"Godless Commercialism of Babylon"

"For the love of money is the root of all evil..." (I Tim. 6: 10 KJV)

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Mat 24:38-39)

"...thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." (Rev. 3: 17)

I believe in both mystical (religious) Babylon of Revelation chapter 17 and commercial Babylon of chapter 18. I believe that the second coming of Christ will be preceded by the creation of a worldwide commercial city in "the land of Shinar" or Iraq and which will control all global trade between nations. This "megalopolis" will be in existence at the time of the "day of judgment."

Are we not already living in commercial Babylon as a race?

Said J. A. Seiss in his commentary on the Apocalypse (emphasis mine):

"The destruction of Babylon described in this chapter (18) bears much in common with the predicted destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel’s day (Eze. 26-28). Both cities are called harlots and known for their commercial splendor, shipping, and ungodly influence upon the surrounding nations. At their destruction, merchants who benefited from commercial contact with the city are grieved.

And thus also the old harlotry would necessarily be the chief spirit of the whole thing. Zealous and earnest worship there would needs be, but a worship concentrated upon the ephah and the talent; a worship which makes temples of banks, and warehouses, and exchanges, and pleasure parks; a worship not of the sun, or moon, or stars, or emperors, or popes, but of pounds, and francs, and piastres, and dollars; the worship of greed, and epicurean luxury; the worship of Mammon perfected, and overriding and supplanting all other devotions; the perpetuation and crown of the great moral defilement of the ages, only taking to the souls’ embrace and into the place of God the meaner object which the divine word stigmatizes as “filthy lucre.” Covetousness is idolatry, and a form of it which is the root of all evil; and here will be covetousness, deep-wrapped in the embracing arms of its god, and dazing and defiling the world with the glory and grandeur of its abominations.

Amen! How descriptive of our very day!

Think of this text:

“Behold, the man who would not make God his refuge, But trusted in the abundance of his riches And was strong in his evil desire.” (Psa. 52: 7)

The prophet of old warned the covetous, condemning their "trust in your own achievements and treasures."  (Jeremiah 48:7)

Our Lord also said:

“Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions.” (Luke 12: 15)

Another ingredient in the cup of Babylon’s doom, besides her allurements to covetousness, is her bewitching sorcery, by which she leads all the nations astray. Drugs no doubt will play a large role in fulfilling the carnal lusts of sinful man in the last days when Babylon reigns.

Hosea 6: 1-3 - "After Two Days"

The following articles (now one) were published recently in my "Old Baptist Test" blog.

"Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth."

This is a difficult passage and it is hard to find any general agreement on its interpretation, on when and how the prophecy is fulfilled. Let us begin by asking several questions relative to the verses.

1. Are the words to be applied to penitents in Israel only, to the exclusion of Gentiles?

2. When do the penitents experience the promised healing and binding up?

3. What is meant by being revived?

4. What is meant by "after two days"?

5. What is meant by "he will raise us up"?

6. What is meant by "in the third day"?

7. To what period of time do the words "THEN shall we know" refer?

8. To what do the words "he shall come" refer? What coming of the Lord?

9. What is meant by the Lord's coming "as the latter and former rain"?

Ponder these prophetic words and, the Lord willing, we will try to discern the right interpretation of this most important prophecy.

This is my follow up to the introductory posting on this passage (see HERE). But before I give my thoughts on the passage, I would like to make an observation.

I am surprised that my first posting got few reads. Other articles have gotten lots of reads. Why is this? I am puzzled. Is it because of the audience for this blog? Are they not interested in this important passage? If so, why?

First, I would like to cite the last three verses of Hosea chapter five, along with the verses in chapter six which we are focusing upon, and which are important for help in ascertaining the correct interpretation of 6: 1-3.

"When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then went Ephraim to the Assyrian, and sent to king Jareb: yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your wound. For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him. I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth." (Hosea 5:13-15 & 6:1-3)

In ascertaining what is meant by "after two days" and "in the third day" we will first give the majority view that the prophecy relates to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

Fulfillment In Jesus' Resurrection

Wrote Albert Barnes in his commentary:

"After two days will He revive us (or quicken us, give us life,) in the third day He will raise us up - The Resurrection of Christ, and our resurrection in Him and in His Resurrection, could not be more plainly foretold. The prophet expressly mentions “two days,” after which life should be given, and a “third day, on” which the resurrection should take place. What else can this be than the two days in which the Body of Christ lay in the tomb, and the third day, on which He rose again, as “the Resurrection and the life” John 11:25, “the first fruits of them that slept” 1 Corinthians 15:20, the source and earnest and pledge of our resurrection and of life eternal? The Apostle, in speaking of our resurrection in Christ, uses these self-same words of the prophet; “God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us - hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up and made us to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” Ephesians 2:4-6.

The Apostle, like the prophet, speaks of that which took place in Christ our Head, as having already taken place in us, His members.: “If we unhesitatingly believe in our heart,” says a father, “what we profess with our mouth, we were crucified in Christ, “we” died, “we” were buried, “we” also were raised again on that very third day. Whence the Apostle saith, “If ye rose again with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God” Colossians 3:1. “As Christ died for us, so He also rose for us. “Our old man was nailed to the wood, in the flesh of our Head, and the new man was formed in that same Head, rising glorious from the tomb.” What Christ, our Head, did, He did, not for Himself, but for His redeemed, that the benefits of His Life, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, might redound to all...they partook of what He did.

In no other way, could our participation of Christ be foretold. It was not the prophet‘s object here, nor was it so direct a comfort to Israel, to speak of Christ‘s Resurrection in itself. He took a nearer way to their hearts. He told them, “all we who turn to the Lord, putting our whole trust in Him, and committing ourselves wholly to Him, to be healed of our wounds and to have our griefs bound up, shall receive life from Him, shall be raised up by Him.” They could not understand “then,” how He would do this. The “after two days” and, “in the third day,” remained a mystery, to be explained by the event. But the promise itself was not the less distinct, nor the less full of hope, nor did it less fulfill all cravings for life eternal and the sight of God, because they did not understand, “how shall these things be.” Faith is unconcerned about the “how.” Faith believes what God says, because He says it, and leaves Him to fulfill it, “how” He wills and knows. The words of the promise which faith had to believe, were plain.

The “two days” and “the third day” have nothing in history to correspond with them, except that in which they were fulfilled, when Christ, “rising on the third day from the grave, raised with Him the whole human race”.

I have no doubt that there was an initial fulfillment of this prophecy in the resurrection of Christ. But, that this is the only fulfillment, I reject. But, before I give the reasons for my view, which may be called a "dual fulfillment," let us note these passages which speak of Christ being resurrected in the third day.

“And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” (Luke 13:32)

"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”" (John 2:19)

Now, before I give the reasons why a dual fulfillment is to be viewed in the interpretation of the prophecy, let me cite Dr. John Gill on the final fulfillment of it.

Wrote Gill: in his commentary:

"but the Targum comes nearer the truth, which paraphrases the words thus,

"he will quicken us in the days of consolation which are to come, and in the day of the resurrection of the dead he will raise us up;''

where by days of consolation are meant the days of the Messiah, with which the Jews generally connect the resurrection of the dead; and if we understand them of the last days of the Messiah, it is not much amiss; for the words respect the quickening and raising up of the Jews in the latter day, the times of Christ's spiritual coming and reign: and these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead, when there can be little or no hope of his reviving, Luke 24:21; or of a short time, for which two or three days is a common phrase; and both true in this case: it is a long time Israel and Judah have been in captivity, and there may seem little hope of their restoration; but it will be a short time with the Lord, with whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years: and this I take to be the sense of the words, that after the second Millennium, or the Lord's two days, and at the beginning of the third, will be the time of their conversion and restoration, reckoning from the last destruction of them by the Romans; for not till then were Israel and Judah wholly in a state of death: many of Israel were mixed among those of Judah before the Babylonish captivity, and many returned with them from it; but, when destroyed by the Romans, there was an end of their civil and church state; which will both be revived on a better foundation at this period of time: but if this conjecture is not agreeable (for I only propose it as such), the sense may be taken thus, that in a short time after the repentance of Israel, and their conversion to the Lord, they will be brought into a very comfortable and happy state and condition, both with respect to things temporal and spiritual;

and we shall live in his sight; comfortably, in a civil sense, in their own land, and in the possession of all their privileges and liberties; and in a spiritual sense, by faith on Jesus Christ, whom they shall now embrace, and in the enjoyment of the Gospel and Gospel ordinances; and the prophet represents the penitents and faithful among them as believing and hoping for these things."

I believe Dr, Gill is on target in viewing the "days" as expressive of milleniums. The first two days would then correspond to two thousand years and third day would to the Millenium, which in the Apocalypse is to be 1000 years. (Rev. 20)

We know from the Scriptures that the Millennial reign of Christ with his saints on the earth is referred to as both a single "day" and also as a "thousand years."

In many prophecies, from both testaments, there is reference to "that day." Many times "that day" refers to the time of Christ's return, to the day of the resurrection, and also to the "thousand years." We are therefore fully warranted to interpret "day" as meaning a thousand years. The question then is whether the days of the Hosea prophecy are each 1000 years long. I believe, as others, that they do.

Observations

Besides the fact that the thousand years of Revelation twenty are called a "day" in many scriptures, we may also observe these other things.

The prophecy concerns the resurrection of those who have repented and have returned in faith to the Lord. It does not directly relate to the resurrection of the Messiah. The death and wounding ("he has torn and smitten") of the ones who are resurrected does not relate to the death and wounding of Christ. That wounding resulted from the sins of the people. It was affliction sent as wages for sin.

Though it is true that the apostle Paul taught that all the elect (believers) died and suffered with Christ, were buried and resurrected with Christ, and even ascended into heaven with Christ, we know that he had clear reference to a representative or vicarious, rather than to a personal, action. Literally, Christians have not yet been resurrected nor ascended to heaven to a gloried state where they "live in his sight."

If the prophecy is viewed as completely fulfilled (by the saints being representatively raised when Christ was raised), then we must either 1) deny that believers will actually be raised personally in the coming resurrection, or 2) believe in a dual fulfillment. Don't you see?

The prophecy says that it is "in the third day" that penitents will, after they have been revived and restored, "live in his sight." At this point we should perhaps ask some questions, such as

1) does "in" not also include "throughout" so that "in that day" means "in and throughout that day"?

2) does "day" refer to the "split second" ("twinkling of an eye") when mortals become immortals?

3) does "day" reference a twenty four hour day?

4) or, does "day" refer to some definite, or indefinite, period of time?

5) does "day" in "the third day" denote eternal days?

6) ought not the definition given to "day" be the same for the first, second, and third days?

7) if "in and throughout that day" the saints will "live in his sight" is the correct idea, then does this fact not give reason for rejecting the seeing of "day" as a mere 24 hour period?

8) if "day" refers to a 24 hour period, then the text must say "after 48 hours and in the third 24 hour period"

Now, I am convinced that by the "third day" the "thousand years" of Revelation twenty is referenced. The reasons for this conclusion are these:

1) the "living in his sight" refers to the time when the saints "reign on the earth" for a 1000 years

2) the concept of "living in his sight" seems to denote a long, not a short, period of time

3) it is very difficult to see "living in his sight" as being only fulfilled now (through my representative ascension into heaven with Christ)

From this reasoning I must say that "the third day" being "a thousand years," then "two days" must refer to a period of two thousand years. Likewise, if "day" denotes a 24 hour day, then "after two days" must denote after 48 hours, etc.

According to the ancient prophecy, God will first leave Israel, then, according to his promise to the penitents in Israel, he will return, or "come back," to heal them of their judgment wounds and affliction, to resurrect them to "live in his sight" in immortal glory. Thus, the return of the Lord (second coming of Christ), promised in the text to the penitents, is tied to the time when the saints are resurrected.

These are the reasons why I believe that this ancient prophecy is of the utmost importance for Christians in the year 2020!

Dr. Henry Morris wrote the following on the third day of the prophecy (emphasis mine):

"Two prophetic mysteries are suggested here. Jesus Christ, representing the true Israel in His death, was raised the third day. The earthly nation of Israel, seemingly "dead" as a nation for about two thousand years, will be raised for her thousand-year millennial reign when she returns to Messiah, and He to her at the end of this present age (Ezekiel 37:12-14). On the divine equation that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." (2 Peter 3:8). (Defender's Study Bible)

These are my views exactly.

So, just where are we today in 2020 in relation to the ending of those "two days" and to the beginning of that glorious "third day" when saints will be resurrected to live with God?

Gill thought that the "two days" perhaps began in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the Temple were utterly destroyed by the Romans under Titus, and then were scattered as a people, and ceased to be a political state or nation, and would be time when God left Israel, which is, of course, the time when the two days began. Note that the "two days" is a reference to the time when the Lord is absent from Israel. The two days began with the Lord leaving Israel and ended with his return.

If we take the view of Barnes and others (that the three days of Christ from the time of his death to the time of his resurrection), then we must say that the first two days denotes the time of the Father leaving Christ (crucifixion) and "in the third day" denotes that the Father returned to Christ (and us in him) in Christ's resurrection. Don't you see?

If Dr. Gill is correct, we can expect Christ to return in AD 2070, because this is two thousand years from AD 70. Don't you see? That is fifty years from now. I am sure I will not be alive then. But, I am nevertheless deeply affected in spirit to think of how close that is for the younger generation. Things will get worse before they get better when Christ the Redeemer returns to Israel, to all who are Jews inwardly.

I lean strongly towards the view that sees the "two days" of the Lord's absence to correspond to the two thousand years between the Ascension of Christ and his return. Though the Temple had not year been destroyed, it nevertheless had been vacated and declared desolate by the Lord. (Matt. 23: 38) The crucifixion then must be the place to begin the start of the "two days" of the Lord's absence, and of Israel's affliction and death, and the end of the "two days" will mark his return to revive, heal, restore, and resurrect to glorious immortality.

What think ye? Will the Lord come in the year 2030? If we date the resurrection and Ascension to the year 30 AD, then two thousand years will end in that year. Don't you see? Of course, this is as true as is our present calendar.

What about not knowing "the day nor the hour" of Christ's return? In the next and final article in this short series on this important ancient prophecy, we will discuss that question and offer some addendum thoughts.

Dual Fulfillment

Of OT prophecies that have a dual fulfillment, we can especially notice these:

1. in the coming of Christ (some aspects fulfilled in the first, and some in the second coming)
2. in the coming of Elijah (some aspects fulfilled in John the Baptist, others in Elijah at the 2nd coming)
3. as in the coming of the kingdom (some aspects fulfilled in the church, others at the 2nd coming)

Date Setting

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." (Matt. 24:36 nkjv)

This statement of the Lord does not condemn all efforts to know when Christ is coming again. What it condemns is anyone knowing the "day" and "hour" of the Lord's return. It does not condemn the idea that disciples may know whether "that day," the day of Christ's return and of the resurrection of the just, is near or far. It did not condemn the idea that disciples will know the month, year, time and season, of "that day." To prove this we only have to look at these words of the Apostle Paul:

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (I Thess. 5:1-4 kjv)

Those who know the word of God know "the times and seasons" though they know not "the day and the hour." There is no real contradiction here. We cannot affirm that Christ meant, by his words "no man knows the day nor the hour," that one could not know the "times and seasons." We can see this by examining the analogy of a woman experiencing labor pains as signs of her imminent delivery.

Christ returns and his return will follow the birth pangs. When a woman becomes pregnant, doctors are able to determine the "expected" time of birth, generally in the ninth month. Thus one may know the general time and season for the birth, though he will not know the day nor the hour. So, likewise, students of the word of God in relation to the second coming of Christ will see signs of his coming, will see the birth pains (travail of creation, etc.) preceding his coming. Don't you see?

Paul says that it is only upon the lost that Christ comes totally unexpected, as a thief in the night. He says positively that this is not so in regard to the truly saved who know their bibles, for that day will not overtake them as a thief!

"So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near." (Luke 21: 31 nkjv)

These words of Jesus show us that the disciples who see "these things happening" may see the time and season for the coming of the Lord is "at the door" (Matt. 24:33). Wrote Paul:

"that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." (II Thess. 2:2)

When we see this "falling away" and the coming of Antichrist, then we know Christ coming is imminent.

Consider these facts also as it relates to knowing the date or time of the Lord's first coming. The Hebrews had the prophecy of Daniel concerning the 70 weeks which was a time line taking them "unto the Messiah" (Dan. 9).

Though they should have known the year for the Lord's 1st coming, they would not have necessarily known the day or hour.

Piper On The Origin Of Evil

Said Dr. John Piper in "How Did Evil Begin? PONDERING THE MYSTERY OF SATAN’S FALL" (here - emphasis mine):

"This, to me, is one of the great mysteries of biblical teaching that I cannot explain — how God governs the will of sinful beings, yet, in doing so, does not sin, and does not take away their responsibility. I see that it is true, because the Bible teaches it, but how God does this remains a mystery.

Recall that above I said that “free will” — ultimate self-determination — is the name some people put on this mystery. Then I added that this is not the biblical name. Because the Bible never teaches that there is such a thing as ultimate self-determination, except in God. The Bible doesn’t give the mystery a name. Rather it teaches two truths again and again: God governs the hearts and minds of all sinful beings without himself sinning, and they are truly and justly accountable for all their sins."

I tend to agree with Piper and Spurgeon and others on this question.

Compatibilism

Compatibilism teaches that the following two propositions are both true and mutually compatible, even if we can’t fully reconcile them:

1. God is utterly sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions to mitigate human responsibility.

2. Human beings are morally responsible creatures, but their moral responsibility never functions to make God absolutely contingent.

Said Spurgeon:

"That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring." (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337)

I cannot become "wise above what is written." I take the plain statements of scripture as my faith whether I can comprehend them or not.

"Understanding of the Times"

"And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment." (1 Ch 12:32)

Various commentators see the descriptive words "understanding of the times" to refer primarily to understanding politics and state affairs, while others see that more is intended. Surely they were men who were "wise in counsel" and who could "count the cost" of things, knowing about causes and effects, etc. they were people who knew well the history and beliefs of their own nation. This would of course include knowledge of their laws and religion. Every "ambassador" should be someone who knows the people he represents in foreign lands.

Perhaps our Lord had the above words from Chronicles in his mind when he said - "O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (Matt. 16: 3b)

Perhaps the Psalmist also had them in mind when he said - "We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long." (Psalm 74: 9)

Christians ought to be people who have understanding of the times. Wrote Daniel concerning the last days:

"And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." (Dan. 12: 9-10 KJV)

Christians know the "times and seasons" for they are wise and know the holy prophetic scriptures.

Spurgeon On Christian Conversation

"They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power."- Psa 145:11

On this verse Spurgeon in a sermon said (here - emphasis mine):

"I consider that one of the great lacks of the Church, nowadays, is not so much Christian preaching as Christian talking, -not so much Christian prayer in the prayer-meeting, as Christian conversation in the parlour. How little do we hear concerning Christ! You might go in and out of the houses of half the professors of religion, and you would never hear of their Master at all. You might talk with them from the first of January to the last of December; and if they happened to mention their Master's name, it would be, perhaps, merely as a compliment to him, or possibly by accident. Beloved, such things ought not to be. You and I, I am sure, are guilty in this matter; we all have need to reproach ourselves that we do not sufficiently remember the words of Malachi, "Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.""

My own experience over the past 50 years tells me that what Spurgeon said here is absolutely true. It saddens me much. On the other hand, I have generally been unlike the average Christian in this regard. I talk all the time about the bible and its teaching. I try all the time to introduce it into discussions, even casual ones. This has often made me quite unpopular as a guest as many do not want to talk about God and religion in social gatherings. Those who want to have social group activities, such as cookouts, do not want to talk about God. It is judged to be out of place. Many family get togethers often are designed to be fun and enjoyable and discussion about religious ideas are not wanted.

Spurgeon continued:

"Possibly some will ask, "Well, sir, how can we talk about religion? Upon what topic shall we converse? How are we to introduce it? It would not be polite, for instance, in the company with which we associate, to begin to say anything about the doctrines of grace, or about religious matters at all." Then, beloved, do not be polite; that is all I have to say in reply to such a remark as that. If it would be accounted contrary to etiquette to begin talking of the Saviour, cast etiquette to the winds, and speak about Christ somehow or other."

Well, that is exactly my thinking. People know that if they come to my house they are very likely to hear something about God and his teaching. I can do no better than to give a hearty "amen" to what father Spurgeon taught.

Spurgeon continued:

"Another says, "What could I speak of? There are so few topics that would be suitable. I must not speak upon doctrinal subjects, for it would offend one of the party. They might hold different views; one might be a Wesleyan, one might be a Baptist, one might be an Independent, one a Calvinist, one an Arminian;-how could I talk so as to please all? If I spoke of election, most of them would attack me at once; if I began to speak of redemption, we should soon differ on that subject, and I would not like to engender controversy." Beloved, engender controversy rather than have wrong conversation; better dispute over truth than agree about lies. Better, I say, is it to dispute concerning good doctrine, far more profitable is it to talk of the Word of God, even in a controversial manner, than to turn utterly away from it, and neglect it."

Well, amen to that! Would to God more shared this opinion.

Spurgeon continued:

"But, let me tell you, there is one point on which all Christians agree, and that is concerning the person, the work, and the blessed offices of our Saviour. Go where you will, professors, if they are genuine Christians, will always agree with you if you begin to talk about your Saviour; so you need not be afraid that you will provoke controversy; but supposing the mention of your Saviour's name does provoke dispute, then let it be provoked. And if your Master's truth offends the gentlemen to whom you speak of it let them be offended. His name we must confess; of his glory we will continually talk, for it is written in our text, "They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power.""

God help us to keep the Lord in our daily walk and talk!

Remember these words -

"And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." (Deut. 6: 6-7)

"Talk ye of all his wondrous works"! (I Chron. 16:9; Psa. 105: 2)

"Doing Well"?

"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, (he will give) eternal life." (Rom. 2: 7)

It is not uncommon to hear someone say of another - "he is doing well." Generally this is interpreted to mean that the person is financially prospering. In the above words of Paul there is mention of "well doing," or "doing good." But, he does not at all refer to a person doing well financially.

How do Christians patiently continue in well doing? What good things are they enduring to do regularly and daily? What good activities characterize those who persist in well doing?

Surely it involves "doing those things that are pleasing in his sight." (I John 3: 22) Surely it involves daily communication with God, speaking to God in prayer and praise, hearing him speak through his word and Spirit, as well as daily meditation, daily sharing the word of God, daily helping our neighbors and Christian brothers, and such like.

If we are not patiently and perseveringly continuing in such "well doing" then we cannot expect to be given eternal life. Half hearted Christians and hypocrites, lukewarm believers, and such as do not continue in well doing, can only expect wrath and eternal condemnation.

Those who do patiently endure in doing well are not only said to be the ones given eternal life in the day of judgment but also they who "seek for glory and honor and immortality." This is what characterizes them. They are seekers, a kind of treasure hunters. What is that which they seek? Not for the "glory" (doxa) and "honor" that comes from men or the world, but which comes from God. Recall the words of the Lord Jesus - "How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?" (John 5: 44) It is a seeking of approbation and "praise," not "of men but of God" (Rom. 2: 29). It is seeking "immortality" or salvation from death.

Now, notice these parallel verses on "doing well" and persevering in it.

"For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." (I Peter 2: 20)

"Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." (I Peter 3: 6)

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts." (II Peter 1: 19)

"Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." (Isa. 1: 17)

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (Acts 15: 29)

The world's standard for what it means to be "doing well" is not the same as God's standard.

Spurgeon On Andrew Fuller

1834-1892

LETTER FROM C. H. SPURGEON TO A. G. FULLER 

COMMENDING ANDREW FULLER (as cited here)

"In 1831, Andrew Gunton Fuller, the son of Andrew Fuller (1754-1815), gathered together all of his father’s writings and published them in five volumes. This set was later revised by Joseph Belcher and published in three volumes by the American Baptist Publication Society in 1845.(1) These sets had included a biographical memoir of Fuller by A. G. Fuller. Near the end of his life, the younger Fuller published a full length biography of his father in the series “Men Worth Remembering.” Apparently, A. G. Fuller sent a complimentary copy of his Andrew Fuller(2) to London’s greatest preacher of the day, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. The following letter of appreciation from Spurgeon survives. From this letter we learn of Spurgeon’s regard for Andrew Fuller as a theologian.

Venerable Friend,

I thank you for sending me your Andrew Fuller. If you had lived for a long time for nothing else but to produce this volume, you have lived to good purpose.

I have long considered your father to be the greatest theologian of the century, and I do not know that your pages have made me think more highly of him as a divine than I had thought before. But I now see him within doors far more accurately, and see about the Christian man a soft radiance of tender love which had never been revealed to me either by former biographies or by his writings.

You have added moss to the rose, and removed some of the thorns in the process.

Yours most respectfully,"

C. H. Spurgeon

I too, like Spurgeon, consider Fuller one of our greatest theologians. Yet, also like Spurgeon, I do not agree with Fuller on several points, being more in line with Abraham Booth, a contemporary of Fuller. I do not agree with Fuller that one is regenerated before faith, nor did Booth. I also agree with Booth on the extent of the atonement rather than with Fuller.

Said another:

"Charles Haddon Spurgeon acknowledged that he was greatly helped by the writings of Fuller to articulate both the sovereignty of God and the free offer of the gospel. He considered him as the greatest theologian of the nineteenth century."   (DR. P. DE VRIES - here)

In my posting on Abraham Booth and Andrew Fuller (here) I cite Spurgeon words regarding Booth.

Spurgeon said this about Booth:

"I have read with some degree of attention a book to which I owe much for this present discourse—a book, by Abraham Booth, called "Glad Tidings to Perishing Sinners." I have never heard any one cast a suspicion upon Abraham Booth's soundness; on the contrary, he has been generally considered as one of the most orthodox of the divines of the last generation. If you want my views in full, read his book. If you need something more, let me say, among all the bad things which his revilers have laid to his door, I have never heard any one blame William Huntingdon for not being high enough in doctrine. Now, William Huntingdon prefaced in his lifetime a book by Saltmarsh, with which he was greatly pleased; and the marrow of its teaching is just this, in his own words, "The only ground for any to believe is, he is faithful that hath promised, not anything in themselves, for this is the commandment, That ye believe on his Son Jesus Christ." Now, if William Huntingdon himself printed such a book as that, I marvel how the followers of either William Huntingdon or Abraham Booth, how men calling themselves Calvinistic divines and high Calvinists, can advocate what is not free grace, but a legal, graceless system of qualifications and preparations. I might here quote Crisp, who is pat to the point and a high doctrine man too. I mention neither Booth nor Huntingdon as authorities upon the subject, to the law and to the testimony we must go; but I do mention them to show that men holding strong views on election and predestination yet did see it to be consistent to preach the gospel to sinners as sinners—nay, felt that it was inconsistent to preach the gospel in any other way." (here)

Let us be thankful for both Fuller and Booth and the contributions they made to Baptist life.

The Debate On The Canon Of Scripture

Over the past week I have listened to several Youtube videos of ministers talking about how we got our Bible, or "canon" of holy books. More ministers are talking about this because many in today's younger generation want to know about "lost books of the Bible," about why the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible, and have questions about why a particular book is not in the Bible, like the Book of Enoch, and how does one determine whether a book of the Bible is inspired and thus should be in the canon of inspired writings, etc.

I was surprised that none of these ministers really gave the average Christian the rule by which to measure all books in regard to inspiration. The Catholic says it is "the church" that decides (through her bishops and pope) what book is canonical. Many Protestants affirm the same thing. Each denomination has its list of recognized books and 99% of the members of each simply accepts the books that their leaders tell them is the "accepted" books. The scriptural view, however, is that each individual Christian must decide this matter for himself and should not be rigid in his views on this topic until he has investigated the matter with the help of elders who are informed on the subject. But, would not that require each Christian to become a scholar and invest tremendous time in research? No, not necessarily.

In my posting "Rules of Canonicity" (here) I give five rules or tests to give any book that claims inspiration.

1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44?

2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16?

3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?)

4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?)

5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2?

It is because of these that I reject the Book of Esther as being inspired. It has had a history of non acceptance in Israelite and Christian history.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XVII

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

This destruction of the city and sanctuary occurred in A.D. 70. But, if Jesus died in the midst of the final week, that would leave only 3 1/2 years after his death for the completion of the seventy weeks. The destruction of the city and temple occurred a little less than forty years after the death of Christ. But, should not the destruction have occurred within 3 1/2 years following the death of Christ? How do we explain the fact that the destruction occurred after the 70 weeks had ended? Some make a big issue in regard to this fact.

Those who believe Jesus died in the gap and not in the 70th week will use the above fact as argument against those, like Mauro, others, and I, who believe Christ was "cut off," not in the supposed gap, but "in the midst" of the 70th week, which is the time in which Christ nullified all the old testament ritual sacrifices for atonement. These say that since the destruction of the city and temple occurred outside of the 70 week time period (it ending 3 1/2 yrs. after his death), then this proves that a gap exists. But, such reasoning is not logical but is a case of reading more into the text than is there.

Some reply to this argument of the advocates of the gap and postponement theory by giving several options for explaining the fact that the destruction of city and temple occurred in a time when the 70 weeks had already ended. Mauro believed that God extended to the Jews a period of time to repent for their crime of crucifying their own Messiah. A better explanation is given by others, however.

In "Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy" Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. (here) writes these good words (emphasis mine) in answering the same objection:

"Although the event that serves as the terminus of the sixty-ninth week is clearly specified, such is not the case with the terminus of the seventieth. Thus, the exact event that ends the seventieth is not so significant for us to know. Apparently at the stoning of Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, the coven­antal proclamation began to be turned toward the Gentiles (Acts 8:1). The apos­tle to the Gentiles appears on the scene at Steph­en’s death (Acts 7:58–8:1) as the Jewish persecution against Chris­tianity breaks out. Paul’s mission is clearly stated as ex­ceeding the narrow Jewish focus (Acts 9:15)."

This seems to me to be a very good response to the question. It also made me think of these words from Luke the historian:

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13: 46)

Gentry continued:

"This confirmation of the covenant occurs “in the middle of the week” (v. 27). I have already shown that the seventieth week begins with the baptismal anointing of Christ. Then, after three and one-half years of ministry — the middle of the seven­ti­eth week — Christ was crucified (Luke 13:6–9; Eccl. Hist. 1:10:3). Thus, the prophecy states that by His conclusive confir­mation of the covenant, Messiah will “bring an end to sacrifice and offering” (v. 27) by offering up Himself as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 9:25–26, cf. 7:11–12, 18–22). Consequently, at His death the Temple’s veil was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51) as evidence that the sacrificial system was legally disestab­lished in the eyes of God (cf. Matt. 23:38), for Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5–7)."

Those who promote the gap theory generally put the fulfillment of the words "unto Messiah the Prince" to the time on Palm Sunday when Christ rides into Jerusalem on the donkey. Those who promote the traditional view, however, see the words "unto Messiah the Prince" as pointing to the time when Christ was "anointed with the Holy Spirit and power" at his baptism. Messiah means, like "Christ," "the anointed one."

If we ask the question "when did the sacrifices end?" we answer: they were "officially" ended by God with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and ended practically when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70.

Gentry continued:

"But how are we to understand the latter portions of both verses 26 and 27? What are we to make of the destruction of the city and sanctuary (v. 26) and the abomination that causes desolation (v. 27), which most non-dispensational evangelical commentators agree occurred in AD 70?

In verse 26 we learn that two events are to occur after the sixty-ninth week: (1) The Messiah is to be “cut off” and (2) the city and sanctuary are to be destroyed. Verse 27a informs us that the Messiah’s cutting off (v. 26a) is a confirmation of the covenant and is to occur at the halfway mark of the seventieth week. So, the Messiah’s death is clearly within the time frame of the Seventy Weeks (as we expect because of His being the ma­jor figure of the fulfillment of the prophecy).

The events involving the destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolation (vv. 26b, 27b) are the conse­quences of the cutting off of the Messiah and do not necessarily occur in the Seventy Weeks’ time frame. They are an addendum to the fulfillment of the focus of the prophecy, which is stated in verse 24. The destructive acts are anticipated, however, in the divine act of sealing up or reserving the sin of Israel for pun­ishment. Israel’s climactic sin — her completing of her trans­gression (v. 24) with the cutting off of Messiah (v. 26a) — results in God’s act of reserving Israel’s sin until later. Israel’s judg­ment will not be postponed forever; it will come after the expi­ra­tion of the Seventy Weeks. This explains the “very indefi­n­ite” phrase “till the end of the war”: the “end” will not oc­cur during the Seventy Weeks.[35] That prophesied end occurred in AD 70, exactly as Christ had made abundantly clear in Mat­thew 24:15.

My own explanation has been similar to this. The prophecy does not say that the destruction of the city and temple were to occur within the 70 week time period. It is not listed among the six things delineated in verse 24 that would be accomplished by the coming of "Messiah the Prince." That is important to note. Based upon this we can say that the prophecy does not say that the destruction of city and temple, along with the dispersion of the Jews, was to occur within the time period of the 70 weeks, unlike the six things listed in verse 24. One may really view the words "and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined" as a parenthesis.

When one looks at the new testament gospel narratives we see how Jesus, after being rejected by the builders, pronounced desolation upon the city and temple. He said "your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23: 38) The judgment upon the city and temple was announced by the Savior in the seventieth week and its execution was carried out fully in A.D. 70.

When did the sacrifices and oblations cease? In the middle of the week, the 70th week. But, after the death of Christ, these continued to be offered until the destruction in A.D. 70.

Gentry continued under the sub title "The Gap in the Seventy Weeks":

"Dispensationalism incorpo­rates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventi­eth weeks. This gap spans the entire­ty of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rap­ture.[36] The dispensational argu­ments for a gap of un­de­ter­mined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading argu­ments for a gap.

First, the peculiar phraseology in Daniel: Daniel places the cut­ting off of the Messiah “after the 62 ‘sevens,’ not in the 70th ‘seven.’”[37] This is so stated to allow for a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. If the cutting off did not occur during the sixty-ninth week or during the seventieth week, there must be a gap in between wherein it does occur."

But this line of argument is a "begging the question," assumes a fact not in evidence and then reasons upon it.

Gentry responded:

"In response, it is obvious that seventy occurs after sixty-nine and thus fits the requirements of the prophecy. Consequently, such an argument does not prove that the “after” requires a gap. Besides, Daniel mentions only seventy weeks and, as Hans LaRon­delle has pointed out, Daniel most certainly does not say “after sixty-nine weeks, but not in the seventieth.”[38] Such an expla­n­a­tion is a gratuitous assumption. Since Daniel has yet to deal with the seventi­eth week, and since he has clearly dealt with the pre­ceding sixty-nine weeks (v. 25), it is quite natural to assume this cutting off of the Messiah must be sometime within the seven-year period cov­ered by the seventieth week."

Well said. The gap view simply has "no legs to stand on."

Gentry continued:

"Second, a fatal admission: “Historically the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in AD 70 almost forty years after the death of Christ.”[39] Since this was given in Daniel’s prophecy and was to occur within the Seventy Weeks, “the continuous fulfillment theory [is] left without any explanation adequate for interposing an event as occurring after the sixty-ninth seven by some thirty-eight years.”[40]

I have already explained the relation of the Seventy Weeks to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (see above). The goal of the Seventy Weeks is not the AD 70 destruction of the Tem­ple, which is not mentioned in verse 24. That destruction is a later consequence of certain events brought to fulfillment within the Seventy Weeks. The actual act of God’s reserving judgment (v. 24) occurred within the Seventy Weeks; the later removal of that reservation did not. There is no necessity at all for a gap."

Again, the reasoning of the gap theorists simply "will not hold water."

Gentry continued:

"Third, the general tendency in prophecy: Walvoord writes: “Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the fore­view therein provided did not describe the period of time be­tween the two advents. This very fact confused even the proph­ets (cf. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).”[41] His argument then is this: Old Tes­tament prophecy can merge the First and Sec­ond Advents into one scene, though separated by thousands of years. Conse­quently, we have Biblical warrant for understand­ing the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks as merged into one scene, although separated by a gap of thousands of years."

The fact that many of the prophets of old did not clearly foresee the duality of Christ's coming, and of many things in this "church age," does not prove that such a "gap" understanding is to be applied to cases where a specific and definite time period is given, whether in days, weeks, months, or years.

Gentry continued:

"This argument is wholly without merit. The Seventy Weeks are considered as a unit, though subdivided into three unequal parts: (1) It is one period of seventy weeks that must transpire in order to experience the events men­tioned. The plural “seventy weeks” is followed by a singular verb “is decreed,” which indicates the unity of the time period. (2) An overriding concern of the prophecy, in distinction to all other Messianic prophecies, is that it is designed as a measuring time frame. If the dispensational gap theory regarding the seventieth week is true, then the gap separating the seventieth from the sixty-ninth week is now almost 2000 years long, or four times the whole time period of the Seventy Weeks or 490 years. And who knows how much longer it will continue. The concept of measuring is thus destroyed."

Exactly! There is really nothing about the Dispensational gap theory that is based upon sound exegesis and reasoning.

Gentry under sub title "The Dispensational Covenant" wrote:

"The confirmation of the covenant mentioned in verse 27 is woefully misunderstood by dispensationalists. According to Walvoord: “[T]his refers to the coming world ruler at the be­ginning of the last seven years who is able to gain control over ten countries in the Middle East. He will make a covenant with Israel for a seven-year period. As Daniel 9:27 indicates, in the middle of the seven years he will break the covenant, stop the sacrifices being offered in the temple rebuilt in that period, and become their persecutor instead of their protector, fulfilling the promises of Israel’s day of trouble (Jer. 30:5–7).”[42]

Several problems plague this interpretation, some of which have already been indicated in another connection:

The covenant here is not made; it is confirmed. This is actually the confirmation of a covenant already extant, i.e., the covenant of God’s redemptive grace confirmed by Christ (Rom. 15:8)."

"Several problems plague this interpretation"! Amen to that.

Gentry continued:

"As noted above, the term is related to the name of the angel of God who delivered the message to Daniel: Gabriel (“God is strong”). The lexical correspondence between the name of the strong angel of God (who reveals the Seventy Weeks to Daniel) and the making strong of the cove­nant, themselves suggest the divine nature of the covenant. In addition, covenantal passages frequently employ related terms, when speaking of the strong God of the covenant.[43]

The parallelism with verse 26 indicates that the death of the Messiah is directly related to the confirming of the cove­nant. He is “cut off” but “not for himself” (v. 26a), for He “con­firms the covenant” for the “many” of Israel (v. 27a). His “cut­ting off” brings the confirmation of the covenant, for “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

The indefinite pronoun “he” does not refer back to “the prince who is to come” of verse 26.[44] That “prince” is a subor­di­nate noun; “the people” is the dominant noun. Thus, the “he” refers back to the last dominant individual mentioned: “Messi­ah” (v. 26a). The Messiah is the leading figure in the whole prophecy, so the destruction of the Temple is relat­ed to His death. In fact, the people who destroy the Tem­ple are providen­tially “His armies” (Matt. 22:2–7)."

The great error of the Dispensational interpretation is that it ends up making, not Christ, but the Antichrist, as "the leading figure in the whole prophecy." That in itself should make it highly suspect as a legitimate interpretation. They do the same thing with the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6: 2, making Antichrist to be the rider rather than Christ.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XVI

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

All agree that the reference to the Messiah being "cut off" was fulfilled when the Lord Jesus Christ died upon the cross of Calvary. All also agree that "the prince that shall come," who shall "destroy the city and the sanctuary," was fulfilled when the Roman prince Titus destroyed both city and temple in A.D. 70. The disagreement comes in identifying the "he" in the prophetic words "he shall confirm the covenant with many." The traditional interpretation identified the "he" with Christ, but those espousing the gap or postponement theory identify the "he" with Antichrist.

Of course, which view one takes will effect how one interprets the work of what this "he" will do and what it means for him to "confirm the covenant with many for one week."

Those who espouse the traditional view affirm that Christ, being the "he," fulfilled this prophecy when he died upon the cross and they cite such passages as these from the new testament.

"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26: 28)

"Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." (Rom. 15: 8)

Paul in Hebrews speaks much of the new covenant in Jesus blood, speaking of "the blood of the covenant" that sanctifies (Heb. 10: 29) and connecting that with the death of Christ.

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (13: 20).

"The covenant" is the covenant containing the promises of God concerning man's redemption and deliverance, revealed in the long ago to the prophets.

Wrote Mauro:

"Therefore, all the facts and reasons we have given in proof that verse 27 speaks of Christ, and all the facts and reasons given to show that the prince that is to come of verse 26 was Titus, avail equally to prove that the 70th week joined directly to the 69th. And conversely, all the facts and reasons we are now about to set forth in proof that the 70th week was indeed one of the "seventy," and not a detached and remote period, avail equally to prove that verse 27 refers to Christ."

That is my view exactly.

Wrote Mauro:

"We have thus far appealed only to the plain and obvious meaning of the words "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression," etc. But there is much more in this prophecy to bind the last week of the Seventy firmly to the other sixty-nine. The 69 weeks brought us "unto the Messiah," but not to His death, by which Israel "finished the transgression.""

Agreed. So, when was Messiah "cut off"? In what week?

Wrote Mauro:

"In order that there should be not the slightest uncertainty as to this, the prophecy says, "And after the three-score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." Thus the 69 weeks are nothing, except years which must elapse -- a blank space of time,- whereas the 70th week is everything to the purpose of fulfilling the six predictions of verse 24. If then, we know when the Messiah was cut off, we know when the six things of verse 24 were accomplished. And we do know, both by the words of the prophecy, and also by the information given in the Gospel according to John, that Christ was crucified within the "week" (seven years) following His anointing and manifestation to Israel."

Exactly! If the seventieth week is postponed, then Messiah has not been cut off and the six things of verse 24 have not yet occurred.

Wrote Mauro:

"We know, in other words, that he was "cut off" in the seventieth week counting in the ordinary way from the given starting point. And this would be true regardless of what decree be taken as that starting point. This double witness, that of the prophecy itself and that of the Gospel-records, puts the matter beyond all doubt. By means thereof we know to a certainty that none of the six great things foretold in verse 24 happened within the sixty- nine weeks, but that each and all of them came to pass within the week which came next thereafter, that is to say in the seventieth consecutive week from the starting point. Nothing could be better established upon clear scriptural evidence than this."

But this is what is denied by those interpreters of the gap theory. They do not believe that Christ died in the 70th week, nor in any other of the weeks. They teach that Christ died in the gap between the 69th and 70th week.

Wrote Mauro:

"This matter, however, is important enough to warrant our dwelling a while longer upon it. In view of the facts stated above no one will or can deny that the crucifixion occurred in the 70th week from the starting point of the prophecy. The proof of this is absolute."

I agree.

"Cut off" occurs "after" the 69 weeks have ended. Those who teach the gap theory have no qualms about affirming that the sacrificial death of Christ, his resurrection, his ascension, etc., all occurred outside of any the weeks, occurring in the time of the gap. But, I have all kinds of qualms with this idea and I am befuddled as to why those who believe and promote it do not see the negative consequences of affirming such.

If the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ occurred after the 69th week, but not in the 70th, but in the gap between them, then the key event of the prophecy (the crucifixion) is outside the scope of the prophecy. Imagine affirming such a notion! The Messiah's being "cut off" occurs outside of the determined weeks! One of the six things Christ was to do when he comes, according to the prophecy, was to "make reconciliation for iniquity." He did that when he died upon the cross as a sacrifice for sin.

For myself his being cut off "after" the 69th week ended means that he was cut off in the 70th week. That is just the plain reading of the text.

There is nothing in Daniel 9: 24-27 about Antichrist, about a peace treaty with Israel regarding building the temple and offering sacrifices, nothing about his breaking such a treaty, nothing about a third temple.

Spurgeon on Daniels seventy weeks (here):

"The first advent of our Lord is spoken of in our text as ordained to be before the seventy weeks were finished, and the city should be destroyed. And so it was, even as the prophet had spoken. I shall not occupy your time by attempting to fix the beginning and the end of the period intended by the seventy weeks, and the seven weeks and three-score and two weeks. That is a deep study, requiring much research and learning, and I conceive that the discussion of such a subject would be of no great practical use to us this Sabbath morning. You will be better nourished upon the Lord Himself than upon times and seasons. Suffice it to believe that Jesus Christ our Lord, the Messiah, came exactly as it was prophesied, and remained on earth as it was foretold He should do. In the middle of the predestined week He was cut off, when He had completed three and a half years of saving ministry, and within another period of like length the gospel was preached throughout all nations, and Messiah’s peculiar relation to Israel was cut off. At another time it may afford you profitable contemplation if you consider the four hundred and ninety years from the decree of the king for rebuilding to the overthrow of Jerusalem." (SHUTTING, SEALING AND COVERING—OR, MESSIAH’S GLORIOUS WORK. NO. 1681)

I find the fact that Christ's public ministry lasted one half a week, or 3 1/2 years. That is half of Daniel's 70th week. The view that the crucifixion occurs midway through the 70th week of Daniel is the historic and predominant view.

In the next posting I will conclude my remarks on the 70th weeks prophecy.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XV

As I have stated in the previous postings (chapters), the idea that the first white horse rider  1) brings peace (first with Israel, then globally), and 2) that such peace is a "treaty" or "covenant" that Antichrist will make with the nation Israel and 3) brings a false global peace, is read into the text and not what is discernible from the text.

So too is the idea that the time period making up the events corresponding to the seven seals (including the trumpets and bowls) is a period of seven years. All this is read into the text.

These ideas are supposedly gleaned from Daniel 9: 24-27 where the final week of that prophecy is made to be the time period of the seals of the Apocalypse. Yet, this is simply all based upon faulty exegesis and from a mishandling of the text.

I have examined every argument used by those who promote these ideas. They have all been shown to be false and the facts have rather shown how the evidence from Scripture and context shows that the white horse rider is Christ.

I have also shown how the Apocalypse is clear that Antichrist is in the bottomless pit and remains there till the bottomless pit is opened, which occurs when the seventh seal has been opened and the fifth trumpet sounds. After that we see him come to popularity by killing God's two witness prophets. Therefore the rider on the white horse of Rev. 6: 2 cannot be the Antichrist.

I believe that the seventy weeks of Daniel's prophecy has been fulfilled and that this has been, until the last century or so, the traditional view. The idea of a "gap" between Daniel's 69th and 70th week is an introduction and not at all warranted from the text of the prophecy. Such a view raises several serious theological questions.

Philip Mauro wrote an excellent book defending the traditional view titled "The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation." Every person who wants to hear both sides of the debate about the interpretation of the seventieth week should read Mauro's excellent work. He in my view upholds well the traditional view and overthrows the "gap theory" that says the prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, it remaining to be fulfilled during the time of the Great Tribulation. I only want to cite some from that work that should prove that there is no gap, but that the seventieth week occurred precisely right after the 69th, and that Christ died "in the midst of the (70th) week" and thereby "confirmed the covenant with many" and "caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease."

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

It is not my intention to discuss this passage at length. This is not the place to do that, while considering the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. However, I wish to point out that the plain reading of the passage necessitates that there be no gap in time between the 69th and the 70th week as is taught today by so many. Philip Mauro's work is excellent. I read this work about 45 years ago. Let me cite of the things Mauro said on this point.

In Chapter VII - "ARE THE SEVENTIETH WEEKS CONSECUTIVE?" (here) Mauro wrote (highlighting mine):

Mauro wrote (highlighting mine):

"We would point out to begin with that the words "Seventy weeks are determined," etc., are words of clear and certain meaning. They are just the words which would be used by one who wished to be understood as saying that, within the measure of 70 weeks, the six things specified in Daniel 9:24 would happen. If the speaker meant something very different, even that the specified things would not occur for more than two thousand years, then manifestly the words used by him could serve only to mislead those who trusted in them.

Never since the world began has a described and "determined" measure of time, expressed in the way always used for that purpose (that is, by stating the number of time-units making up the complete measure) been treated according to the view we are now discussing. Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time-units. The Bible-usage in this regard will be shown presently. If, therefore, the period of the "seventy weeks" be an exception to a rule so universal and so necessary, we should at least require Of those who maintain that view such clear and convincing proof as to leave no room for doubt."

I totally agree. When God says the time period is "determined," it cannot be made to refer to any "postponement" of any of the weeks, including the seventieth, for that would make the time period to be rather "indeterminate" rather then "determined." Determined means certain, fixed, destined, etc.

Mauro continued:

"We ask careful attention to the following points:

1. Where periods of time are given beforehand in the prophecies of the Bible they always mean that the time-units composing the period named are continuous. This must be so, else the prediction would serve only to deceive those who believed it. We have no other way of describing and limiting a period of time than by stating the number of time-units (hours, days, months, or years) contained therein. It is therefore a necessary law of language that the time- units be understood as being connected together without a break."

Again, this is such a refutation of the interpretation that says that there can be postponements and gaps in time periods that God has foreordained.

Mauro continued:

"As a most pertinent example of this, let us consider the period of seventy years, with which the period of seventy weeks of years is so closely connected. God had foretold to Jeremiah that "after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon, I will visit you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place" (Jer. 29:10). From this word Daniel "understood the number of years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet"; and thereupon he set his face to seek the fulfilment of that promise. Have not we exactly the same reason to understand that the "seventy weeks" of years mean what they appear to mean, that Daniel had for understanding that the words "seventy years" were to be taken in accordance with their plain and obvious meaning?"

Daniel had every reason to believe that "seventy years" meant seventy years, with no gaps or postponements that would make seventy to turn into a number far greater. Likewise with the seventy sevens prophecy.

Mauro continued:

"Furthermore, in every other case in Scripture where God has foretold the measure of time within which a specified thing was to happen, the time-measure so indicated was intended to be taken in its plain and ordinary sense. We give some examples:

The 430 years sojournings of Abraham's posterity, whereof God had spoken to him (Gen. 15:13; Ex. 12:40; Gal. 3:17) were accomplished to a day (Ex. 12:41, 42).

The seven years of plenty and seven years of famine, which Joseph foretold, were fulfilled according to the plain meaning of the words (Gen. 45:6).

The forty years wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness, which God appointed as a punishment for their unbelief (Numb. 14:34), were forty consecutive years.

But let us take a stronger illustration. Our Lord, in foretelling His own death, declared again and again that "the third day," or "in three days," or "after three days," He would rise again. Those expressions all mean one and the same thing, and would never be taken in any sense but one. Suppose, however, that some ingenious person should now come forward with the idea that Christ did not rise from the dead on the third consecutive day after His death, but that His resurrection is yet future; and suppose he should endeavor to make the words of Christ agree with this view by saying that the third day, on which He was to rise, did not follow immediately after the other two, but there was an unmentioned "parenthesis" of about two thousand years in between, would lie not have for his view gas much foundation in the words of Scripture as those who would insert a "parenthesis" of two thousand years between the 69th and 70th week of Gabriel's prophecy?"

Those who espouse the "gap theory" or "postponement" theory must answer these arguments. But, they have not because they cannot.

Mauro continued:

"We are bold, therefore, to lay it down as an absolute rule, admitting of no exceptions, that when a definite measure of time or space is specified by the number of units composing it, within which a certain event is to happen or a certain thing is to be found, the units of time or space which make up that measure are to be understood as running continuously and successively. "Seventy years" would invariably mean seventy continuous years; "seventy weeks' would mean seventy continuous weeks; "seventy miles" would mean seventy continuous miles.

If, for example, one journeying along a road were informed that, within seventy miles from a given point lie would come upon certain specified things, as a hill, a tower, a stream, a mill, and the like, there is manifestly but one sense in which he could understand the statement. Suppose in such a case that he should proceed on his way for 69 miles without meeting any of the specified things, would lie not confidently expect to find them in the one remaining mile of the 70? Suppose, however, he should traverse that mile without coming upon any of those things, would he not have a right to say he had been grossly and intentionally deceived? And would it set the matter right for the one who made the deceptive statement to say that the 70th mile he had in mind did not join on the 69th, but was two thousand miles further on? We say the deception in such case would, be intentional; for if one uses an expression which has a definite and well-settled meaning, but gives to it in his own mind a very different meaning, which he keeps to himself, he can have had no other purpose than to mislead those who might act upon his words."

This argumentation shows clearly how unsound is the gap theory, or the idea that what God has determined shall be a certain length longer or shorter or parts of it postponed and detached from the other units of the time measurement.

Mauro wrote:

"The idea which we have discussed in our last chapter, namely that Daniel 9:27 refers not to Christ but to antichrist is usually coupled with, another, also of a very radical sort, namely, that the 70th week of Gabriel's prophecy does not come where we would naturally expect to find it, that is, immediately after the 69th week, but that it is detached from the other 69, is separated from them by many centuries, is yet in the future, and will be found at the very end of this present age. The extent to which these ideas have found acceptance in our day makes it a matter of importance to inquire very carefully into the reasons that have been given in support thereof."

Indeed, it is of the greatest importance for us to test this interpretation.

Mauro wrote:

"We do not know just when or how these ideas sprang up. That is not, of course, a reason for rejecting them; for God is pleased from time to time to give new light from His Word. But it is a reason for subjecting them to a rigid scrutiny. This we have sought to do, and the result is we have come to the conclusion that, not only are they destitute of support in the Word of God, but they are directly contrary thereto. This we shall endeavor to make clear."

"The idea that the 70th week of the prophecy is detached from its companions and is relegated to the distant future, is a necessary corollary of the idea already referred to, namely, that the "he" of verse 27 (Dan. 9) refers, not to Christ, but to a future antichrist. Manifestly those two ideas stand or fall together; for if verse 27 relates to Christ, then the last week. followed immediately after the 69th; but if it relates to antichrist, or a coming Roman prince, then it is yet future."

In the next posting we will continue our look at Daniel 9: 24-27. Particularly we will look at whether "the "he" of verse 27 (Dan. 9) refers, not to Christ, but to a future antichrist."

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XIV

Antichrist & World Peace

The idea that the white horse rider in Rev. 6: 2 is the "Antichrist" is based upon the false notion that he will make some kind of phony "peace" agreement (treaty) with Israel and then break it. This idea is taken chiefly from a misinterpretation of the prophet Daniel's "seventy weeks" prophecy. (Dan. 9:24-27) Another is taken from Daniel 8: 25. Let us look at the latter first.

“And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.” (Daniel 8: 25)

I do not doubt that this passage is a reference to the times of the Antichrist. Further, I do not deny that he will "by peace" bring the world to ruin. What that means exactly, however, is another matter.

Further, I do believe that the world will be enjoying "peace and safety" to a great degree at the time of the commencement of the day of wrath and tribulation.

What I oppose therefore, is not that the Antichrist will have some relationship to the peace and safety of the last days, and some peaceful means of gaining power, but what I oppose is the reading of all this into the text of Rev. 6: 2. The coming of the rider on the white horse of Rev. 6: 2 does not bring a previously unknown peace to people all over the world as the next several horses in heaven's cavalry demonstrate.

It is not correct to argue therefore that the peace supposedly brought by the coming of the white horse rider 1) comes from the Antichrist and 2) the peace and prosperity can only be fake or a delusion, perhaps some kind of "pipe dream."

This reasoning, however, fails. The white horse rider comes as a result of heaven's command, ergo, the peace came by heaven's order. Thus, it cannot be a fake peace unless one is also willing to affirm that God brings the fake peace of the Antichrist.

In the passage above "peace" is from the Hebrew "shalvah" and means quietness, ease, prosperity, security (genuine or false). The Antichrist "by peace" will "destroy." But, consider that there is nothing in the text that says that Antichrist will first bring world peace and prosperity and then be rewarded with sovereignty by the world (or "ten kings") for doing so.

The text could also well mean that Antichrist comes to power by first promising peace, a promise which he does not intend to keep. Thus, "by peace" he means "by the means of promising peace," or by tempting with peace talk, he will gain power, and then destroy. By this interpretation the Antichrist comes to power, not by bringing world peace, but by promising it (and giving some proof of his ability to bring it).

It very well may allude to the act of the Antichrist (beast) in killing the two witness prophets of Revelation chapter eleven. The two prophets "torment" the world with plagues and awful judgments, including the withholding of rain for the length of their prophecy. When the two prophets are killed by the Antichrist the world celebrates; And, who will get the glory for stopping these awful torments? The Antichrist! He "restores the peace and brings happy days once again," the world will think.

Further, from looking at the many passages dealing with the Antichrist we see his entire time on earth as characterized by nothing akin to peace. His rise will come by violence not by peace.

The "peace and safety" of the end times is not what is brought about by the Antichrist. That prophecy will have come to pass prior to the opening of the first seal and the coming forth of the first horse. Further, it can well be said that we have already to a great degree arrived at that point in history. People today, all around the world, enjoy better peace and safety than ever before. Yes, there will always be wars and rumors of wars. We have had those since the end of WWII. Yea, since the coming of Christ nearly two thousand years ago. Yet, people still feel safer and more prosperous today than ever before in human history.

If we allow that the Laodicean age of the church precedes the coming of the white horse rider of Rev. 6: 2, then we prove clearly that the "peace and prosperity" spoken of by Paul precedes the opening of the first seal. Further, that safety, peace, and prosperity is not what the Antichrist instantly brings, somehow, but is that which has come about as a result of science and technology.

The Laodicean church said this about themselves: "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing" (Rev. 3: 17). They surely reflect that state of the world at the time of the end. It also surely describes the state of the church and world at this time. People today, like many Christians, and like the fool Jesus spoke about, "have ample goods laid up for many years" and therefore say to themselves "relax, eat, drink, be merry." (Luke 12: 19) And, since nearly everyone today denies the teaching of the Bible on Hell and eternal punishment, and of the coming judgment, and of the resurrection of the dead, they say “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (I Cor. 15: 32)

In the prophecy it is stated that Antichrist "through his policy" will "cause craft to prosper in his hand." There is no question but that the Antichrist will have an economic, as well as religious, political, and social, "policy." Craft is prospering now in the world on a scale never before seen, at least since the Deluge. And, the policy of the Antichrist will promise global peace and prosperity.

The Peace Of I Thess. 5:3

"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." 

This "peace and safety" prophecy is fulfilled in our very day. There will not be any greater peace and safety than men now enjoy, although Antichrist will promise them greater, and even increase it for a short time.

The Lord Jesus also spoke of this time of general world prosperity when he said:

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matt. 24: 37-39)

Just as people were "living it up," feasting and "partying," before the flood, "eating and drinking" (no famine), "marrying" (little fear of the future), etc., so also now. But, the prosperity, peace and safety, of the very last days will be what Solomon called "the prosperity of fools" and which "shall destroy them."  (Prov. 1: 29-33)

The Lord warned of this kind of end time prosperity when he said:

"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares." (Luke 21: 34)

In the next posting I will conclude this series on the white horse rider of Rev. 6: 2 with some thoughts on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 and a summation. Following that I will take up an examination of the remaining horses of the Apocalypse.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse XIII

Saviors as Judges

"Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them." (Judges 2:16)

"According to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies." (Neh. 9: 27)

"And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S." (Oba 1:21)

In these passages the "saviors" were also the "judges." It was that way through the time of the judges in Israel's history, before she had her first king, and is described to us in the Book of Judges.

So too the second coming of Christ, when he comes riding forth as the mighty victor on his war steed, leading "the armies of heaven," he will come as both savior and judge.

As we have seen in regard to those texts that speak of "the arrows of the Almighty," they were both "arrows of salvation and victory" and "arrows of destruction." The coming of Christ will bring salvation to the elect and destruction to the reprobate. Amos the prophet spoke of this when he wrote:

"Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?" (Amos 5: 18-20)

This is exactly what we see unfolding in the Book of Revelation. The return of the Lord will be a day of gloom, tribulation, and wrath for unbelievers. But, it will be a day of salvation and redemption for believers.

The Hebrew title is Sopetim [Shophetim], which is usually translated "judges" but the Hebrew word sopet not only caries the idea of administrating and maintaining justice but also has the meaning of "liberator" or "deliverer." Judges in Israel were also deliverers.

The Hebrew term shofet, which is translated into English as “judge,” is closer in meaning to “ruler,” a kind of military leader or deliverer from potential or actual defeat.

"James King West writes: "Our English word 'judge' fails to bring out the breadth of meaning encompassed in the Hebrew term shophet (from the verb shaphat, to 'judge,' 'justify,' or 'deliver'). The shophet, as the title is used in the Old Testament, is not in the first instance an arbitrator of legal disputes, though he (or she) might serve in that capacity (Jud. 4:4-5). He is, rather, one who defends the right or just cause, whether in the capacity of a juridical official who hears cases and renders judgments or as a military leader who throws off the oppressor of a victimized people. In either case, the results are the same: the punishment of the offender, the vindication of the innocent party, and the restoration of the right (just) order of things. The heroes of the Judges stories are chiefly military leaders or tribal champions who arose in hours of crisis to deliver their people from the hands of enemy oppressors. Their sole authority appears to have resided in their 'charismatic' (spirit-directed) personality, rather than in any hereditary or elected office. Powerfully courageous and zealous for the independence and well-being of the tribes, they rallied the necessary support to combat the recurring harassment and open attacks of nearby enemies: Canaanites, Moabites, Midianites, Ammonites, and Philistines." (Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 178)" (as cited here)

These words help us understand the context of the evils coming on the world as a result of the opening of the first four seals of the scroll of redemption, and the coming forth of "the armies of heaven" to bring judgment on unbelievers.

Notice these verses that connect the work of judging with that of delivering.

"From heaven you pronounced judgment, and the land feared and was quiet — when you, O God, rose up to judge, to save all the afflicted of the land." (Psalm 76:8-9)

"For the LORD is our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The LORD is our king; He will save us." (Is. 33:22)

In our day we do not generally associate a judge with being a savior. Of course, we are not talking about judges in sports competition (referees, umpires, etc.) but judges of men as respects law or statute breaking. Judges in some sense rule or govern people, they being essentially representatives of government, but the judges in Israel were less of the legal kind, they being more of a savior than of a decider of legal matters. But, even considering today's role of judges in the various courts, we can see two perspectives in regard to him. If we look at a judge from the perspective of the guilty, we will see him as one who punishes. But if we look at a judge from the perspective of a victim, or one oppressed, the judge is one who brings justice and vindicates, who "rights the wrongs," etc.

When God saves the ones being wronged from those who are wronging them, he is both judging and saving at the same time — bad news for one side, good news for the other.

The word "judge" is used two times in the Apocalypse in regard to Christ acting as judge of all.

"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" (6: 10)

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." (19: 11)

Notice how Christ is both judge and avenger, both savior and destroying warrior. The Lord in his coming again, leading heaven's armies, will "judge and avenge" and "judge and make war." Christ is to be viewed in his Apocalypse as both Judge and Savior as he and his judgments are revealed from scene to scene.

We have already seen how his role as Redeemer is also prominent in the Apocalypse and have seen how the work of a redeemer or near kinsmen (Hebrew "goel") was not only to deliver the family member sold into slavery, but also to bring just punishment or retribution to those who may have victimized an innocent family member. In this respect he was the "Avenger." 

He is also seen in the Apocalypse in his role as "Lord." The idea of ruling and governing with authority is involved in the word "lord." So too is the idea of ownership and sovereignty.

God On The March

"LORD, when thou wentest out of Seir, when thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, the earth trembled, and the heavens dropped, the clouds also dropped water." (Judges 5: 4)

"O God, when thou wentest forth before thy people, when thou didst march through the wilderness; Selah: The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel." (Psalm 68: 7-8)

"Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger." (Hab 3:12)

"March" may be translated as "stepped through and upon." Similar  words are "tread" or "trample" or "run over."

"Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies." (Psa. 60: 12)

This is what we see in Christ's Apocalypse, in the opening of the seals. As each seal is opened and each disaster occurs we see Christ marching through our world. Each scene of destruction is but one "step" in the Lord's march in war.

"There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." (James 4: 12)

Notice again how in these words both salvation and destruction are connected together, although in this instance he is styled the "Lawgiver."

Lord as Vanguard & Rear Guard

"The Lord will go before you (vanguard); and the God of Israel will be your rereward (rear guard)." (Isa. 52: 12)

More than once did the Lord go out before his people to defend them in battle. In those cases the Lord was acting as a "vanguard" for his people.

Vanguard is an old variation of the French word avant-garde meaning "fore-guard" or "front guard." The leading units moving at the head of an army are its vanguard. The word may also allude to the leading position in any movement or field.

"And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them." (Exodus 14: 19)

(See my study on this here)

Christ is vanguard and rear guard in the Apocalypse. He begins the final conflict and he brings it to an end. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last, and, "in all things he must have the preeminence." (Col. 1: 18)

In those Apocalyptic scenes the Lord Jesus Christ, both defends heaven's rule and the people of God, keeping them safe, as well as condemns (as judge and lawgiver) and destroys (as the warrior prince).