Monthly Archives: December 2014

Lesson 1 of Series Revelation 1:1 ‘Must’

Revelation Commentary

Lesson I: Blessings And Cursings

First, a moral God cannot lie.

The promised blessings of the Covenant had been fulfilled many times over, but God had delayed his ultimate wrath because of His longsuffering and mercy. When the people sinned in the Wilderness, He had threatened to destroy the entire people and make of Moses His nation, but Moses interceded and they were spared.

The moral dilemma in 68 AD was that the entire fleshly race of Mankind had been infected by Sin and was therefore corrupt. But the Covenant required holiness as a condition of the eternal promises. It was therefore impossible that a fleshly people could inherit eternal promises. The eternal aspect of the Covenant required that there be an eternal Heir, which could not be if the sinful fleshly nation were all destroyed because of sin. This had provided a false sense of security for the descendants of Abraham, for they thought their fleshly nation was indestructible because of God’s promise. However, they had not reckoned with God’s power to raise the dead.

Christ The Eternal Heir

Although the entire nation had gone astray, in the resurrection Christ became the eternal Heir to the promises because of His unending life, and so the promises continue in effect through Him. From the moment of the resurrection onward, there was no necessity for any other fleshly heir in order to fulfill the promises. Because His flesh was descended from Abraham, the promises to the fleshly seed became eternally effective in Christ in His resurrected body.

Curses

It was therefore possible for God to bring the promised curses upon the entire remainder of the fleshly lineage of Abraham as it was necessary to fulfill His word. The promise of cursing in Deuteronomy 29:18-21 reads:

“Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away this day from the Lord our God to go and serve the gods of those nations; lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ …The Lord would not pardon him, but rather the anger of the Lord and his jealousy would smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book would settle upon him, and the Lord would blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord would single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this book of the law,” (RSV).

Delayed fulfillment of the cursing was not to be taken as permissiveness, nor slackness, but rather as a token of mercy and grace in order to bring men to repentance. God rebukes and chastens the sons whom He loves, but when corrective measures are unheeded, the wrath of His judgment is sure, for God cannot lie. For the Jewish nation in the time of John the Revelator the time was up and they were due for repentance or judgment. The message of Jesus as well as that of John the Baptist was “Repent” to avoid “the wrath that is to come.”

 

Lesson 2 of Series: Judgment Against The Jews First

Revelation Commentary, , , ,

Why was it ‘Morally Necessary” that God Judge the Jews First?

Romans 2:2-11 sets forth the rationale for God’s righteous judgment against the Jews. In verses 2-3 we see that, in order to deter sin, judgment rightly falls upon those who do these evil things, lest sinners should hope to escape, and lest God’s purposes should be misunderstood, (verse 4). It is God’s nature as a holy God to bless the righteous and to condemn the wicked, (verses 5-8). He shows no partiality in judgment, (verses 6 and 11).

Since salvation was to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles, (Rom. 1:16), it is also just that God’s righteous wrath be revealed first against the Jews, but also against the unrepentant Gentiles in their time. This order: “the Jew first,” does not reflect any respect of persons in judgment, nor a superior position in grace. It simply shows God’s sovereign choice of method in revealing Himself and His salvation to the world. He chose to use the Jews as an example, a pattern, and as a type and shadow. Having had the privilege of receiving God’s revelation in the Law, the Covenant and the Prophets, they were held accountable for recognizing Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all that was previously foretold and promised. By the same token, after Gentiles receive the Gospel, they too are equally responsible.

The Jews Held Accountable

The life, works, death and resurrection of Christ had been fully revealed to the entire Jewish world in the period prior to AD 70, (Colossians 1:5-6). It was therefore morally imperative that they be brought to account. Romans 1:18-32 declares that God’s wrath is being revealed against those “who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” At that time, this applied specifically to the Jewish nation. It was they who were without excuse, (v.20), because they had been fully exposed to the knowledge of God, (v. 21), had had the truth of God, (v. 25), and knew about the promised judgments of God, (v. 32).

To those Jews Paul declared that “…the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.” (Rom. 2:24). It was morally imperative that God defend His Name against blasphemy.

Distinction Between Jews and “Those Who Call Themselves ‘Jews'”

Indeed, the name ‘Jew’ itself was being misused by these unbelievers, for Paul shows that true Jewish identity depends upon faith, not upon circumcision of the flesh, but rather that of the heart, “…in the spirit, and not in the letter,” (Rom. 2:28-29). (See also Deut. 30:6; Jer. 32:29.) In fact this passage in Romans 2 from verse 17, “Behold, thou art called a Jew,” through verse 29 furnishes a definition of the kinds of people “who call themselves Jews and are not, but do lie,” as mentioned in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

In Romans 3:5-6, Paul chides those Jews for suggesting that God might be unjust to take vengeance upon them for their sins. Then he says: “God forbid, for then how shall God judge the world?” This clearly indicates that judgment and vengeance against these Jews was a prerequisite, and was morally imperative if God was to judge the entire Gentile world later for these same sins.

The Word Must

Therefore, this word must, (Revelation 1:1), indicating a moral imperative, foreshadows what is about to be revealed to John. It was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. God’s righteous wrath upon the unbelieving wicked is described symbolically as the destruction of “Mystery Babylon,” (Revelation 17 and 18).

Revelation 1:1 ‘Must’ The Moral Imperative

Revelation Commentary, , ,

Introduction to This Series

This series of lessons will present the facts that the events pictured in the Book of Revelation were not merely an historical report, nor were they a prophecy of things which were to come to pass at some distant future time. They are a record of the fulfillment of things that had been covenanted and prophesied in the Old Testament and history of the nation of Israel, namely the end of the nation and its capitol city, Jerusalem. They are not foretelling the fall of the Roman Empire. Neither are they primarily the record of the invasion of Jerusalem by the Romans. They are the record of the fulfillment of God’s Word regarding His promises in the Covenants. They are about the things that God was morally obligated to fulfill.

1:1. “Things which must shortly come to pass.”

Overview

Ray Summers speaks of the word ‘must’ in Revelation 1:1 as indicating a moral necessity:

“The verb translated ‘it is necessary,’ or ‘must,’ … is an impersonal verb which indicates that a moral necessity is involved; the nature of the case is such that the things revealed here must come to pass shortly. The aorist tense of the infinitive ‘to come to pass’ adds to the truth that immediate action is necessary. The prepositional phrase translated ‘shortly’ means just what it says – shortly, quickly, hastily.”

However, Summers takes the position that the moral necessity was the fall of the Roman Empire. But this phrase could hardly be applied to the fall of the Roman Empire for that was neither done quickly, nor immediately in reference to the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation in the first century AD. The Empire fell over a period of more than a hundred years during the fourth and fifth centuries AD. Even through the period of the second century AD the historians Cary and Scullard could say: “To speak of a ‘decay’ of the Roman Empire at this period would be premature” (Cary and Scullard, 488). It is my position that the moral necessity in the Book of Revelation applies, rather, to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Although I disagree with many of Summers’ basic views, the fact remains that his definition and grammatical analysis of “must shortly come to pass” is quite correct.

What Was Morally Imperative At That Time?

To understand what was morally imperative, and why it was so, sheds much light upon the interpretation of the Book of Revelation since its stated purpose is to show these “morally imperative” events. These four things, at least, were morally imperative in the context of the times:

  1. God must fulfill the blessings and cursings promised in the covenant as recorded in Deuteronomy 28-30.
  2. He must vindicate the words of the Old Testament prophets, specifically, the seventy weeks of years and “Time, Times and Dividing of Times” as given to Daniel.
  3. He must fulfill the predictions made by Christ in order to vindicate Him as
    a. Prophet,
    b. Judge,
    c. Messiah
  4. He must fulfill the vengeance promised in behalf of His Covenant People who had become martyrs:
    a. Because of His covenant;
    b. As their God and Kinsman-Redeemer; and
    c. To cleanse the land from blood defilement.

Please follow this series to get the larger picture of the holistic interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Do The Jews Have A Mandate To Possess Palestine?

Zionist Propaganda, , , ,

We often hear that the “Jews” were given a British mandate to the land they are now calling “Israel.” Do they?

Balfour Declaration

They refer to the “Balfour Declaration.” This now infamous document has caused wars and suffering, death and destruction, and prostitution of nations since its inception in 1917.

“The Balfour Declaration may be the most extraordinary document produced by any Government in world history. It took the form of a letter from the Government of His Britannic Majesty King George the Fifth, the Government of the largest empire the world has even known, on which — once upon a time — the sun never set; a letter to an international financier of the banking house of Rothschild who had been made a peer of the realm.

Arthur Koestler wrote that in the letter “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” More than that, the country was still part of the Empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

It read:

Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour. [1]” quoted from: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html#ftn7

 Was this a Mandate?

Webster’s definition of a mandate is: “A command; an order, precept, or injunction; a written authority by one person to another to act for him.” This letter from one individual to another, is not a command, nor is it a written authority from one person to another to act for him.

This letter is by Lord Balfour, a member of the British House of Lords in 1917. (He was one member of the Parliament which in October of 2014 consisted of 789 members in the House of Lords and 650 members of the House of Commons.) Did he have the authority to speak for the entire British Empire? It would be like one of the United States members of Congress offering the possession of a territory somewhere else in the world to someone who had no other right to it. Like maybe Senator McCain giving Cuba to the Roosevelt family. It would be ridiculous.

This letter is not an injunction, requiring some person to do or refrain from doing certain acts. At best, it is merely a note conveying certain dispositions of others about the situation of the “Jews.”

Most telling of all is, that even if it were a mandate, the terms of it was: “… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

This stipulation was violated in 1948 when the Irgun and Stern Jewish Terrorist gangs, assassinated the people of the village Deir Yassin, and drove more than 700,000 Palestinians out of their homes and country. Since then millions more have been dispossessed and driven into refugee camps. If the Balfour Declaration was a mandate, the Jews have flagrantly violated its terms, thereby canceling any rights they may have had otherwise.

 A Biblical Right?

Of course, the “Jews” claim that they have a Biblical right to the land because of the promises to Abraham. This claim has been disproven Biblically because the original nation of Israel violated the terms of the Covenant and so were unqualified to receive the inheritance. They were destroyed and assimilated thousands of years ago. Only Christ remains as a qualified Heir.

Even if they had sustained inheritance rights by biological descent, that, too, has been proven invalid, for their DNA identity shows that there is no common racial identity in the so-called “Jews” of the world today.

Christian Zionists?

“Christian Zionists” have been duped by their propaganda. It is time now to awake, repent, and withdraw any and all support for their criminal take-over of Palestine and murder and rape of the land.

 

 

4. Jesus Christ, The Revealer And The Revealed

Revelation Commentary, , , , , ,

Jesus Christ

The word Jesus is from the Hebrew word Yeshua, meaning “Savior.” The word Christ is from the Greek word “Christos,” translating the Hebrew word Messiah, meaning “the anointed one.” The very name Jesus Christ proclaims Him Savior and Anointed One.

In Revelation 1:1 we have the title “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” and in verse two it is called the “testimony of Jesus Christ.” This makes it clear that the subject of the Book is ‘Jesus Christ.’

In Daniel 9:25 the Hebrew word Messiah is also called a “Prince,” (KJV). It means “the anointed of Jehovah,” a title given to a consecrated person, as the priests, kings, or saints. Those consecrated to God by the anointing were therefore holy. It was revealed to Daniel that a Messiah would come before the final end of the Jewish nation and city of Jerusalem, (Daniel 9:24-27). The fact that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, had come revealed that it was the “time of the end” for the fleshly nation.

The Title ‘Revelation’

Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary [ZPBD] says: “The title [Revelation 1.1] which the book itself assumes may mean either ‘the revelation which Christ possesses and imparts,’ or ‘the unveiling of the person of Christ.’ Grammatically, the former is preferable, for this text states that God gave this disclosure to Christ that He might impart it to His servants.” (ZPBD pp. 716-17)

We need not choose between the two meanings, for He is both. The Book of Revelation is actually both the unveiling of Christ and the revelation He possesses and imparts. He is both the Revealer and the Revealed.

His Revelation, then, is that which He reveals of the hidden wisdom, that which can only be known by spiritual insight, I Corinthians 2.10. This secret wisdom is also mentioned in Colossians 2.2b-3: “To have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (RSV) These “treasures,” previously hidden in Christ, are now revealed in HIm.

The Hidden Wisdom

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians also speaks of this wisdom which is hidden in Christ: “For He has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ,” (1.9 RSV).

That Jesus is the source of a hidden wisdom is attested also in I Corinthians 2:7-8: “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (RSV)

The revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ is to reveal these hidden things: I Corinthians 4:5: “Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, [is revealed] who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”(RSV) He came “with clouds” during the destruction of the City of Jerusalem.

The Gospel Hidden in the Old Testament

Indeed, the gospel was preached to Abraham and the prophets in a hidden or esoteric form, (Galatians 3:8 and Romans 1:1-4). The Promised Seed through Isaac was Christ, hidden within the fleshly lineage until the time of His incarnation, (Galatians 3:16-19). The Heir of the Promise was hidden until the fulness of time, (Galatians 4:30-31). The hiddeness is not only visual but also auditory: the voice of God which was heard on Sinai and then through the prophets has now become silent except through this Jesus Christ, Hebrews 1:1-2.

So the Revelation of Jesus Christ is the visual, audible, intellectual and spiritual appearance of God.

Further discussion and referents for this lesson may be found on pages 72-74 of my book Revelation in Context and the accompanying notes.