and Hamath but the southern borders of those territories. This, similarly, requires the drawing of an east-west line appreciably further south than where it is usually assigned, and certainly not so far north as to reach the Euphrates.

Once these points are clear, it is evident that the extent of the Land indicated by Ezekiel is considerably less than that promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:18). Then how can this be the Kingdom of God?

1. There is a similar difference between the role of Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s scheme and in the rest of the prophets. The former pictures Jerusalem as one enormous Temple area a mile square, given over entirely to worship and sacrifice with a new city Jehovah-Shammah away to the south of it. But elsewhere there are pictures of “boys and girls playing in the streets of Jerusalem” (Zech. 8:4,5). “Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls, for the multitude of men and cattle therein” (Zech. 2:4).
2. In 46:1 there is instruction that the east gate is to be shut on “the six working days” and open only on the sabbath and the day of new moon. How is this to be reconciled with Isaiah’s words: “Thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night”?

The list of difficulties in the way of a millennial interpretation is by no means complete, but sufficient have been cataloged to make it evident that the easy assumption of a future fulfillment of this prophecy is scarcely warranted. Until problems of the kind mentioned have been tidied up there might at least be a little less dogmatism about millennial expositions.

And now, in fairness, it is necessary to consider the one big objection to the view that Ezekiel was propounding God’s scheme for Israel’s resettlement in the Land on the return from Babylon — a plan, be it noted, which was to be from the very first dependent on Israel’s repentance and willingness to obey: “if they be ashamed of all that they have done, show them the form of the house” (43:11). The difficulty alluded to is this: 47:1-12 describes a growing stream going forth from the Sanctuary, taking healing to the seas and to the nations. Nothing of this kind, it is urged, has happened in history or has been possible at any time in the past; the very nature of the vision requires fulfillment in the Future Age.

To this it is answered: The vision of the healing river of God is plainly symbolic, and would be so understood by Ezekiel. The following reasons for this conclusion are submitted:

1. Springs do not emerge from the summit of “a very high mountain”. Occasionally they spring from fairly near the highest point of a mountain, but never from the top-most peak. Nor does a normal stream deepen at such a fantastically rapid rate as to be crossed only by swimming when a mere one and a half miles from its source. Nor does any river grow in volume except through the contributions made by tributaries, and this river has no tributaries. It may, of course, be urged in reply that these living waters are to be altogether miraculous. And to such an “argument” there can be no answer. Nevertheless it is surely significant that this river, if real and not symbolic, is the only miraculous element connected with Ezekiel’s temple.
2. It is also significant that the similar prophecy in Joel 3:18 has a markedly symbolic element in it: “And it shall come to pass in that day that the mountains shall drop down new wine, and the hill shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim.”
3. It is doubtful if even those who accept the view that there will be a literal river out of the temple would go so far as to accept all this part of the prophecy in a perfectly literal fashion. Is it believed that the ills of the nations will cured by the mastication of leaves from the trees on the bank of the river? Here, surely, is a detail which shouts for symbolic interpretation — a thing which can hardly be said with confidence about other details concerning priestly defilement, princely offering, the dimensions of porches and chambers.
4. The symbolic use of this very passage in Revelation 22:2 indicates expressly what is being argued for here as almost self-evident: “On either side of the river was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” He would be a bold man who would maintain the literal intention of these words in this context!
5. Again, if this portion of Ezekiel 47 is to be taken literally, what is to be made of its self-contradictory character? This river of life goes to the Dead Sea and its waters are healed, so that they swarm with fish. Nevertheless “the miry places thereof and the marshes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt” (v.11). Literally the words are really difficult. Symbolically they suggest easily enough that whilst this rebuilt temple of an Israel returned from captivity will have wondrous possibilities of carrying divine influence and blessing to the most unlikely quarters, it was not to be expected that in that age a perfect and complete reformation would be accomplished.
6. The special mention of abundant fish and a thriving fishing industry is difficult to understand, if intended literally. But the spiritual meaning of these words is too obvious to require elucidation. “As the fish of the Great Sea” certainly suggests the blessing of the Gentile nations through the godly influence of this new House of God.
7. The force of the angel’s words to Ezekiel has been missed by many: “Son of man, hast thou seen this?” If this simply means: “Have you seen this growing river descending from the House?” the question borders on the ludicrous; for apparently it was put to the prophet in the vision whilst he was standing in the water, having just abandoned the attempt to cross because he couldn’t swim. “Hast thou seen this?” Of course he had — and felt it! In these circumstances the question could surely only mean: “Do you perceive the meaning of all this?” In other words: “Ezekiel, take care to consider the spiritual truth expressed by this which you now see.”

The evidence for a symbolic interpretation of this part of the prophecy is thus not inconsiderable, and there is more of a like character. The recognition of this element removes, it is claimed, the last obstacle in the way of acceptance of Ezekiel’s temple as a temple for the time of King Cyrus, not for the time of King Jesus. In a further study, it is hoped to show that there are reasons for believing that the Jews in the days of Cyrus themselves understood the prophecy in this way.

You are an important brother or sister! The other person is an important brother or sister! Each is vital to the maturation of the community to its intended potential.

“…even Christ from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4:1516).

This is an essential principle of ecclesial life and is conveyed several times in different ways by scripture.

The broad distribution of spirit gifts

At Pentecost

The indications are that the Holy Spirit filled all 120 of the ecclesia.

“…the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty … And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place … And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit … this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh… ” (Acts 1:15; 2:1,3-4,16-17).

While Peter. and John were the chief spokesmen for the ecclesia, the broad distribution of spirit-gifts negated any idea of an elite hierarchy for: “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and * on my handmaidens 1 will pour out in those days of my Spirit…” (Acts 2:17-18).

To gentile converts

As the gospel spread to the Gentiles, apparently every ecclesial member was given some aspect of the Holy Spirit gifts.

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, which is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance… ” (Eph. 1: 13-14 NIV). “But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ … [he] gave gifts unto men … and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets … according to the effectual working in the measure of every part…” (Eph. 4:7-11,16).

The effect of such a policy would be threefold:

all members would feel included as important individuals within the ecclesia; every member would want all of the others to participate so benefit could be realized from the gifts possessed by others; the ecclesia would only function to its optimum potential when all members fully participated.

1 Cor. 12:6-11 confirms the spirit gifts were dispersed widely and a careful reading of the verses further indicates that, in the first ecclesias, every member was given some spirit gift.

… it is the same God which worketh all in all … But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal…dividing to every man severally as he will.”

The individual received a gift of the spirit to “profit withall’ (v.7). Each person would thus be under pressure to participate fully in the ecclesia that the whole group might be benefited thereby. If he did not, then the ecclesia would lose his input of teaching, administration, healing, tongues or whatever his gift might be.

In today’s ecclesia

The same is true today. While we do not have a gift of the Holy Spirit, we each have unique contributions we can make to ecclesial life. If we are not fully involved, we deprive the ecclesia of that benefit others can derive from us. What can we do for the ecclesia?

Attend meetings, listen attentively, participate with joy in singing, prepare carefully for any participation. Willingly take part in providing refreshments and in maintaining the meeting place. Thoughtfully communicate with others by conversation, phone and letter edifying others by our faith, joy and peace. Show hospitality, care for the sick, share our possessions, talents, homes and resources with those who are in need. Instruct our children and those of others. Spread the word of truth to friends and in ecclesial efforts. Use special abilities in writing, art or clear thinking for exposition and communication of the word of God. In a kindly manner, benefit others by our experience and wisdom.

The lesson of the human body, 1 Cor. 12:14-27

No matter how unique he may feel, every believer is part of a community of believers;

“For the body is not one, member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?…” (vs. 14- 16).

A variety of individual contributions are essential to the proper operation of the whole.

“If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?…” (vs. 17-20).

No person can say other believers are unnecessary to him; every member is important;

‘the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee…” (vs. 21-23).

Every believer should have the same care for all members alike:

“but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked: that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another” (vs. 24-25).

One believer’s problem should be a concern to the entire ecclesia;

“And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it…” (v.26).

As the lessons apply to individuals within ecclesias, so they can apply to ecclesias within the brotherhood. For example, a small ecclesia that feels inconsequential compared to those which are large and well-known, can be a valuable training ground for young brethren. And they can be an example to others if they diligently send their young people to ecclesial functions in larger ecclesial centers.

The lesson of the stones, 1 Kgs. 5:17; 7:9-11

The great stones used to build Solomon’s temple and associated buildings represent believers in the ecclesia.

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded… ” (Eph. 2:20-22).

The ecclesia is likened to a temple in the process of being built. In the figure, the corner stone speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ, the foundation stones represent the apostles and prophets and the other stones the rest of us. That much is plain. What may not be so evident is the allusion to the stones in Solomon’s temple complex contained in the phrase “fitly framed together.”

Fitly framed together

The Greek word is sunarmologeo used only here and 4:16 (“fitly joined together”) and means, “to frame accurately together” (L-S). The word alludes to I Kings 6:7:

“And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. “

Some of the stones weighed thousands of pounds. God’s instructions forbade making any final adjustments to the stone once it was moved on to the temple site. Certainly, no one wanted to haul these stones into place and be forced to haul them out again because they did not fit properly. Great care would thus be taken with each stone so that it would fit perfectly when put into its final spot in the project.

God’s instructions applied whether the stone was a highly visible one or whether it was to be covered over with wood never to be seen again once it was in place (1 Kgs. 6:18). Great care would be expended to make every stone right, every stone was important to the master designer.

The message to us is clear — we are represented by those stones; great care is being taken with us to mold us that we might be fitly framed parts of the dwelling place of God. We may not be prominent, highly-visible stones, but we are important to the great builder.

Costly stones

The stones were fitly framed and they were described as being “costly.”

“And the king commanded, and they brought great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones, to lay the foundation of the house … All these were of costly stones, according to the measures of hewed stones, sawed with saws, within and without … and the foundation was of costly stones, even great stones, stones of ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits” (I Kgs. 5: 17; 7:9-10).

A person reading I Kgs. 5: 17 could think three different categories of stones were in mind — very large (“great”) stones, precious jewels (“costly stones”) and stones that required cutting (“hewed stones”). Upon reading IKgs. 7:9-10, however, we see that all three descriptions apply to the same stones. They were very large (up to 12′ by 15′), they were hewed with stone-cutting saws and were spoken of as costly.

“Costly” — Hebrew is yaqar, “precious, rare” (Young’s); describes God’s love for the upright in Psa. 45:9 — “Kings’ daughters were among thy honorable women,” and for the Messiah in Isa. 28:16 — “Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone… ” cf. I Pet. 2:6.

The contour of Jerusalem required that many of these “costly” stones be used to provide a level platform for the erection of Solomon’s complex of buildings (see illustration and note I Kgs. 7:8-9). Most of those stones may, seem unimportant to us but to God they were “costly, precious.” In like manner, we may feel we are an obscure member of the ecclesial building; we may think our work is unimportant but to God we are “costly precious.”

Note, too, the great effort in carefully preparing these costly stones for their appointed place. The sawing and shaping may have been a time-consuming, laborious and sometimes painful process (cf. Heb. 12: 11) but it was done with great care by the builders for each of the stones was precious to the great builder.

Lessons from the second temple, Haggal 1 and 2

Realistic encouragement, 2:34

The returned exiles had recommenced work on the temple when God’s word came through Haggai:

“Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now: is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?” (Hag. 2:3)

Was this a discouraging remark? Not if we know the divine perspective. Whether or not a project is glorious to man is wholly irrelevant to God. While this temple project was not magnificent, God accepted it. He realized their limitations; the message was, “Don’t be discouraged but “work.”

“Yet now be strong … saith the LORD, and work: for I am with you saith the LORD of hosts” (Hag. 2:4).

God realizes our limitations in talent and resources; He knows our physical difficulties and natural responsibilities. What He wants is for us to put our hearts into His service, to hands to the work and He will be pleased, in fact, He will be glorified bv such conduct.

The work that glorifies God

“Go up to the mountain, and bring wood, and build the house; and 1 will take pleasure in it, and I will be glorified, saith the LORD” (Hag. L8).

There was nothing glamorous about the task at hand: cut the wood, shape it, haul it and do it with your own hands. Here was not a call to prominence but to simple hard work. Yet look at what would be accomplished. The great God would take pleasure in their willing diligence and would be glorified by it. (The “it” in 1:8 was not the temple, which would be four years in building, but the labor of working thereon.)

We need to remember that the Lord Almighty is not glorified by the splendor of a great cathedral or the chords of a majestic organ; He is glorified by the humble work done in respect of His will. That would be hard to remember when struggling up the mountain under a load of wood, but here is conduct in which God delights.

All involved in the work, 1:12,14; 2:2,4

Of 38 verses in the entire prophecy of Haggai, 4 of them stress the same important point: Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest and all the remnant of the people obeyed the voice of the Lord and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God. Not just the leaders were involved, not just the people did the laborious chores, but all gave themselves to the work. Through the prophet, God made it clear that His delight would come from everyone personally doing arduous routine labor on a project that was not magnificent.

Every member of that community was important. Every work done according to His will glorifies Him.

Today there are various humble tasks we do that give God pleasure:

The brother cleaning the hall may not have the talent for platform duties but can glorify God none the less in his ready labor.

The young couple prevented from doing mission work by family care and physical infirmity can give God pleasure by ministering in their local ecclesia.

God realizes the limitations of sickly members and takes pleasure in what they can do.

He sees the countless hours spent at preaching work which seem to yield no fruit and is glorified by the effort.

We may be limited by talent, resources and ability and our contribution may be small but God’s view is not man’s view. He is the one who put this treasure in earthen vessels. He is the one who has called not many mighty, not many noble, not many brilliant people. But every one He has called is ,important to Him and the work done according to His will gives Him pleasure.

Every member a joint ruler

Everyone found faithful will share in ruling the world with Christ.

The promise is not limited to apostles, prophets and elders.

It is not restricted to brethren or to sisters with many children.

Every believer who overcomes and keeps Christ’s works unto the end will share his throne. Therefore:

Every believer needs to develop divine attributes of character now. Every believer needs to be able to apply principles to specific situations. Every member is important!

Acts 6:1 Trouble over ecclesial welfare

“the number of the disciples was multiplied” — Cf. 2:41, 3,000 added; 2:47, “the Lord added to the church daily; ” 4:4, “many … believed … the number of the men was about five thousand; ” 5:14, “And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.”

“the Grecians against the Hebrews” “Grecians” refers to “Grecian Jews” (NIV) who were born outside of Palestine and spoke Greek. The “Hebrews” were “Hebraic Jews” (NIV) who were born in Palestine and spoke Aramaic. While all were believers in Christ, differences would be apparent in many aspects of daily life such as customs in dress and choices of food.

Many Grecian Jews who believed would have resettled in Jerusalem to be with the ecclesia there.

“the daily ministration” — As part of the communal life of the Jerusalem ecclesia (2:44-45; 4:35), widows were evidently served daily in a group setting (cf. v.2).

Acts 6:2-4, A solution proposed

“The twelve called…” — The apostles and the believers had Holy Spirit gifts so why not solve the problem with a divinely inspired edict? As is evident throughout the New Testament, the gift of the Holy Spirit confirmed the word of the gospel as truth (Mk. 16:20; Hb. 2:4) but did not provide miraculous solutions to ecclesial or personal problems (Acts 15:6-7; 1Cor. 12:7-9; Gal. 2:11-14).

“the multitude of the disciples” — A business meeting was convened. All were believers and all were to have a part in solving the problem.

“It is not reason” — “It would not be right” (NIV). Christ had assigned the apostles the particular task of gospel extension throughout the world (Acts 1:8). They should concentrate on that assignment

“leave the word of God and serve tables” — “Leave the word” is meant in a relative sense for Stephen was active in many areas of the Truth including gospel proclamation (Acts 6:8-15). However, the apostles wanted to be free of administrative duties in order to be “continually” involved in prayer and biblical instruction (v.4).

The pastoral work of serving tables was not unimportant as is evident by the, quality of disciple needed for the task (v.3), but it was not the activity upon which the apostles should concentrate.

“Wherefore, brethren…” — The solution proposed follows the precedent of Deut. 1:9-14. Overburdened ecclesial leadership shared responsibility with godly men selected by the believers.

“look out from among you” — cf. Deut. 1.13. The apostles could have made the appointments themselves but they were more likely to secure the cooperation of the community if the believers chose their own committee.

Like Israel, the ecclesia was free to use the method of their choice in selecting the seven brethren. They could have done so by nomination and secret ballot, a show of hands, appointing a selection committee, etc. Ecclesias today have a similar flexibility in using whichever method they prefer in selecting their serving brethren.

“‘…men of honest report…” — Cf. Deut. 1: 13. Ideally every brother should meet the qualifications. Realistically, however, there is a wide range of spiritual development among ecclesial members and this must be wisely considered when ecclesial appointments are made (cf. I Tim. 3:2-12).

“the Holy Spirit” — “Holy” is omitted in the Greek and by versions such as the RV, RSV, NIV, etc. Its inclusion by the KJV is, no doubt, because of the phrasing of v. 5 and no significance should be attached to its omission in v.3

“whom we may appoint” — As the ecclesial elders, the apostles would review the ecclesial selections to ensure they were appropriate (cf. Deut. 1: 13).

Acts 6:5-6, The solution Implemented

Seven Grecian Jews — All seven brethren on the committee had Greek names indicating they were Grecian Jews. They would be more sensitive to the existing discrimination but their spiritual quality would be a safeguard against their implementing a policy of reverse discrimination. Their selection by the. body of believers indicates the community recognized the problem and was making every effort to correct it in love.

“the apostles … laid their hands on them” — thereby indicating they approved the choices made by the ecclesia.

Acts 6:7-8, The solution enhanced ecclesial growth

“the word of God increased” — This does not refer to additional divine revelations but to the increase in the influence of the Truth and the added numbers who adhered to it, cf. 12:24; 19:20.

“the number of the disciples multiplied” — appropriate solutions to ecclesial problems enhance the growth and vigor of the ecclesia.

Stephen — While handling additional administrative responsibilities, Stephen was still deeply involved in other areas of ecclesial life. He was not a one-dimensional disciple.