328 understanding the work of the lord jesus

Vol. 89 No. 1,052 September 2019

TESTIMONY

Also in this issue:More on headcoverings 355 The Apostle Paul in Greece 334Signs of the times: Iran and Russia 339Your letters: Zechariah and Revelation 323

For the study and defence of the holy Scripture

328Understanding the work of the Lord Jesus

Contents

http://testimonymagazine.com/

Publication of articles in the Testimony does not presume editorial endorsement except on matters of fundamental doctrine, as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith.

Publishing Editor:JEREMY THOMAS. 22 Kingswood Close, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B30 3NX. Tel. 0121 444 6810; email: [email protected]

Section Editors:DAVID BURGES. 7 Whitehead Drive, Wellesbourne, Warwick, CV35 9PW. Tel. 01789 842692; email: [email protected] Science; Archaeology

SHAUN MAHER. 5 Birch Court, Doune, FK16 6JD. Tel. 01786 842996; email: [email protected] Watchman

ERIC MARSHALL. The Pines, Ling Common Road, Castle Rising, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE31 6AE. Tel. 01553 631279; email: [email protected] Exposition

JEREMY THOMAS (see above)Principles, preaching and problems

GEOFF HENSTOCK. 13 Alpha Crescent, Panorama 5041, S. Australia. Tel. 8277-0730; email: [email protected] Australia Editor; Prophecy; Reviews

Testimony website:http://testimonymagazine.com

Articles for publicationArticles to be considered for publication are welcome and should be forwarded to the Publishing Editor (in Australia, the local editor) in the first instance.

Publishing Editor’s column 317Miriam of Masada

Barbara Booker 318The rock and the sons of thunder

7. The little stone that became a mountainGeorge Booker 320

Your LettersThe mountains of brass 323Questions on Revelation 323

The prophecy of Immanuel (3)

Neville Rice 325As far as the east is from the west

Atonement and coveringAndy Jenkins 328

Standing byJeremy Thomas 333

Reflections on Berea, then and now

Paul Maplethorpe 334Is seeing believing?

4. The ‘inside-out’ retinaPeter Forbes 337

Persian problemsShaun Maher 339

The coming of the Son of man (1)

Colin Hollamby 342Wooed by the winsomeness of the Word (Review)

Geoff Henstock 346“Be ready always”

5. More difficult variations in textJohn Thorpe 347

JosephSent to preserve lifeEric Marshall 349

Pertinent pronouns (8)Geoff Henstock 352

Thoughts and sayingsJonathan: forerunner and friend of DavidSally Wright 353

P.S.“Because of the angels”Mark Vincent 355

Bible trees3. The hazelRebekah Dwyer XVI

Contents

XV

TESTIMONY

Testimony books

mailto:[email protected]





http://testimonymagazine.com



Testimony, September 2019 317Contents

Publishing Editor’s column

The raven was the first bird that Noah sent out of the ark to see whether the waters had abated after the Flood (Gen. 8:7). Its main food source is carrion, and it is classed as ‘unclean’ in the Law (Lev. 11:15). It was the species of bird chosen by God to bring Elijah food (1 Kgs. 17:4-6). The word ‘raven’ is translated from the Hebrew orebh, from a root meaning ‘to be black,’ and occurs ten times in the Old Testament. ‘Raven’ occurs only once in the New Testament (Lk. 12:24).Today there are many species of raven in the Middle East, and they are very numerous. There appears something weird and wily in a raven’s expression; like all members of the crow family, they have a reputation for being extremely intelligent.Cover picture: Raven, Jim Willey.

IT HAS ALREADY been a long process, and still we are not there. But with the appointment of Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative

Party and British Prime Minister, here in the United Kingdom it certainly feels as if the ‘Brexit’ process has taken a significant step forward. To those in the Brotherhood who see a different role for the English-speaking nations from that of mainland Europe, this may be interpreted as a sign that Britain’s departure from the European Union is moving closer.

Although he has said that taking the UK out of the EU without a specific deal is not his preferred option, Mr Johnson has declared that he is ready to do so if necessary. In return, EU leaders have shown reluctance to reopen negotiations on the deal negotiated by Mr Johnson’s predecessor The-resa May—a deal that the British House of Com-mons has repeatedly rejected. With no obvious prospect of Parliament changing its position, Mr Johnson for some time limited his contact with EU presidents and prime ministers to telephone calls, stating that face-to-face discussions were point-less unless there is a willingness on Europe’s part to renegotiate the deal. As things stand at the time of writing, Britain and the EU are still in a stand-off, waiting to see who blinks first—and with each side ready to blame the other if a ‘no deal’ Brexit results.

It has been interesting to read news articles that have considered the question, ‘How did we get here?’ With the benefit of hindsight, certain

events can be seen as critical in the process that has led to the current stalemate. In human terms there was perhaps no need for Theresa May to call the 2017 general election, in which she lost her parliamentary majority and was left reliant on a strongly ‘Eurosceptic’ minority party to be able to pass legislation. Likewise, there was no need for MPs to implement the Brexit process without an agreed deal in place (that is, until they knew what they were voting for), or to vote themselves such a prominent role in the process instead of leaving negotiations to the government, as is more usual with international treaties. All these factors, and many more, have combined to create the current situation. I have found it fascinating to think about alternative, ‘what if’ scenarios.

It is easy for armchair politicians, including those with a keen interest in Bible prophecy, to opine on what should be done to move things forward, in accordance with our own imperfect understanding of future events. Without losing our focus on Scripture, it is surely better that we should keep watching and praying while the angels of God work things out according to His will, maintaining our preparedness for whatever circumstances emerge as we await the coming Kingdom. Everything is under control. Even apparent obstacles may turn out to be necessary in the divine scheme of things. The Most High rules yet in the kingdom of men.— Jeremy Thomas

Testimony, September 2019318 Contents

Miriam of MasadaBarbara Booker

26. Discussions with General Silva

SOON A ROMAN escort took Sarah and me to our homes for what belongings we wanted.

And so, once again, I packed a few of our things: Naomi’s toys, my midwife supplies, some clothes. Then I turned and walked out, out to an uncertain future. For the moment Sarah and I had each other and we had the children. We would not fear. For reasons we failed to understand, our God had delivered us, and now we began to feel it must be true: He would surely continue to watch over us and to protect us. Sarah’s prayer of the previous night echoed in my head: ‘May Your will be done.’

The general was waiting and he informed us that he would talk with us in a day or two, but meanwhile he wanted us to rest. He had a detail of men take us down to his camp where his personal servants were ordered to treat us as guests. Yes, my Lady, we were well treated with many comforts, but for our minds there was little comfort. Our minds and hearts were still there, up there on the heights of Masada, and on the horrific sights of this day.

The children, however, seemed to bring joy to the rugged men, some of whom would pause in their duties to share in a childhood game. The children had no fear of our guardians, and I marvelled not only at how quickly the little ones trusted these strangers, but also at the gentleness of such warriors. The nearby camp atmosphere seemed lighter with the presence and laughter of little ones in the midst of army life. Perhaps everyone had seen enough, had done enough killing across Judea, or perhaps what they had seen on Masada had shocked them.

The day passed slowly, ever so slowly, for Sarah and me. Our eyes searched the plateau many times for answers, but none came. Evening drifted upon us and the stars appeared. I saw General Silva standing in the same area where Eleazar had stood only the night before, watching the same stars. I wondered what stories the two

men could have shared, if only things had been different; if only . . .

My world seemed to be filled with ‘if only.’Torches were lit on Masada, and soon long

lines of men could be seen as the general and his troops descended to the camps, their work of searching the fortress complete. No guards were needed tonight on the ramp. For them, this was to be a night of celebration, and Herod’s storerooms would provide the feast.

For us who survived, it was a mix of sorrow and joy, confusion and fear.

Masada stood empty of all life, stark and desolate above the camps. The soft night breezes were the only stirrings. I pondered what had been my life and the lives of so many others. I could still hear their stories, even see their faces. In my mind, they still lived up there, high on Masada, in our place of refuge. The events of the last night continued, over and over again, in my mind, and I could hear Eleazar’s careful words to his Masada family. That night my mind and body were exhausted.

Dawn came, creeping gently over Masada, and then the light settled down on us in the camps. Sarah and I had slept fitfully. Added to our own restlessness, there was also a newborn to attend. We were already awake when the camp returned to active duty, and servants appeared to check on our needs.

We noticed a dispatch rider leaving General Silva’s headquarters and heading west. I could only guess that the messenger carried a report to the Roman Senate. It would be the standard wording: “I and my army are well.” But this time it could also read: “All resistance in the province is at an end. Judea is conquered.”

Soon columns of men could be seen ascending the ramp to the quiet plateau. They had duties to perform. Once again it was a perfect, late-spring day, but it was hard for Sarah and me to appreciate the beauty of such a morning. By mid-morning we were told that the general would see us soon, and


indeed he came soon. Our children were under the supervision of his servants, and we knew that our little adventurers would be well attended.

General Silva was accompanied by several officers, and a female servant who eased our anxiety over the interview.

He asked about our accommodations and the help we had received. He assured us, again, that we were safe. Then he asked us each to tell our story, with Sarah starting first. She readily explained that she and her late husband were of the Christian sect, and then gave him details of their life, of their beliefs, and of the circumstances which had brought them to Masada.

Then the general turned to me and I told him. I told him of my family, of our life in Jerusalem, of my Jonathan and my tiny Samuel, of our losses, of the city in turmoil, of the need to leave the city, the need to survive with my little niece, Naomi. I told him of Jonathan’s relationship to Eleazar ben Ya’ir, and of Jonathan’s instruction that, should I ever be in need, I should flee Jerusalem and go to Masada. I told him of our life on Masada, of my skill as a midwife, which Sarah verified, and of my deep bond with Sarah and the children. I told him also of the last night on Masada, of Eleazar’s decision and the obvious obedience of his men to his orders, as seen by the general and his soldiers.

He listened intently, as did the officers. When we finished our accounts there was a long silence. Sarah and I waited anxiously for some decision about our futures.

Then he spoke, Mistress. It was his decision that we, all seven of us, would accompany him on his return journey to Caesarea, to his home—to this home. We would be servants to his family, and at some point it might be possible to receive our freedom.

He mentioned that his wife needed a personal midwife and trusted servants. He also mentioned that you, my Lady, were of the Christian faith, taught by servants within your household, and

that you would welcome another such believer into your home.

Sarah and I were astonished. We began to weep, and then to laugh, from joy, from sheer exhaustion, from so many locked-up emotions.

The men appeared to be embarrassed and prepared to leave. General Silva told us we would leave with him in several days. He needed time to arrange for the troop assignments, while leaving a portion of the garrison in the area for some time.

There was a matter, my Lady, of which Sarah and I could not enquire of my Lord, and to this day we still cannot ask. It was the matter of the bodies of our loved ones. We were content to know that the general is an honourable man, and we trusted he would do what was right. So we choose even now to let the answer remain lost in the vastness of the Judean wilderness, to be whispered softly on the night breezes that still blow gently through the ruins of that mighty fortress. It is as though the soft winds alone can tell of the lives of those who lived and died on that lonely summit, in the last Zealot stronghold in our nation’s history. Perhaps some day even the dust of Masada will tell its own story, our story.

And so we would move onward from what had been our home, our Masada. It was no longer ours, but theirs. For all of King Herod’s genius and vanity, it was Rome who conquered his own Roman fortress. It is now a part of our history, just as Herod is. And the desert sands blow over both Masada and Herod.

We had been granted life by both our heavenly Ruler and an earthly commander. It would be wrong of me to say that I never asked, ‘Why me?’ Why me and Sarah and the children, when so many others died that night, that Passover night? And why did the general have mercy on us? We, who were only two women with our children, people of Masada. But, my Lady, I am so very thankful for the deliverance we’ve all been given, for the chance to live, for the opportunity to serve and to learn, to remember and to tell the story.

(To be concluded)

“Christadelphians are not the only ones to see in the return of Israel to their ancient homeland a sign of the nearness of Christ’s return . . . But what is not generally recognised is that the significance of the return of Israel is that they must of necessity return for there to be a nation of Israel over which Christ can rule. This return is not complete as yet: considerably more Jews still live outside Israel than within it. But what has occurred already establishes the basis for the coming Kingdom. The current nation of Israel is far from being in the right spiritual state of mind . . . but there has to be a nation in the land to repent and to acknowledge Jesus as their promised Messiah when he comes.”—Tony Benson


The rock and the sons of thunderThree apostles and how they grew7. The little stone that became a mountainGeorge Booker

CORNELIUS, A ROMAN centurion—a Gentile—had come to believe in Christ, and now he wanted to hear more of God’s

Word. Not only that, but his prayers to God had been answered with a vision—a remarkable thing, especially for a non-Jew. And so, here Pe-ter was: a Jew, standing in the home of a Roman centurion, with Cornelius himself falling pros-trate at his feet, as though to worship him (Acts 10:25), while he was surrounded by Gentiles who were begging for Peter’s help to understand the gospel.

How Peter must have been struck by the power of God! How clear must the vision of the sheet have been to him in that moment. After lifting Cornelius to his feet and correcting him—“I am only a man myself” (v. 26)1—Peter made a state-ment that would probably have been anathema to him only twenty-four hours earlier:

“I now realise how true it is that God does not show favouritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all” (vv. 34-36).

What an admission! The phrase ‘paradigm shift’ is not sufficient for this event—this was earth-shaking! Peter’s world had been that of a Jew preaching the promised Messiah to other Jews. This, however, was something extraordinary in the extreme. Salvation had really come to the Gentiles, and God had provided Peter an oppor-tunity to use the key that Christ had given him, to open the door to the Kingdom of God, and to be a firsthand witness to Gentiles entering in.

It may be said, then, that Peter had used Christ’s first key to open the door of the Kingdom of God to the Jews (see especially Acts 2 and 3). Now he was being called by the Lord to use the second key to open that same door to the Gentiles (see especially Acts 10 and 11).

After teaching, preaching, and baptising the household of Cornelius, Peter went one step further:

“The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticised him and said, ‘You went into the house of un-circumcised men and ate with them.’ Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story . . . When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, ‘So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life’” (11:1-4,18).

If the story of Peter were to have ended here, surely we would regard it in the most positive way—as indeed we should. But Peter was Peter, and his highs could quickly become lows. De-spite the divine direction and instruction, there were times when he stumbled and fell from the pedestal on which he had stood. Despite Peter’s great achievements in advancing the gospel, there were times when the stubborn Rock still wanted to do what the Rock wanted to do. As the Apostle Paul recalled at a later date:

“When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came

Exposition

1. Bible quotations are from the NIV.


from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” (Gal. 2:11-14).

Peter’s response to Paul’s strong rebuke is not recorded, but quite possibly he went through a range of emotions, one after another—from an-noyance and anger to self-justification, to ques-tioning, and finally to guilt, remorse, repentance and change. This time Peter was left on his own; there would be no vision of his Master speaking from heaven, and no emissaries from Cornelius to show him the way. Indeed, it must have been painful in the extreme to make the same mistake a second time, and so quickly after the first mis-take. Lessons that must be learned again, and at the expense of one’s pride, tend to leave indelible imprints on the heart.

It wouldn’t have been out of character even for Peter, the mountain, to have moments of weakness. Those failings, those stumbles, those moments are also the occasions when the grace of God and the teaching of Jesus Christ can shine through the brightest in our lives, just as surely as they did in Peter’s life.

Nearing the endIt is speculation, of course, but I think that Peter eventually arrived at a special and extraordinary point in his walk in the Faith, and it probably came immediately before his death.

Peter, the man, seemingly spent his life push-ing back against what he did not like or what offended his traditional Jewish views: “Never, Lord! . . . This shall never happen to you!” (Mt. 16:22). He was opinionated and stubborn, but he was also resilient. Peter, the apostle, had his share of mistakes and sins, and some of both have been mentioned, but it is certainly fair to say that Christ picked well when he set out to build his coming temple on the faith of Peter. That faith was strong and durable, tough and rugged. It was a faith which could endure tri-als and tribulations, admittedly some of them self-inflicted, all the way to the end: “the one

who stands firm [endures, AV] to the end will be saved” (Mt. 24:13; Mk. 13:13). And it is such a wonderful blessing that our Saviour’s exhortation to ‘stand firm’ and ‘endure’ to the end also allows for practically limitless slips, backslidings, and even out-and-out collapses along the way—both for us and for Peter. We can almost hear Christ’s words even today:

‘How often should you forgive your brother? You should forgive your brother an unlimited number of times, as often as he asks [Mt. 18:21,22]. Do you know why? Because if you forgive men their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you [6:14]. Don’t neglect your part, and I can assure you that my Father will not neglect His!’

In Gethsemane, at the conclusion of Christ’s ministry, we are told that he singled out his three favoured apostles, led them apart from the rest, and began to pray. His prayer was emotional and exhausting—we can scarcely imagine how much so! While Jesus struggled with his great burden, within the range of their eyes and ears, it seems very strange that they could not at least stay awake. ‘Couldn’t you keep watch with me for even one hour!?’

But in Jesus’ last sigh of resignation, I believe that we can also see the man whom Peter finally became:

“Father, if You are willing, take this cup from me . . .”

There must surely be a pause here, a pause filled with all of mankind’s hopes and fears, and anxi-eties and desires, all wrapped up in one lonely man—if they had only known what hung in the balance. Then came the final, absolute choice, a choice of awesome consequences—for Jesus, for Peter, for all the apostles, and for us today:

“. . . yet not my will, but Yours be done” (Lk. 22:42).

This verse expresses what might well be the pre-cise opposite of a younger Peter, with his filled-up and overflowing measure of pride, presumption, and false assurance. Peter’s life was all about his own will—his thoughts, his opinions, his version of the facts—even when he spoke with Christ. The phrase which epitomises his life, at least the first part of his discipleship, is: ‘Peter’s will be done!’ Ultimately, though, it took Peter’s last terrible denials of his Lord to create the overwhelming guilt which in turn forced him into an intense, no-holds-barred self-examination.

After his resurrection, Christ even made a special effort to redeem Peter, a remarkable extra


mile in and of itself. Because of that additional act of surpassing love, Peter could ask and receive for-giveness, and rejoin the community of believers.

The Rock’s final test‘Not my will, but Yours be done.’ Christ’s words, yes, but Peter’s words also, if not at that moment, then most surely by the end of his life. One can imagine that eventually, as his mortal life drew to a close and Peter was being dressed and led where he did not want to go—just as his Lord had foretold (Jno. 21:18)—his Saviour’s words might come to mind.

Peter would have remembered a time with his Lord in a dark garden of foreboding. There, faced with his own impending death, Christ had besought one last favour of his Father: “Take this cup from me” (Mk. 14:36). It was a favour not granted by Heaven, it is true, but in the stillness of that garden there was just enough time for one last reflection, one last self-searching, one last enlightened request, leading to one final, conclusive surrender of his own will: ‘If my will is not to be realised in this, then yes, may Your will be done, even here!’

This was the same realisation which Peter must have understood and appreciated, finally, at the end of his own life. Man’s will is earnest and forceful, full of the certainty which is a by-product of our all-too-brief lives. We think we know it all, or most of it, when in fact we know so little, so pathetically little. But ultimately, our own will is not enough, and we find that we have lost the power to choose among suitable alterna-tives. There now remains but one choice, just as it was for Jesus and then for Peter—put starkly, to reject or to accept what we know to be God’s will. That is when, no matter how much it may hurt, we must learn to pray: ‘Not my will, but Yours be done.’ That act of giving up control—really, giving up the perception of control—and choosing to honour God’s will as one’s own, would have been the final act of Peter, the man, and the culmination of his transformation into Peter, the true Rock, the mountain of tried faith.

“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’” (Mt. 16:17-19).

The certainty of Peter’s faith was fundamental, and foundational. It only took one lifetime—and the absolute grace of God—for Peter to achieve. A believer could ask for nothing more.

Daniel’s vision of a small stoneThe prophet Daniel wrote of an extraordinary dream given to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. In his dream, the king saw a small stone, not cut out with human hands, which grew into a huge mountain and filled the whole earth (Dan. 2:35,44). That stone was Christ, and his glory—conferred upon him by his heavenly Father—will one day fill all the earth with God’s glory. This we know.

And this we also know: each one of us is like a little rock or stone, which is nothing by itself. Nevertheless, each of us, individually, can be cut and polished and fitted—not by human hands, but by God’s hands—into building blocks for His spiritual temple. The life of Peter, and the rock of his faith, provides us a pattern in which we might trace our own yearnings, strivings, failures and ultimately successes (which come, when they do, not by our own will but by the Father’s will working in and with us).

With Christ as its cornerstone, this glorious ‘temple’ of God’s people is being built right now, piece by piece, until it will truly fill the whole earth with the glory of God. The building blocks of this great edifice are not actual stones, but rather devoted hearts, devout souls, and fervent spirits. In this edifice there is, miraculously, always room for one more block.

(To be continued)

“The second ‘Let us’ is connected with hope, although the AV obscures the matter by translat-ing elpis in this sole instance by the word ‘faith.’ ‘Let us hold fast the confession of our hope, that it waver not; for He is faithful that promised’ [Heb. 10:23]. Hope is grounded upon promise, even the promises made unto the fathers. God is faithful; the promise is sure. Only man’s part is in doubt; their beginning was right in their confession of Christ. The end would also be so if they held fast to that confession. Every generation sees its quota of waverers, and to every generation may this appeal be made: ‘Let us hold fast.’”—John Carter


The mountains of brassIn the final part of his splendid series “The cheru-bim of glory,”1 Brother David Green dealt with the significance of Zechariah’s vision of the four chariots (Zech. 6) by repeating the Brotherhood’s most generally accepted understanding of the two mountains of brass: “And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass” (v. 1). Brother David wrote:

“As in the vision of the four horsemen, the four chariots represent spiritual Israel in their military aspect when they execute judgment (Ps. 149:9; Rev. 17:14; 19:11-15). They are described as ‘the four spirits of heaven’ because the redeemed will be clothed upon with spirit nature (1 Cor. 15:42-49; 2 Cor. 5:2) and will wield God’s Spirit power to overcome all worldly opposition to Christ’s rule (Ps. 2).

“The two mountains of brass represent the confederacies described in Daniel 11 as ‘the king of the north’ and ‘the king of the south,’ which developed from the Grecian Empire. Since the chariots go forth from between these two mountains (Zech. 6:1), they must issue forth from the land of Israel, which is situated between these two last-days powers.”

This identification of the mountains as northern and southern geopolitical opponents, and the four heavenly actors as the saints, cannot be correct for a number of reasons, but one in particular stands out. It was a universal principle that prophets in ancient Israel must be rejected unless their words came true (Deut. 18:17-22), and Zechariah made his words a hostage to history when he wrote, “And they that are far off shall come and build in the temple of the LORD, and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you. And this shall come to pass, if ye will diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God” (6:15). There must therefore have been a proximate fulfilment of Zechariah’s vision in chapter 6 by which his credentials as a prophet were established.

When Zechariah wrote these words—he be-gan prophesying in 520 BC—the Achaemenid Persians ruled both Babylonia/Syria and Egypt.

There were no separate kings of the north and the south. The Persian satrapy of Egypt began in 525 under Cambyses II and continued until 404, when it was interrupted for about sixty years. The first rebel was Amyrtaeus of Sais, a descendant of the Saite pharaohs of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. He was executed six years later (398) and was succeeded by a ragbag of squabbling rulers from various families, before the Persian satrapy was restored in 343 under Artaxerxes III.

This interruption occurred after Zechariah’s death, of course. During his term as a prophet, Achaemenid rule over the Levant was complete, unchallenged, and peaceful. It cannot be the case that the mountains of brass in Zechariah 6 are Daniel’s king of the north and king of the south.

Ed FormBury St Edmunds

Questions on RevelationA reader asks:1 “I have read what Doctor John Thomas and

H. P. Mansfield have to say about this [the seal-ing of the 144,000 in Revelation 7]. It is clear that the sealing will not take place until the Second Coming. However, it is also clear that it had an application to the true Christians in the days of Constantine. In what way is this the case? Why were the Christians of that time ‘sealed,’ when no other group before or since was?”

2 “‘. . . every mountain and island were moved out of their places . . . every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains’ (Rev. 6:14,15); ‘The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: and thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee . . . thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein . . .’ (Deut. 28:28-30). Surely we have to admit

1. Testimony, vol. 89, no. 1,050, Jul. 2019, p. 248.

Your Letters

http://testimonymagazine.com/issues/2019/07


that these verses are exaggerations. Why do you think this sort of language is used in the prophecies?”

ReplyThe sealing of the servants of God is given at the start of Revelation 7. This is at the end of the seal judgments, for it is not until chapter 8 that the seventh seal is opened (v. 1) and the trumpet judgments commence. The 144,000 are the group of faithful believers whose pilgrimage took place during the period of the trumpet judgments. Their final approval and exaltation is noted in 14:1-5, where they are depicted with the Lamb in the heavenly temple.

The sequence of three seven-fold judgments—seals, trumpets and vials—covers the span of history from John’s day until the setting up of the Kingdom. In each of these judgment periods we find those who can be identified as God’s people. For instance, in the seal period the faithful are described as souls under the altar, who were “slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held” (6:9-11). These are given white robes, but their exaltation has to wait until the seal judgments are completed. This exaltation is described in chapter 7 after the record of the sealing of the 144,000: “And one of the elders an-swered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple: and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them” (vv. 13-15). The symbol of their acceptance is that they move location in the vision—from earth to heaven. This pattern of faithful people ‘going to heaven’ (symbolically, of course) is a feature of the book of Revelation, as shown in the table below.

Each group of faithful are seen ‘in heaven’ in glory; but their actual reward in the Kingdom of God on earth does not take place until the holy city, New Jerusalem, descends from heaven as de-scribed at the end of the book (21:1-3). The things that are seen ‘in heaven’ in the book are eternal things which need not apply immediately to the earth at the point of time which John records them in the vision.2 This is in line with Paul’s comment in Romans 4:17: “God . . . quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.”

There may be a reason why only this group of believers is described as being sealed in their foreheads. Revelation 14:1 states that the 144,000 had the Father’s name written in their foreheads—they belonged to God and so are now seen as approved and exalted.3 Chapter 13 describes the situation in the earth at the time of the pilgrim-age of the 144,000.

The beast of the earth (v. 11) persecuted those who “would not worship the image of the beast” (v. 15), and compelled those who did submit to his rulership to “receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads” (v. 16). This mark involved “the name of the beast” (v. 17). So we have two groups of people in this period of history who have been marked, both of whom experience the trumpet judgments: the 144,000 represent the faithful of this era who are exalted to be with the Lamb; those who belong to the beast are destroyed (14:9-11).

The symbol of ‘going to heaven’ in RevelationReference People Belonging to God Persecuted Ascend to heavenCh. 6 Souls under the altar 6:9 6:9 7:9

Ch. 7 144,000 7:3 14:3

Ch. 11 Two witnesses 11:3 11:7 11:12

Ch. 12 Male child 12:5 12:4 12:5

Ch. 15 Victors over beast 14:12 13:7 15:2

2. The distinction between things happening on earth and things happening in heaven is helpfully discussed in: Geoff & Ray Walker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, pp. 75–9.

3. A similar situation of a name on the forehead to show the allegiance of the person involved is seen under the Law of Moses, where the high priest had his forehead covered with the gold plate inscribed, “Holiness to the LORD” (Ex. 28:36).


With regard to the two passages that you quote to illustrate ‘exaggerations,’ these may be exam-ples of the literary device called hyperbole—an overemphasis to make a point. The example from Revelation 6 describes the end of an era—pagan Rome, where what follows completely replaces, over time, the order that existed before.

An example is seen in Deuteronomy 28: “Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst

not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee: and they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever” (vv. 45,46). From this we might deduce that all Israel would be destroyed. However, later in the same chapter it says, “And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God” (v. 62).—E.D.M. & J.D.T.

The prophecy of Immanuel (3)Neville Rice

NOTE THAT GOD spoke to Isaiah “with a strong hand” (Isa. 8:11). Why mention this? Because the people were afraid; and, from a

political perspective, well might they have feared. But God would provide “a strong hand,” and so Isaiah was also told, “neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid” (v. 12). Instead, Judah were told: “Sanctify the LORD of hosts Himself” (v. 13). This is an unusual expression. Surely to trust in, or depend on, God would be the appropriate response. But no; for there was a problem in the behaviour of the people. Isaiah says, “[God] in-structed me that I should not walk in the way of this people” (v. 11). The underlying problem was that God was not sanctified or esteemed holy in the lives of His people, even though their religious devotions were many and intense (1:11-15). The chorus of the seraphim, by contrast, was, “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts” (6:3).

The people now had cause to fear because they did not regard God as holy. Consequently, a number of adverse outcomes followed. Did the nation wish to see off the confederacy of Syria and Israel? Then sanctifying Yahweh was the first step that they had to take. In response, Almighty God would dispose of the traitors—the conspirators who sought to frustrate His will. Isaiah himself was warned to maintain complete separation from the national apostasy: “neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid” (8:12). How could there be any brotherhood with those who had departed from God’s law?

It is no different for us. The forces of this world treasonably conspire to rob us of faith in God

and adherence to the life of Christ. Sanctifying God is the first step to repelling these unwanted conspirators. Given the challenges associated with our discipleship, there are many circumstances requiring ‘the strong hand of God’ to maintain our calling, as examples from the time of the prophets illustrate. Micaiah the prophet warned King Ahab of Israel that he would assuredly die if he went to Ramoth-gilead to battle (1 Kgs. 22), and persisted with his message from God despite the pleas of one of the king’s servants (vv. 13,14) and the harsh treatment that the king directed against him (vv. 26-28). Elisha would have re-jected the overtures of the king of Israel were it not for the presence of Jehoshaphat of Judah (2 Kgs. 3:13,14). In parallel with these incidents, the followers of Christ today are reminded in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath right-eousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?”

Unbelief in the house of DavidWe made the point earlier that the confederacy of Syria and Ephraim was against the express will of God. How can we be certain of this? Look carefully at the expressions used in Isaiah 7:2: “And it was told the house of David . . .” Why not say, ‘It was told the king . . .’ or something

Prophecy

Contents


similar? Because for Judah God had promised the continuance of the house of David—even if the current occupant was not as committed to God as he should have been. Consider the cases of some of his ancestors:

“thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, Be-hold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee [Jeroboam]: (but he shall have one tribe for My servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) . . . And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David My servant may have a light alway before Me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen Me to put My name there” (1 Kgs. 11:31,32,36);“[Abijam] walked in all the sins of his father . . . Nevertheless for David’s sake did the LORD his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem . . .” (15:3,4);“Jehoram . . . did evil in the sight of the LORD. Yet the LORD would not destroy Judah for David His servant’s sake, as He promised him to give him alway a light, and to his children” (2 Kgs. 8:16-19; see also 2 Chron. 21:5-7).

It is true that Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, ‘feared’ (20:3) when he saw a great confederacy of Mo-abites, Ammonites and others coming against him; but his reaction was to seek Yahweh, to plead the promises to Abraham, and to acknowledge that the whole nation waited on an answer from God. They were not disappointed, for the Spirit of God came on Jahaziel the son of Zechariah:

“And he said, Hearken ye, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat, thus saith the LORD unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God’s” (v. 15).

Ahaz, in contrast, appears to have made no effort to seek Yahweh—and yet he received the same assurance! Isaiah was directed to meet Ahaz and to say to him, “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted . . .” (Isa. 7:4).

The challenge for us is this: we experience distressing circumstances, but they are no reason to turn away from God. David, a man after God’s own heart, faced such circumstances, and his re-action was very different from that of Ahaz. For instance, when the Amalekites had sacked Ziklag and taken captive all who had been left there,

“David was greatly distressed; for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons

and for his daughters: but David encouraged himself in the LORD his God” (1 Sam. 30:6).

Back in JudahWe remarked earlier that the plot by Rezin and Pekah to invade Judah was not of God. The Almighty described it as evil: “Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee . . .” (Isa. 7:5). And on that score, “Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass” (v. 7). The plans of the invaders would come to nothing:

“Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us” (8:9,10).

Note the allusion to Immanuel in that final phrase: “God [is] with us.” Despite the evil of those days, the Word of the Almighty was still valid. But, despite God’s promise to David and his line, there was a warning to Ahaz: “If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established” (7:9). Ahaz did not believe; he relied on the Assyrian juggernaut to solve the problem he faced:

“Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him . . . So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me . . . And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin” (2 Kgs. 16:5-9).

What Ahaz needed to bribe the king of Assyria to do, God had already promised to do. It beggars belief that anyone could be so spiritually obtuse. And Ahaz’s liaison with the king of Assyria produced no satisfactory long-term outcome, for “Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not” (2 Chron. 28:20). All Ahaz achieved was to ‘open Pandora’s box’ and create a mess for his son Hezekiah to deal with.

The son of TabealThe counsel of the confederates is documented for us. Ahaz was told:


“Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal” (Isa. 7:5,6)

What do we know about Tabeal? Not much. It has been suggested that his name, in Aramaic, means, ‘good is El [God],’ and that this reference to ‘El’ was intended to bypass any suggestion that a Syrian god (Rimmon, for example) now controlled the destiny of Judah. Assyrian records indicate that Tabeal was a contemporary army officer or official in the court in Damascus.1

What, then, do we know about “the son of Tabeal”? Nothing whatever, although various commentators postulate an identity. Then why, if he was to be proposed by the conspirators as the replacement king of Judah, does the Bible not name him or identify him further? Perhaps this is the mark of utmost contempt—contempt for the one to be made king, that the conspirators do not even bother to name him—and, above all, for the divine purpose for the throne of David.

God has some clearly stated views on those who are contemptuous of Him, His people and His purpose:

“them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (1 Sam. 2:30); “Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up Thine hand: forget not the humble. Wherefore doth the wicked contemn God? he hath said in his heart, Thou wilt not require it” (Ps. 10:12,13);“they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High” (107:11);“Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt. Our soul is exceedingly filled with scorning of those that are at ease, and with the contempt of the proud” (123:3,4).

Similarly, for the household of faith there are severe warnings against despising one another and treating another with contempt:

“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 18:10);“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ” (Rom. 14:10);“Let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil. 2:3).

Against this background, and Isaiah’s descrip-tion of the confederates and their attitude of contempt, it is hardly surprising that there are several expressions in the Immanuel prophecy which treat the invaders with the utmost con-tempt themselves. Note first how the king of Israel is repeatedly referred to as “the son of Re-maliah” (Isa. 7:4,5,9), even though we know that his name is Pekah. Note too that the invaders, prompting such fear and consternation in Judah, are described as “the two tails of these smoking firebrands” (v. 4), even though they regarded themselves as ‘heads’:

“For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin . . . And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah’s son” (vv. 8,9).

The Hebrew word for “firebrand” occurs only here and in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. It describes, not something with which one would light a fire, but merely a wooden poker for a fire: the poker would quickly be consumed if left in the fire. As one commentator puts it:

“The two powers that Ahaz dreaded were, in the prophet’s eyes, but as the stumps of two smoking torches. Their flame was nearly out. It would soon be extinguished.”2

(To be continued)

1. Ellicott, A Bible Commentary for English Readers (Cassell & Co., London), vol. iv, p. 436.

2. Ibid.

“Whether Christ come tomorrow or in a hundred years’ time, it is ours to wait patiently and watch. ‘What I say unto you I say unto all, Watch!’ It is easy to be deluded by the thought that watching is vain unless Christ comes soon. Watching is as needful for those who have to die as for those who have not . . . Death is nothing more than an instantaneous introduction to the day to which the watching relates . . . To watch is to anticipate Christ’s coming—to walk so that the announcement that Christ is here will not create confusion and alarm.” —A. T. Jannaway


Exposition

As far as the east is from the westAtonement and coveringAndy Jenkins

The sacrifices of the Mosaic order provide a foundation for understanding the work of the Lord Jesus in making an atonement for sin. This conclusion is inescapable when we observe the way in which the New Testament picks up the language of the Old in relation to Christ’s sacrifice. It is hoped that a closer examination of ‘atonement’ in Scripture may assist us in our considerations of the profound work of our Lord in giving himself that we might have life.

WHEN THE WORD ‘atonement’ is encoun-tered in the Authorised Version (AV) of the Old Testament, it is invariably the

Hebrew word kaphar or a derivative thereof. The radical idea of this word is far removed from the trappings which have become attached to the English ‘atonement,’ as is demonstrable from the first use of kaphar in Scripture, in Genesis 6:14:

“Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch [kaphar] it within and without with pitch [kopher, a cognate noun].”

Here Noah is instructed to cover the ark with a sticky substance akin to tar or bitumen, pre-sumably to waterproof it. The primary meaning of kaphar is ‘to provide a covering,’ and this is reinforced by the use of the related word kopher for the substance used. Another related noun, kapporeth, bears out the truth of this. Kapporeth is the Hebrew word for the lid of the ark of the covenant, called in the AV the “mercy seat.” Al-though it also describes spiritual truths, to which we will come, fundamentally this word describes the physical function of the mercy seat—it was a lid, or a covering, for the ark.

This family of Hebrew words is not, of itself, associated with transgression, guilt or the ritual removal of either. The words are used of cover-ings for many things, including inanimate objects

such as the ark. When, therefore, we encounter kaphar translated ‘atonement’ in connection with the sacrifices offered for sin under the Law of Moses, the idea being suggested is that the sac-rifice is the provision of the Almighty by which He ‘covers’ the sins of the offerer. Leviticus 4:35 is a representative example of this:

“And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement [kaphar] for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.”

In this connection the word describes the expung-ing of the sins of God’s people, and therefore ‘purge’ and ‘cleanse’ are also legitimate transla-tions found in the AV, although they obscure the root idea.

More than coveringWe must not attach to kaphar the same connota-tions with which we might associate the English word ‘covering.’ To cover something, to English-speakers, is merely to hide it from view; it does not deal with any problem posed by the existence of the thing. In no sense could this be said to be the idea conveyed by kaphar. God did not deal


with sins in the Old Testament by ‘sweeping them under the carpet,’ only for the rug to be pulled back and the sins rediscovered for a more effica-cious method of dealing with them to be applied in the blood of Christ. Any suggestion that God ‘looks the other way’ on a temporary basis is an affront to His righteous character. Similarly, sins can either be forgiven or not. Surely there can be no intermediate state, in which sins are no longer regarded yet not fully dealt with.

In the verse already quoted from Leviticus 4 the Almighty declares that the Levitical sacrifices would provide forgiveness of sins. In consider-ing this verse we should take careful note of the parallel ideas expressed in the final two clauses. ‘Make atonement for sin’ is very obviously equated with forgiveness. This explicit form of words occurs ten times in Leviticus.1 Nothing short of the permanent removal of the sins being offered for is described. This is consistent with the following passages:

“As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12);“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile . . . Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart” (32:1,2,11).

The Scriptures, particularly the Psalms, are filled with rejoicing for God’s mercy in forgiving the sins of His people. Whatever their context, both these psalms describe forgiveness as current and efficacious at the time of writing, enabling David to write about it in the past tense. If the covering provided by the Lord is not a permanent solu-tion, then David is left in a strange sort of limbo, and his rejoicing is based upon a falsehood. But David praises because he knows that his sin has been dealt with in its totality, in the mercy of God.

The need for metaphorsIt is difficult to discuss forgiveness without using metaphors. Sins are not physical entities which can have a covering placed over them; nor can they be literally taken hold of and removed (‘taken away’) to a new location. The east and the west are geographically as far removed from one another as it is possible to be, but it cannot be said that they do not co-exist. If sins are taken literally, in every case the metaphor breaks down because the sins are still ‘in existence’ somewhere. But such is

not the case with sins which are forgiven, blotted out (another metaphor!) by the Father.

The parable of the scapegoat illustrates this point for us. There the sins were put “upon the head of the goat . . . and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21,22). Great pains were taken to ensure that the goat could not return. No one would suggest that the sins borne away by the scapegoat lingered somewhere in the wilderness until they could be dealt with properly by the work of Christ. Rather, the sins were regarded in type to be so far removed from the people as to never again come into their minds or impede their spiritual walk. It is in this sense that their sins were ‘borne away’ or ‘covered’ (the ideas as used in Leviticus are analogous). Both terms indicate that the sins in question were dealt with completely.

“It is not possible . . .”In the pages of the Old Testament, God frequently makes clear that sacrifices alone are insufficient to remove sins—even in the very law which re-quired them! Something greater was needed to come after to give to those sacrifices their true value. Nevertheless, under the dispensation in which the nation then lived, animal sacrifice was the divinely appointed means for the expiation of transgressions.

The rituals and sacrifices of the Law have no efficacy of themselves to cleanse from sin (al-though, somewhat ironically, this is the logical implication of decoupling them from the sacrifice of Christ). The writer to the Hebrews is quite clear: “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (10:4); “the same sacrifices . . . can never take away sins” (v. 11). Is there, then, a conflict between Hebrews and Leviticus? Of course not. It is perhaps from too blinkered an interpretation of these verses in Hebrews that some have understood kaphar to describe a removal of sin which is in some sense incomplete.

The Letter to the Hebrews was written against a background of mounting Jewish patriotism in the build-up to the Jewish-Roman War which end-ed with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Believers in Judea were under pressure to show themselves to be ‘good Jews,’ patriotic toward their nation. The writer appeals to his Jewish brethren not to be swept up in this wave of patriotism and pressured

1. Leviticus 4:20,26,31,35; 5:10,13,16,18; 6:7; 19:22.


into returning to the Law of Moses as a part of their Jewish heritage. In successive chapters he demonstrates that Jesus is greater in status than the angels or Moses (and thus the covenant that Moses and the angels ordained); is a superior redeemer to Joshua; and serves more effectively, having offered a better offering than either Aaron or his progeny. The Lord Jesus having offered himself, there was now no longer any benefit for the Jew in the blood of the animal sacrifices offered by the Levitical priesthood.

This is precisely because those sacrifices, only pointing forward to Jesus’ offering of himself, had been rendered superfluous. They had no efficacy of themselves, but drew efficacy from their as-sociation with the sacrifice of the true ‘Lamb of God.’ In the knowledge that, in due time, Christ would submit to death upon the cross to declare the righteousness of God’s judgment upon sin, the Almighty was pleased to pardon the sins of those Israelites who faithfully placed their hand upon the head of the animal and demonstrated that they were in agreement with the sentence passed in Eden—that we are sinners and worthy of nothing but death. In so doing they affirmed the very same principle to which Christ witnessed in his voluntary submission to death upon the cross. Acknowledgement of one’s own inability before the Lord, and faith in the provision that He would make to deal with sin, was the basis of forgiveness for the Israelite in days of old, just as it is for disciples in the New Testament.

Association with the God-given sacrificeThere is a parallel to be drawn with baptism here. Simply washing with water can bring ceremonial cleansing but it is of no help in the believer’s quest for moral purity. The water of itself has no impact on our position as sinners. It is by association with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ that the ritual can “purge [the] conscience” (Heb. 9:14), and the baptised can receive forgiveness. The writer to the Hebrews could just as well have said, ‘It is not possible that washing with water should take away sins.’2 It is the association signified, not the outward form of the ritual, which gives it power. So, as baptism looks back to the cross, the Levitical sacrifices looked forward.

In Hebrews 9:12 we read:“. . . neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”

The word ‘once’ is emphatic. The import is far greater than saying that Christ was only to be offered once, or even that he only needed to be offered once. The force of the word suggests that it is impossible that Christ could be offered more than once; this sacrifice was once and for all, all-sufficient, making provision for the totality of mankind’s needs in one decisive action.

The Day of AtonementA contrast is being drawn with the Day of Atonement. Every year the appointed ritual was performed, as a part of which all the sins of God’s people were atoned for, including those already covered by specific sacrifices. It might be admitted that this appears to preclude an understanding of kaphar that involves a permanent removal of sin, for how can the same sin be atoned for twice? The first point to be made here is that the Day of Atonement cannot be providing a different means for the removal of sins than the offerings we have already considered. This feast cannot effect a more permanent removal of sins than the offerings which “make an atonement [kaphar]” because it is ‘the Day of Atonements [kippurim, plural]’—the very same idea as that of kaphar. No new idea was being introduced for dealing with sins; it was the fullest kaphar that the Law could provide. It was a day devoted to the means by which these sacrifices and rituals acquired their efficacy. In the intensity of its language, the Law was intimating that another day would come when the Lord would in fullness make an atonement “because of their transgressions in all their sins” (Lev. 16:16).

At its heart, the Day of Atonement served as a reminder of the fact that the sacrifices by them-selves were inadequate. Something better had to come. Hebrews 10:3 says of this feast:

“But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.”

The Day of Atonement told the children of Israel that, although their sins were forgiven, there was a need for a change in the status quo. It was nec-essary that a sinless sacrifice should be provided, to the end that all might be ‘made perfect’ (v. 1). The thoughtful Israelite observed the ritual and realised that God would surely intervene to deal with sin, not ‘just’ by pardoning transgressions, but by striking at the very core of sin’s power;

2. In fact, Peter says something very similar in 1 Peter 3:21.


dealing with all sin—past, present and future—and removing it from man’s experience entirely. This day, then, demonstrated the need for one to come to fulfil the Law: to challenge and overcome sin and lead men and women into righteousness.

Without Christ, the sacrifices of Israel were no more than parables, a visual means of teaching moral lessons—‘never taking away sins.’ But with Christ in view, they are imbued with the power to cleanse to the uttermost.

AT THE CENTRE of the ritual of the Day of Atonement was the mercy seat above the

ark of the covenant. On this day alone this most holy article was approached by sinful flesh and employed in a ritual for cleansing. Once every year the high priest was able to enter the Most Holy Place, simultaneously a type of the Lord Jesus Christ as the true High Priest who would offer for the sins of the world, and of the people of God, who are brought into the presence of the Lord by his work. The blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat was a solemn reminder of the essential place of sacrifice in the scheme laid out by the Al-mighty for the provision of that covering to men.

In Romans 3:25 we find the following words spoken of Jesus:

“. . . whom God hath set forth to be a propitia-tion through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God . . .”

The word translated ‘propitiation’ in the AV is the Greek hilastērion. Other translations suggest a ‘propitiatory offering,’ but the preferred option is a ‘propitiatory place’. This brings it into harmony with the only other use of hilastērion in the New Testament, in Hebrews 9:5, where it is the word used for the mercy seat.

In Exodus, the Almighty says of the mercy seat:“And thou [Moses] shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will com-mune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel” (25:21,22).

The mercy seat was thus to be a ‘place of meet-ing’ between God and men. This was possible because of the typology that we have already considered. All the articles of furniture in the tabernacle represent some aspect of the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the case of the mercy seat, the covering provided by the Almighty for the sins of the world in Christ Jesus is in view. With their sins thus covered (forgiven) men are

no longer alienated from God and can ‘meet’ with Him to enjoy the fellowship he intended millennia ago when He created us.

Suppose, therefore, that we translate hilastērion consistently as ‘mercy seat.’ Romans 3:25 now says, ‘. . . set forth to be a mercy seat’—a covering. Reading on, we can see the parallel: “. . . set forth to be a [mercy seat] . . . to declare His righteous-ness for the remission of sins . . .” The blood of Christ provides us a covering for our sins, because in his voluntary laying down of his life the Lord justified his Father’s judgment against sin. This is in perfect harmony with our understanding of ‘atonement’ from the Old Testament sacrifices.3

“God be merciful”The use of the verb hilaskomai, which is related to hilastērion, is also instructive, again occurring twice:

“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful [hilaskomai] to me a sinner” (Lk. 18:13);“Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation [hi-laskomai] for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17).

There is an affinity between the divine usage of kaphar and hilaskomai. Consider first the verse from Hebrews. “Reconciliation” seems wrong here. How does one ‘make reconciliation for sins’? How does one make reconciliation for anything? Reconciliation is made between parties, not for something. Furthermore, a different word, katallagē, is used elsewhere in the New Testament for reconciliation. Consider how similar this verse sounds to that cited earlier from Leviticus chapter 4. We suggest that hilaskomai might have been translated ‘make atonement’ here. Thus Hebrews

The mercy seat

3. A related word, hilasmos, is used twice in John’s First Epistle, translated ‘propitiation’ in the AV. On both occasions a covering for sins may be the most useful way to understand the meaning of the word.


2:17 would then be rendered, ‘. . . to make an atonement for the sins of the people.’4

What of the repentant publican? It is interest-ing to note that the translation of hilaskomai in Luke 18:13, “be merciful,” is also comparable to Old Testament usage of kaphar. Consider Deu-teronomy 21:8:

“Be merciful [kaphar], O LORD, unto Thy peo-ple Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto Thy people of Israel’s charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.”

We note that kaphar is not only translated ‘atone-ment,’ therefore. What is the real petition of the publican? The same as Moses: that God will pardon (cover) his sin. Note that the aspects of sacrifice discussed earlier—the offerer’s ac-knowledgement of his own sinful position before God, and faith that God will make provision to overcome his deficiency—are here evident in the attitude of this penitent sinner.

Old Testament backgroundThe inspired New Testament writers delivered their message against the background of the Old Testament. The frame of reference for their theology and language is very often that of the Old Testament, and thus the Spirit often employs the Greek language to express thoughts rooted in the Hebrew Old Testament. Words from these two languages are not always analogous, so it is unsurprising that sometimes a little digging is required to decipher the intended meaning of the Greek words employed to convey Hebraisms.

In this vein, we submit that this family of Greek words is directly equivalent to the ideas expressed in the Hebrew kaphar and its related nouns.5 Hilaskomai and kaphar appear to be not only broadly comparable, but identically em-ployed in several specific and nuanced usages.6 When passages such as those quoted above are understood in this way, the language of ‘covering’ sins is almost as pervasive in the New Testament as it is in the Old, and almost on a par in terms of frequency of usage with ‘taking away’ or any similar metaphor.

Coats of skinsAlthough the word kaphar is not present in the text of Genesis 3, the seed of the idea of God providing a covering for sin is certainly present this early in Scripture. In response to the sin of the man and woman and their newfound shame at their nakedness, God provides for them “coats of skins” (v. 21). For Him to do this, it was necessary for

an animal to die. Here we have the first sacrifice for sin; the shed blood of the victim made atone-ment for the trespass, and Adam and Eve were forgiven. We often focus on these latter details, as they are picked up and expounded at length in ordinances of the law. What we sometimes neglect is that coats of skins were provided for a covering. Just as they were prevented by their nakedness from physically standing before the angel of God’s presence, so too our sins prevent us from entering the presence of the Father. A covering is the answer, whether on the physical or the moral plane. The coats made a tangible provision for the shame of the first couple by materially covering their nakedness, but they also symbolised the covering of their sin.

Under the Law of Moses the sinner was re-quired to be present to witness the death of his offering, as a reminder of the gravity of sin and its penalty.7 How much more powerfully would this important lesson have been imprinted on the minds of our first parents by their wearing upon their bodies the skin of the sacrificial victim? Having probably never witnessed death before, their revulsion would be directed appropriately towards the sin that necessitated such dire conse-quences. But robing themselves with the lifeless remains of the sacrifice they would also have seen the mercy of the Lord, in His willingness to provide a means of escape for them from the death that was their due.

Our Lord’s example was one of sacrifice. It was through the giving of himself freely that we have obtained salvation. This then places a demand upon us, for we are “bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20). We too are called to a life of sacrifice; of constant work in the service of our master. Our manner of life ought to stand out from those around us, as evidently as if we wore a shining white garment. By the sacrifice of our own will in subjection to the divine, the overcoming of all the power of sin ranged against us, we hope to be clothed upon with garments marking us

4. The NIV has almost exactly this wording.5. W. E. Vine, in his thorough notes on “Propitiation”

in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, also equates the use of hilaskomai with that of kaphar, albeit without the emphasis on the concept of ‘cover-ing’ which we have stressed here.

6. It is noteworthy that the translators of the Septuagint made use of the Greek exilasketai (which does not appear in the New Testament but is a closely related family member) to translate kaphar.

7. See, for example, Leviticus 1:2-5.


as belonging to Christ. The same love that God bore us we are asked to show to those around us, that they too might turn to God and accept the wonderful covering that He has prepared in

Christ. “Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide [RV cover] a multitude of sins” (Jas. 5:20).

Standing byJeremy Thomas

AMONGST THE numerous laws and com-mandments of the ‘Holiness Code’ of Leviticus 17–26 is this warning to Israel:

“You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbour; I am the LORD” (19:16).1 Other English translations render the Hebrew of this verse more literally. The AV has, “. . . neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour”; the ESV has, “. . . you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbour.” The restoration of the verb ‘stand’ in these translations enables the reader to see the deliberate contrast between ‘go-ing about’ and ‘standing.’ The warning is against wrongdoing whether one goes looking for it or encounters it by chance.

Robert Alter, in The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, has his own translation: “You shall not stand over the blood of your fellow man.” In a footnote, Alter tells us that “there is some dispute among interpreters about the meaning of ‘stand over the blood,’” although he follows the consensus of commentators who agree that it indicates “to stand by without intervening while your fellow man’s blood . . . is spilled.” To have done so would have indicated a disregard for hu-man life, which fell well short of the standard of holiness that God required of His people.

The verse takes on a particularly sinister tone when we notice how it is played out in the experi-ences of the Apostle Paul. Speaking from the steps of the Antonia Fortress to the crowd below, Paul recounts his confession to the Lord Jesus: “And

when the blood of your witness Stephen was be-ing shed, I also was standing by approving” (Acts 22:20). Paul’s silent but approving participation in Stephen’s stoning is recorded in Acts 7:58. If, on that day, he had known in his heart that Stephen was innocent of the charges laid against him, then Paul had been guilty of breaking the command-ment in Leviticus 19:16, and God’s holiness had not been upheld. Perhaps this disobedience was amongst the many instances of wrongdoing of which Paul became conscious as he reflected on the Law of Moses and came to appreciate that the Law, far from establishing his righteousness, condemned him utterly as a sinner (see Romans 7:8-11).

To the end of his days, Paul appears to have remembered ‘standing by’ while Stephen was put to death, for there are allusions to the events of Acts 7 in the last chapter of his last letter, 2 Timo-thy. Amongst these allusions, however, is one which provides a beautiful contrast with the way in which Paul had treated Stephen—one which Paul recalled gratefully and humbly as he now prepared for his own death at the hands of wicked men: “At my first defence no one supported me, but all deserted me . . . But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me . . . The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom” (4:16-18).

Exhortation

1. Bible quotations are from the NASB except where otherwise indicated.

Changes to the Testimony committeeBrother Bernard Burt and Brother Edward Carr have decided to step down from their re-spective roles on the magazine’s committee. They have each made a valuable contribution to the work of the Testimony, and on behalf of other committee members, and readers of the magazine, I take the opportunity to thank them for their work. Further changes to the committee will be advised in the pages of the magazine in due course.—J.D.T.

Contents


Reflections on Berea, then and nowPaul Maplethorpe

“The Word of God is a powerNeither hell nor sin gainsay;Fruit and blessing aboundIn that life where it holds sway.”—Plaque on the Tribune of the Apostle Paul at Berea.

Exhortation

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to state with certainty when Berea, now known as Veroia, in Greece, was founded. References to the city date from about

500 BC. It was at its greatest during the times of Philip II of Macedon—who helped unify Greece in the fourth century before Christ—and his more famous son, Alexander the Great, who was crowned king at nearby Vergina, from where also he commenced his military campaigns: across northern Greece, through Asia Minor, into Persia, and finally reaching the boundaries of India.

Vergina, ten or so miles south of Veroia, has a number of tombs from this period, including that of Philip himself and a more intriguing edifice known as ‘the Tomb of the Prince’—a description perhaps reminiscent of passages in Daniel. After the death of Alexander, the Greek kingdom went into decline, and in 168 Berea was the first city to fall to the advancing Romans at the battle of Pydna.

In Roman times, Berea became an important city on the route between Greece and Asia Minor, and was therefore well positioned for the spread of Christianity. Routes to the west led through Macedonia to Rome and western Europe. To the southwest, roads went to Athens, while to the east was Asia Minor, leading on towards the ruins of Babylon and Persia. The region of Macedonia was ideally placed for the taking of the gospel into Europe, under the guidance of men such as Paul and Peter, and other, unnamed, Christian missionaries.

Paul’s first preaching in MacedoniaHaving made the short sea-crossing from Troas, Paul’s first preaching in Europe took place at Philippi. Here, in the absence of a synagogue, Paul went to the riverside, where he spoke to the women of the city. His conver-

sations resulted in the baptism of at least one convert: Lydia. Following the uproar caused by the owners of a mentally disturbed woman, Paul was imprisoned, but then miraculously released by an earthquake—events which resulted in the conversion of the Philippian jailer. The civil au-thorities, desiring a ‘quiet life’ free from further disturbance (1 Thess. 2:2), and having no interest in Paul and his message, requested that he hastily leave their city.

Doubtless both Lydia and the unnamed jailor continued the work of preaching, and an ecclesia came into being through their efforts. Although Acts 20:6 makes mention of a second visit to Philippi by Paul, accompanied by Luke, it must be assumed either that the visit was very short or that nothing of import occurred during their stay in the city.

In marked contrast to Philippi, Thessalonica was home to a thriving Jewish community, having at least one synagogue. Here Paul preached to his compatriots about Jesus. While some believed, others violently opposed his teaching, attacking the home of Jason, one the earliest converts, and causing a disturbance which reached “the rulers of the city” (17:6), or ‘politarchs.’ Like those in Philippi, they had little interest in the strange religious arguments, and solved their problem by securing a bail bond from Jason. The newly baptised believers, realising that Paul’s presence might only inflame the situation further, wisely sent him away by night, with his travelling com-panion Silas, to Berea.

Testimony, September 2019

Paul’s preaching in BereaPaul arrived in Berea, where he preached in the synagogue. The congregation there was more open-minded and listened to Paul’s exposition of the Word of Life. They examined their scrolls, carefully searching the Scriptures, verifying the things that the apostle spoke concerning the writings of the Old Testament. These Jews were prepared to listen. No wonder Luke records that “they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (v. 11). Luke’s comment clearly sets out the result of Paul’s preaching: “Therefore many of them believed; also of hon-ourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few” (v. 12). Those first-century Bible stu-dents are a wonderful example to us today. Dis-tracted by materialism and wealth, most Western men and women are not interested in religion; yet the attitude of the Jews of Berea encourages us not to give up our own preaching efforts, but rather, like Paul, to speak forth the Word to those who may still listen, always encouraging them to check that the message we speak is identical to that expounded by the apostles of Christ two millennia ago.

Paul’s visit is commemorated by a monument in the centre of modern Veroia called ‘the Apostle Paul’s Tribune.’ This is the location where many believe that Paul preached the gospel. In truth it matters not whether this is the precise spot where the apostle taught in the city. The monument, the highlight for the many ‘Christian’ pilgrims who visit Berea today, still proclaims to the world that Paul was here, preaching the Good News

in a godless age. That message echoes down the centuries to us today.

As shown in the photographs, the monument consists of three mosaic pictures. The central piece depicts the Apostle Paul standing, arms raised, holding up the Scriptures of truth. On the left Paul is depicted seeing the vision of the man of Macedonia requesting him to cross into Europe to preach the gospel in Greece. On the opposite side Paul is shown preaching to the people of Berea. The monument contains the words of the poem at the head of this article, below which is an inscription taken from Acts 17:11: “In Berea, they received the word with all eagerness, exam-ining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” There is no church or shrine, simply a monument where believers can contemplate the life and work of ‘Paul the Missionary’ who brought the gospel to Europe.

The guidebook published by the Department of Tourism of the Municipality of Veroia provides detailed information relating to the various

The Apostle Paul’s Tribune at Berea.

Pictures in this article: Paul Maplethorpe

The left mosaic, depicting the Apostle Paul seeing his vision of a man of Macedonia.

335Contents


historical monuments in the city, including the Apostle Paul’s Tribune and the nearby Jewish quarter with its synagogue. In the section dealing with the Tribune, this interesting booklet states that the Apostle visited Berea twice, in AD 50 and again at the beginning of 57, and tells how his preaching was warmly welcomed by the citizens of Berea and the Jews in particular. Acts makes no mention of a second visit, recording only the events of chapter 17, when Paul was fleeing from Thessalonica, some forty-five miles to the east, as we have seen. When asked about the second visit, the staff of the Berea Tourist Office could not provide an explanation to substantiate the assertion that Paul returned to the city.

Despite the absence of a direct scriptural refer-ence to such a visit, it is possible—as Brother John Hellawell suggests—that after the disturbance in Ephesus, recorded in Acts 19, “He [Paul] retraced his steps by travelling into Macedonia, no doubt visiting the ecclesias at Philippi, Thessalonica and also Berea. Having covered the area and spoken words of exhortation in each ecclesia, he went on to Greece.”1 Inference could also be made from the name of one of his companions: Sopater of Berea (20:4).

in Berea. As such, it demonstrates the time-less presence of Jews in this part of Greece. Sadly, that presence was terminated by the Nazi forces of Germany on 1 May 1943 when most of the Jews in the city were rounded up and sent to the concentration camps, never to return to the place where their ancestors had lived for over two thousand years. Just as ‘Christians’ go to the site where they believe that Paul preached, so today Jews come to this synagogue to remember the former Jewish presence in this city.

There is little to indicate from the outside that this building is a synagogue. It could easily be mistaken for any other ordinary building in the city. Entering, one sees a large room with magnificent carved-wood ceilings and mosaic tiles. On the wall at the

The Jewish synagogue at Berea, believed to have been built on the site of an ancient

synagogue, which may have existed in Paul’s time.

The Jewish synagogueLess than one hundred yards from the Apostle Paul’s Tribune is the Jewish quarter of Berea, dominated by its synagogue. This present building, constructed in 1850, is the oldest synagogue in northern Greece and one of the oldest in Europe. It is believed to have been built on the site of an ancient synagogue, which probably existed when Paul was preaching

front of the synagogue is a picture of Herod’s temple.

The present guide and curator is Evi Meska, a most helpful lady. Although she is a Gentile, she gave us an excellent explanation of the various aspects of synagogue worship, and dealt ably with the many questions we asked. Others have similarly remarked on the way that this lady pro-vides such excellent commentary on the history and features of this noble building. Anyone going to northern Greece on holiday would do well to make a detour to Berea to see this synagogue and to speak to Evi.

It is sad to think that, only eighty years ago, Berea still had a Jewish community that dated back to New Testament times. Today there are no Jews in the city, the community having been destroyed by the Nazis and their associates after the German occupation of Greece in 1941.

The interior of the synagogue, looking towards the front, with a depiction of Herod’s temple on

the wall.

1. John M. Hellawell, Beginning at Jerusalem (2014), The Christadelphian.

Contents


A timeless exampleNews travelled fast. Immediately on hearing that Paul was preaching in Berea, and that there were converts there who believed on the Lord Jesus, the Thessalonian Jews travelled the forty-five miles with the intention of preventing the apostles’ good news from reaching others who were searching for salvation in Christ. Like others today, these self-righteous Jews were determined to prevent the gospel from being preached, certain that they possessed the truth and that an alterna-tive should not be offered to others.

The brethren—presumably the newly baptised in Berea—resolved that it was unwise for Paul to remain in the city, and sent him away: “And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea . . . And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens” (Acts 17:14,15). It is doubtful that Paul sailed from the port of Thessalonica, where he had encountered much opposition; it is more likely he left from one of the small harbours twenty or so miles from Berea.

From there he would have sailed under Mount Olympus, the legendary home of the Greek gods, before arriving in Athens. During that voyage of perhaps a day or two, did he reflect on the vital work that had been commenced in Macedonia, praying for the new believers—thinking of the labours and responsibilities of his friends Silas and Timothy, whom he had left behind to care for the new ecclesia at Berea? Here are echoes of the well-known phrase that the apostle included in the list of his own sufferings and responsibili-ties: “the care of all the [ecclesias]” (2 Cor. 11:28).

Although Berea is mentioned only three times in Scripture, the name of this city and the repu-tation of the brethren and sisters who became Christians there are an example of how we should respond to Bible teaching—role models for those who seek to grow spiritually today. Let us, then, like those brethren and sisters who now sleep awaiting the glorious day of resurrec-tion, ‘search the Scriptures daily’ as we await the return of Jesus.

Is seeing believing?4. The ‘inside-out’ retinaPeter Forbes

This series of articles is examining the various structures of the eye to encourage readers to decide for themselves whether the eye, with all its remarkably complex detail, fits better with special creation, as described in the Bible, or with the theory of evolution.

PROPONENTS OF the theory of evolution point to the way the retina of the eye is constructed as an evidence of evolution,

not design. In coining the phrase ‘inside-out retina,’ however, evolutionists are making a basic assumption upon which their argument is based. The first question is, ‘Is it true that the retina is inside-out?’1

It is true that the retina’s structure differs from that of the light receptors in a camcorder. In a camcorder the light receptors receive the light as

Science

1. Promoters of evolution cite the retina as a clear ex-ample of bad design which proves that there is not a Creator. Here is a typical example: “Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye’s rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.”—Daniel C. Dennet, The New York Times, 28 Aug. 2005.

soon as it enters through the camera lens. In the mammalian retina the light travels through the structure of the retina to reach the light-sensitive

Contents


Cross-section of retinaDrawing: Jim Willey, based on © Arizona Board of Regents / ASU Ask A

Biologist.

Photoreceptors: RodCone

Pigmented layer of retina

Pathway of light

rods and cones at the back. To assume that the retina is therefore ‘inside-out,’ however, assumes that the camcorder approach is the best option. In truth this is not comparing like with like. The camcorder is an inanimate structure, whereas the retina is a living organ. There is no good reason to assume that living tissue should be arranged in the same way as an inanimate object designed by man. A consideration of why the mammalian retina is organised as it is will show that there are excellent practical and physiological reasons for its structure.

Protecting the light receptorsThe first point to be understood is that the photo-receptors in the eye are easily damaged by both light and heat, especially as produced by some wavelengths of light. Visible light consists of dif-ferent wavelengths, as observed in the colours of the rainbow. The light beyond the violet end of the spectrum, referred to as ultra-violet (UV), is the most damaging to the light receptors in the retina. The combination of the cornea and crys-talline lens in the eye provides some protection from UV light, and further protection is provided because the light has to travel through the layers of the retina to reach the light receptors.

The fact that the light receptor cells of the retina are attached to the innermost layer at the back of the eye also serves an essential function. The surface of the retina to which the photoreceptors are attached acts as a ‘heat sink,’ dissipating the heat produced by UV light.

Despite this protection afforded to the light receptors, the cells are degraded by the very act of converting the light into the electrical signals that are transmitted to the visual cortex of the brain. Consequently, light receptor cells constantly die and have to be replaced, and the resulting dead cells need to be removed to prevent a build-up of dead tissue in the retina. As previously discussed in an article which considered the cornea,2 the retina has a very generous blood supply which connects with the retina in exactly the area where the most light receptors are sited. This serves two purposes: the blood carries nutrients to the retina, including the light receptors, and at the same time carries away waste products, including dead receptor cells.

Heat regulationYet a consideration of the blood supply to the retina reveals that it is far greater than is required simply to deal with the nutrition and waste re-moval functions. The seemingly excessive blood supply serves an additional function, which is to dissipate the heat generated in the retina, and in particular by the light receptors. So the ‘heat sink’ at the retinal surface is cooled by the very blood supply which deals with the nourishment and waste removal of the retina.

There is yet another benefit in the way the retina is designed. The quality of vision is deter-mined by the density of the light receptors.3 The surface area of the light receptors in the retina is actually greater than it would be if the light receptors were at the front of the retina, adjacent to the vitreous humour in the eye.

So whereas evolutionists might claim that the retina is an example of poor design, the result of an ‘accident,’ because the light has to travel through the various layers of cells in the retina to reach the light receptors, in fact there are a number of very good reasons for the retina being constructed the way it is. It is not ‘inside-out,’ but shows every evidence of having been carefully designed to provide excellent quality of vision while meeting the many requirements of living tissue.

2. See “Is seeing believing? (2) Sclera and cornea,” Testi-mony, vol. 89, no. 1,048, Apr. 2019, p. 141.

3. The density of light receptors is a crucial factor in determining the resolution or clarity of an image. We use the term ‘pixels’ to speak of the quality of an image generated electronically. The more pixels in a given area, the greater the resolution.




Watchman

Persian problemsShaun Maher

SINCE THE United States formally with-drew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (commonly known as “the Iran

nuclear deal”) in May 2018, diplomatic relations between Iran and the West have been steadily deteriorating. The Iran nuclear deal is a multilat-eral agreement between Iran on the one side and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the European Union (EU) on the other. The agreement was developed in an attempt to curtail Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, something that Iran’s traditional enemies in the West and the Middle East—not least Israel—were keen to avoid.

The Israeli government was highly critical of the deal and remains strongly opposed to it on the grounds that it merely slows Iran’s nuclear progress, rather than curtailing it entirely: the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran is pushed a little further into future, and even that assumes that Iran will abide by the rules in the meantime—an assumption that Israel is not willing to make.

Since coming to power, the Trump administra-tion has signalled that, unless there were changes to the deal, then the US would withdraw from what it viewed as a flawed and weak treaty that did not sufficiently contain Iran’s military ambi-tions. This was a key campaign message during the 2016 election, and, true to his word, in May 2018 President Trump formally withdrew the US from the deal. Not only so, but the US government has reinstated a wide range of economic sanctions against Iran and anyone trading with her. This move plunged the other signatories to the treaty into crisis. Lucrative deals signed between EU

businesses and Iran would, if enacted, invoke American economic sanctions on EU trade.

Increasing polarisationThe other signatories—including the UK—con-tinue to cling to the deal, which to all intents and purposes appears to be ‘dead in the water.’ They hope to be able somehow to find a way round the US sanctions and, perhaps with an eye on the 2020 US elections, look to the US Democratic party to come up with a candidate who can defeat President Trump and resurrect the deal.

Iran, meanwhile, has come out fighting. Her threats appear to be part of a strategy that is intended to persuade the world how good the deal is, in the hope of putting pressure on the US to return to the negotiating table. In June this year, as US economic sanctions began to bite, the situation escalated significantly when Iran allegedly attacked two oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.1 The attacks appear to have been carefully managed in order to cause damage to the vessels but not sink them—something of a ‘warning shot,’ perhaps. Shortly after this, in the Strait of Gibraltar, British Marines seized an Iranian oil tanker allegedly bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions against the Assad government.2 Within a few days, in a tit-for-tat strike, Iran had seized the British-registered Stena Impero oil tanker in

An Iranian speedboat close to the British-registered oil tanker

Stena Impero, seized in the Strait of Hormuz on 19 July.

Photo: © Saeed Abdolizadeh/Alamy Stock Photo

1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-4864 8788

2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/ro yal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions ?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

339Contents

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48648788

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48648788

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/04/royal-marines-gibraltar-tanker-oil-syria-eu-sanctions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other




the Persian Gulf, claiming that it had breached nautical codes of conduct as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz.3

In response to these actions and further threats from Iran, the UK has sought to build an EU-US naval coalition to protect merchant shipping in the Persian Gulf from further Iranian attacks. So far, however, EU nations have been unwilling to provide support, so the UK and US have been forced to go it alone and to create a task force in the Gulf to safeguard shipping and Western assets in the region. Israel has volunteered to support the task force with logistics and intelligence on Iranian activity in the area.4

Gulf growthThe co-operation of the US, the UK and Israel in the Persian Gulf, alongside EU reluctance to support these efforts, is a very interesting development. At the same time, Iranian aggres-sion and expansionism in the region is leading to improved relations between Israel and the Gulf States, who are also deeply concerned by Iran. Although the relationships are not formally normalised, there has been a great deal of di-plomacy, intelligence sharing and warm words from Gulf-State governments towards Israel. In a number of carefully worded and carefully man-aged announcements, leaders of these states have spoken positively of their relationship with the Israeli government.5 Further deterioration in US-Iranian relations leading to more aggression from Iran will undoubtedly be a driving force towards stronger relationships between Israel and the Gulf States.

Russia respondsThe presence of a combined US-UK-Israeli force in the Gulf may create the impression that the odds are stacked against Iran’s ability to con-tinue its policy of agitation and intimidation. That might indeed be the case but for the fact that Iran has powerful allies too. At the end of July, Russia announced a new cooperative mili-tary venture with Iran, stating that it would be moving naval forces to the Persian Gulf to carry out joint exercises with Iran’s navy.6 While the EU vacillates in the hope of rescuing the Iran nuclear deal, and the US and UK act proactively against Iran, Russia has immediately stepped in with a show of solidarity and support for her ally. These alignments of nations are of great significance to Bible readers. It has long been suggested by expositors of prophecy that Russia

will be the principal northern power of Ezekiel 38. The prophecy describes this northern power as a “guard” (v. 7) to its allies, one of whom is Persia. If Russia is this power, then we may well be seeing behaviour that leads directly to the future scenario described in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

Irrespective of the prophetic implications of current developments, the convergence of so much military hardware in a relatively small area greatly raises the risk of confrontation, whether deliberate or accidental. Iran’s increasing despera-tion, caused by economic sanctions and perceived loss of face, means that the current situation in the Persian Gulf is critical.

Persian proxiesAs noted in previous Watchman articles, Iran’s presence in Syria is a cause of concern for Israel and her Western allies. In recent months there have been a number of Israeli attacks on Iranian military bases and supply chains in Syria. The Israeli government has openly stated that it will not tolerate any Iranian military build-up on its northern border. The continued nature of this problem was illustrated by Israeli air strikes on Syrian targets in July. Amongst the nine fatalities were six Iranian military personnel.7 Israel has carried out hundreds of air strikes against Syria since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011, but increasingly these are against Iranian targets in southern Syria.

In addition to the presence of Iranian forces in Syria, Iran’s proxy army in Lebanon, Hezbollah, has been emboldened by its role in the conflict. According to some reports, Iranian forces in Syria have been smuggling in upgraded missile guid-ance systems to help modernise Hezbollah’s ex-tensive rocket arsenal. These upgraded weapons would add potency to a significant proportion of Hezbollah’s rockets, which are now estimated to number somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000.8

3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-490533834. https://www.debka.com/mivzak/third-iranian-warning-

to-israel-to-stay-out-of-gulf-waters-or-risk-war/5. https://www.timesofisrael.com/gulf-israel-closer-after-

bahrain-meet-but-full-ties-unlikely/6. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/07/

intel-russia-deepening-military-ties-iran-counter-us.html

7. https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-iranians-among-9-dead-in-israeli-strike-on-syria-monitor-says/

8. https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/.premium-iran-s-covert-scheme-to-upgrade-hezbollah-s-rocket-arsenal-revealed-1.6978683

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49053383

https://www.debka.com/mivzak/third-iranian-warning-to-israel-to-stay-out-of-gulf-waters-or-risk-war/

https://www.debka.com/mivzak/third-iranian-warning-to-israel-to-stay-out-of-gulf-waters-or-risk-war/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/gulf-israel-closer-after-bahrain-meet-but-full-ties-unlikely/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/gulf-israel-closer-after-bahrain-meet-but-full-ties-unlikely/

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/07/intel-russia-deepening-military-ties-iran-counter-us.html



https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-iranians-among-9-dead-in-israeli-strike-on-syria-monitor-says/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/6-iranians-among-9-dead-in-israeli-strike-on-syria-monitor-says/

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/.premium-iran-s-covert-scheme-to-upgrade-hezbollah-s-rocket-arsenal-revealed-1.6978683




As if this northern threat were not enough for Israel to contend with, Iran appears to be increasing its support for Hamas to the south in Gaza. Reports in the Israeli press allege that Iran has offered to increase support for the Hamas government from US $6,000,000 to $30,000,000 per month in return for increased intelligence on Israeli military targets. The reports also describe the Iranian hope that a military confrontation with Israel would help to open up a conflict on two fronts, one in the north and one in the south. The aim is to provide Iran with military targets for any future conflict and so to split Israeli forces between north and south, weakening their ability to defend Israel’s territory.9

“He rules their ceaseless fray”As always, in the short-to-medium term we can-not say what will happen or what the significance of these events may be in the unfolding purpose of God. There are nevertheless some interesting points to note.

The reluctance of the EU to intervene along-side the US, the UK and Israel reveals a differ-ence in the political and cultural outlook of the two groups. The ongoing Brexit saga, as the UK seeks to separate itself politically from the EU, is another element of this difference in global outlook—a live topic to which we will undoubt-edly return in future articles. This growing rift between the EU and the US-UK axis will probably be a continuing theme in the coming months, especially as the British government seeks to develop closer economic links with the US to compensate for Brexit.

Russia’s swift support for Iran is another key point. This support has been not merely diplo-matic in nature, in the traditional methods of UN Security Council statements or the vetoing of resolutions, but has also taken the form of military assets being deployed side-by-side with Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf. The open co-operation of Iranian and Russian forces against Western forces (or at least Western-backed forces) is now a fact of life—already familiar in the Syrian conflict, and seen now in the Persian Gulf too.

With next year’s American election, and now the growing possibility of a British general election this autumn, all this could of course change. If somehow the British Labour Party and a Democratic president were to find their way to power, then the situation might well change dramatically. Both the Labour Party in the UK and the US Democratic Party have developed

strongly anti-Semitic leanings in recent years as they have moved further to the political left.10,11 If either or both of these parties were to find themselves in government, then it is likely that Israel would become much more isolated. Even if both President Trump in the US and the Con-servative Party under Prime Minister Johnson in the UK were to retain power, there might be other economic, military or even natural factors that prevent their ability to provide support to Israel in the future, despite their currently strong pro-Israel stance.

What we know from the Scriptures is that, in the end, Israel will be alone, with no-one to sup-port her but the God of heaven. In Joel’s descrip-tion of the great battle to come, it is not Israel’s earthly allies who save her, but the Almighty:

“The LORD also will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; the heavens and earth will shake; but the LORD will be a shelter for His people, and the strength of the children of Israel. So you shall know that I am the LORD your God” (3:16,17, NKJV).

Amidst the uncertainty in the world around us—“the sea and the waves” tossing and foam-ing as men strive for power and dominion—we can be confident in the certainty of our heavenly Father’s promise that ultimately peace and joy lie in prospect for the nations of the earth under the reign of our Lord Jesus. The words of Hymn 91 in the Christadelphian Hymn Book sum up these sentiments eloquently:

High over lashing waves our God is throned:

Proud billows bide their wrath at His command.

Lofty as hills, roll on your restive might:Fling, seas, in thunder ’gainst the granite

height:Yet shall you lie like glass beneath His

hand.

Thrones, realms, dominions, flaunt their fleeting day:

9. https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-increases-Hamas-funding-in-exchange-for-intel-on-Israel-miss iles-597836

10. https://spectator.org/jews-ignore-the-democrats-rising-anti-semitism/

11. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/17/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-marga ret-hodge?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-increases-Hamas-funding-in-exchange-for-intel-on-Israel-missiles-597836



https://spectator.org/jews-ignore-the-democrats-rising-anti-semitism/

https://spectator.org/jews-ignore-the-democrats-rising-anti-semitism/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/17/antisemitism-labour-party-jeremy-corbyn-margaret-hodge?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other




Base men arise, and fall to long decay:Tumultuous peoples roar like ocean tide:Nations in rage the suffering earth divide:

Yet all unknown He rules their ceaseless fray.

His day shall dawn, His golden beam content

Those limpid waters’ depth, their fury spent.

Like sun in bounty, healing, blessing, free,Love’s gaze shall fathom all the silent sea,

And joy glow back through all His firmament.

Stop pressTwo developments have occurred since this article was written:1 Iran’s Foreign Minister was invited by France

to attend the recent G7 meeting in Biarritz. After discussions there, President Macron spoke of the hopes that Iran and the West could reach a new nuclear agreement.

2 In August Israel launched a further attack on Iranian forces located near Damascus, and Israeli drones were despatched against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon.—G.H.

Prophecy

The coming of the Son of man (1)Colin Hollamby

This two-part study argues that the words of Jesus in his Olivet Prophecy and at his trial before Caiaphas were spoken with the short-term future of the Jewish nation in mind. A close consideration of these words offers guidance as to the Lord’s meaning, and challenges more literal readings of the passages in question. The argument reflects the understanding of Brother John Thomas—see, for example, The Last Days of Judah’s Commonwealth (1969).

THERE CAN BE no doubt that the way to understand any part of the Scriptures is to ‘compare Scripture with Scripture.’ There

are some parts of our Bible which the Spirit has been pleased to record in duplicate, triplicate or even more. When this is the case, it must be that the details will always harmonise with each other. They are never to be seen in opposition to the other part or parts. In such cases, the Spirit has been careful to build up a composite whole. There will be nothing lacking, nor will any detail be superfluous, to the tapestry which will arise out of the details which are given. We must be true to all the details, and we can be certain that there

will be no need to invite the Author to come into our study so that he can receive more information.

We may be able to make other ideas appear by using other methods of study. But it is quite wrong either to add to, or to diminish from, the de-tails which are waiting to be gleaned. Those details will lead us to perceive whatever the Spirit wishes us to see, and will prevent us from ‘perceiving’ what is not presented. The Scriptures,

the “still small voice” (1 Kgs. 19:12), do not need garnishing or embellishment. They are quite able to cause pictures to spring out; for every word of Yahweh is pure (Prov. 30:5; see also Ps. 12:6). We may think and believe the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but trying to lay over any of its parts our own authority is simply to usurp the authority of the Word. We have no authority whatsoever.

Four critical passagesLet us examine four passages that are critical to understanding the Olivet Prophecy and see what they yield. Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:38 and Luke

Contents


9:26 all refer to the same event. These passages are to be considered together with Matthew 26:64. The Olivet Prophecy has also the advantage of having been recorded in triplicate.

When we tabulate these three verses, it is not difficult to conclude that a judgment is forecast (see table below). The first three lines in the table clearly declare that the time period involved is when “the Son of man shall come.” We are in-formed of the way in which he will come: in his own glory, in his Father’s glory, and in the glory of his holy angels. Here is a composite assembly of indisputable facts. Now we ask: at what “com-ing”? Remember that it is inadmissible to add to, or to delete from, the facts which have been placed under the scrutiny of the Bible student. We cannot be in the position of informing the Spirit that we think there has been oversight, or that detail has been added which makes the picture indecipherable. It is indisputable that there was to be a ‘coming of the Son of man’ in AD 70. Concerning their persecution at the hands of their fellow countrymen, the Son himself said to his disciples: “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come” (Mt. 10:23). But is there any other ‘coming of the Son of man,’ and is this the ‘coming’ which is detailed in the three verses under consideration?

The work to be undertaken is said to involve “[rewarding] every man according to his works.” This statement appears to be definitive—and so it is, if we are prepared to examine carefully the other details that fill up the information which the Spirit decided to reveal. The extent of the com-ing judgment is clearly stated to be upon those individuals who are “ashamed of me and of my words.” This statement is a two-pronged attack which makes certain who it is directed against. The people described are those who are “ashamed of me.” This factor needs to be scrutinised very closely, because it is linked together with the following qualification: “and [ashamed] of my words.” Why these two factors? Because only

those actually acquainted with the Son of man himself could be ashamed of his person. It is easy to be ashamed of his words in any generation; but it is only those acquainted with his person who could be ashamed of him. These two factors restrict the application of the Lord’s words and fix the time of his ‘coming.’

“This generation”There is another defining feature of these three verses, for Mark adds, “. . . in this adulterous and sinful generation.” There are three views on the term “this generation.” Let us see how they each fit with the other details.

We are looking at a judgment. One view of “this generation” is that the word is confined to the generation between the mortal existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the desolation of the city of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Another idea maintains that “this generation” refers to the generation who will see the return of our Lord from heaven to establish the Kingdom of God on the earth. The third idea claims that “this generation” indicates a much longer period, possibly taking in the time of the existence of the Jewish nation.

Whatever view is taken, we must harmonise it with the rest of the factors, and only those factors, which have been supplied. If these three verses do teach us about the future judgment seat of Christ, then we are faced with an awful dilemma. Why? Because if the judgment is to be restricted to “this generation” (whatever that turns out to be), then it must also be confined to people who are described as those who are “ashamed of me [the judge] and of my words.” There is not one syllable about any righteous people. Yet when we turn to passages which are indisputably revealing what will happen at the judgment seat of Christ, there are always two classes of people: the righteous and the wicked, the accepted and the rejected (see Dan. 12:2; Mt. 25:46; 2 Cor. 5:10). But was there a judgment which was future to the time of

Matthew 16:27 Mark 8:38 Luke 9:26“the Son of man shall come” “the Son of man . . . cometh” “the Son of man . . . shall

come”

“in the glory of his Father with his angels”

in the glory of his Father with the holy angels”

“in his own glory, and in his Fa-ther’s, and of the holy angels”

“and then he shall reward every man according to his works”

“Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words . . .”

“whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words . . .”


the Lord’s declaration in the three verses above, and which involved punishing only the guilty? There was. And was this judgment confined to a certain “generation”? Yes, it was.

Days of judgmentConnected with the Olivet Prophecy are certain warnings about “the days of Noe [Noah]” and “the days of Lot” (Mt. 24:37,38; Lk. 17:26-28). Can it be doubted that they were ‘days of judgment’? Of Noah it is testified that he was “saved” (2 Pet. 2:5)—past tense. Was this saving temporary or permanent? Of Lot it is recorded that he was “de-livered” (v. 7)—past tense. Was this deliverance temporary or permanent? To ask is to answer. Only one man found grace in the eyes of Yahweh in the judgment of Noah’s day (Gen. 6:8). Only one person was “delivered” in the days of the judgment of Sodom. It is true that each of these men’s families (or at least some of them) were allowed to accompany the head of their family. But theirs was not a permanent judgment. Some of the people who saw the Flood will very prob-ably be at the judgment seat of Christ. We can be certain that Noah and Lot will be there too, and then they will receive a permanent reward.

Are we now in a position to be able to decide which ‘coming of the Son of man’ is indicated in the three verses under consideration? There can be no other conclusion beside the one that stares us in the face—it is the coming of the Son of man to wrest the kingdom from the tenants who had been expected to bring forth to the owner of the vineyard the fruit in season (see Mk. 12:1-9; Lk. 20:9-16). The glaring absence of the righteous from the three verses positively identifies the ‘coming’ to be in AD 70. There is no other time to which all the details could apply.

We have allowed the details, taken together, to dictate our conclusion. Therefore, we conclude that the Son of man did come in the glory of his Father, and in his own glory, and with the angels of heaven—whoever they may be—in AD 70. The “generation” mentioned in this event can only mean the generation who existed during the life of Jesus of Nazareth, concluding at the time of the desolation of the city of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple.

Another application?What about the possibility of ‘dual application’ of the Lord’s prophecy? Those who decide to rest their case on such a premise must provide the dual application of all the details of the events

which are described. Try as one might, the defin-ing matter of precisely who will take part in the judgment in question can only mean that those at the judgment seat of Christ will be a very limited number, and that many whom we thought will be gathered on that great day of decision will not be there—and that no righteous persons will be there.

In Ezekiel 7:1-9 we have a preview from the Spirit of what happened to the kingdom of Judah when the power of Babylon was commissioned to overthrow the city of Jerusalem and destroy the temple. Note the words used to describe this judgment from Yahweh. These verses are stud-ded with phrases such as, “I . . . will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations . . . I will recompense thy ways upon thee . . . I will judge thee according to thy ways . . . I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations.” Perhaps the very idea of the word “according” (vv. 3,4,8,9) was in the thinking of the Spirit when this word is used in Matthew 16:27: “he shall reward every man according to his works.” The exercise of our minds upon these verses in Ezekiel should lead us to realise that there was a judgment on Israel at that time, and likewise the righteous are not mentioned. There can be but one reason: this is not a permanent judgment scene.

In his book Collectanea J. K. Speer wrote: “You will find Jesus talking to his enemies in parables, and then explaining the parables to his friends. If one reads these things, with the idea already in his mind that Jesus is teaching wrath and venge-ance on his enemies after they have died and been raised again to life, he will understand nothing that Jesus teaches on the subject. He does not talk to his friends as he does to his enemies.”1 I have not come across a more insightful saying. This work has been of considerable enlightenment in studying the four Gospel records.

A fourth passageComing to the fourth passage which is directly connected with the Olivet Prophecy, we begin our consideration of Matthew 26:64. The scene is of Jesus of Nazareth arraigned before the Sanhedrin. Caiaphas is the presiding judge. Not many hours before this incident, the King of the Jews had been acclaimed by a multitude enthusiastically

1. J. K. Speer, Collectanea, College Press, 1873, p. 133. Available online at https://archive.org/details/collecta neacolle00spee/page/n7

https://archive.org/details/collectaneacolle00spee/page/n7

https://archive.org/details/collectaneacolle00spee/page/n7


welcoming him into Jerusalem (Jno. 12:12-15). The resurrection of Lazarus is in the recent past. We are reminded that this event was the reason why “many of the Jews . . . believed on Jesus” (v. 11).

On the next day (v. 12), the King of the Jews was acclaimed by a multitude enthusiastically welcoming him into Jerusalem. Watching with bitter jealousy in their bosoms were the leaders of the Jews. Plainly lamenting the escape of their quarry—for they were afraid of the people—they said amongst themselves, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world [Gk. kosmos, the nation] is gone after him” (v. 19). They were in deadly earnest. Their time to kill him was fast slipping away, and now they found it impossible to move against this hated man.

At this precise juncture, the man of whom they were bitterly envious, knowing that “The hour [had] come, that the Son of man should be glorified” (v. 23), releases an important piece of information. Teaching the people that they were about to see the Son of man lifted up (vv. 32,33), he purposely plays into the hands of his enemies, who were still skulking in the background. This occasion seems to be the first time that Jesus had spoken of this matter to the people. The idea had been rejected out of hand by the apostles, and now the same result is seen in the people. There is a wonderful equation which the people had made. They reply, in effect, ‘We have come to accept that you are both the Son of man and the Christ. We perceive that you are the one who is to fulfil both these important roles. But now you inform us that you are going to be lifted up, and that means that you are going to die. We would like to inform you that we have been taught in the law that Christ abides for ever [perhaps refer-ring to Psalm 110]. If what you say is true, then we have a clear case of mistaken identity—you cannot be the person for whom we are looking.’

The instant result of the Lord releasing this information to the people for the first time was that it allowed the leaders of the Jews to proceed with their evil designs. It is therefore in every way that no man took his life from him, but he gave it of his own free will (see Jno. 10:17,18). Not only was he in complete control of himself, he is also seen to be in control of the whole kosmos in bringing about his Father’s purpose. An interest-ing facet of this episode follows immediately. The Spirit directs John to record that this event was prophesied by Isaiah: “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet

might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (12:37,38, quoting Isa. 53:1). By releasing the information that he did, Jesus drew the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prediction, which is couched in two questions. These are rhetorical questions which require a negative answer.

“Thou” and “you”But what has this to do with Matthew 26:64? We return to that scripture to try to make the con-nections. Our Lord has just been placed under oath by Caiaphas in order to extract from his lips his own condemnation. Caiaphas wanted to hear the ‘criminal’ speak his own doom. Jesus could not avoid the answer. But he merely affirmed what Caiaphas had alleged: “Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The verse is specific in what it says and what it does not say. Like all other Scripture, every word is pure, and does not need to be added to or diminished from. Not only are the words pure, but so are the tenses and the pronouns and every other detail of the Lord’s words.

Let us note the pronouns. They are a good reason for using the AV here. Jesus replies directly to Caiaphas in the singular, for he addresses him as “Thou”—“Thou hast said.” ‘Yes, thou art correct in what thou hast said.’ Turning his attention from Caiaphas specifically, he addresses the Sanhedrin in the words, “Nevertheless, I say unto you . . .”— a plural pronoun. Caiaphas was dead before the time of the Jewish overthrow in AD 70. We will return to this fact later in our considerations.

Speaking now to the assembled Sanhedrin, the Lord gives them something to remember, in-structing them in some vital truths for their own wellbeing. “Hereafter”—a word which means ‘at a time closely connected with the present,’ not two thousand years away—”shall ye see”—a word which conveys the idea of perceiving or comprehending. Perceiving or comprehending what? “. . . the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power.” It is worthwhile pausing to pon-der this claim, for it is directly responsible for the immediate behaviour of Caiaphas. This is not the claim that the Lord was the Son of God, although it is closely connected with that claim. These men knew the Old Testament Scriptures. They were familiar with the position of the firstborn sons in Israel. They knew that that office was to


be fulfilled by a worthy individual who would succeed in the matters of Law and priesthood in the family. When those words dropped from the lips of the defendant, the result was immediate! ‘Blasphemy—of the most insolent order!’ The claim went hand in hand with Jesus’ previous proclamation that he was the Son of Yahweh, of

which the same men demonstrated their disbe-lief and despite. The two claims are beautifully intertwined. And this revelation to the Sanhedrin only added fuel to the fire of their growing list of complaints against the man of whom they were so envious.

(To be concluded)

Wooed by the winsomeness of the WordGeoff Henstock

May you Know it to be True.Brother Dennis Gillett.The Christadelphian, 2004.134 pages. Paperback.ISBN: 9780851891576.Available in the UK from The Christadelphian, 404 Shaftmoor Lane, Hall Green, Birmingham B28 8SZ. Tel. +44 (0)121 777 6328.

Price: £8.50 plus postage.Available online at https://thechristadelphian.com/may-you-know-it-to-be-true.htmlAlso available in e-pub format, price £6.00: https://thechristadelphian.com/may-you-know-it-to-be-true-e-book.htmlAvailable in Australia from Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, http://www.csss.org.au/may-you-know-it-to-be-true-exhortations.html, price: $24.20 plus postage.

DO YOU REVEL in seeing the Bible deftly applied to the challenges of daily life? Do you have a passion for finely crafted Eng-

lish? If you do, you must read May you Know it to be True, a collection of twenty-three beautifully written essays from the pen of Brother Dennis Gillett, one of our community’s most spiritual brothers and most talented writers.

Brother Dennis fell asleep in Christ twenty-seven years ago, and this volume of exhortations was published fifteen years ago by The Christa-delphian, but they remain as fresh and relevant as when first composed. The title of this review is adapted from a phrase which appears twice in the book in different forms (on pages 39 and 72). Our brother was one so wooed, and he sought to woo others by opening to them the way of life as revealed in the Bible.

Brother Dennis was a gifted wordsmith, a deep thinker and, most importantly, a dedicated and reverent Bible student. When he fell asleep, Brother Colin Edwards wrote these words about Brother Dennis: “His turn of phrase, his choice of word were always precise and fascinating in his own inimitable style. He was a true philosopher, thinking objectively about the problems of life before God. Yet his ideas were always expressed in terms which could be easily understood by both young and old. His penetrating comments, often made memorable by a simple story or in the form of dry wit, were strikingly original and were instantly recognisable.”1 All these traits are evident in the chapters of this book.

Each exhortation is drawn from a chapter of the Bible; in some cases, Brother Dennis develops a theme that springs from the chapter and pursues it through other passages. The Bible chapter on

Review

1. Christadelphian, vol. 129, no. 1,542, Dec. 1992, p. 475.

Contents

https://thechristadelphian.com/may-you-know-it-to-be-true.html

https://thechristadelphian.com/may-you-know-it-to-be-true.html

https://thechristadelphian.com/may-you-know-it-to-be-true-e-book.html

https://thechristadelphian.com/may-you-know-it-to-be-true-e-book.html

http://www.csss.org.au/may-you-know-it-to-be-true-exhortations.html




which each exhortation is based is indicated and the exhortations are presented in biblical order. All lovers of the Bible will enjoy reading his thoughts, but the book may be especially helpful to brothers and sisters in isolation or who meet in very small groups, and who would welcome a suitable essay for reading at their memorial meeting.

A fine expositor, Brother Dennis was acutely aware of the difference between a Bible class address and an exhortation. There are, however, many expositional gems embedded in these

Principles, preaching and problems

deeply exhortational essays. For example, his discussion of the phrase “pillar and ground” in 1 Timothy 3:15, his comments on the phrase “he must needs” in John 4:4, and his thoughts about the significance of the title “sons of thunder” ap-plied to James and John, are insightful. At a very practical level, his observations on the purpose of the ecclesia are worthy of close attention.

May you Know it to be True would be a welcome addition to any Bible student’s library. Worthy of close and repeated reading, it is heartily recom-mended to brothers and sisters of all ages.

“Be ready always”5. More difficult variations in textJohn Thorpe

IN THE previous article,1 it was noted that in many places where there are variations between different witnesses in the New Testament text,

it is fairly easy to decide what the correct text should be by looking at common copying er-rors. Unfortunately this isn’t always possible. Sometimes the variation is not the result of a simple copying error, or the copying error could be decided either way. In such cases a deeper look at the text is required, and this requires a familiarity with the different witnesses to the text that are available.

To decide which of a set of possible variants is most likely to be the correct one, it is necessary to take account of the witnesses that support each of the variants. This, in turn, requires that we become familiar with the various witnesses and understand the character of each of them.

Manuscript typesIn the nineteenth century, when only a few hun-dred manuscripts were known, the witnesses seemed to form three groups. These were identi-fied, partly by the place where they had appar-ently been copied, and partly by similarities to quotations by ancient authors who were associ-ated with particular places. The three groups of manuscripts were:

• Byzantine: this is by far the largest group of manuscripts. Byzantium was wealthy; it was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, which lasted for a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire had fallen. Because of their economic strength the Byzantines could afford many copies of the Bible, and because the language of the Eastern Empire was Greek the manuscripts were in Greek. The copying was made in monasteries in the core of this empire, and the copying was very carefully carried out (although not up to the almost incredible standards of Jewish copyists).

• Western: this group represents the scriptures used by the Western (Catholic) Church. As the Church spoke Latin rather than Greek, most of the witnesses are in Latin. The most commonly found translation is the Vulgate, made by Jerome in about AD 400, but there are many manuscripts of other translations which were made before this.

• Alexandrian: the third group is the smallest. This represents some very ancient manu-scripts from Egypt, and has variants which appear in the works of early ‘church fathers’

1. “‘Be ready always’ (4) Handling textual variation,” Testimony, vol. 89, no. 1,047, Mar. 2019, p. 105.

Contents



such as Clement of Alexandria. Alexandrian witnesses tend to be earlier than Byzantine or Western ones because Egypt was overrun by the Muslims in the seventh century and copy-ing effectively then ceased. However, there are almost as many early manuscripts in the other traditions as there are Alexandrian ones; the dry conditions of Egypt are especially good for preserving ancient writing materials, which accounts for the slightly larger number of early Alexandrian manuscripts.

Witnesses continued to be divided into these categories until quite recently, but it is becom-ing more and more apparent that the groups are something of a fiction. As more manuscripts have been discovered, so have large numbers of witnesses which fall between the different groups. These were initially labelled ‘mixed,’ with the idea that they had been copied from several exemplars from different traditions. However, more recent analyses using mathematical and statistical techniques have shown beyond doubt that the supposed Alexandrian and Western clusters don’t exist. Instead, the Alexandrian and Western witnesses form two extremes of a continuum, with the Byzantine group a cluster of manuscripts to one side.

Method of analysing variantsThe plot can be used to examine particular vari-ant readings. If a reading is found only in a very tight group of witnesses, then it is probably the result of an error. A genuine reading would tend to cover a wide variety of different witnesses.

When examining a more difficult set of vari-ant readings, one begins by comparing all the witnesses which attest each of the available readings. The idea here is to build up a diagram which shows how the readings might be gener-ated from one another, and by what process this might happen. The process must take account of known tendencies of scribes, the variety of witnesses which attest each of the readings, and consistency with the style and content of the surrounding text. A scribe who is unsure of the correct reading (because the exemplar from which he is copying is indistinct or has marginal comments, for example) might have various rea-sons for preferring one reading over another— doctrinal or personal—which should be taken into account when considering the set of variants.

There are some fairly complex rules behind the process, but generally speaking the applica-tion of these is fairly close to common sense. The

only problem with the rules is that many critics have a tendency to choose Alexandrian readings, or shorter readings, or more complex readings, or readings which agree with their doctrinal stance—usually with the excuse that these are the more difficult readings.

A worked exampleOne place where there are several possible al-ternative readings is in 1 Corinthians 5:5. Most modern versions (for example, ESV, NET, NIV) prefer the reading “the day of the Lord” (1). The AV and NASB here follow the Byzantine text and have “the day of the Lord Jesus” (2). Other manuscripts read variously “the day of the Lord Jesus Christ” (3) and “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (4).

The first thing to note about the passage is that the variation in text doesn’t affect the sense of the passage. Whichever of the readings is original, the passage means exactly the same thing.

The next stage is to note that the most common readings are (2) and (4). Reading (1), “the day of the Lord,” appears in only two early manuscripts (‘P46’ and ‘B’) and in two later minuscules. Three of these four manuscripts are considered to be strongly Alexandrian. Reading (2), “the Lord Jesus,” appears in many later manuscripts, but also in Codex Sinaiticus. Reading (3), “the Lord Jesus Christ,” appears only in a cluster of Western manuscripts similar to the sixth-century Codex Claramontanus (‘D’), while reading (4), “our Lord Jesus Christ,” appears in a wide range of witnesses from the second century onwards, including many ancient translations into other languages.

(It is worth noting that 2 Corinthians 1:14 has a similar issue; here, half the manuscripts have “the Lord Jesus” while the other half have “our Lord Jesus.” It seems that it is easy for copyists to read one of these phrases but write the other.)

The analysis of 1 Corinthians 5:5 is to produce a ‘chain’ where reading (1) would easily become, or come from reading (2), which in turn would easily become or come from reading (3), while reading (4) could easily come from reading (2) or reading (3). The transition from reading (2), “the day of the Lord Jesus,” to reading (1), “the day of the Lord,” could be explained by the frequency with which the phrase “the day of the Lord” appears in the Bible in general—a scribe could remember this phrase and write it in his copy. The addition of the word “Christ” would be rather more difficult; it therefore seems likely that either reading (3) or reading (4) is correct.


ConclusionWe hope to look at some more important vari-ations between manuscripts in future articles. The vast majority of cases are similar to the one

above—they make virtually no difference to the meaning of the passage in which they occur. However, one or two are more significant, and we will examine these later.

Exhortation

JosephSent to preserve lifeEric Marshall

The moment that Joseph reveals his identity to his brothers is high drama, the climax of several meetings and associated events recorded in Genesis chapters 37–45. It is not difficult to appreciate that Joseph’s brothers were terrified at the news that the brother whom they had sold to slavery, and presumed dead, was not only alive but ruler in Egypt—and a ruler who had largely unlimited power, particularly as far as their immediate destiny was concerned. It is certain that the response they received from Joseph was totally unexpected and, from their perspective, undeserved.

JOSEPH’S WORDS to his brothers, who had not seen him for twenty-two years, give the divine perspective on the situation:

“Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me be-fore you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the land: and yet there are five years, in the which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and He hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:4-8).

There is no record that the seventeen-year-old Joseph received a direct instruction from God that he was to be sent to Egypt to prepare for his brothers’ salvation from the famine that would come some twenty years later. What the record

shows, therefore, is a journey of developing faith in God, both for Joseph and for his family.

Joseph a man of destinyJoseph’s father valued the promises that God had made to his ancestors Abraham and Isaac, and which had been confirmed to him personally (28:13-15). Jacob’s favour to Joseph is noted in the Genesis account: “Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours” (37:3). It may be that the coat was a priestly gar-ment, and given, not simply because Joseph was the son of Jacob’s old age,1 but because Joseph too valued the promises.

Joseph may have witnessed first-hand God’s protection of the family from exploitation by Laban, from revenge by Esau, and from the Ca-naanite response to the events at Shechem. While some might think that Joseph ought not to have spoken to his father of his brothers’ misdeeds (v.

1. Jacob was ninety-one when Joseph was born.

Contents


2), it was clearly a matter of concern to him that ungodly behaviour was being practised by them.

The dreams that Joseph was given marked him out at an early age as having a special role in God’s purpose with the family of Israel. His brothers were displeased and his father felt it necessary to rebuke him, but it is certain that none of them, nor Joseph, had any idea about how his dreams might be fulfilled.

Seeing God as a realityJoseph’s faith is revealed in his behaviour when a slave in Egypt. Having risen to a position of responsibility under Potiphar, he is repeatedly propositioned by Potiphar’s wife. His reason for not yielding to the temptation is based on rec-ognition of the reality and omniscience of God:

“he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; there is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wicked-ness, and sin against God?” (39:8,9).

Without doubt, Potiphar’s imprisoning of Joseph in response to his wife’s lies about Joseph’s be-haviour would have been a great trial for him. However, when Joseph has, by diligence and God’s overseeing care, risen to a position of trust in the prison, he seems to be more concerned for the welfare of fellow prisoners than his own situation. He notices the sadness of the butler and the baker and enquires why this is so. On finding out that they were troubled about their dreams, Joseph’s response shows how central God is to his thinking:

“Wherefore look ye so sadly to day? And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you” (40:7,8).

Since Joseph was able to interpret both dreams correctly we must conclude that the interpreta-tions were given to Joseph at that time, perhaps by a vision.

A similar situation occurs when he is sum-moned to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams. Joseph claims no special credit; he sees himself as simply the channel of divine revelation:

“And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I have dreamed a dream, and there is none that can interpret it: and I have heard say of thee, that thou canst understand a dream to interpret it.

And Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, It is not in me: God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace” (41:15,16).

A journey of faithJoseph’s declaration to his brothers that “God did send me before you to preserve life” might give the impression that he understood from the start that this was the reason for his going to Egypt. It is clear, however, that he did not know, and that his understanding of his role was developed through his experiences, which caused him great suffering.

When he was put in the pit by his brothers and later sold to the Midianite slave traders, there is no record of Joseph’s response.2 Only when the brothers are standing before Joseph and feeling the pressure of the situation do we learn that he was distraught by their mistreatment of him:

“And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us” (42:21).

Although he knew that at some stage his brothers would bow down before him, how that would happen was initially a mystery, and it seems that this remained so for a long time.

Psalm 105 explains Joseph’s role in the divine purpose with the nation of Israel:

“Moreover He called for a famine upon the land: He brake the whole staff of bread. He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant: whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron: until the time that His word came: the word of the LORD tried him. The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free. He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: to bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom” (vv. 16-22).

The word of the Lord that “tried” Joseph must have been the outworking of the dreams that he had received. There is no intimation that Joseph had any other revelation to explain what was hap-pening; he was required to live by faith that his life had to come to the point when his brothers

2. Perhaps Joseph’s apparent silence in the record when Joseph was sold by his brothers is a type of Christ’s situation, like that described in Isaiah 53:7: “he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”


would bow before him. How often must he have pondered his circumstances, whether in trouble or success, seeking to understand how it would all work out. As we have seen, his trust was in an active and caring God who would fulfil His promises. It must have been this deep-seated faith that sustained him. But, as the psalm says, there came a time when “His word came.”

Recognising the sins of the pastI suggest that it was not until the moment that his ten brothers were there, bowing before him and asking for corn for the family, that the picture became clear to Joseph. Now the dreams were beginning to come true.

We might wonder why there were two dreams, in which the second was a dramatic development of the first. We might argue that two dreams reinforced the certainty of what would happen.3 It might also be argued that the second dream could only be fulfilled in the Kingdom, for Jo-seph’s mother was undoubtedly dead when this dream was given. What we can be certain of is that Joseph would be able to deduce that he would see Benjamin again, and most probably his father too.

It seems that Joseph had also given thought to how he would react when he was in the posi-tion of ruler of the family. He clearly knew that God was at work, and he also recognised that, if he was to rule in the family, he should do so in a godly way for their benefit. However, there would be need for his brothers to confess their sin of hatred which had resulted in their selling him into slavery. This explains the challenges that he presented them with at their meetings with him before they knew his identity. The outcome of their experience was a realisation of their guilt and a splendid confession by Judah (Gen. 44:18-34), who offered himself in place of Benjamin rather than causing his father more, and probably fatal, distress.

ForgivenessJoseph’s brothers confessed before him that they were “verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we would not hear” (42:21). This confession and the subsequent offer of Judah to stand in for Benjamin convinced Joseph that they were repentant. His response on making himself known to them was complete forgiveness:

“I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved,

nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life” (45:4,5).

There is no bitterness or desire to take revenge. His brothers could not come to terms with such graciousness, for after their father’s death they believed that Joseph had been waiting until then to exact revenge:

“And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will perad-venture hate us, and will certainly requite us all the evil which we did unto him” (50:15).

Joseph’s response shows how godly a man he was, for he reassures them,

“Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them” (vv. 19-21).

Here was a man who could see God at work, to whom alone vengeance belongs.

There is a lesson here for believers in all ages. Forgiveness like that shown by Joseph mirrors that of the Almighty towards us when we are repentant, being “faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jno. 1:9). Jesus requires us to forgive repentant fellow-believers unreservedly (Mt. 18:21,22). There ought to be no reservations on the basis that relationships have been harmed by the events that have caused offence. The pattern is shown in Joseph’s behaviour towards his brothers.

Salvation through sufferingWe have no difficulty in recognising that Joseph’s experiences were a foreshadowing of Jesus’ re-lationship with his countrymen. Both, through faithful endurance in testing circumstances, brought salvation to the undeserving. Both were

3. There are different features in the two dreams, unlike those received by Pharaoh, which Joseph stated were duplicated for emphasis on the certainty of fulfilment. Joseph’s dreams suggest fulfilments at different times. Jacob might have been using “your mother” (when Rachel was dead) in the general sense of his wives, who were mothers to his children, and who, most likely, did bow down to Joseph on arrival in Egypt.


sent by God to preserve life by a great deliverance. It seems that there can be no other way but that salvation comes through suffering, both of the Saviour and of the saved.

In the experience of the Saviour, God’s honour and purpose are faithfully upheld. The Saviour learns obedience by the things that he suffers.

In the experience of the saved, suffering be-comes the catalyst to learn obedience by raising awareness of one’s sinfulness and dependence on God’s graciousness. As Paul exhorted the believ-ers at Lystra, “we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).

The saved also benefit by considering what the Saviour endured on their account:

“For consider him that endured such contra-diction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: for whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth” (Heb. 12:3-6).

THE PARABLE OF the Prodigal Son1 is well known as an expression of the grace of God extended to His erring children who, having

turned their back on Him, repent and return to their heavenly Father. In the parable the younger son departed and pursued a dissolute life while the older son remained at home to work the farm with his father.

There are lessons to be learnt from what is recorded about both this man’s sons, but I wish to concentrate on a lesson that arises from the exchange between the older son and the father when the prodigal son returns.

When the younger son repented, the father ran out to greet him (Lk. 15:20) and directed that a feast be held to celebrate (vv. 23,24). When the older son returned from working in the fields he was incensed to observe the celebration that was underway. He took his father to task for be-ing so generous towards his erring younger son, petulantly refusing even to acknowledge the man as his own brother:

“as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf” (v. 30).

To this man the prodigal was his father’s son, not his own brother. The father, manifesting the same generosity of spirit he had displayed in relation to his younger son, reached out to his aggrieved older son:

“he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found” (vv. 31,32).

He reassured his older son that his faithful service had not gone unnoticed, and sought to encourage him to adopt a more compassionate and merci-ful attitude towards the one who had seen the errors of his way and had returned to the house-hold. The father then sought to correct his older son’s error in standing aloof from his repentant brother.

The younger son had indeed been wrong to depart and squander his inheritance as he had, but he had now repented. The older son also was in error in not acknowledging his brother, and he too needed to repent. Thus the father referred to the younger son, not in the way in which the older son had referred to him, but as “thy brother.” There is a message here for all members of the household of God as to how they should not distance themselves, but rather should embrace their erring brothers and sisters, when they repent and return to the service of God.

Pertinent pronouns (8)Geoff Henstock

1. For a fuller treatment of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, see: Jeremy Thomas, “Lost and found,” Testimony, vol. 86, no. 1,012, Jan. 2016, p. 14.

Contents




Thoughts and sayingsJonathan: forerunner and friend of DavidSally Wright

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST showed his love by stripping himself to clothe us, and im-poverishing himself to enrich us.

In 1 Samuel 18, Jonathan, Saul’s son, stripped himself of his robe of privilege and gave it to David. He gave David his garments, sword, bow, and girdle too—Jonathan was stepping aside to make way for the true king, a man more worthy than his father and than Jonathan’s own kingly heritage (vv. 1-4). Both David and Jonathan per-ceived the immediacy of this act of love; David knew that he must increase, while Jonathan must decrease (cf. Jno. 3:27-30). Jonathan greatly rejoiced to be the friend of the bridegroom and to see God’s will being fulfilled, and this because of his spiritual insight, and because his love for David was beyond the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26).

A contrast between father and sonTo see the calibre of Jonathan’s love, we briefly review his battle gallantry and spiritual foresight, his actions displaying the very acts of a forerun-ner to David the future king.

First, Jonathan smites a Philistine garrison in Geba of Benjamin with his appointed thousand soldiers, while his father, Saul, cannot even keep the heart of his soldiers in the face of Philistine retribution. Endeavouring to bring his scat-tered soldiers to him, Saul presumes to offer the burnt offering himself, which upon Samuel’s arrival brings heavy rebuke. Undoubtedly Jona-than witnessed the kingdom being rent from his father and promised to another (1 Sam. 13:13,14). Yet Jonathan’s love was not to think evil of his father, and thus he continued to obey Saul’s commands.

In another mark of godly trust and battle gal-lantry, Jonathan, with his armour-bearer, single-handedly takes a Philistine garrison, while not telling his father. Meanwhile, Saul sits under a pomegranate tree in Gibeah of Migron (14:1,2). The two warriors stand in stark contrast with

each another: Jonathan looks to God’s hand to forward the battle against the Philistines, while Saul distresses the people with an ill-conceived oath contrived through vainglory and with lit-tle thought for his soldiers’ wellbeing. Further, Saul condemns his own son to death, Jonathan having defied in ignorance his father’s oath. But Saul’s curse was not sanctioned by God, for He had wrought a great victory that day, and the people would not allow Jonathan to be put to death. Evidently the people loved and respected Jonathan more than Saul.

We continue to see Saul’s presumptuous diso-bedience as he saves Agag the Amalekite alive (ch. 15). Subsequently, the kingdom is rent from him and given to David. Therefore the Spirit of the Lord came upon David and departed from Saul (16:13,14). Jonathan’s spiritual perception was surely growing intensely because of his father’s rash behaviour—a lesson in how not to be.

Decreasing and increasingSaul too is now decreasing, and David increas-ing, while Jonathan observes David’s spiritual integrity and mastery of music in the king’s court. Jonathan deeply respected David’s fidelity, not merely as a musician but as one who could shepherd, a man capable of commanding the re-spect of the people while still bearing the king’s armour, and, later, Saul’s jealous wrath. David then leaves the court, returning to shepherding in Bethlehem (17:15).

Soon Goliath presents himself to the Hebrew army at Shochoh. This sin-giant is to be defeated at the hands of God’s newly anointed king. Jona-than, a man of great bravery too, was in awe of the young stripling, whose courage became legendary among God’s people. He bonded instantly with David, not only at the defeat of Goliath but also in the knowledge of Samuel’s edict to Saul that the kingdom of Israel had been rent from him and given to a neighbour better than he (15:28).


Jonathan knew that David was this neighbour. In God’s selection of David, however, Jonathan showed total acquiescence and humble submis-sion to the divine choice. Thus Jonathan and David were kindred spirits, not only in battle gallantry but also in godly valour and brotherly love. Saul could never understand Jonathan’s submissiveness, because he could not compre-hend that to obey was better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams. Saul had lost his sense of being ‘little’ in his own sight (15:17-23).

Preparing the way of the kingTherefore Jonathan humbly prepared the way before David, who was a type of the King of kings, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord showed his love by stripping himself to clothe us, im-poverishing himself to enrich us, that we might know repentance, redemption and reconciliation unto eternal life.

The story of Jonathan and David’s superlative love for one another continues as Saul himself realises that David is the neighbour better than

himself. David behaves himself wisely in all his ways, deeply contrasting Saul’s unnatural hatred. Jonathan’s exemplary commitment to David is found in 20:4: “Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.” These two men were friends at all times, brothers born out of adversity and unified in God’s governance.

What submissive loyalty David showed to Jonathan as he fell on his face before him, bow-ing himself three times, kissing his dear friend through their baptism of tears! As Christ said to John the Baptist: “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15). By understanding this providence, these two men nourished one another as they practised the principle that would be set out, so many years later, in 1 John 4:21: “And this commandment have we from Him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

Jonathan suffered at the hands of an unright-eous king so that all righteousness might be fulfilled in the promotion of God’s chosen king.

Then shall the lame man leapIsaiah’s vision of the Kingdom age in chapter 35 of his prophecy promises many bless-ings, including the healing of debilitating disabilities: “Then shall the lame man leap as an hart” (v. 6). A foretaste of the wonder of that time was manifested in the first century when the gospel of the risen Christ was proclaimed by the apostles.

In Acts 3, Peter and John encountered at the gate of the temple “a certain man lame from his mother’s womb” (v. 2). Appealing for alms, he received something much more valuable: the miraculous healing of “his feet and ankle bones” (v. 7). This man, lame since birth, “leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walk-ing, and leaping, and praising God” (v. 8). Well might he leap for joy as he accompanied the apostles into the temple courts!

The healing of this lifelong Jewish cripple finds a Gentile parallel in Acts 14, when Paul preached at Lystra. He also encountered “a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked” (v. 8). When Paul perceived that he had faith to be healed, he said to the man, “Stand upright on thy feet”; the man immediately “leaped and walked” (v. 10).

The second instance of the word “leaping” in 3:8 (Gk. hallomai) is same word ren-dered “leaped” in 14:10. In using the same word to draw attention to the fact that both the healed cripples did not merely walk but also leaped, the physician Luke is identifying these incidents as incipient fulfilments of Isaiah’s prophecy about the lame, where the same Greek word is used in the Septuagint.

The only other use of this word in the New Testament is in John 4:14, where it is used of the water of life available from the Lord Jesus Christ: “but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up [Gk. hallomai] into everlasting life.” The gospel message has power to heal those who have been unable to walk aright since birth. The healing of these two crippled men in Acts—one a Jew and the other a Gentile—confirms that all who respond to the gospel message will be strengthened to walk in the way of the tree of life and will be completely healed in the age to come.—Geoff Henstock


1 CORINTHIANS 11, the passage about head-coverings, contains a number of interesting puzzles of interpretation. In this piece we’ll

just focus on verse 10 and the two challenges it presents: “For this cause [because man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man] a woman ought to have authority on her head because of the angels.”1 The first question is, What is meant by the woman having “authority on her head”? And the second, Why does it say, “because of the angels”?

The first phrase is sometimes taken to mean that the headcovering is a symbol of the authority of the man—that she wears it to symbolise his au-thority over her. Indeed, some translations insert the words “symbol of,” completely gratuitously, to guide readers towards that interpretation: “For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head . . .” (NET). Nowhere, however, does the passage state that the head-covering is a symbol of male authority, or that the man’s not being covered is an indication of his empowerment.

A better reading is that it is the woman who is, by her choice and will, to exercise authority over her own head by choosing to cover it be-cause it represents man(kind) and the glory of man (alternatively put, what is glorious to man). When we are at the table of the Lord (the very next subject in 1 Corinthians 11) we are there not to celebrate humanity (which is symbolised by the head of the woman) but to celebrate Christ (this is why the man’s head—which symbolises Christ—is left uncovered).

If the headcovering is to ‘repress’ something, it is to repress man(kind) as a whole and to ex-pose or glorify Christ, not to repress femaleness as distinct from maleness. Headcoverings make sense in the symbolic world of what heads rep-resent—and in that symbolic world we seek to cover up mankind and glorify Christ. The cover-ing of the woman’s head represents the ordering of creation and the fact that salvation comes not by man but by Christ.

The second part of the conundrum comes with the expression “because of the angels.” One commentary lists no less than seven possible explanations of what this little expression may

mean! Some link it to the seraphim in Isaiah 6 covering their faces in the presence of the glory of the Lord, others to a passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and yet others think of the cherubim in the garden keeping the woman and the man out of paradise after their failure to fulfil their proper roles (Adam’s failure to ensure that God’s commands are fulfilled, and Eve’s in leading her husband into sin).

A better and more likely explanation suggests itself from the many passages which link angels and cherubim/seraphim/living creatures to the activity of praising and worshipping God. The biblical writers are conscious that when we engage in worship we do so in the presence of the angels; and more, we engage in an angelic activity—perhaps the ultimate angelic activity, that of praising God.

The angels are seen as both the participants in and the guardians of the proper worship of God—it is their highest honour and greatest joy. They rejoiced at creation, they rejoiced at the birth of our Lord, they are there in the heavenly court praising Him continually, and they are there rejoicing when sinners repent and are baptised. Psalm 138:1 therefore says (in the Septuagint): “before Your angels I will sing your praises,” and it is when Herod fails to give to God the glory that is His due and subsumes it for himself that an angel smites him with worms so that he dies (Acts 12:23). This drastic act shows us the seriousness of giving God His rightful praise, and it also shows the angelic zeal to protect and show God’s glory.

Against such a backdrop it is absolutely fitting that Paul should say, “because of the angels.” He is reminding us of the momentous nature of worship, the sense of occasion that we should each have as we come before Him, and the fact that we are there to show forth His glory, and not the glory of man that the woman, in all her beauty, represents.

Mark Vincent

“Because of the angels”P.S.

1. Fred Miller’s Revised King James Version, 2003. Available online at http://moellerhaus.com/Revised%20KJV/index.htm

http://moellerhaus.com/Revised%20KJV/index.htm

http://moellerhaus.com/Revised%20KJV/index.htm


Subscriptions Secretary: Mrs Sarah Marshall, 2 Longridge Road, Woodthorpe, Nottingham, NG5 4LX. Tel. +44 (0)115 859 9297email: [email protected]

Subscriptions are obtainable from our website, http://testimonymagazine.com, through the agents listed below, or from the Subscriptions Secretary, to whom all correspondence relating to the issue of the magazine (including change of address) should be addressed.

Prices and AgentsUNITED KINGDOM£30 for a regular annual subscription;Student rate (25 yrs or under) £15;e-magazine £18; student e-magazine £9.Apply to: Subscriptions Secretary (see above) Remittances payable to THE TESTIMONY (CHRISTADELPHIAN)

AUSTRALIASurface mail AU$65 (student rate $33; airmail $140); e-magazine $39 (student rate $20).Mrs Beth Symes, PO Box 388,Gembrook, VIC 3783.Tel. (03) 5967 7069 email: [email protected] payable to TESTIMONY MAGAZINE

CANADASurface mail CA$61 (student rate $31; airmail $132); e-magazine $37 (student rate $19).Mrs Linda Fairhurst, Box 204, Rolling Hills, Alberta, T0J 2S0. Tel. (403) 964-2900; email: [email protected] payable to MRS L. FAIRHURST

NEW ZEALANDSurface mail NZ$71 (student rate $36; airmail $154); e-magazine $43 (student rate $22).Philip Walker, “Christadelphians,”PO Box 458, Palmerston North 4440.Tel. (6) 354 0396; Fax (6) 354 0395email: [email protected] payable to TESTIMONY MAGAZINE

SOUTH AFRICAPlease apply for rates and method of payment to the Subscriptions Secretary (see left).Remittances payable to THE TESTIMONY (CHRISTADELPHIAN)USASurface mail US$52 (student rate $26; airmail $100); e-magazine $31 (student rate $16).Mrs Celia Coleman, 22450 Schoenborn Street, West Hills, CA 91304-3318. Tel. (818) 596 0905 email: [email protected] payable to CELIA COLEMANEUROPE AND ALL OTHER COUNTRIES£49 Sterling (student rate £18); e-magazine £30 (student rate £15).Apply to Subscriptions Secretary (see above).Remittances payable toTHE TESTIMONY (CHRISTADELPHIAN)

TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONSA free three-month trial subscription may be obtained from the Subscriptions Secretary.

COMPLAINTS/QUERIESPlease address any complaints or queries to the Subscriptions Secretary, who will be pleased to investigate and arrange for replacement of faulty or missing copies.

BACK COPIESBack copies are available for the last two years. Please apply to the Subscriptions Secretary.

BINDERSThese hold two years’ magazines, and cost £4.25 + postage. Apply to Peter and Norma Forbes (see back cover).

OTHER PUBLICATIONSFor a list of previous years’ Special Issues available, please apply to the Subscriptions Secretary, to whom all orders should be sent.

SUBSCRIPTION DETAILS for 2019

Published on behalf of The Testimony Committee (Christadelphian) by Jeremy Thomas, 22 Kingswood Close, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B30 3NX, UK • Printed by Reflex Litho Ltd., Thetford, Norfolk.

Registered Charity No. 225908.







XVI

Almond flowers in Israel. Most English translations

consider that the native word luz, like the Hebrew shaqed (‘awakening’), refers to the almond. Nevertheless, wild

hazel shrubs do grow in the region of Padan Aram where Jacob shepherded

Laban’s flocks. PikiWiki Israel via Wikimedia Commons

Bible trees3. The hazel

THERE’S ONLY ONE mention of the hazel in the Authorised Version of the Bible: in Genesis 30:37. It seems unlikely that it re-

sembled the hazel that most of us in the Western hemisphere are familiar with, but in Scripture the key point seems to be that these trees are asso-ciated with the city of Luz. The Hebrew word for the tree and the place is the same. The word is translated “hazel” in the AV and “almond” in the ESV. In order to avoid confusion with the other “almond” that comes, for example, with Aaron’s rod, let’s stick with “hazel.”

In Genesis 30, Jacob places sticks of poplar, hazel and chestnut before the strongest sheep so that they conceive and increase his flock (vv. 37,38). Not long before this, in chapter 28, Jacob comes to Luz and calls the name of the place Bethel: the House of God (v. 19). Here he receives a promise: “the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth . . . and in thee and in thy seed

shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (vv. 13,14). In the following chapters, Jacob marries his wives, and his cattle increase before the hazel rods. The fulfilment of the promise has begun.

Jacob is told to return to Bethel in Genesis 35, and we are reminded that the name of the place is also Luz (v. 6). This emphasises the connection between the hazel rods and the promise made to Jacob at Bethel. Now God changes Jacob’s name to Israel and tells him to “be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins” (v. 11).

The way in which Jacob’s flocks were increased before the hazel rods gave him a picture of what God would do for his family who would become God’s own flock. In Christ we too can be part of His flock, and so we can also hope to share in the promises God made to Jacob. “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Lk. 12:32).—Rebekah Dwyer

Contents


TESTIMONY BOOKS

One man’s pilgrimage: under God’s good hand. 88 pages. £2.00.

Family Trees of the Tribes of Israel. 117 pages. £5.50.

Moses: Earth’s Meekest Man. 172 pages. £2.50.

Treasure . . . New and Old. 277 pages. £10.00.

The Pen of a Ready Writer. 272 pages. £2.50.

Daniel’s Last Prophecy. 141 pages. £7.50.

Man and Woman. 122 pages. £0.50.

‘Spirit’ in the New Testament. 185 pages. £1.00.

“In the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” 196 pages. £8.50.

Wonders of Creation. 202 pages. OUT OF STOCK.

For the Study and Defence of the Holy Scripture:

Volume 1. 236 pages. £5.00.

Volume 2. 207 pages. £8.50.

Volumes 1 & 2 together. £10.00

All titles postage extra. Available from Peter and Norma Forbes, 16 Mountfields Drive, Loughborough, LE11 3JE; tel. 01509 232214; email [email protected]; or from http://testimonymagazine.com/shop/

Paul’s Epic Journey to Rome. Luke’s narrative of the eventful sea-voyage of the Apostle Paul from Caesarea to Rome is brought vividly to life in the pages of this book, with authoritative insights into key issues such as the shipping and commerce of the ancient world, the weather conditions and topography of the Mediterranean, and the identification of the place of Paul’s shipwreck on Malta. At the same time, a fascinating picture emerges of the first-century Christian community, with pen portraits of Paul’s helpers, of Luke ‘the beloved physician,’ and of the centurion Julius, who conveyed Paul and Luke to Rome through many adventures. £6.00.

Contents


http://testimonymagazine.com/shop/books


http://testimonymagazine.com/shop/

328 understanding the work of the lord jesus

Documents