Author: A.A. Leenhouts
Date: 2020-02-15T22:05:14+00:00
Keywords: Prophecy; Israel; Church
Description: In The Fulness of the Gentiles the author presents a remarkable exegesis of this biblical concept. Rev. Dr. A.A. Leenhouts explains this ‘Fulness of the Gentiles’ as ‘God breaking His silence’ through a fulfilling act of salvation in the Gentile world, in order to ‘graft His chosen people into their own olive tree again’. In this way, he states that a consistency can be observed in God’s actions by involving the Gentile world for the purpose of the salvation and the restoration of the Jewish people. Furthermore, he states that there is a causal connection between the timing of the ‘Fulness of
Publisher: Jilco Ministries

THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES

THE SILENCE BROKEN

Rev. Dr. A.A. Leenhouts

______

SHOFAR SERIES

VOLUME IV

______

PRIMO VERE BV

THE HAGUE, 2016

Copyright © 2016 Primo Vere BV

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers.

Primo Vere BV, P.O.Box 82411, 2508 EK The Hague, The Netherlands
www.primovere.nl

Original title: De volheid der heidenen

Translation: L.W. Dessauvagie, A. Kok-Stigter

Chief Editor: Dr. C. Kutsch Lojenga

With recognition to H.H. Hanemaayer

Cover illustration by M. Koekkoek – Meijer

Designed by C.M. Goslinga

Printed by TekstBeeld, Eindhoven

The Fulness of the Gentiles

A.A. Leenhouts

ISBN 978-90-73014-19-0

E-BOOK ISBN 978-0-9953049-1-8

Scripture quotations taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION.

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

Used by permission of Hodder and Stoughton, a member of Hodder Headline Ltd.

All rights reserved.

Some Scripture quotations have been taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, KING JAMES VERSION.

Copyright © by Oxford University Press, Aman House, London E.C. 4.

Used by permission.

All of these are marked as [KJV].

Some Scripture quotations have been taken from the NEW KING JAMES VERSION.

Copyright © by Thomas Nelson. Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

All of these are marked as [NKJV].

PREFACE

In this book, special attention is paid to the mission of the Gentile-Christian church with regard to the restoration of the ‘kingdom to Israel’. Many prophetic stories in the Scriptures serve as examples - showing the involvement of the Gentile world with the chosen people.

THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES forms an integral part of the Shofar series, together with the three volumes previously published.

A.A. LEENHOUTS

January 2001

The SHOFAR SERIES consists of:

Introduction: A Call to the Church and to Israel (2013)

1. The Man with the jar (2008)

2. The seven Shofarim in the Apocalypse (2011)

3. Joseph’s Cup (2012)

4. The Fulness of the Gentiles (2016)

PROLOGUE

In a game of chess, the players focus all their attention on the pieces on the chessboard until the game is over and the pieces are put away in a box. This is even more evident at a world-title match. At such an event, all attention is focussed on the position of the chess pieces, not only by the players, but also by the public and the media. However, as soon as the game is over, all attention for the pieces has gone.

The philosopher Schopenhauer used this same metaphor as a figure of speech to indicate how meaningless things could become, which previously fully occupied one’s mind.[1]

Unfortunately, many people in our days believe that the history of divine Revelation in the Old and the New Testament no longer deserves our attention. To them, the history of salvation is comparable with the pieces on a chessboard after the competition. The ‘game’ is over. The ‘pieces’ can be put away.

This opinion is a serious mistake.

In this book we will be looking more closely at everything that happened with the Ark of the Covenant; we will discover a golden chain of events which goes back to the commission Moses received from God on how to make the Ark. After all, the Ark was a clear sign of God’s presence among His people during their journey in the wilderness, and finally, the Ark received a central place in the tabernacle and in the Temple in the worship service of ancient Israel. Even in Revelation, the last book of the Bible, apocalyptic imagery is used to indicate the reappearance of the Ark of the Covenant once again (Revelation 11:19).

So the ‘competition’ is not simply over.

What this book is really about is to show how God continuously uses Gentiles for the salvation and the restoration of His chosen people Israel. A clear illustration of this is the loss of the Ark of the Covenant to the Philistines in the days of the High Priest Eli (1 Samuel 4). In those days, the Philistine territory was seen as the centre of darkness, bordering the living house of Israel. The loss of the Ark to the Philistines was a terrible blow—so terrible, that the pregnant wife of Eli’s son Phinehas, got a fright and gave birth, and the old High Priest himself fell and broke his neck. A cry of despair was heard: Ichabod—the glory, the supremacy, is gone. The Shekhinah, the Spirit of God, who rested on the Ark, has departed from Israel. God’s throne had been captured. The prophecy pronounced when Samuel was called, was fulfilled. Then, the Scriptures record the great miracle of an initiative—even an initiative of faith—among the Philistines, by which the Throne of God could return to Israel once more. The return of the Ark also had a huge impact on the people, as became evident later from David’s ecstatic dancing when the Ark was brought to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14). These events, the loss of the Ark as well as its return, are a foreshadowing of what would take place later in the repeated exile and return of the Jewish people. The exile would also be a terrible blow, and at the return into the land of Israel, the people’s mouths would be filled with laughter (Psalm 126:2).

So what is the situation today with regard to the restoration of Israel and the return from their worldwide exile? In the Jewish world, there is a sharp division on this matter, and neither has the Christian world yet found the proper biblical attitude to this matter. The Jewish division is strikingly expressed in an article from ‘Levend Joods Geloof’ (Living Jewish Faith), entitled: “Israël, begin of einde van de verlossing?” (“Israel, the beginning or the end of deliverance?”), in which an account is given of a lecture by Professor Aviezer Ravitzky, professor of Jewish Philosophy at the University of Jerusalem:

“The Satmar Hasidim regard the state of Israel as representing ‘a collective rebellion against heaven and a betrayal of the unique Jewish destiny’. According to them, the Zionist project is destined to fail, but redemption will take place on its ruins. On the other hand, radical religious Zionists say that the State of Israel is inherently holy: ‘the eventual success of the enterprise—Israel’s repentance and redemption—has thus been guaranteed in advance, in spite of temporary setbacks and changes for the worse.’

From the perspective of a radical anti-Zionist, Jews may not take control of the land before the coming of the Messiah. (…) From a radical religious-Zionist point of view, it is expressly not permitted to relinquish their rights to the land, because ‘the messianic era is approaching and not receding!” [2]

And what is the opinion of the Christian world about the exile and return of the Jewish people? Currently, there are quite a few publications about the relationship between Jewry and Christianity. But where, in that flood of literature, can an initiative be found that is somewhat similar to the holy initiative of the uncircumcised Philistines of former times? Should we look for it in the ecumenical movement? Or at the United Nations? Or in the age-old church denominations? Or within the charismatic movement? And yet, it is an essential question, which is—so to speak—posed under the threat of the nuclear bomb.

The initiative of the Philistines came in a crisis situation.

These old ‘pieces on the chessboard’ are hot news!

That is why it is all the more necessary to take to heart Paul’s exhortation, when he says:

“For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:

‘Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing hymns to your name.’

Again, it says, ‘Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.’

And again, ‘Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles, and sing praises to him, all you peoples.’

And again, Isaiah says, ‘The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.’

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:4-13).

When Paul speaks about the ‘encouragement of the Scriptures,’ he obviously means the Old Testament, the Tenach. In Romans 15, he continues along the lines of the perspective he gave in Romans 9-11: When the fulness of the Gentiles has come, the Jewish people will be saved as a whole, after which Jew and Gentile will glorify God together. In this way true ecumenism will be achieved, and Jesus’ prayer for the unity of His redeemed will be answered.

Paul’s message is in complete harmony with the conclusions of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), where James concludes:

“Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages” (Acts 15:13-18).

What other conclusion could the apostles have reached? Even the prophet Amos spoke about the restoration of David’s fallen tent (Amos 9:11). And in the Song of Moses, the Lord says: “I will make them envious by those who are not a people” (Deuteronomy 32:21). The apostles knew their Scriptures well. Moreover, Jesus Himself has very clearly drawn a line across the field of the future with the words: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24).

Within the scope of world history, God will act in the Gentile world, fulfilling His Word. This is what is meant by the term ‘fulness of the Gentiles’. Ignoring or denying this message will result in great disaster for the church and the world. Disregarding this message will eventually result in a dangerous vacuum.

Here we are touching on an essential point in the pattern of expectation regarding the end times, as shown to us by the prophets and the apostles. We need to look once more at the words Jesus spoke on the Mount of Olives, just prior to His ascension. When the disciples asked: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” His answer concerning ‘at this time’ was: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you.” Regarding the question of the restoration of the kingdom, He continues by giving the commission: “… and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:6-8). By saying this, He makes a clear link between the great mission to the world and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. The Father has established the ‘times and seasons’ in His plan for this purpose. So the expression ‘times and seasons’ does not have the same meaning as the term ‘moment’, which Paul uses when he speaks about the end of the world (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

‘Times’ refers to the chronological, the horizontal line in time, ‘seasons’ refers to the situation in the church and the world, as arranged by the Father.

Church and theologians have created a gap between ‘the restoration of the kingdom to Israel’ and the commission to evangelise the world. That is why every attempt at ecumenism is nipped in the bud, and every attempt at world peace is endlessly frustrated. For the restoration of the kingdom to Israel implies the breakthrough of the Kingdom of God and the times of refreshing. Peter strongly exhorted us with the words:

“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:16-21).

Peter witnessed the transfiguration on the Mount and saw Jesus entering His kingdom in a vision. Spiritually enraptured, he experienced a fulfilment of the Feast of Tabernacles. That is why he proposed to build three tents, one for Jesus, one for Moses and one for Elijah. When finally, the disciples asked Jesus: “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” He answered: “Elijah does come first, and restores all things. (…) But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him” (Mark 9:11-13). By saying this, He referred to John the Baptist. The phrase ‘Elijah has come’ points to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5, which will be fulfilled several times. In all the apocalyptic storms, this word of Jesus remains standing like a rock in high seas:

“Elijah does come first, and restores all things.”

1 Rüdiger Safranski: “Het kwaad”, page 76, Uitgeverij Atlas, Amsterdam/Antwerpen, 1998

2 Translated from Dutch –
Rachel Reedijk: “Levend Joods Geloof”, 45th volume, nr. 1, page 30, Rosj Hasjana Elloel 5759 – September 1998
“Voor de Satmar chassidiem vertegenwoordigt de staat Israël ‘een collectieve rebellie tegen de hemel en een verraad van de unieke joodse voorbestemming’. Het zionistische project is in hun visie gedoemd te mislukken, de verlossing zal plaatsvinden op de ruïnes ervan. Radicale religieuze zionisten zeggen daarentegen dat de staat Israël inherent heilig is: ‘uiteindelijk succes van de onderneming – Israëls berouw en verlossing – is aldus van tevoren gegarandeerd, ondanks tijdelijke tegenslagen en veranderingen ten kwade.’
Geredeneerd vanuit een anti-zionistische positie mogen Joden het land niet in beheer hebben vóór de komst van de Masjiach. (…) Vanuit radicaal religieus-zionistisch perspectief is het juist niet geoorloofd om land af te staan, want ‘de messiaanse tijd komt dichter bij ons en niet verder van ons af!”

1. DECLINE AND RESTORATION OF THE KINGDOM

The anointing of Saul

Saul’s anointing is an event of great importance, but the circumstances that led to it were by comparison so ordinary. Over and over again, God appears to submerge His election in the common lives of families and individuals.

Moses, for instance, was put in a basket made of bulrushes by his mother, who was hoping that he would not become a prey for the crocodiles. Then an Egyptian princess found and adopted him. The story that followed was indeed impressive.

Then there is the story of Hannah, who was so taunted by the fanatical Peninnah because she did not have any children. Hannah went to the house of the Lord where she prayed and wept, and God answered her prayer. Samuel was born and dedicated to God. Once again, we stand in awe and amazement at the impressive story that followed.

Samuel judged Israel for forty years and anointed both Saul and David as kings.

The circumstances leading up to the sacred moment in which the first king of Israel was anointed according to God’s directions was very simple and, in a certain sense, went nearly unnoticed. The donkeys belonging to Saul’s father, Kish, were lost. Saul and his servant are instructed to go and find them. They look for them in various areas, but do not find the lost animals. Eventually, Saul’s servant points out the possibility of consulting a highly respected man, a seer. Saul agrees to this, and as they climb the hill to the city, they meet some girls on their way to draw water. When Saul and his servant ask if the seer is in town, the girls answer that he has arrived that very day for a sacrificial ceremony and a meal.

However ordinary this event may seem, it became the occasion at which Saul met Samuel.

Saul and his servant enter the city, and at the same time, Samuel is coming out on his way to the high place for the sacrificial meal. Scripture then makes the following moving statement:

“Now the day before Saul came, the LORD had revealed this to Samuel: ‘About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin. Anoint him leader over my people Israel…’” (1 Samuel 9:15-16).

“When Samuel caught sight of Saul, the LORD said to him, ‘This is the man I spoke to you about; he will govern my people’” (v. 17).

After Saul’s enquiry about the seer, Samuel introduces himself and invites Saul to eat with him, and he also reassures him that the donkeys have been found. So Saul does not need to worry about that any longer. After this reassurance, Samuel alludes to Saul’s right to the kingship by asking him a rhetorical question: “And to whom is all the desire of Israel turned, if not to you and all your father’s family?” (v. 20).

Saul was given a place of honour at the meal, and a piece of meat was kept especially for him. After the meal, they went to the town. At the edge of the town, the servant was sent on ahead of them, but Saul had to stay behind, so Samuel could give him a message from God. Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on Saul’s head, kissed him, and said: “Has not the Lord anointed you leader over his inheritance?” (1 Samuel 10:1).

Immediately after this important event, Samuel cites the signs that Saul will receive after Samuel has seen him off. These signs emphasise the most profound meaning and calling of the chosen people as God’s inheritance, namely to be a kingdom of priests before God. When, at the request of the people for a king, God allows them to establish a worldly monarchy, this chosen ‘Governor of God’, the captain and leader of God’s own people, will certainly have to show the traits of that high status in his conduct before God.

When we follow Saul after he has taken leave from Samuel, we notice how the three elements of the divine calling of the chosen people take shape in him. Firstly: He is anointed king. The second sign is the prediction that, at the terebinth tree of Tabor [NKJV], he will meet three men going up to worship God at Bethel. These men will give him two loaves of bread, which is an indication of priesthood
(1 Samuel 10:3-4). Finally, as the third sign, he will meet a procession of prophets who are prophesying. The spirit of the Lord will also come on Saul, and he will share in the prophetic charisma with the procession of prophets.

After being anointed king of God’s own people, being placed in a harmonious relationship to the priesthood, and being blessed with a prophetic charisma, Saul may do whatever his hand finds to do (v. 7). He is given full authority by God. “God is with you,” Samuel says.

After these events, Saul was no longer the same person, as is mentioned in v. 9: “As Saul turned to leave Samuel, God changed Saul’s heart.”

The signs that were given to Saul as ‘words of God’ after his anointing are so much more than pure predictions. Undoubtedly, these signs did have that intent. Saul could deduce from them that Samuel’s predictions had come true. They will certainly have contributed to his inner conviction about his calling to be king. God knows how He has made us and what it means for an insignificant person to be called to such a high public office. The signs given to Saul were part of his preparation and qualification for his royal task.

Moreover, the instructions Saul receives regarding the direction he has to take are far more than a few simple geographic indications. They have a more profound meaning than the simple landmarks we use when showing someone the way, such as: When you come to the end of the road, you will see a windmill; there you turn right, and the third street on the left is the one you are looking for. Of course this is just an example.

How infinitely more profound is the indication Saul receives in this story. First of all, he will meet two men at Rachel’s tomb in the area of the tribe of Benjamin. If Rachel had had her way in the naming of her youngest son, this area would have been called Ben-Oni, child of misfortune. Jacob had disagreed with Rachel, his favourite wife, even though he lost her, and had called the child: son of my right hand. In this act of faith by Jacob, we recognise the ‘constitution’ of the kingdom of heaven: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it” (Luke 9:24).

The prophet Jeremiah detected Rachel’s weeping through the sensitive antenna of his soul, and interpreted it with reference to the exile:

This is what the LORD says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more.”

This is what the LORD says: “Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded,” declares the LORD. “They will return from the land of the enemy.

So there is hope for your future,” declares the LORD. “Your children will return to their own land.” (Jer. 31:15-17)

At the infanticide of Bethlehem, the evangelist Matthew does the same thing (2:18).

We do not know whether Saul himself meditated so intensely at Rachel’s tomb. Neither do we know what he saw later when he prophesied, but seeing this first sign, we may well ask: Should not every ruler of the inheritance of the Lord in former times as well as today, every ‘governor of Christ’, in figurative terms, make a first stop at Rachel’s tomb? Do the Vatican, the councils, the synods, the bishops, the ministers, the elders, the church councils still have an antenna, as Jeremiah did, to detect Rachel’s weeping and the message of her tomb? Or do things revolve more around ‘saving the donkeys’, power, the inquisition, money, self-interest?

Is Saul still today ‘among the prophets’?

He certainly has a mysterious ‘surplus value,’ an enigmatic ‘extra.’ His life reflects the entire history of the kings of the Old Testament as well as the entire ecclesiastical history regarding how the ‘inheritance of the Lord’ is governed and instituted. He will even be a warning signal after the great breakthrough of the kingdom of God in the times of refreshing and before the great apostasy of the last round.

Saul underwent a spiritual metamorphosis, an estrangement from God.

How essential it is for today’s church to look into the mirror of Saul’s life. We would do well, therefore, also to take note of the second and third signs that accompanied the anointing of Saul.

The second sign that Saul received from Samuel was:

“Then you will go on from there until you reach the great tree of Tabor. Three men going up to God at Bethel will meet you there. One will be carrying three young goats, another three loaves of bread, and another a skin of wine. They will greet you and offer you two loaves of bread, which you will accept from them” (1 Samuel 10:3-4).

Drs. H. de Jong makes the following comment on this:

“These men will greet Saul, ask about his well-being and give him two loaves of bread as if he were a priest, because part of the offerings was given to the priests. Something in Saul must have struck these men. He emanated a sense of authority. However, they did not associate it with a king. They were not familiar with that. They expressed their feelings as if he were a priest.” [3]

The men mentioned above, ‘on their way to meet God’, would certainly not give part of the loaves to any passer-by, since they were meant as an offering to God. According to the instructions of the Mosaic sacrificial ceremony, the priests were allowed to receive a share of certain offerings.

This priestly right was completely fulfilled and confirmed when Jesus instituted the Holy Communion. The Scriptures testify about Him (John 5:39). In the night when He was betrayed, He was, in a very special sense, a man ‘on his way to God’, to the eternal Bethel, the ‘house of God’ in order to sacrifice. He was to be the bread of life, and therefore to be broken and shared:

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’” (Matthew 26:26-28).

By doing this, Jesus has elevated all those who believe in Him to the status of priesthood. Peter formulated it as follows in his first letter:

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:9-10).

So the second sign of Saul’s anointing related to the priestly element of his kingship, symbolised in receiving the two loaves of bread intended for the offering.

At the third sign, Saul’s way literally and figuratively ascends yet higher. Samuel continues: “After that you will go to Gibeah of God (‘Gibeath ha-Elohim’—the hill of God) where there is a Philistine outpost” (1 Samuel 10:5). The two are mentioned in the same breath: The Gibeath ha-Elohim and the outpost of the Philistines. The word netseeb can be translated in different ways. In this context, the word ‘column’ or ‘pillar’ should be preferred instead of ‘outpost’. The Septuagint (LXX), which translates ‘netseeb’ into ἀναστημα (anastèma), justifies a translating into ‘column’ or ‘pillar.’

It is well known that in the Ancient Orient ‘pious deeds’ (such as having a child sacrificed by a priest) were registered on a pillar in eternal memory of the deity. [4]

The pillar mentioned in 1 Samuel 10:5 probably commemorated the Philistine hegemony of ‘the hill of God’—‘Gibeah’ means ‘hill.’

It is precisely here that Saul receives the strongest and most moving confirmation of his anointing to the kingship. The signs that were proclaimed reach a climax at this stage. The essence of his calling will be: eliminating the power of the Philistines. The ‘Gibeath ha-Elohim’ and the ‘pillar’ of the Philistines must be destroyed. The presence of the Philistine pillar on that very spot, right next to the Gibeath ha-Elohim, is an abomination. In order to sanctify God’s Name in that particular spot, Saul is blessed in a special way by the Spirit of God when he receives the third sign.

Could this place possibly hold a message for contemporary Christianity? What is our view of the ‘Gibeath ha-Elohim?’ Is our use of the noun ‘church’ essentially not the same as ‘Gibeath ha-Elohim?’ “Our word ‘church’ originates from the Greek word κυριακη (kyriakè) or κυριακον (kyriakon), which also suggests οἰκια (oikia) or oἰkon (oikon). The latter is a noun and means house, the former is an adjective meaning: which is of the Lord, viz. of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
[5]

So in fact, the word ‘church’ has the same intensity of meaning as the term ‘Gibeath ha-Elohim.’ And when we use the word ‘church,’ shouldn’t we add in the same breath, to indicate the place: ‘there where the pillar of the Philistines is?’

Moreover, there is a parallel between the events on the Day of Pentecost, in Acts 2, and Saul’s experience when he met the prophets. Truly, the Holy Spirit was poured out in order to equip the disciples—and with them the Church of all ages—to withstand the power of darkness by His strength.

Unfortunately we have to establish the fact that, after this moving event in which the disciples also were in ecstasy, it did not take long for ‘the church’ to raise its own ‘pillars.’ ‘Pillars’ that no longer solely proclaimed the only Name given under heaven for salvation, namely the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, but now also mentioned their own institutions and doctrines to which their followers had to comply, and started excommunicating those who had pangs of conscience about all of this, or even worse, that persecuted them.

So there were bound to be consequences. Proverbs 29:18 says: “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.” Meanwhile history has seen many centuries of religious wars, terror, oppression and violence.

Returning to the old history: After Samuel mentioned the place ‘Gibeath ha-Elohim’ in combination with the ‘outpost (pillar) of the Philistines’, he continues:

“As you approach the town, you will meet a procession of prophets coming down from the high place with lyres, tambourines, flutes and harps being played before them, and they will be prophesying. The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you” (1 Samuel 10:5-7).

In this verse, prophesying does not merely mean: to foretell. It means praising God with the accompaniment of music, and, in exaltation, proclaiming God’s victory.

The company of prophets did not dejectedly ‘hang their harps on the willows.’ Their triumphant music goes before them. We find an equal state of mind with King Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20:21-30). He placed the singers at the head of the army, which was in a serious predicament. The very moment they began singing and praising God, He threw the enemy into disarray and so destroyed them. [6]

Similarly, the prophet Elisha asked for a musician before prophesying in a situation which, militarily speaking, was impossible, namely the lack of water for the army and the pack animals that followed them. And it happened that, when the harpist was playing, the hand of the Lord came upon him, and Elisha could give the following instruction:

“This is what the LORD says: ‘Make this valley full of ditches. For this is what the LORD says: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet this valley will be filled with water, and you, your cattle and your other animals will drink’” (2 Kings 3:16-17).

After the people had followed these instructions in this dry region, as evidence of their openness in faith to God’s miracle, water came flowing from the direction of Edom, right at the time when the sacrifice was made, so the land was filled with water. Moreover, the Israelites defeated the Moabites, so that they fled, according to the word of the prophet (vv. 20, 24-26).

In fact, the same thing happened on the day of Pentecost. In his speech, Peter reproaches the people for killing the ‘Prince of Life’. But in spite of this ‘pillar of rejection,’ the disciples proclaimed—in languages given by the Spirit—Jesus’ victory (Acts 3:11-26).

The apostles wrote their epistles along the same lines. In the Apocalypse, the apostle John similarly starts with a song of praise before prophesying about the end times.

Therefore, we should never disconnect the enthusiasm aroused by God’s Spirit from the call to battle against the powers of darkness. This applies to our spiritual lives as individuals as well collectively, as community of saints. Whoever seeks ‘spiritual ecstasy’ or ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit’ in order to show off in the church is guilty of pride and self-exaltation, and in doing so, facilitates discord among the people of God.

If things came to a holy climax at the third sign of Saul’s calling and anointing, in his case, he also met and joined the company of prophets filled with God’s Spirit. He went into ecstasy together with them. Even though a page in Israel’s unparalleled history had been turned now that Saul was called by God to be king, the renewal it caused had to have a link to the past. The Spirit of God was and continued to be active in His chosen people. Prophecy is inseparably connected to the identity of the anointed people. However, Israel has not always understood this.

Even in his own village, people were surprised to see that Saul fell to his knees in ecstasy together with the prophets. All those who had known him in the past saw him prophesying with the prophets, and they said to each other: “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Samuel 10:11).

An inner metamorphosis

These days, science is fascinated by the study of the human psyche. The analysis of the human mind and the changes that take place during one’s lifetime (metabletics), has taken on enormous proportions in our times. However far science has progressed in the field of psychology, a person like Saul—as so many other people in the Bible—still cannot be simply studied like that, neither psychologically nor from a characterological perspective. When he was anointed, he became a different person. However much we try to discover the ‘man’ behind the ‘office holder’ in his case, it will at most be partly successful. For example, the way he took into consideration his father’s anxiety for him when the search for the donkeys was unsuccessful (1 Samuel 9:5), strikes us as particularly sympathetic. His concern for his father’s well-being shows a character trait which every parent would like to see in his children.

The prophet Samuel also appeared to be very pleased with Saul ‘as a human being.’ We can certainly assume that the kiss he gave Saul when he anointed him as king of the inheritance of the Lord, was genuine, from a personal as well as from a human perspective. Later, Samuel—intensely moved—spent an entire night praying for Saul’s salvation (1 Samuel 15:11).

We are in the dark concerning other facets of Saul’s character. How much, for instance, can we deduce from the fact that he had hidden himself among the baggage during the great national assembly at Mizpah in which God would appoint the chosen king by lot? (1 Samuel 10:22). Did he do this out of mere modesty or shyness? Or did he do it on purpose, to demonstrate how much he wanted God only to decide, and to avoid any trace of intrusiveness or of presenting himself? It is hard to know what was on Saul’s mind when he was hiding among the baggage, while the Lord was appointing the king the people had asked for. We only know the story of his calling and everything else he experienced in the signs that Samuel had foretold him. All in all, it was overwhelming. Saul had become a different person because the Spirit of the Lord had touched him; yet he also remained an ordinary man. Imagine, being anointed and kissed by Samuel, while, in fact, looking for your father’s donkeys! Imagine experiencing how the signs that followed the anointing were in themselves words from God, which were also actually being fulfilled and which concerned you personally! And then came the general assembly of the people at Mizpah. Would the Eternal God appoint him personally from among all the tribes, generations and families? So far, everything Samuel had said had been literally fulfilled. His calling and anointing to the kingship were obviously not a subjective vision of the prophet, but guaranteed by divine objectivity. Now if in this assembly, the lot would fall on another tribe than Benjamin, or on another clan than Matri’s, and if it would not be him, the son of Kish, who would be appointed, then Samuel’s prophetic office would be open to question.

But the word of God stood firm. He, Saul, was the one the Eternal God had in mind. Nobody else was appointed to be king over Israel. Which mortal being would be able to handle this direct relationship to the Eternal God without the supporting mercy of God? It was a direct ‘I-you’ relationship.

Wondering about Saul’s innermost thoughts while he was hiding among the baggage, we may come closest to the truth concerning his attitude by attributing it to the strong impact his anointing and calling must have had on his soul. He may have been in a state of shock. It needed a special revelation to make him leave his hiding place (1 Samuel 10:22).

Every human being who is truly called by God to a high office, be it kingship, the prophetic office or the priesthood, initially has a tendency, so to speak, to ‘hide himself among the baggage.’ Just to mention some of those: Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah, Solomon—all of these men initially found it difficult to accept their calling.

Moses, who was called to lead the people out of Egypt, asked the Lord many different questions, and God had to put his mind at ease and gave him the assurance that He, God, whose Name is I AM WHO I AM would be with him. Nevertheless, in the end, Moses still said: “O LORD, please send someone else to do it” (Exodus 4:13).

Jeremiah, when he was called by God with the words: “‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’ also objected and said, ‘Ah, Sovereign LORD, I do not know how to speak; I am only a child’” (Jeremiah 1:5-6).

The story of Jonah is universally known. He even tried to flee from his calling, away from the presence of the Lord (Jonah 1:3).

And finally, there is Solomon’s example. The responsibility to be king and to lead the people weighed heavily on his soul, which is clear from his answer to God’s question as to what He would give him:

“You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day. Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?” (1 Kings 3:6-9).

God’s callings are inescapable. God’s Spirit reveals who is chosen and called. It is clear that Saul did not push his way up to a royal function. He did not get it by lobbying. On the contrary, the whole ritual of his anointing clearly shows how God had predestined him to be the first king of Israel. However, immediately after being anointed and confirmed by the signs, he was put to the test by Samuel’s order:

“Go down ahead of me to Gilgal. I will surely come down to you to sacrifice burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, but you must wait seven days until I come to you and tell you what you are to do” (1 Samuel 10:8).

Saul’s kingship will never be allowed to function autonomously, separately from the word of God and from prophecy. Samuel was going to offer sacrifices at Gilgal and after that, he would give instructions as to what Saul had to do. But unfortunately, Saul sinned and this was the beginning of his stumbling and fall. When he did not wait for Samuel to offer the sacrifices, as he had been told, Samuel had to say to him: “You acted foolishly,” (...) “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time. But now your kingdom will not endure” (1 Samuel 13:13-14).

God, on His part, had fully guaranteed that Saul’s kingship would be established forever, but because of Saul’s disobedience, that was no longer to be the case. God will not be mocked (Galatians 6:7). Saul was immediately informed that: “the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command” (1 Samuel 13:14).

Saul’s rejection

We can observe how an inner metamorphosis took place twice in Saul’s soul: once in a positive and once in a negative sense. When he was anointed to be king, the Holy Spirit touched him and he received a new heart and became a different person. This positive metamorphosis was noticeable at the beginning of his reign. When he was appointed by God, by a divine casting of lots, as the chosen king in the presence of all the people, there was a group of troublemakers who despised and insulted him. But Saul pretended not to hear (1 Samuel 10:27). He kept silent. Scripture does not tell us that he defended himself. Evidently, he is conscious of his official dignity. And when he liberated the people of Jabesh after a successful campaign inspired by God’s Spirit, he refused to revenge himself on those who had so cowardly insulted him at the time of his investment (1 Samuel 11:12-13). This was indeed the demeanour of a king.

But this princely conduct was tragically followed by a negative change deep in his soul, which would directly result in Saul being rejected by God.

What was the cause of this ‘fall?’ Was it the weight of the test case at Gilgal? The ‘test command’ immediately after his anointing and his experience with the signs following, which affirmed the reality and the authenticity of his office, certainly strongly tested the veracity of his high office. Gilgal was not just any place. The name ‘Gilgal’ strongly reminded people of the sign of the covenant, circumcision, which after the exodus from Egypt had been neglected in the wilderness, but which at God’s command had been enforced again in that very place. It was there that the Lord had said to Joshua: “‘Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you.’ So the place has been called Gilgal to this day” (Joshua 5:1-9). Gilgal also was the place where the Passover was celebrated and where the manna had ceased the day after the people had eaten from the crops of the land. Thus we may consider Gilgal an important place marking God’s work of salvation with Israel. It is exactly in this place that Saul is tested twice (1 Samuel 13:8-12 and 1 Samuel 15:12-35), and Gilgal is also the place where, as Samuel proposed, Saul’s kingship was reaffirmed, following the victory over Nahash (1 Samuel 11:14).

When Samuel, immediately after anointing Saul and citing the signs that confirmed his calling, mentions Gilgal as the place where Saul had to wait for him for seven days, after which the prophet would come to sacrifice burnt offerings and peace offerings, then this ‘test command’ implies that Saul’s kingship must fully answer to the purpose and conditions of the holy covenant established by the Eternal God with Abraham and his posterity (Genesis 15). Every infringement of the prophetic Word affects the exodus and is an insult to the blood of the eternal covenant. Against that background, we should also see Saul’s second trial. Samuel says to him:

“I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’” (1 Samuel 15:1-3).

It must be stressed that nowhere in the Scriptures mention is made of any ethnic cleansing or genocide whatsoever. The Lord’s order to eradicate the slightest thing that might be a reminder of Amalek is because of Amalek’s hatred against the offspring of the woman and against the chosen people. This is about satanic aggression against God and His universal work of salvation. Amalek is a prototype of the ‘Antichrist’.

God spoke to the serpent in Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Now, the Amalekites had cowardly attacked the people of Israel, after they had marched out of Egypt and were tired and exhausted. They cut off the weak people in the rear, but were defeated by Moses after a fierce battle (Exodus 17:8-16). God, however, commanded Moses to write this down in a book as a reminder and to drum it into Joshua that He would obliterate the memory of Amalek under the heavens, because Amalek did not fear God (Deuteronomy 25:17-19). Amalek remained God’s enemy from generation to generation (Exodus 17:16).

It is remarkable to see how Satan, the ‘adversary’ of God, also has a ‘chosen’ people, the Amalekites. For, in Numbers 24:20, Balaam prophesies: “Amalek was first among the nations, but he will come to ruin at last.” God had chosen Israel as His firstborn (Exodus 4:22). When now Amalek is called the ‘first among the nations’, it seems that Satan also has his ‘own choice’. From this point of view, Amalek is indeed a prototype of the Antichrist, as are all his offspring, down to Haman the descendant of Agag (Esther 3:1).

Certain exegetes even trace this lineage back to Edom with reference to Genesis 36:12 and 16. It does indeed appear from these verses in Genesis how closely Amalek is related to Edom. Herod the Great, who was known for his callous attitude, of which the infanticide in Bethlehem is a gruesome example, was a descendant of the Edomites. Over and over again, the Scriptures show us how Satan, through his ‘accomplices’ tries to exterminate the ‘offspring of the woman,’ and to withstand God’s work of salvation. Even Pharaoh tried to prevent the coming of the Redeemer by suppressing the offspring of Jacob and his sons and the genocide he attempted to accomplish by having all the newborn baby boys thrown to the crocodiles. Agag, the king of Amalek, continued this attempt of Pharaoh in order to withstand God in His work of salvation, which ultimately would end in his radical downfall. Basically Agag’s battle was an assault on the blood of the Passover Lamb, in which lay the source and power of the exodus out of Egypt. Now Saul, as the first king, must prove that he is willing to wage war against this adversary of God, and destroy Amalek and everything he possesses at God’s command. However, Saul executes this command only partly. He spared Agag and the best of his possessions, in short, everything that was valuable. God’s answer to this was crushing for Saul: “Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: ‘I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions’” (1 Samuel 15:10-11).

The kingship was taken away from him and given to the man after God’s heart.

Grabbing the prophet’s robe

There are gifted photographers who can poignantly record the turning of the tide in the developments of this world with striking pictures. Almost everybody will remember the picture of the seriously injured Vietnamese child that was running away from the horrors of war. That specific picture was like a port-hole which made it clear to the world how atrocious the situation in Vietnam was. The picture was so striking that there was no way to misinterpret it.

The Bible also shows similar striking and critical moments recorded for all times in a single image by the Holy Spirit. One of these moments was Saul’s reaction when Samuel told him that the kingship would be taken away from him. In a micro-image Scripture depicts the whole situation in such a way that it contains a highly current message, both for Israel and for the church, which we should not miss.

Look at the two men standing there: Samuel and Saul.

Barely has Saul been told that he has been rejected by God, or he immediately took hold of the robe of the prophet Samuel who is turning around to leave. But, in seizing his robe, a piece of the hem tore off (1 Samuel 15:27). And so we see Saul standing with a piece of the prophet’s robe in his hands. Samuel immediately interprets this incident as a symbol which cannot be misunderstood: “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbours—to one better than you” (1 Samuel 15:28).

A shocking moment!

The tides have turned!—A definite change of scene!

Samuel’s message was quite a shock for Saul, who then said: “I have sinned. But please honour me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God” (v. 30). So that is what was important for Saul, his honour was at stake. That is why he took hold of Samuel and his robe.

This same scene would reoccur, figuratively speaking, later in Israel’s history and in the history of the church. People would ‘seize’ the prophecy, while appealing to the Bible, but in reality they were clinging to their own honour and interests. Saul is not the only one who was left standing in front of the people with a piece of the hem from the prophet’s robe. He would be joined by many others in what would take place in Israel itself, and in what would later feature as ‘the church of the Lord.’

Let me give a few examples.

When the State of Israel was founded, the ‘Declaration of Independence’ of 14th May 1948 speaks of a State which will be “based on freedom, justice and peace, as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.”
[7]
The final words of this declaration were: “With trust in the Rock of Israel, we set our hands in witness to this Proclamation ...”

But before this phrasing was agreed upon, a lot of effort had been put in convincing an important wing of the Jewish people that “the meaning of ‘the Rock of Israel’ was actually twofold: while it signified ‘God’ for a great many Jews, perhaps for most, it could also be considered as a symbolic and secular reference to the ‘strength of the Jewish people.’” [8] “When the proclamation had been read, its signatories advanced to the table to give it their sanction. The Hebrew benediction was recited: ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast kept us alive and preserved us and enabled us to see this day.’” [9]

These were wonderful words and sublime objectives. However, without Abraham’s ‘uniform’ and without the ‘priestly garment’ of Exodus 19:6, a separation is made between the holy office and the holy land. It is not possible to undo this separation by annexing ‘the shield of David’, the ‘Magen David.’ The State of Israel is not automatically ‘a light to the nations’ when the ‘Menorah’ in front of the Knesset is made the state symbol, and the design of their flag is based on the prayer garment. If this happens in a secular situation, similar to Saul’s, it is—figuratively speaking—a profanation of Israel’s divine election. When, at the proclamation of the State of Israel, the words were spoken: ‘…as envisaged by the prophets of Israel’, whereas on the other hand ‘the Rock of Israel’ may be understood in two ways, so as to satisfy those Jews to whom it would be unthinkable that the document of the founding of the Jewish State would not contain any reference to God, and at the same time those who would strongly oppose even the slightest allusion to religion in the declaration, then this entire arrangement is diametrically opposed to the message of the prophets, because they did not refrain from leading Israel back under the bond of the covenant.

All in all, this is a serious situation, not only for the Jews, but for all mankind. For Israel, as ‘God’s firstborn,’ must be considered representative for all nations. A position of ‘to be or not to be’ of the chosen people irrevocably entails a crisis situation for the whole world.

Add to this that in that same year, 1948, an event took place in the Christian world with plenty of ‘Saulinic’ features. In Amsterdam, the World Council of Churches was established, at which the participating churches made a secular grab for Jesus’ high-priestly prayer for the unity of the people He has bought (John 17:21). And here, too, it was difficult to compose a basic formula which was acceptable to all churches. Both Modernists as well as Remonstrants and also conservative Christians had to come to an agreement. The basic formulation read as follows:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.

J.A. Zeilstra writes about this:

“Liberals had big objections to the basic formulation. (…) In Amsterdam, the liberal Lutheran professor C.W. Mönnich raised the question whether liberals would be able to participate on the basis of this formulation. (…)

Mönnich believed that by identifying Christ in this way, the Council showed that it was willing and able to profess God’s sovereignty of salvation according to the conceptions that were current in ancient times. Nothing was wrong with this as an aspect of salvation; however, in his view, it was not the totality of the Christian faith. The formulation became therefore incomprehensible for the twentieth century. However, Mönnich was not of the opinion that liberals should refrain from participating con amore in the World Council.

Such a formulation could not evoke any moral conflict, because it was not a confession, but rather an edification or an awkward theological formulation.” [10]

Meanwhile history has proven how this institution has become essentially anti-Christian. Churches that deny the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus and allow ministers to preach who openly admit not to believe in the atonement through the Blood of the Lamb form part of this Council, together with churches of an orthodox disposition.

Besides, the World Council of Churches has withdrawn from the calling by Jesus and His apostles to the believers in the Gentile world to provoke Israel to jealousy by fulfilling an eschatological task of mercy (Acts 1:6-9; Romans 11:31). This calling fully agrees with what Moses sings in his song: “I will make them envious by those who are not a people…” (Deuteronomy 32:21).

Our conclusion can therefore be no other than the following: Both of these historically momentous events—the way in which the State of Israel was proclaimed and the way in which, in the Christian world, the World Council of Churches was established and has functioned up till now—evoke from heaven a ‘judgement of being cut off.’ In a double sense ‘Saul’ once again was standing on the stage of the world with a ‘piece of the hem from the prophet’s robe’ in his hand. Would the Lord not react this time?

Saul’s humiliation

However forcefully Saul seized the prophet’s robe, Samuel’s firm steps prevailed. He walked on! His robe tore.

There is nothing that can stop the ‘progress’ of prophecy.

Initially, the World Council of Churches, as an enormously powerful organisation, may have tried to seize prophecy in a forceful way; however, in 1948 the verdict was already pronounced by the Unchangeable One.

It will be torn off!

The same thing applies to the institution of secular Zionism. From a military and political perspective, the proclamation of the State of Israel—with the United States as backing—may display a powerful grab at the ancient Word of God, but it will also be torn off. The State as a State will become a cross for the Jews. However, for the Jewish people, there will be a transition from the ‘Saulinic’ to the ‘Davidic’, through an intervention of God—from the cross to resurrection, and so to peace for the world.

A third ‘giant’ in this imminent earth-shaking case is the Vatican. In an earlier publication, we have already learnt how, in relation to the Jewish people, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has made statements which were contrary to Scripture. These statements apply in the first place to the collective responsibility of the Jewish people for the death sentence of Jesus, and secondly to the destiny of the Jewish people as the instrument of salvation for all mankind. The first statement is in flat contradiction with Peter’s speech (Acts 3:17) and the second one with the high expectations of the apostle Paul in Romans 9 to 11. [11]

Moreover, the decree regarding the ecumenical movement of the Second Vatican Council with respect to unity of the Christians explicitly says:

“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.” [12]

Jesus’ prayer for the unity of God’s people will certainly be heard—for the Father always hears Him (John 11:42). Moreover, the Jewish people will irrevocably come to the acknowledgement of Jesus as their Messiah. However, the Roman Catholic Church will not be sanctioned by either of these. As regards the institutional side, this ‘giant’, that stands way above other religious institutions as far as size is concerned, as well as all other Christian denominations, will have to take Saul’s story to heart. For Paul warns us with the words: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either” (Romans 11:21).

Saul’s humiliation begins after he has breached the first ‘test command’ (1 Samuel 13:11-14) and Samuel has informed him that the Lord has rejected him as king over Israel. This becomes evident in the foolish proposals he makes. Calling upon God’s Name, i.e. under oath, he forbids his people to eat right on the day of a fierce battle against the Philistines. All the people obeyed him, for they feared the oath (1 Samuel 14:24-26). Jonathan, however, who by faith had performed such an act of heroism, that ‘the ground shook’ and that ‘a panic struck the whole army—those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties’ (v. 15), unconsciously transgressed his father’s foolish order by dipping the end of the staff that he was holding into a honeycomb and eating the honey. When Jonathan heard how his father had made the people swear: “Cursed be any man who eats food today!” his conclusion was: “My father has made trouble for the country” (vv. 28-29).

But Saul swore, once again by oath, and pronounced the following sentence: “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if you do not die, Jonathan” (v. 44). At this, however, the ‘ecclesiastical base,’ the people, swore an oath too: “As surely as the LORD lives, not a hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he did this today with God’s help” (v. 45).

The reformational thrust came from the bottom!

Saul’s ‘royal train’ had gone off the rails. Immediately following the breach of the first test command, his mind became misguided, which later on would lead to other disasters. After Samuel’s second announcement, things soon went from bad to worse for Saul. He killed the priests of Nob. He also favoured certain tribes of the population above others, and by doing so, he resorted to a kind of tribal chauvinism (1 Samuel 22:7). Ultimately it dawned on him that God had chosen David in his stead and this made him pursue this ‘chosen one’ by day and by night. David was not safe from Saul’s inseparable spear, and finally Saul ended up at Endor where he intended to consult the spirit of the deceased Samuel. After hearing his death sentence in this spiritistic cave of the prince of darkness, Saul fell full length on the ground. The next day, when he was in the mountains of Gilboa, he threw himself onto his own sword.

In a seriously existential way, it would be advisable for all the ‘giants’ of our days to have someone hold the mirror of Saul’s life before them. As soon as the times and the dates which the Father has decided upon by His own authority are coming to pass—in which all the ‘Saulinic giants’ will have to step down in favour of the ‘Davidic’ kingdom of the great Son of David, our Lord Jesus Christ—the word of the angel Gabriel to Mary will be fully realised: “…The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:32-33).

After this announcement by the angel Gabriel, Mary sang the following song, inspired by the Holy Spirit:

“…holy is his name.

His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.

He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble” (Luke 1:49b-52).

Samuel’s emotions

God’s decision to reject Saul as king deeply touched the prophet Samuel. He was deeply troubled and cried out to the Lord all night (1 Samuel 15:11). After Samuel had personally executed the sentence on Agag and after the dramatic moment when Samuel and Saul parted ways, Samuel kept grieving over Saul. The prophet never saw Saul again, but Samuel’s soul was so deeply involved with this first king whom he had anointed, that a direct divine admonition was needed to free his soul from this inner sadness. The Lord said to Samuel: “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel?” (1 Samuel 16:1). Then God tells him to fill his horn with oil and to anoint one of Jesse’s sons to be king.

It is hard for us to fathom how deep and how painful the experience of the transition from the ‘Saulinic’ to the ‘Davidic’ kingship was for Samuel. Two anointed kings became adversaries. How does anyone cope with that?

Let us not take this too lightly. The few words that are written about Samuel’s soul: ‘Samuel was deeply troubled’ and ‘Samuel kept grieving over Saul,’ are also snapshots. All this contains a message for us, since we, too, are approaching the border area of the transition from the ‘Saulinic’ to the ‘Davidic.’

The kingdom of God has come near. Our feet are already standing in the field of awesome decisions. The true believers, those who have received the light of the Spirit, will understand that their institution has gone off the rails, the leaders have departed from the Word of God; they are soon to be cut off. What will happen next?

Deeply troubled, Samuel cries out to the Lord all night for Saul’s salvation and continues to grieve over Saul’s rejection until the moment when God admonishes him to stop this grieving and accept a new assignment.

Every transition time brings along emotions and grief.

There were tears in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the Davidic Kingdom began.

There were tears in Jesus’ eyes because of the misunderstanding about His kingship when He entered Jerusalem. Jesus wept (Luke 19:41-42). This, too, was a prophetic snapshot.

There were tears over Jerusalem at every exile: in 586 B.C. and in 70 A.D.

There will be tears until the time of the fulness of the Gentiles and all Israel will be saved through the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (Romans 11:25-26; Acts 1:6-8).

The transition of one era to another is very hard.

In Revelation 10, we read how, after the greatest misery of war referred to in Revelation 9, a mighty angel appears, holding a little scroll open in his hand. Part of God’s counsel is coming to fulfilment. The scroll appears to be sweet in John’s mouth but it will turn his stomach sour. The subsequent thunders indicate the breakthrough of the kingdom of God. The angel’s loud shout like the roar of a lion, reminds us of prophetic fulfilment in the way of Elijah, and the thunders (image of God’s kingship) will result in the establishment of the Temple of the Spirit (Revelation 11). But the Gentiles will trample its outer court (Revelation 11:2). There will also be tears over the last round of history. The suffering of the true believers in those days will be extremely heavy. The great tribulation will be the transition towards the eternal fulfilment of the ‘Davidic kingship’. “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4; Isaiah 25:8; Isaiah 65:19).

God put an end to Samuel’s grief. Truly, even if it brought along temporary grief, the snapshot of his conduct is in itself a comforting prophecy. With God, there is always an ‘until’—also for Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be trampled on, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

When tears flow at the time when the ‘giants’ fall, God will also set boundaries to this ‘period of grief’, an ‘until.’ Then there will be no darkness any more in the land which was in anguish. The people will see a great light, and they will rejoice before God, like in the time of the harvest.

“For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor.

Every warrior’s boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 8:23-9:6)

3 Translated from Dutch –
Drs. H. de Jong: “De twee Messiassen”, page 72, J.H. Kok, Kampen, 1978
“Deze twee mannen nu zullen Saul begroeten, naar zijn welstand vragen en hem twee broden geven, alsof hij een priesterlijk persoon is. Want van de offergaven werd een deel afgestaan aan de priesters. Deze mannen hebben dus iets in Saul gezien. Iets van gezag kwam op hen af. Alleen, ze associeerden dat niet met de koningsgestalte. Daar waren ze ook niet vertrouwd mee. Ze gaven aan hun gevoelens uiting op een wijze, als gold het een priester.”

4 Othmar Keel: “The symbolism of the biblical world - Ancient near Eastern Iconography and the book of the psalms”, page 236,237, The Seabury Press, New York, 1978

5 Christelijke encyclopedie”, part 3, page 333, J.H. Kok, Kampen

6 See: “Shofar series” volume 2, chapter 5.

7 Abba Eban: “My people, The story of the Jews”, page 457, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1968

8 Golda Meir: “My life”, page 182,183, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Londen, 1975

9 Abba Eban: “My people, The story of the Jews”, page 458, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1968

10 Translated from Dutch –
J.A. Zeilstra in “50 jaar Wereldraad van Kerken – monument van eenheid?”, page 35, Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800, jaargang 21, nummer 48
“Vrijzinnigen hadden grote moeite met de basisformule. (…) De Amsterdamse vrijzinnige Lutherse hoogleraar C.W. Mönnich wierp de vraag op of vrijzinnigen wel mee konden doen op basis van deze grondslag. (…)
Door Christus zo te noemen heeft men, zo vond Mönnich, naar de in de oudheid gangbare begrippen Gods heilssoevereiniteit kunnen en willen belijden. Daar was niets mis mee, als aspect van de verlossing, maar het was volgens hem niet het een en al van het christelijk geloofsbezit. Zo werd de formule voor de twintigste eeuw onbegrijpelijk. Maar Mönnich vond niet dat vrijzinnigen zich vanwege de formule moesten laten weerhouden van het con amore meewerken in de Wereldraad. Zo’n formule kon geen gewetensconflict betekenen omdat zij geen belijdenis was, maar ‘een stichtelijkheid’ of een ongelukkig uitgevallen theologische formule.”

11 See: Shofar series, volume 3, page 135-154

12 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, article 816, 1992

2. DECLINE AND RESTORATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD

Aaron’s ‘fall’

“When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, ‘Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.’ Aaron answered them, ‘Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.’ So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt’” (Exodus 32:1-4).

How could Aaron ever have been so accommodating—under the pressure of the people—as to make a golden calf and to tolerate their proclamation: “These are your gods, who brought you out of Egypt?” It looks like an inexplicable ‘fall’. In fact, the priests and the Levites together constituted the ‘clergy’ of the ancient people of the covenant. The purpose of their election for this office was to have a high function in the service of God for the salvation of His people, and, in a moral perspective, to be the backbone of the daily life of the people of Israel.

Aaron’s initial performance was impressive. He was one of those humans who had received a direct message from the Lord with a task. Moreover, he had witnessed all the amazing miracles that took place prior to the exodus out of Egypt. Right from the beginning, he had been involved in the exodus.

We read in Exodus 4:27 that the Lord says to Aaron: “Go into the desert to meet Moses.” This order was directly connected to God speaking to Moses from the burning bush, as recorded in Exodus 4:14, where God says to Moses: “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you.” When God arranges a meeting between these two men, it is more than just a small-scale family reunion. By this order, Aaron was placed in a holy relationship with the newly-called Moses.

And it was a breathtaking calling indeed!

God spoke from within a burning bush.

Suddenly!

After four hundred years, God answered the cries of His people at Mount Horeb, and announced the fulfilment of the covenant promise as given to the fathers. The burning bush was in itself a flaming parable of God’s faithfulness. The fire did not need any fuel from below. In addition, the bush itself remained untouched in a supernatural way. This miraculous phenomenon is in perfect harmony with the Name: “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14). It is a parable of the fire of the Spirit of God, which will keep burning until the end of the world.

The holiness of this event is expressed in God’s command to Moses to remain at a distance: “‘Do not come any closer’, (...) ‘Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.’” (Exodus 3:5). In other words: What is happening here cannot be explained by somebody’s own initiative or ability. When the Lord has introduced Himself as the ‘I am who I am’ and has given Moses the command to deliver His people from the yoke of the Egyptians, he has to take the staff of God in his hand and accept it as an office with a divine authority.

Aaron will have to be Moses’ spokesman at Pharaoh’s court in this difficult mission. So Aaron, too, was given a ‘staff’ to hold. In the mission to lead the people out of Egypt, he received official authority from God as well, which was no mean thing.

In itself, it is remarkable how Moses had set out with his flock in the direction of Horeb. Later on, together with Aaron, he would have to lead the ‘flock of the Lord’ under the pastoral leadership of God in the same direction, where, in an awesome revelation, God would make a covenant with His chosen people. The Psalmist says: “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron” (Psalm 77:20).

The exact route of the journey through the desert may have been different, but we do find here a remarkable prelude to the coming exodus out of the bondage of Egypt.

The two old men set out from Horeb to Egypt, on a mission to lead God’s flock in the opposite direction from Egypt to the place where the covenant would be made at a later date. Humanly speaking, it was an impossible mission. Egypt had a firm hold on the people. It was impossible for them to even contemplate breaking away from slavery, which later on became evident, when, after the first plagues, the people were even more enslaved and oppressed. What were these two elderly people supposed to do about this? How were they to arm themselves so as to have any chance of rescuing their people? They carried no explosives, no ABC weapons; each of them only had a cane to serve them as a staff of the Lord during the plagues that God sent over Egypt in order to tear the people loose from the mighty grip of the tyrant Pharaoh.

It looks like a totally unequal battle, impossible to win. When they were called to this task, Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three (Exodus 7:7). If we try to visualise the perilous undertaking of these two old men, we would, with our current way of looking at life and our knowledge of gerontology, conclude that these two people should actually be protected against themselves. It would just be a matter of time to see them crash into the Egyptian fortress and its deified Pharaoh.

From a psychological point of view, this reasoning seems quite logical and plausible, but when it is a matter of a divine mission, however absurd it may seem, it is still possible to have faith that conquers the world. There are many witnesses to prove this point. The main one is our Lord and Saviour as the supreme Leader of our faith. He has overcome the world.

There are flames of the love of God, which cannot be quenched by many waters (Song of Songs 8:6-7).

In fact, at the beginning of every exodus there is a ‘burning bush’ as a token of the irresistible working of the Holy Spirit and the love of God. All the prophets started, as it were, from the voice from within the fire.

Aaron, with his staff, took part in this divine power of liberation. Time and again, we read: “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Tell Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand’ …” (Exodus 7:19; 8:5; 8:16). Aaron’s staff, too, was endowed with divine authority to bring plagues over Egypt.

Moreover, Aaron also witnessed the division of the waters of the Red Sea, when Moses lifted up his staff (Exodus 14:15-31). In fact, he experienced and was closely involved in all the miracles of the living God during the exodus, nor was he the least among the brethren during the revelation of God on Mount Sinai. Exodus 19:24 tells how God said to Moses: “Go down and bring Aaron up with you. But the priests and the people must not force their way through to come up to the LORD, or he will break out against them.” So, in his high and exceptional position, Aaron was a witness of the great deeds of God. Taking this into account, his ‘fall’ in making the golden calf seems inexplicable. The entire exodus was a case of God against a hostile pagan world. The Eternal God said to Moses when He appeared to him on Mount Sinai:

“This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’” (Exodus 19:3-6).

In this lawsuit Aaron had been called to be a judicial officer. Therefore, his ‘fall’ was more than a ‘formal mistake’ in the great lawsuit between God and mankind. It was plainly a case of going over to the camp of the sinful world and deserting ‘God’s army’. As a result, there needed to be a lawsuit between God and His own chosen people.

The covenant had been broken—and this during the distinguished leadership of Israel’s ‘top spiritual leader’, the high priest Aaron.

There was not much difference between the respect the people had for Aaron and the authority Moses had with the people. Aaron was Amram’s eldest son (Exodus 6:19), and Amram was Kohath’s son, and Kohath was the son of Levi. According to the birth order, the place of honour as head of the family belonged to Aaron, as the eldest son. Add to this His calling to assist Moses as the mouthpiece in God’s judgment on Pharaoh as well as his authority to perform miracles with his staff in the Name of the Lord, which meant that his high status of spiritual leader for the people was clear. But now it became clear how difficult it is ‘not to see, and yet to believe’.

Moses had disappeared from sight. The people began to doubt whether Moses would ever come back. Moreover, in Egypt they had been tempted to participate in worshipping the Egyptian idols in the shape of a bull or a calf: tangible gods.

As Moses delayed coming down from the mountain after the establishment of the covenant, the people desired to make themselves gods who would go before them. They were longing for a visible, strong leader, and because of his high status, Aaron was the first person to qualify. So the people gathered around Aaron and said: “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses…, we don’t know what has happened to him” (Exodus 32:1).

Aaron succumbed to their wishes.

This almost cost him his life. In Deuteronomy 9:20 we read: “And the LORD was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him…” Aaron’s guilt was established. But this does not give us, exegetes, the right to judge his behaviour according to his character. It is not up to us to conclude here that Aaron’s character was weaker than that of Moses. We, who are living thousands of years after these dramatic events, should not try to put Moses and Aaron ‘back to back’ in order to compare their characters.

The history God wrote here is full of hard lessons, also for modern ‘Aarons’, the spiritual leaders of today.

The pressure put on Aaron by the people must have been very great. We read: “… the people … gathered round Aaron …” (Exodus 32:1).
So he was closed in by the people. We do not know how furiously they assailed him with their request. In any case, their wish to create a visible god who would lead them was a religious ‘landslide’. For this is the way how we could typify the peoples’ religious reversal in their way of thinking and being at that time. After all, this people had experienced the revelation of God on Mount Sinai:

“When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, ‘Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die’” (Exodus 20:18-19).

The Hebrew word translated by ‘lightning’ in this verse allows various translations. It could also mean ‘torch’, ‘blazing torch’. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word lapidim is translated into Greek by λαμπαδας (lampadas) which means ‘fiery torches’. The same word is used by the Septuagint in Genesis 15:17, where the Lord made a covenant with Abraham with the awesome sign of the blazing torch that passed between the pieces of the slaughtered animals.

We may assume that the people at Mount Sinai certainly had cause to be fearful when they witnessed the revelation of God. After all, they did see the fire of God and did hear the continuing sound of the trumpet and the thunder. This experience was like a prelude to the coming of the Holy Spirit, which happened at Pentecost in Acts 2. The parallel between both interventions of God is convincing.

Dr P. A. Elderenbosch writes the following about this:

“In the Old Testament, Pentecost is also the feast of the covenant, and the day on which Israel was called to once more appreciate what it means to be God’s people. (…)

When Pentecost was celebrated in ancient Israel, the people specifically remembered the covenant which God had given His people on Mount Sinai. After they had been delivered out of Egypt, Moses and his people came to the place where God had called His prophet. (…) In that same place, the people would also receive their calling: the calling to be God’s people, and to make God’s voice heard in the world. (…) The people of Israel answered that they would do everything they were told. Then, high on the top of Mount Sinai smoke appeared, and bolts of lightning lit up the landscape. This was the way in which Israel received the sign that they were God’s people, called to His service. The entire earth belongs to God. Now Israel was sent out into this world to bring people in contact with this God.” [13]

What the people had experienced in the presence of God was no small thing. Under awesome signs, they received a ‘baptism of fire’ in order to proclaim God’s Name on earth, as a kingdom of priests.

And now?

Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, and so the people crowded together around Aaron. The very choice of their words implied an alienation from Moses: “As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt …” (Exodus 32:1). This sounds almost contemptuous.

How could he resist this on his own? It is almost as impossible as blocking an avalanche of rocks and earth from coming down! Even the strongest trees are uprooted by it.

Yet Aaron should have resisted this, however difficult it might have been. For, after all, Moses had emphatically assured them that he would return, and moreover, he had appointed Aaron and Hur to be his deputies (Exodus 24:14). And although the information about this dramatic event is limited, it does appear that Aaron was annoyed at the people’s request, which becomes clear from the account he gives to Moses, after his descent from the mountain with the two tablets: “You know how prone these people are to evil” (Exodus 32:22). Moreover, we perceive an inner aversion in the way he tells people to collect their golden earrings: “Break off the golden earrings …” (Exodus 32:2 [NKJV]).

The Hebrew word parak, ‘to break off’, is used in 1 Kings 19:11 in the sense of ‘to tear off’. The request to make a golden calf already seems to evoke an atmosphere of violence. Besides, it was a denial of the fact that the people had not got possession of the golden objects they handed in for this purpose by their own efforts. In Exodus 12:35-36, we read how the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they gave them the silver and gold objects and the clothing they requested. So the Egyptians gave them up because of God’s working, and according to what He had said to Moses when He called him in Exodus 3:21-22:

“And I will make the Egyptians favourably disposed towards this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. Every woman is to ask her neighbour and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians.”

The fact that they possessed this jewelry was also due to God’s work of salvation. In a certain sense, these were holy objects. This ‘Gift from Above’ was now to be given for the worship of an idol. Collecting these items emphasised the rejection of the living God as their redeemer.

“Break off the golden earrings …”

“So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron” (Exodus 32:3).

A strange ‘church offering’.

Then Aaron gets to work.

Aaron’s graving tool

“He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool” (Exodus 32:4). Then followed the terrible confession of the people: “These are your gods,O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron heard this confession, he associated himself with it and built an altar before the idol and announced a feast with the words: “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD.”

This is exactly what happened: “So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry” (Exodus 32:6). It became an anti-divine and thus an anti-Messianic pandemonium, a veneration of the ‘steer cult’, together with an unbridled form of Canaanite enjoyment.

While God was instructing Moses on the mountain about the design of the cycle of the holy feasts in honour of His great Name as Redeemer, an anticlimax took place at the foot of the mountain, which was so serious, that in God’s eyes, the people deserved to be destroyed or erased from the book of life. Only through Moses’ standing surety for them, pleading on the basis of the covenant made with the patriarchs, a solution might be reached:

“‘I have seen these people,’ the LORD said to Moses, ‘and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.’ But Moses sought the favour of the LORD his God. ‘O LORD’ he said, ‘why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, “It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth”? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever’” (Exodus 32:9-13).

And in verse 31, Moses says: “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”

The Lord took this sin so seriously, that Moses had to proclaim in His Name: “You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you” (Exodus 33:4).

God repeatedly says: “They are a stiff-necked people” (Exodus 32:9; 33:3). Note that God made this statement specifically in this connection, i.e., with reference to the sin of idolatry, but that it is not meant as a general trait of their national character. King Saul as well as Aaron and many biblical figures, and also the entire nation do rise above themselves in the course of their lives from the moment they are called, in spite of their own responsibility, and in that way, they are representative for all nations and races. Stubbornness against God’s revelation and God’s grace is ensconced in every nation and race and in every heart. The Gospel is not according to man (Galatians 1:11). In this sense, the chosen people are to the core the people of revelation, who have to serve God’s plan till the very end.

The representative character of the people was emphasised once more by the apostle Paul in the admonition in his letter to the Romans: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either” (11:21).

Aaron, too, had to serve God’s purposes till the end. He is representative for all the ‘Aarons’ who would follow him in the history of Israel as well as in the history of the church. In particular the latter should not be forgotten: there are many ‘Aarons’ who stumbled in church history.

By fashioning a calf with his graving tool, the historical high priest Aaron crossed out God’s proclamation written in stone with His own finger: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Exodus 20:2).

Aaron’s graving tool versus God’s finger!

But what has the gentile world done with the mission that the King of kings gave to His New-Testament Church before He ascended to heaven? In answer to the question of His disciples about the moment of restoration of the kingdom to Israel, Jesus emphatically says:

“It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8).

The Great Commission to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth is evidently also meant as the way to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. From church history, we learn that the link between worldwide mission and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel has to a great extent been obliterated by the ‘graving tool’ of Aaron’s ecclesiastical ‘posterity’. This does not mean that the ‘church’ in general has not done any good work as far as missionary activity, education and charity are concerned. Anything done out of love for Jesus will maintain its value and will last forever.

This missionary work will, in addition to its purpose for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, undoubtedly also bear the fruits of the individual people who become believers, but it also implies a horizontal purpose with regard to the real history of earthly time. However, the Father determines by His own authority the times and dates in which these things will be fulfilled. This will be the ‘penultimate secret’ (Revelation 10).

The eschatological message of the apostles, recorded in their writings, fully corresponds with Jesus’ royal speech from the throne’ in Acts 1. This is also true for the eschatological predictions of the apostle John in the Apocalypse.[14]

When Jesus makes a connection between the Great Commission and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, then this ought to be respected as an axiom in all missionary work.

Has this underlying principle been understood and proclaimed correctly by the ecclesiastical denominations which find their source in the teaching of the apostles? Or how much have they deviated from it? Is there any trace of unity to be found for the purpose of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel? Serious introspection in this area is needed for all ecclesiastical organisations, no matter their denomination.

When Moses called Aaron to account for making the golden calf, Aaron said: “They said to me, ‘Make us gods who will go before us (…) So I told them, ‘Whoever has any gold jewellery, take it off.’ Then they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!” (Exodus 32:23-24).
He made it look like an impersonal matter for which he was not responsible.

In sacred history, ‘Aaron’s graving tool’ led the entire community to a crisis situation. A complete destruction was threatening. However, through Moses’ intercession, God repented of the evil which He had intended to do to His people (Exodus 32:14).

The new choice

God’s mercy does not preclude His right to thoroughly clear His threshing floor (Luke 3:17). First of all, Moses burned the golden calf in the fire and ground it to powder. Then he scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it (Exodus 32:20). The symbolism was obvious: The calf was a ‘dung god’, on a par with human excrement.

However, this was just the first phase of the purge. The process continued. The people had shown ‘unrestrained’ behaviour. They had disengaged themselves from Yahweh, declaring themselves autonomous. This was a choice against their Redeemer. But the matter did not end there. They had also built an altar before the golden calf and organised a feast. In fact, the feast became a covenant feast.

From time immemorial, it was a tradition to confirm a covenant with a meal. So this feast before the calf indicated a covenant with an idol, and is diametrically opposed to the covenant meal the Lord prepared for His people after establishing the blood covenant, as described in Exodus 24. Seventy elders of Israel were invited to this blood covenant to approach God as representatives of the people. Of these seventy elders it is said: “… they saw God, and they ate and drank” (verse 11).

Of course, this is expressed in human terms; nevertheless, the feast before the calf is in an abominable contrast to this.

After this ‘idolatrous’ meal, they rose up to celebrate.

“Tomorrow…,” Aaron proclaimed, “…there will be a festival to the LORD” (Exodus 32:5). They were using the great Name of God in vain, and that so soon after the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai, which Aaron had fully witnessed. This was a very serious transgression of the first three commandments.

“So the next day the people rose early, and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry” (Exodus 32:6).

“They started dancing and shouting, and there was a loud noise with shouts of jubilation by the multitude and the sound of antiphonal singing. The shouting must have been very loud, because Joshua interpreted it as ‘a sound of war’” (Exodus 32:17-18).

The people totally lapsed into the depraved atmosphere of the Canaanite ritual festivals. After all, the Canaanite steer cult was immediately ‘festively’ interpreted into a whole range of perversities because of the impression the bull made by its strength and sexual potency (Psalm 106:19-20; 34-39).

All this idolatry was seen as a ‘feast for Yahweh.’ This abominable event was what Moses encountered—be it in an initial stage—when he came down from the holy presence of God on Mount Horeb, carrying the documents of the covenant, the two stone tablets.

The prophet Elijah also met with a similar situation when he came down from God’s holy presence and was ordered to announce the judgments over Northern Israel, where Jeroboam had introduced the steer cult (1 Kings 12:28; 1 Kings 19:9-18).

This steer cult, along with the falsification of God’s ordained cycle of feast, and the disruption of the lawfully instituted priestly office connected with it, became fatal to Northern Israel.

Moses and Elijah, therefore, fought at the same front.

Filled with holy anger, Moses entered the arena. The sound of revelry died down, and the dancing stopped. Once again, this eighty-year-old man faced a multitude of people all by himself. While on the mountain, God had already informed him of the things that were happening down below: “…your people… have become corrupt” (Exodus 32:7). Immediately, Moses had turned to God with an ardent intercession, which he would resume after a process of purification.

Moses stood at the ‘entrance to the camp.’ This entrance seemed to change into a ‘court of law.’ The entrance was in every respect a representative and strategic place. It was the entrance and exit of the entire nation.

The ‘trial’ that took place at the entrance did not just concern a certain part of the people. Rather, it was the entire ‘church’ of the old covenant that was summoned and had to appear before the court.

In fact, all the great men of God, including those who came after Moses, have had to testify ‘at the entrance to the camp’. Time and again, God gave them His message for the people at the junctions in history. This shows a certain pattern in God’s actions, which will also concern the ‘times and dates’ of the Father when the kingdom will be restored to Israel. At a strategic moment in the relationship among the nations, the roaring of the lion will be heard all over the world. After all, as mentioned in Revelation 10, the angel with legs like fiery pillars, who held the open scroll in his hand, set his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, and gave a loud shout, like the roar of a lion.

So, Moses’ standing at the entrance to the camp has a profound meaning. It becomes a very explosive moment. The ‘mediator’ of the old covenant does not use many words. He does not deliver a long penitential sermon. One short question is enough: “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me”
(Exodus 32:26).

The power of God’s judgment lies in this question. Once, he only had to lift his staff, and the waters of the sea divided. And here, after one simple question, the sea of rebellion against Yahweh split!

The tribe of Levi rallied to him!

The other tribes did not stir, but the rebellion was broken. The Levites had made the right choice. However, this choice entailed a heavy ordeal:

“Then he said to them, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: “Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbour.”’ The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, ‘You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day’” (Exodus 32:27-29).

The Levites will be consecrated as the tribe of priests in order to minister at God’s worship services. But it has also become clear that a choice for Yahweh implies thrusting the sword in one’s own flesh. The following should be found in their mouths: trustworthy instruction of the law, honest jurisdiction, rejection of nepotism, and no entwining with one’s own interests, etc. By choosing for Yahweh, the Levites accepted the mission to which the entire nation of the covenant had been called, namely to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation before God. In New-Testament terms: whoever chooses for Jesus, answers His call:

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matthew 10:37-39).

The apostle Paul warns us also with the words:

“Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off” (Romans 11:22).

The blood covenant

After the Levites had come forward, Moses once again turned to God in a moving intercession. The situation is still critical. Moses must have realised this. After all, he was the one who knew how serious a blood covenant was in all its implications. He was the one who had had to conduct the ritual of this blood covenant at the time it was established.

“Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar” (Exodus 24:6).

Then Moses took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people, and they said, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey” (Exodus 24:7).

“Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, ‘This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (Exodus 24:8).

We notice that a twofold sprinkling takes place here: first on the altar, and then on the people. God is the first participant in this blood covenant. For Moses had first built an altar at the foot of the mountain, with twelve stone pillars, representing the twelve tribes of Israel (Exodus 24:4). With this altar, Moses consecrated all the Israelites to God. Later on, the ark, as the symbolic reflection of God’s face, would accept the blood of the covenant, when, once a year, the High Priest would sprinkle the blood on the front side of the cover of the ark of the covenant. The continuity of the validity of the blood covenant was symbolically guaranteed by God’s Authority. However, this did not take place outside of what was written in the Book of the Covenant, which was kept in that same ark. The cloud only rested on this Ark, as a sign of God’s presence in the midst of His congregation.

The symbolic framework of the making of this covenant refers back to an ancient custom among the nations regarding their political treaties and important contracts, such as we perceive when God made his covenant with Abraham which also included all of the elements of a blood covenant (Genesis 15). In Jeremiah’s days, we also find a covenant being concluded in the same way (Jeremiah 34:18-20).

This symbolism is fulfilled in the New Testament, when Jesus celebrates the Last Supper with His disciples and is ready to take upon Himself the blood covenant of the Passover in His substitutionary suffering and dying as an atonement for the sins of the world. At the Passover meal, He takes the cup, and says: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25). In Him, God will take upon Himself the retribution for the breaking of the covenant. Jesus, as the Lamb of God, will be slain, and so for all who believe, there will be a Passover from the judgment. It is the old framework of the blood covenant, but what is new is the outcome of His surety, i.e., the fact that He took upon Himself our iniquities and that He bore the punishment that brought us peace, and that by His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5).

When Jesus speaks of ‘the new covenant in His blood’, there still are two parties involved, just like in the old covenant.

Anyone who rejects this new covenant, thereby rejecting the ultimate expression of God’s love and grace, is taking a heavy responsibility upon himself, for now and for eternity. In this connection, we would like to mention three passages:

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” (John 3:36).

“How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10: 29-31).

“See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?” (Hebrews 12:25).

Participating in this ‘new covenant in His blood’, involves, apart from the individual responsibility to follow Him, also an ecumenical responsibility. After all, Moses also sprinkled the same blood on the people as a whole, which is reflected in the altar with the twelve stone pillars.

During the Last Supper, Jesus took the cup, gave thanks, and said: “Take this and divide it among you” (Luke 22:17). No ‘wall’ may be erected among the apostles, who are here considered the ‘patriarchs’ of the new Israel.

By the solemn rituals involved in making a covenant in ancient times, the slaughtered animals were divided into two parts and both parts were placed opposite each other. The parties concluding this covenant declared that they would be one from that time on, and that the same thing that had happened to the animals would happen to anyone not fulfilling their obligations and thus breaking the covenant. After all, both halves did belong together.

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, He referred back to this ancient form of establishing a covenant. With the words: “This is the new covenant in My blood,” Jesus means to say that just as God wants to see the church united to Himself through the atonement in His blood, He also wants His people to be one through His blood.

Whatever applied to the ‘patriarchs’ of the new Israel also applies to the church: There should not be any dividing walls between the believers. Therefore: Pass the cup on to each other!

At the table at which they were sharing this meal, Jesus also mentioned the connection between the new covenant in His blood and ancient Israel as a people, as is written in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-10:

“‘The time is coming’, declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them’, declares the Lord. ‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time’, declares the Lord. ‘I will put my laws in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’”

Jesus says in Luke 22:29-30:

“And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

The word ‘judging’ is meant to be positive in this context, meaning: ‘restoring’, ‘showing mercy’. The Greek word κρινοντες (krinontes), which is translated here by ‘judging’, should be understood from the Old-Testament concept mishpat. This term may be defined either in a negative sense, like a judgment in a lawsuit, or in a positive sense, relating to such concepts as ‘justice’ and ‘mercy’. In Isaiah 30:18, we find an example of this positive sense: “Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all who wait for him!” [15]

A second example can be found in the words of the prophet Hosea: “My judgments flashed like lightning upon you” (Hosea 6:5). Here too, the word ‘judgments’ is a translation of the Hebrew word ‘mishpat’.

If we want to look at the meaning of Jesus’ words during the Last Supper in an unbiased way, it might be helpful to compare them to the outcome of the Joseph story. Joseph was justified by a pronouncement of the Lord. Psalm 105:19 says: “…till what he foretold came to pass, till the word of the LORD proved him true.” The brothers were not put in the right in the way they had treated Joseph, and yet, this word of the Lord had a positive result: the restoration of the family’s unity.

The apostles will be justified because of their acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, and in that way it will become evident that they have received full authority from the highest Throne. Jesus says: “And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me” (Luke 22:29). Jesus was authorised by the Most High to judge in his capacity as King, and He passes His authority on to the apostles. However, He does not mean that they should become puffed up, for it is striking that immediately after this he continues: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:31-32).

Twice, Jesus addresses Peter as ‘Simon’, and through him, the entire group of disciples is addressed and warned about Satan’s ‘sieve’ which might cause their faith to fail, were it not for Jesus’ intercession for them. Moreover, Peter is commanded to strengthen his brothers after he has turned back to the Lord. But, although the words ‘turning back’ are used, which implicitly refers to his imminent fall, Peter still dares to exclaim in a triumphant self-confident way: “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” But Jesus answers him: “I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows today, you will deny three times that you know me” (Luke 22:33-34).

To recapitulate the above: At the institution of the Lord’s Supper, three basic elements stand out in the discussions.

1. The proclamation of ‘the new covenant in His blood’. For the second party, this means the responsibility of accepting the love and grace of God in faith, of following Him and keeping His commandments. In Jesus, God walked through the ‘street of blood’, taking upon Himself the separation due to the breaking of the covenant, and thus fulfilling Abraham’s vision (Genesis 15). He has accomplished everything. In Hebrews 12:24, Jesus is called ‘the mediator of a new covenant’.

2. Subsequently, the proclamation of a new covenant in His blood means the commission of having the cup circulate among ourselves, as a token of a unanimous recognition of His blood, and as a demonstration of an ecumenical attitude in spirit and in truth.

3. Practising these two basic elements with the future in mind, in order to cling to the hope of the twelve tribes of Israel becoming a party to the Table of the Lord in the critical phase of the ‘times and seasons of the Father’. It will become one flock under one Shepherd, and it will be a prelude to the wedding supper of the Lamb.

So, by virtue of the new covenant in His blood, the message of the Lord’s Supper comes to us with divine severity and at the same time with divine mercy, for we should all form one body, not only formally in word, but also in deed towards each other.

In the liturgical wording of the Reformed Churches at the Lord’s Supper, the following words were usually added: “So help us God Almighty.”

It is appropriate to pronounce this wish in the elevated terms of an oath when celebrating the Lord’s Supper. After all, not only the apostles were made to depend on Jesus’ intercession to ensure that their faith would not fail, but we, too, are not able to stand firm against Satan’s ‘sieve’ by our own strength, and so we need Jesus’ intercession just as much as they did. This intercession has been promised to us among others in Romans 8:34:

“Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.”

and in Hebrews 7:25:

“Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.”

We, Christians from the non-Jewish world, should be aware of the fact that, all through the history of the church, Satan has constantly been active with his ‘sieve’ in the three basic elements mentioned above. This seducer of souls has been trying very hard to ‘sift us as wheat’!

He has fired three formidable temptations at Christianity:

1. Regarding faith: the temptation of not fully acknowledging that God in Jesus walked through the ‘street of blood’, and that He accomplished everything for our redemption as the Passover Lamb.

2. Regarding love: the temptation to make ecclesiastical rules for doctrine and life so compelling that the circulation of the cup at the one Table of the Lord’s Supper was impeded.

3. Regarding hope: the temptation of detaching the essence of the Christian life of faith as depicted in the Lord’s Supper from the eschatological expectation presented to us by the apostles.

It is essential to test these three criteria: faith, hope and love. At the approach of the critical hour in world history, in which Satan ultimately will be bound, he will become most active with his ‘sieve’! But through the power of the Holy Spirit, this ‘prince of this world’ will be judged (John 16:11).

Gentiles should take care not to be too triumphant when presenting ourselves as candidates for the ‘thrones’, meant by Jesus to judge the ‘twelve tribes of Israel’. When the bright lights of the three criteria mentioned above are shining on the church’s policy during its two-thousand years long history, then, before a new Day dawns, a threefold denial will be exposed, by prophetic announcement and analysis—God knows to what extent and to what degree.

And in the same way that Peter was restored to his mission three times after the miraculous catch of fish (John 21:15-19), so a restoration of the pastoral office in the church of God will take place in the times of refreshing. Jesus’ intercession will conquer all ‘Petrine’ betrayal. However, since we have been so utterly confused by Satan’s ‘sieve’, we, as the spiritual descendants of the twelve apostles, will need to have our own ‘twelve tribes’ judged by the Holy Spirit, so that, after and through our conversion, the judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel will be a dawning light both for them and for us, and enable the kingdom of peace to come about. And at that time, the same instruction will count: “And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32). This strengthening will be essential, since this phase in world history will be a time of preparation for the last round of the end times, when the great tribulation will take place.

Knowing that we find ourselves on the threshold of the prelude to the final phase, it should inspire us even more to satisfy the important criteria Jesus mentioned at the Passover meal. The ‘passing on’ of the cup is the basic condition for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Establishing true ecumenism is the only way that leads to the re-grafting of the natural branches, which had been cut off, into the trunk of their own olive tree (Romans 11:24). Only the gathering of ‘the twelve stones of the broken altar of Pentecost’ in the manner of Elijah will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, and will avert the threatening curse (Malachi 4:5-6).

The face of the Lord

After consecrating the Levites to be priests, Moses prepares to ascend the mountain once again in order to seek the Lord’s face, because the consecration of the Levites by itself has not yet restored the relationship of the covenant. He leaves all the tribes of Israel behind in a state of suspension with a ‘perhaps’:

“You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin” (Exodus 32:30).

The restoration of the ‘blood covenant’ for all Israel was at stake. Moses had sprinkled the blood of the covenant on an altar built of twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. The consecration of one tribe was not sufficient. The entire nation had been called to be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation for God (Exodus 19:6). As one people, they needed to be God’s own possession, the Lord’s heritage, a unique people according to God’s election.

However, only one tribe had come forward to respond to Moses’ call at the entrance to the camp: Who is on the Lord’s side?

So there was reason enough for Moses to seek the face of the Lord once again in fervent intercession. Already at an earlier stage, Moses had turned down God’s proposal to make him into a great nation instead of Israel, thereby referring to God’s own oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 32:10-13). And now, Moses makes a counterproposal: “But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exodus 32:32). This proposal by Moses is quite far-reaching. In an existentially earnest and sincere way, he wants to stand in for the people. But his remark: “… then blot me out of the book you have written,” gives this proposal a significance which far surpasses his general willingness to offer his own life.

A distant echo of this willingness can be heard in Paul’s confession preceded by an oath:

“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race” (Romans 9:1-3).

Paul’s desire ‘to be cursed and cut off from Christ’ goes much further than the willingness to offer his earthly life for his brothers. Similar to Moses, it is the willingness for the sake of his brothers to be blotted out from the book of Life. The concept ‘the book you have written’ or ‘the book of Life’ is used in many places in the Scriptures. They express the idea of a plan which God has, a ready blueprint which was made before the foundation of the world. Examples can be found in the following Scriptures: Psalm 69:29; Psalm 139:16; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27.

The reason why God cannot accept Moses’ counterproposal is different from the thought that He would always reject a collective punishment. Neither does it mean that He would not accept one individual to stand surety for the entire nation. When Yahweh, the Eternal one, says to Moses: “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book,”
He means: Whoever, in this particular case of breaking the blood covenant by choosing for the steer cult, has sinned and does not repent, he will be blotted out from ‘the book which I have written’. He even continues with the threat: “However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin” (Exodus 32:33-34).

At a later point in time, when the people of Israel have an attitude which in God’s eye is similar to the steer cult and they are wanting to stone the spies because of their good report, God has to say to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the miraculous signs I have performed among them?” (Numbers 14:11), and then His punishment is collective! His answer to Moses’ intercession for the people is:

“I have forgiven them, as you asked. Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the LORD fills the whole earth, not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times—not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it” (Numbers 14:20-23).

An entire generation will be buried in the desert!

Morally speaking, God does not need to correct the ‘book which He has written’. From eternity on, there has been a divine plan, a design, an election. According to this plan, which was established from the foundation of the world, He had predestined His Son to take the sins of the world upon Himself, as the Lamb of God, and by His death to bring salvation to Israel and the whole world. The apostle Peter declares:

“Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God” (1 Peter 1: 17-21).

With the message: “He was chosen before the foundation of the world”, Peter indicates how Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, is placed in the centre of a comprehensive set of related events throughout all ages, as the unblemished and spotless Lamb, with the eternal foreknowledge of God. The appearance of our Saviour is not a coincidence. The gospel has not been passed on to us on a loose piece of scrap paper. It is a Book.

The New Testament cannot possibly be detached from the Old Testament. Briefly, the relationship between the two is that of a divine promise to a divine fulfilment.

In the phase of the promise, Moses occupies a prominent and central position. After all, he was the one who had to lay down and establish the entire shadow service of the atonement for Israel according to the example which God showed him on the mountain. But it was the ‘preordained’ mission of Jesus to fulfil it. The characteristics of the veracity of His mission are innumerable. It is the Scriptures that testify of Him (John 5:39). The scroll is filled with His Name (Psalm 40:7; Hebrews 10:7).

During the Last Supper, Jesus testified: “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment” (Luke 22:37).

In his letter, Peter exhorts the people to live in holiness and brotherly love, encouraging them to call upon God as their Father. Then he arrives at the theme of his argument, namely the central place of the Lamb of God in the events throughout the ages. By doing so, he clearly links God’s eternal Fatherhood with the mission of the Lamb of God in the centre of all times.

One of the many features that may help the believer to identify Jesus’ Messianic mission, is the designated time in the shadow service in which the Passover Lamb had to be slaughtered. This specific time refers back to the establishment of the Passover at the time of the exodus from Egypt. At the approach of the decisive battle between God and Pharaoh, each Israelite as head of the family had to choose a lamb on the tenth day of the first month and keep it for another four days until the fourteenth day, after which he was to slaughter it, together with the whole community of Israel, at twilight (Exodus 12:1-7). So the whole family could see the lamb. In the night of the Passover, the blood of this lamb would mean that the judgment would ‘pass over’ them, and they would be spared. However, the four days’ wait was a heavily laden ‘time of advent’ reaching its climax in the night of the Passover. This Passover Lamb was slain and its blood was put on the sides and tops of the doorframes of their houses, causing the angel of death to ‘pass over’ them.

In a similar way, God, as the great ‘Father of the family’, chose and predestined the unblemished and spotless Lamb four ‘days’ or four thousand years previously, and presented it by prophecy to the imprisoned family of mankind.

When we talk about ‘four days’, then this time is reckoned from the time of revelation. In this way, the entire period of time receives a religious dimension. We need to distinguish between ‘time of revelation’ and ‘cosmic time’. In a certain sense, cosmic time has been ‘circumcised’ by God’s revelation to mankind. Within this time of revelation, in the ‘fulness of time’ and at the approach of the decisive battle with Satan, God has taken the unblemished and spotless Lamb out of his ‘heavenly cage’ in order to have Him slain precisely at the feast of Passover. But in that terrible night of the Passover, in which God was fulfilling the ancient shadow service, there was no ‘passing over’ of the angel of death for Jesus of Nazareth.

Since this plan of salvation had been recorded in the ‘book which God had written’, it was impossible that Moses, as a substitute for the people, could be erased from the Book of Life in order to obtain reconciliation for the people, however much he interceded with God for them. However, this prayer dialogue was not yet finished with God’s refusal of Moses’ request. Yahweh promised him that He would send an angel before him to drive away the enemies on his way to the Promised Land, but He adds: “But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).

The people were dismayed by this aggressive tone, which was intensified by the threat: “If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you” (Exodus 33:5).

From God’s side, it appeared to be possible to control the crisis because of this prayer dialogue with the ‘mediator’ of the old covenant. The Israelites abstained from wearing ornaments from the time they left Mount Horeb, but this did not yet reconcile them once again with God, as further events prove.

Moses took a ‘private’ tent and pitched it outside the camp, some distance away. Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, and the Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as somebody speaks with his friend. Whenever the people would see the pillar of cloud, they would bow down, each one in the entrance of his tent (Exodus 33:7-11).

What a scene!

All these thousands of people bowed down in reverence when they saw the pillar of cloud, which could not come down among them, since their relation to the covenant had not yet been restored. Moses had to continue his intercession. The dialogue with God was not finished. Moses could not accept God’s initial proposal of sending an angel before the people (Exodus 33:2); it did not set his mind at rest. So God asked if His presence should go with them in order to put his mind at rest, to which Moses answers: “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here” (Exodus 33:12-15).

The word ‘Presence’ is a translation of the word ‘face’ in the original. It has a unique significance in Scripture. Of course it is used metaphorically. In the whole of God’s dealings with Israel, anthropomorphic images and body-part language has been used. This way of depicting things can be quite significant. Somebody’s emotions are visible on his face. There is not a single emotion which is not expressed on the human face, whether it is joy or sadness, fear or fright, desperation, confusion or hope.

Science may have made great progress researching the function of the human brain, trying to comprehend the code of the subtle relationship between spirit, soul, and body, but the fact remains that when dealing with abstract notions such as remorse, hope, joy, or sadness, and in what way these emotions are transmitted from a person’s soul to his face, even experts are faced with a miracle, namely the miracle ‘man’, who, according to the Scriptures, was created in God’s image.

Changes in a person’s state of mind can clearly be visible on their face within a matter of seconds. If, by comparison we were to instruct an artist to mould a figure with a smiling face for a wax museum, and then one with a sad face, how much time would it take for the artist to achieve the same effect as the change of expression on the human face within a few seconds?

The same thing happens at the ‘smile of encounter’. When good friends meet, their faces do not remain composed. The expression in their eyes changes, they start smiling, the entire expression on their faces reflects recognition. Isn’t this what is really meant to occur at a meeting between God and man? If not, what is the use of the blessing: “the LORD make his face shine upon you!” (Numbers 6:25).

The light of God’s face had shone so gloriously on the path of the people during their exodus from Egypt. And now? No sooner had the people arrived at Mount Sinai and, accompanied by mighty signs of God, been blessed with a covenant in order to be a kingdom of priests for Him in the service of all the nations, than they chose a god in the shape of a bull calf.

In fact, the dialogue between Moses and God also concerns this choice. God asks: Do you want My presence, My ‘face’, or just a ‘force’ to accompany the people to the Promised Land? After all, an angel at the head of the army is something quite different from the personal leadership of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Moses, however, does not care for the possession of Canaan without God’s personal presence.

Jesus once told the parable of the lost son. The younger of the two sons asked for his share of his father’s estate, without wanting to remain in touch with his father, and he ultimately found himself in a situation worse than the pigs which he had to feed. From the wealthy home of his father, he ended up looking after pigs’ (Luke 15:11 ff).

God put Moses to the test here by saying: “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.” Moses’ reply hit home: “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here.” So God’s face or ‘presence’ also means: personal, loving involvement in the future of the people, and active participation in the unfolding of that future through divine revelation and guidance.

How could such a thing ever be expected from the mindless power of a bull calf? The snout of such an animal has no radiance. There was no need whatsoever to cover its head with a cloth for fear that its radiance would be too bright for human eyes.

What a contrast to Moses’ face, when he came down from Mount Sinai carrying the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. He was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord, but the radiance was so strong that he had to put a veil over his face before approaching the people. To the Israelites, this was a sign of Moses’ personal relationship with the Eternal God (Exodus 34:29-35).

Today humanity faces the same choice as the people of Israel in those days: Are we choosing, as Moses did, God’s presence as ‘Guide’ in our personal, religious and political life, or do we consider the snout of the ‘beast’ good enough? Currently there is not much left of the ‘smile of encounter’, and in the end, in the last round of world history, the choice will fall on the beast which will come up out of the abyss. Apart from the warning this ancient story entails, it also shows us signs of consolation and encouragement.

Restoration is possible!

The right choice that Moses made is preceded by a profound and wonderful ‘declaration of love’ from God’s side. Moses reminds God of the word that God Himself had spoken to him: “I know you by name and you have found favour with me” (Exodus 33:12).

To be able to understand even the slightest bit of this profound dialogue and of the consequences Moses attached to these words of God, we need to go deeper into the original biblical meaning of the verb ‘to know’. Moreover, we ought to realise that, if we wish to exegetically examine this passage in-depth, or to meditate on the subject, we are approaching the innermost sanctuary of Moses’ prayer struggle with God.

Just the word ‘knowing’ depicts the special relationship between God and Moses. In the Scriptures ‘knowing’ surpasses by far the intellectual faculty or plain comprehension. It would be better to describe it as a ‘loving relationship for life with someone’. It is unspeakably profound when the Eternal God says to an insignificant human being: “I know you by your name.” This points to a deep and intimate bond.

Of course, Moses wanted to respond spontaneously to this with an answer of love in return. But he also had an intimate relationship for life with Israel. He even wanted to stand surety for the people to the ultimate consequence of being erased from God’s book of life.

With his answer: “If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you” (Exodus 33:13), Moses wants to express: If you love me personally, you will also understand that my soul is also attached to the people which you yourself have chosen. That is the reason why Moses asked God to reveal His ways to him. The words: ‘so I may know you’ almost sound like a condition. God sees that without complying with that ‘condition’, Moses would be inwardly torn apart and very distressed. Hence God’s reply: “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest” (Exodus 33:14). Moses emphatic answer to this was: “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here” (Exodus 33:15). After all, isn’t God’s accompaniment, His presence on the way to the Promised Land—as Moses adds—the specific feature which shows that they are different from all other people on the earth? The fact that He has chosen His people will only be fulfilled by His Presence.

What Moses said—in deep dependence and humility—is decisive. God replies “I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name” (Exodus 33:17).

The argument is settled!

The final phase, as described in the verses 18-23, forms the crowning glory of this moving story. Moses desires to see God’s glory. God’s answer to him is:

“I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence”
(Exodus 33:19).

Dr F.C. Fensham writes:

“According to Aramaic treaties (Sefire),[16] this expression is a standard element of the terminology used for agreements. The expression points to the auspicious influence emanating from the superior party.” [17]

The usage of this terminology is in line with God’s way of speaking at a human level in terms of anger, repentance, marriage ties, grieving, patience, etc. God comes down to our human level of understanding. He wants to reveal Himself to us within our intellectual capabilities. This also applies to the expression: “... I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence”

According to ancient ceremonies, the arrival of a monarch would be solemnly announced. To a certain extent, this is still the case nowadays. When, a king or a president is going to pronounce the speech from the throne or a declaration of the government, protocol prescribes that, before he enters the throne room, his arrival is solemnly announced, whereby those present stand up out of respect for the head of state. The same is true for judges when they enter in order to pronounce a sentence of a court case put before them. In both cases this depicts a ceremony in style.

As the King of kings, God follows this royal ceremony in a human way. In history, when God would ‘pass by’, or, in other words, would approach mankind with His majesty in judgment and mercy, He would announce this beforehand. When He approached Israel at Pesach, He sent Moses, and when He approached the Carmel judgment, He sent Elijah. In the fulness of time, when He approached His people in the Messiah, He sent John the Baptist, who announced His advent with the words: “After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptise you with water, but he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:7-8).

And when Jesus took along three disciples to the mountain of transfiguration after He had said: “Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1), then these disciples saw the two heralds of the Old Testament in a vision: Moses and Elijah, and at their question about the coming of Elijah, the answer was: “Elijah does come first, and restores all things (…) But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him” (Mark 9:12-13).

When God is about to fulfil his promises to the Gentile world—and linked to this the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah by all Israel within this earthly time—a worldwide announcement will take place, namely the roaring of the lion on an international level and the voices of the seven thunders will be heard. This is the announcement of the end of the Age, in the form of an oath. In the end God will give His two witnesses as heralds in the last round of the end times, after which the seventh trumpet will sound and God’s mystery will be finished.

The Judge of all the earth will not enter the ‘courtroom of the last day’ unannounced! Even though depicted in human imagery, the highest Majesty will maintain His royal decorum in judgment and mercy.

Moses experienced this as well. He had spoken the momentous words: “…teach me your ways so I may know you” (Exodus 33:13). Finally God’s promise came: “I will do the very thing you have asked” (Exodus 33:17). God will go with him on the journey to the Promised Land.

But Moses takes things a step further. He desires to see God’s glory. And then he experiences the proclamation of God’s royal style in the way God approaches him, and through him also His people. Moses is also made aware of God’s sovereignty, when God goes with them on their pilgrimage to the Promised Land, with the words: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Exodus 33:19). Moses may know that God will go with them on their way to the fulfilment of the promise given to the patriarchs, but the manner in which God does this is His own sovereign decision.

Later, Isaiah formulated it as follows: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9).

Paul also refers to this in Romans 9:18-29, using the image of the potter by arguing that the potter has power over the clay.

Indeed, we cannot criticise the divine potter. The way God chooses for the journey of His people to their eternal redemption is perfect! God keeps a holy distance, as expressed in the words: “You cannot see my face, for no-one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20). Yet this holy distance of God need not cast a shadow over our joy. His sovereignty is not diminished by His merciful nearness, for immediately after this, He says:

“There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen”
(Exodus 33:21-22).

With these accompanying words, Moses experiences a symbolic act of God of an unparalleled depth and far-reaching scope concerning God’s deeds in the past as well as His repeated ‘passing by’ in the centuries to come. Moses was allowed to hear directly from God: “I know you by name.” So he is ‘known by God’. But what counts for Moses also holds for all those ‘known by God’. There is room with God for all His children. All may sit ‘on the rock’, and may experience the symbolic deeds of the Eternal God—be it in a different way.

After all, what else happened to Israel when God came to redeem them from their bondage to Pharaoh in Egypt?

Didn’t they have to stand on the solid rock of God’s covenant with the patriarchs? And didn’t He protect them with His hand in a ‘cleft of a rock’ in the night of the Passover, when the angel of death passed by each place where the blood of the Passover Lamb had been put on the doorframes? In retrospect Moses was already able to see God’s glory in this.

Didn’t Jesus promise, based on Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, that He would build His church on this rock? And doesn’t He essentially add to this the protection by His hand: “…and the gates of Hades will not overcome it?” (Matthew 16:15-19).

Saul, too, confesses that God offers protection to all ‘those who are His’. He writes to Timothy:

“Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows those who are his’” (2 Timothy 2:19).

In all times and among all nations there are ‘those who are His’:

“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:29-30).

Ultimately He will also bring together ‘those who are His’ into that unity which will convince Jerusalem of the veracity of Jesus’ Messianic coming into the world:

“He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (Ephesians 2:17-22).

Moses received a place near God, where he could stand on the rock. This in itself is an inexpressible grace. However, when God’s glory is going to pass by, a special act of God is needed: “…I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by” (Exodus 33:22).

We should also be aware of this now that the ‘fulfilment of the ages’ has come (1 Corinthians 10:11), and the time of God’s judgment and mercy is coming close. When the time of the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ and the ‘conversion of Israel’ comes, we will not be able to find the ‘cleft in the rock’ by ourselves and hide in it through our own strength, but God Himself has to put us in the cleft of the rock and cover the granted hiding place with His own hand, or else we will perish.

When God will have fulfilled His judgment and mercy, He will remove His hand, and we will see His back. Afterwards, we may say with the patriarch Jacob: “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it. (…) How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven” (Genesis 28:16-17).

Jesus says: “I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe” (John 14:29). And while He was washing the disciples’ feet, He said to Peter: “You do not realise now what I am doing, but later you will understand” (John 13:7).

All the elements displayed in Exodus 33:12-23 together constitute the divine answer to Moses’ request to see God’s glory. He was left to an awe-inspiring act of God, which was accompanied by God’s words.

If we, as the apostle John expresses it among others in Revelation 2:7: ‘have an ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches,’ we will ‘hear’ in this symbolic act of God a heavenly ‘composition’. It is a ‘symphony’ composed by the ‘Unchangeable One’ [18] with repetitions as in a fugue, on the theme: ‘GOD PASSES BY’

Forgiveness and restoration

On the basis of God’s forgiveness, the covenant can be restored, and the plan for Israel’s worship service can be realised. The sign of this renewed contract is mentioned immediately after the Lord’s promise to go with them on their journey to the land of milk and honey (Exodus 33:16-17), for right after this promise, God instructs Moses to do the following:

“Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain” (Exodus 34:1-2).

Moses did what was asked of him and early in the morning, he went up Mount Sinai with the two stone tablets in his hands. The Lord descended in a cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord (34:4-5).

Once again, a ‘passing by’ took place here in the royal style of the Court of courts, after a proclamation. This proclamation was: “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness…,” and adding how God acts with compassion, but how He also judges according to His holiness (34:6-7).

Hearing this proclamation, Moses quickly knelt down, begged for forgiveness and asked: “…take us as your inheritance.” God’s answer to this is: “I am making a covenant with you…” (34:9-10).

At the solemn proclamation when God passed by Moses, five qualities of God were cited. This could—by way of antithesis—remind us of the five honorary titles which were conferred on the deified Pharaohs. After all, in his plea, Moses had argued: “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth?’” (Exodus 32:12).

So when, with regard to the renewal of the covenant, these five glorious qualities of God are proclaimed as He ‘passes by’ in royal style, this might implicitly express a triumph over all deified dictatorial systems.[19]

In this renewal of the covenant, God bestows mercy on Israel in a most exuberant way. The five qualities of God mentioned at the proclamation point to this. All the plans which God showed to Moses on the mount can be carried out: the building of the ark and the tabernacle, and the organisation of the tasks and offices for the Levites and the priests, including all the regulations that belonged to it.

Aaron was granted a special grace by the renewal of the covenant: In spite of his deep fall and subsequent weakness, his appointment as priest and his anointing were maintained by God (Exodus 28:1; 29:7 and 40:12-16). His ‘staff’, i.e. his ‘office’ would give a better testimony than his ‘graving tool’ in former days.

The fact that Israel camped around the service of atonement, where God was enthroned among His people, guiding His moving multitude with the cloud of His glory, was, strategically seen, perfect. Even Balaam, who was ordered by the king of Moab to curse the Israelites, was overpowered by the Spirit of God and had to confess as ‘a man whose eyes were opened’: “How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel! Like valleys they spread out, like gardens beside a river, like aloes planted by the LORD, like cedars beside the waters” (Numbers 24: 5-6).

The rebellion of the notables

“When Korah had gathered all his followers in opposition to them at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the glory of the LORD appeared to the entire assembly. The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.’” (Numbers 16:19-21).

Suddenly two hundred and fifty prominent men clenched their fists at Moses and Aaron. Apparently their eyes had not been ‘opened’ to have a proper vision, enlightened by the Spirit, of the beauty of God’s mercy, shown in the exodus. Their conspiracy resulted in a fierce revolutionary fermentation; it evoked heavy judgments on rebels, and had a bloody aftermath in the entire congregation.

It was a revolution of quite singular character. It was not the ‘scum of the nation’ that rebelled against an aristocratic top. There was no question of a collision between a kind of ‘proletariat’ and a ruling ‘nobility’; on the contrary, it was the very notables who rebelled. Their prominent status is accentuated in three ways: ‘well-known community leaders, ‘members of the council’, ‘men of renown’. So they were not just the simple people.

Korah and his followers appealed to the general priesthood and to the holiness of the entire nation, and the presence of God among them (Numbers 16:3-4). They reproached Moses: “Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD’S assembly?” Moses fell facedown before the Lord, and the Lord told him that He Himself would take the case into His own hands.

A judgment of God is at hand!

Moses then answers:

“In the morning the LORD will show who belongs to him and who is holy, and he will have that person come near him. The man he chooses he will cause to come near him.” (Numbers 16:5).

followed by these ominous words:

“You, Korah, and all your followers are to do this: Take censers and tomorrow put fire and incense in them before the LORD. The man the LORD chooses will be the one who is holy. You Levites have gone too far!” (Numbers 16:6-7).

These last words were Moses’ reply to the rebels and he literally used the same terms as the ones with which he had been attacked. In other words, he was saying: Indeed, Korah, the axe has come down. Have it your way: Sacrifice your incense. Seize the priest’s office in an unauthorized way. Go on! “Tomorrow morning”, says Moses, “the LORD will show who belongs to him.” (Numbers 16:5)

Tomorrow will be the day of decision!

In a world full of godlessness, and not in the least in an apostate ‘religious community’, every true prophet in fact is quite helpless.

Also Moses was very vulnerable. At the very outset of the exodus from Egypt, his only protection was a series of divine judgments confirming his calling. The plagues over Egypt formed a permanent series of judgments of God, as did the signs when the people crossed the Red Sea. The destruction of Pharaoh’s chariots and horsemen as well as the division of the waters by Moses using his staff, which allowed the people of Israel to cross safely on dry ground, were judgments of God confirming Moses’ office.

Similar things happened time and again on their way through the wilderness. Aaron and Miriam even had to be rebuked by a judgment of God (Numbers 12:2-4). Likewise, God intervened at the negative reports of the ten ‘unbelieving’ spies.

Our Saviour shared this fate of all the prophets in an increased manner. His miracles, too, were a long series of judgments of God. This is the way he puts it in John 10:34-38:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods’, to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Jesus appeals very strongly to the judgment of God when the high priest asks Him under oath: “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” His answer is affirmative, and He adds: “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:63-64).

And what else were His last words, spoken from the Cross, but an appeal to the highest Judiciary: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit?” (Luke 23:46). Was this not a complete surrender to a judgment of God?

The verdict came on Easter morning.

The Lord has truly risen!

Meanwhile, a serious situation arises whenever only a judgment of God can break a deadlock. Such was the case when the notables rebelled. Moses yet admonished them. He reminded them of their prominent position as Levitical ministers of the congregation:

“Now listen, you Levites! Isn’t it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the LORD’S tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too” (Numbers 16:8-10).

God Himself had entrusted this priesthood to Aaron and his sons (Exodus 28:1).

Moses spoke this last admonition before all the people. However, it is not meant to be a ‘topic for a conference’. On the contrary, the die is cast! God Himself will decide ‘in the morning’, and He will make known who is holy, and whom He has chosen to come near Him (Numbers 16:5).

Moses does not breach this prophecy by yet trying to stage a dialogue and to initiate a kind of ‘peace process’. The situation was so critical, that God spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: “Separate yourselves from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once” (Numbers 16:21). At that, Moses and Aaron fell facedown to implore God not to be angry with the entire assembly because of the sin of one man. But God commanded Moses: “Say to the assembly, ‘Move away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram’” (Numbers 16:24). They immediately obeyed this order, after which Moses proclaimed the coming judgment of God:

“This is how you will know that the LORD has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea: If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men, then the LORD has not sent me. But if the LORD brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them, with everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into the grave, then you will know that these men have treated the LORD with contempt” (Numbers 16:28-30).

And so it happened that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with everything that belonged to them.

“And fire came out from the LORD and consumed the 250 men who were offering the incense” (Numbers 16:35).

This infuriated the people. The next morning, the entire assembly gathered together against Moses and Aaron, reproaching them that they had killed the Lord’s people. Immediately, however, the glory of the Lord appeared, with, once again, the divine threat: “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once” (Numbers16:42-45).

Again, Moses and Aaron fell facedown in intercessory prayer, after which Moses orders Aaron to: “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started” (Numbers 16:46).

Aaron took a censer, as Moses had told him, and ran into the midst of the assembly, making atonement for the people, and when he stood in his office as priest between the dead and the living, the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah (Numbers 16:47-49).

All through these judgments, Aaron’s unique office was acknowledged and confirmed.

Aaron’s budding staff

Although Aaron’s high-priestly office had already been confirmed during the plague that struck the people—as can be concluded from the fact that the plague had stopped when he stood between the living and the dead with his incense—the Lord still gave another sign in order to once for all make an end to the grumbling and the rebellion. He gave Moses the command:

“Speak to the Israelites and get twelve staffs from them, one from the leader of each of their ancestral tribes. Write the name of each man on his staff (...) Place them in the Tent of Meeting in front of the Testimony, where I meet with you. The staff belonging to the man I choose will sprout” (Numbers 17:2-5).

It is a characteristic of each judgment of God that the miracle of His intervention is announced beforehand. This makes the sign undeniable.

The same can be seen here:

“The next day Moses entered the Tent of the Testimony and saw that Aaron’s staff, which represented the house of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds” (Numbers 17:8).

We may draw the conclusion that there is boundless forgiveness with God! After all, at the time of the bull calf, Aaron had fallen deeply. The stone tablets, which Moses had broken as a sign of the fact that the people had broken the covenant with God, had to be replaced and the Ten Commandments had to be written on them once again by God’s finger.

Aaron took part in this renewal of the covenant.

So, when the notables revolt and Aaron’s office is attacked, and indirectly Moses’ office as well, God crushes this rebellion through terrible judgments. On top of all this, God even gives a sign: Aaron’s staff starts blossoming!

Does this serious event also contain a message for our Gentile-Christian relationship with the Jewish people?

Undoubtedly it does!

After all, when God calls a people to be a kingdom of priests for Him, He immediately puts a ‘staff’ in the hands of His chosen people. This ‘staff’, or this office, is directly related to the miraculous deliverance from Egypt (Exodus 19:4-6). Moreover, it is a ministry which is meant to serve all the nations. With this ‘staff’, all the nations of the earth will be blessed according to the promise once given to Abraham.

Aaron had sinned gravely, but the tool with which he had made the bull calf, cannot chisel away his ‘staff’, because of God’s forgiveness. God adorned Aaron’s dead staff with blossom and fruit, after Moses had done what God had commanded and put it before the Lord in the Tent of the Testimony.

Continuing this line to the time of the New Testament, we may wonder if the Jewish people, like Aaron, have not ‘sinned’ gravely by rejecting our one and only High Priest, Jesus Christ? Was His office as Messiah not despised as being of His own ‘imagination’? Was He, too, not laid down as a ‘dead staff’ before God?

And what happened after that?

He rose from the dead on the third day!

Already on the day of Pentecost, His staff blossomed and yielded much fruit: three thousand people were added to the church on that day (Acts 2:41). But His staff will blossom as never before and bear fruit abundantly when ‘the fulness of the Gentiles comes in’, and the eyes and hearts of all Israel will be opened to His work of redemption (Romans 11:25).

The coming of the fulness of the Gentiles—which means the fulfilling work of God in the Gentile world for the benefit of the Jewish people—will also be a ‘judgment of God’ in the sense of the previously explained notion of ‘mishpat’, bearing the features of a judicial verdict of the Lord. It is announced beforehand in Revelation 10, and it is the disclosure of God’s penultimate secret.

In the times of refreshing which will follow, Jesus’ ‘staff’ will blossom and flower, and produce much ripe fruit. Altogether, it constitutes God’s oath: “But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets” (Revelation 10:7).

But if God in the Old-Testament dispensation upheld His anointed in their office, through many interventions in judgment and mercy, which also applies to the Prophet who had to reveal God’s Name on earth, Jesus, the Messiah, would He then have forgotten the office that He gave the Jewish people in connection with their deliverance from Egypt? Does the Name ‘I AM WHO I AM’ no longer have any power?

If it was possible for Aaron to be forgiven and to be restored into his high-priestly office in such a way that the dead staff started blossoming, would this not also hold good for the ‘staff’ that the Lord put in the hands of the Jewish people at His appearance on Mount Sinai?

Looking back at centuries of church history, it looks as if the staff of this nation of priests was discarded as being dead after Israel’s fall. Or was it pronounced dead by the majority of those who call themselves the Church, and who adhered—and still adhere—to an anti-Judaic replacement theology? What was the attitude of the ‘notables’ in the history of the past two thousand years? Considering this in the framework of the rich promises and perspectives proclaimed by Jesus and the apostles regarding the future of the Jewish people, one might also say of the New-Testament church: A revolt of the notables took place.

At an international symposium held in the Vatican in 1997, in which some 70 cardinals, bishops, historians, a representative of the protestant churches, and one of the eastern-orthodox churches participated, Pope John Paul II gave an address about the roots of an anti-Jewish attitude in Christian circles. In this address he says:

“The subject of your symposium is the correct theological interpretation of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Jewish people, for which the previous Council’s Declaration ‘Nostra aetate’ laid the foundation (…) In fact, in the Christian world – though I do not say on the part of the Church as such – erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, which have produced feelings of hostility towards this people.” [20]

In this way, the Pope shifts the responsibility for the consequences of the interpretations of the New Testament in regard to the Jewish nation from the ‘Church as such’ to the Christian world in general, just as was done a year later under the chairmanship of Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy in the Vatican Shoah declaration: We remember: A reflection on the Shoah.
[21]

Regarding the Church’s withdrawal from the responsibility for the suffering and grief done to the Jewish people, Dr. Hans Jansen says:

“This conclusion is contrary to what scores of renowned historians, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, have brought to the fore: the devout blessing, the religious legitimation of all forms of hatred of Jews has nowhere in the world come from the city hall or the streets of Alexandria, nor from the barracks of Rome, but from the Christian basilicas and churches, where Christians crowded together around the crucified Christ. In the course of the centuries, ninety-six councils and a hundred and fourteen popes have formulated laws in order to ridicule the Jewish people, to have them tortured and exiled, to expropriate their possessions, and to consider them as pariahs of society.” [22]

This incitement to hatred of the Jews by the leaders of the Church dates from a very early point in time. In his book: “Three Popes and the Jews”, Pinchas Lapide mentions the following:

“Contrary to popular opinion, it is a historical fact that the first synagogues were not burned by lawless mobs, but on the express orders of bishops. In Mesopotamia in 388 at the behest of the Bishop of Callinicum, whose act of arson was stoutly defended by Ambrose of Milan: “I declare”, wrote that saint of the Church, “that it was I who gave orders to put fire to that synagogue.” [23]

The same book describes that, even at the very first council that took place in Nicaea in the year 325, the day on which Easter was to be celebrated was definitively made independent of the day which the Sanhedrin in Judea had established for the celebration of the Jewish Passover. [24]

The minutes of this council, which are stored in the archives of the Vatican, show the sinister motives at the root of this decision made by the ‘notables’ of the early church:

“We are to have nothing in common with the despised Jewish people (...) We want to detach ourselves from this despicable community (...) After killing our Lord, the Jews have become completely insane. They are driven by an irresistible force stemming from their inherent madness.” [25]

For centuries, the destiny of the Jewish people was denied, despised or annexed for one’s own benefit because of a wrong interpretation of the promises of salvation in Scripture.[26] Only sporadically, a different sound was heard. One of the best-known examples of this is the moving prayer of Pope John XXIII:

“Against this entire tradition, John the Good pointed to the mark of Cain on his own forehead. He accepted the church’s guilt in shedding Jewish blood across the centuries, in accusing them of being accursed by God. Most movingly of all, he claimed that Catholic persecution of Jews amounted to crucifying Jesus a second time in the flesh of his own people. The pope, chief representative of a holy and infallible church, begged forgiveness for these appalling sins and errors. Our only excuse, he said, was ignorance.”
[27]

Not only the ‘notables’ of the Roman Catholic Church can be accused of ‘rebelling’ against the expectations of Jesus and the apostles regarding the calling of the Jewish people. In this respect, Martin Luther, one of the ‘notables’ of the Reformation, a ‘man of repute’, grossly despised the Word of God in this context. In his treaty “Von Juden und ihren Lugen”, he writes:

“You ought to be ashamed of yourselves, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves wherever you are, you accursed Jews, because you have dared to interpret God’s high, exalted and comforting Word in an unashamed way to meet the desires of your earthly, fickle and greedy stomachs (...) In his treatise “Vom Schem Hamphoras” (= a magical name of God), Luther, viciously mocking, even corrupts this for the Jewish people Holy name to “Schem Haperes” (= there is the dung). [28]

Now, coming back to our times—is there a glimpse of understanding anywhere to be found in the resolutions of the Assemblies of the World Council of Churches regarding the unity of God’s people as a condition for the re-acceptance of the Jewish people as a whole?

Moreover, there are all those independent churches who understand the notion ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ in Romans 11:25 either as the one moment in time from 1 Corinthians 15:52, when, at the sound of the last trumpet, the dead will be raised, or as an ‘interim return’ of Jesus to rapture His church. This eschatological error causes the responsibility, which, according to Romans 11:31 is imposed on us, to be evaded as well.

There has also been a great deal of ‘rebellion’ by the very notables, delegated to the various councils, synods or assemblies, against the obvious expectations by Jesus and the apostles regarding the ‘budding staff’ of the Jewish people after their restoration in the times of refreshing. That is why the nations have lost their bearings in their search for world peace.

The aftermath of the rebellion against Moses and Aaron in Numbers 16 was terrible. Fourteen thousand seven hundred of the misled people were killed.

Aaron had to stand between the living and the dead with his censer—the symbol of priestly intercession—to bring about reconciliation and to stop the plague (Numbers 16:48). He had to do it quickly. Aaron obeyed and ran into the midst of the assembly. The moment of total destruction was imminent!

May God give that in the hour of the great threat in connection with the dénouement of Israel’s history, there will be a quick and priestly interceding congregation standing ‘between the dead and the living’. The rebellion against God’s anointed and their office and message will not go unpunished either at this time. However, the ‘exodus’ to the times of refreshing will yet take place. There is forgiveness and restoration with God, even now.

The ‘staff’ which God once put in the hands of the chosen people will blossom again. The apostle Paul announces a new springtime for the world in Romans 11:15, with the words:

“…what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?”

13 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. P.A. Elderenbosch: “Van feest tot feest”, page 44-45, Boekencentrum, ’s-Gravenhage, 1977
“Pinksteren is ook in het Oude Testament het feest van het verbond en de dag waarop Israël geroepen werd om zich weer bewust te worden wat het betekent om volk van God zijn. (…)
Wanneer het oude Israël het Pinksterfeest vierde, dacht men in het bijzonder aan het verbond dat God Zijn volk gaf op de berg Sinaï. Na hun bevrijding uit Egypte kwamen Mozes en de zijnen op de plaats waar God zijn profeet destijds geroepen had. (…) Op dezelfde plaats zou ook het volk zijn roeping ontvangen; de roeping om volk van God te zijn, Gods stem hoorbaar te maken in de wereld. (…) Israël antwoordde dat het alles zou doen wat hun gezegd werd. Dan wordt boven op de Sinaï rook zichtbaar, bliksemschichten verlichten het landschap. Zo kreeg Israël het teken dat het Gods volk was, geroepen tot Zijn dienst. De hele aarde is van God. In die wereld wordt Israël nu uitgezonden om mensen met deze God in contact te brengen.”

14 See: “Shofar-series”, volume 1, pp 32-36 and “Shofar-series”, volume 2, pp 95-109

15 Gerhard Kittel: “Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament”, band 3, page 929, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1957

16 The Sfire or Sefire steles are three 8th-century B.C.E. basalt stelae containing Aramaic inscriptions discovered at Al-Safirah (“Sfire”) near Aleppo, Syria. Two treaties conducted between minor kings from the Kingdom of Arpad inscribed on the stelae are often cited as evidence of the Aramaean tradition of treaty-making. (From: Wikipedia: John F. Healy (13 June 1987). “Ancient Aramaic Culture and the Bible”, University of Durham. Retrieved 2007-10-12)

17 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. F.C. Fensham: “De prediking van het Oude Testament, Exodus”, page 227, G.F.Callenbach B.V. , Nijkerk, 1977
“De uitdrukking is getuige Aramese verdragen (Sefire) een vast bestanddeel van de verdragsterminologie. Het woord wijst op een zegenende invloed, die van de meerderheid uitgaat.”

18 Name according to 1 Samuel 15:29 (Complete Jewish Bible)

19 About the symbolism of the number ‘five’, see: “Shofar series, volume 3, pp 114-117

20 John Paul II: “Address to a symposium on the roots of anti-Judaism”, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 31 October 1997

21 Translated from Dutch –
Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy: “We remember: A reflection on the Shoah”, Holy See: Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, 16 march 1998

22 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. Hans Jansen: “De paus en de jodenvervolging”, page 7,8, Uitgeverij Kok, Kampen, 1998
“Deze conclusie is in strijd met hetgeen in de laatste decennia vele tientallen historici van wereldnaam van zowel joodse als niet-joodse zijde naar voren hebben gebracht: de godsdienstige zegen, de religieuze legitimatie van alle vormen van jodenhaat is nergens ter wereld uit het stadhuis of de straten van Alexandrië en ook niet uit de kazernes van Rome gekomen, maar uit de christelijke basilieken en kerken waar christenen samendromden rondom de gekruisigde Christus. Zesennegentig concilies en honderdveertien pausen hebben in de loop der eeuwen wetten geformuleerd om het joodse volk bespottelijk en belachelijk te maken, om hen te laten martelen en verbannen, om hun goederen te onteigenen en hen als de paria’s van de samenleving te beschouwen.”

23 Translated from Dutch –
Pinchas Lapide: “Three Popes and the Jews”, page 47, Hawthorn Books, New York, 1967

24 Ibid, page 45

25 Translated from Dutch ––
Dr. Hans Jansen: “De paus en de jodenvervolging”, page 62, Uitgeverij Kok, Kampen, 1998
“Wij moeten niets gemeen hebben met het gehate volk van de joden (...) Wij willen ons van deze schandelijke gemeenschap scheiden (...) De joden zijn na het vermoorden van onze Heer helemaal gek geworden. Zij worden door een onweerstaanbare drang gedreven waarheen hun aangeboren waanzin drijft.”

26 See: “Shofar series”, volume 3, pp 137-154

27 Peter de Rosa: “Vicars of Christ”, page 6, Bantam Press, London, 1988

28 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. Hans Jansen: “De paus en de jodenvervolging”, page 30, Uitgeverij Kok, Kampen, 1998
“Jullie moeten je hier schamen, jullie moeten jullie schamen, overal waar jullie zijn, jullie vervloekte joden, want jullie hebben het gewaagd het hoge, verheven en troostende Woord van God schaamteloos te interpreteren om te voldoen aan de begeerten van jullie aardse, grillige en gulzige maag (…) In zijn traktaat ‘Vom Schem Hamphoras’ (=magische naam van God), verbastert Luther zelfs de voor joden heilige naam in uiterste spot tot ‘Schem Haperes’ (= daar is de drek)”

3. THE INITIATIVE OF THE PHILISTINES

The farewell on the Mount of Olives

“Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)

When the circumstances of life change, it is normal for anybody to find one’s bearings. This is even more so when somebody is at the point of death. People who are dying often ask what time it is. Saying goodbye means tension, and tension increases the need for information and orientation.

It was just like that for the disciples.

They had gone through a lot. The transition from professional fishermen to fishers of men had caused some moving experiences. Jesus’ teaching confirmed by amazing miracles, and on top of that the conflicts with the teachers of the law and the chief priests, the terrible court case before Pilate and Herod, the crucifixion, His resurrection and His appearances during the forty days after that—it was nearly too much to cope with.

And then came the time for Jesus to leave this earth.

Jesus had promised that He would not leave them as orphans in a hostile world (John 14:18). His farewell speech sounded like a speech from the throne. He spoke to them about things concerning the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). He did not choose just any place to talk to them, but He took them to the Mount of Olives.

This mountain occupied an important symbolic place in divine revelation, also in Jesus’ life. In the daytime He would teach in the temple and He would spend the nights on the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:37).

In Ezekiel 11:22-23 and 43:4-9, the Shekhinah, the glory of God is mentioned in connection with the Mount of Olives, which is situated to the east of Jerusalem. Moreover, in the above-mentioned verses, there is a connection to the exile of the people and to the return of the Lord to His temple, which is expressed in the words:

“Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever…” (Ezekiel 43:7).

Jesus’ ‘commuting’ between the temple and the Mount of Olives may be seen, in a metaphorical sense, as the fulfilment of the prophecies about exile and restoration.
[29] For, when after the Last Supper, He goes to the Mount of Olives, He endures in almost unbearable agony the struggle of accepting the cup of the deepest exile: suffering and dying and being forsaken by God. Emptying this cup would count for God as standing surety for the entire fallen human race.

His sweat fell to the ground like drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. An angel supported Him. He prayed: “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39).

Jesus prayed at a stone’s throw away from His disciples, which means: no further than His pastoral reach. His sheep remain within His pastoral field of vision. Even in the most difficult time of His life, He does not lose sight of them. It was all about Jesus sacrificing Himself, standing surety for His entire flock of all times and all places. May this be a comfort for all believers, in particular for the Church in the last round of history, however difficult this period may be. Jesus did not refuse the cup, and He did not renounce His pastoral reach.

Restoration is possible, also of the kingdom to Israel, for this ‘Surety’ has accomplished everything. It is impossible to separate the question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel and Jesus’ answer to this question from the paradigmatic history of the Old Testament and the prophecies on this matter, such as Ezekiel 11:22-23 and 43:4-9. After His ascension, the ‘commuting’ will continue: When the Spirit has come, and through the worldwide mission, Jerusalem will acknowledge and welcome Him as the Messiah, then the way will be opened up to the great restoration. From His speech on the Mount of Olives, events will proceed via the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and worldwide mission towards the temple of Revelation 11:1.

Just before His ascension to heaven from the Mount of Olives, Jesus spoke about very important issues, namely things concerning the Kingdom of God. Therefore, every word from His conversation with the disciples merits our special attention. It would be good to compare the words ‘the times or dates’ (Acts 1:7) with Jesus’ words in Luke 19:42. When Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said:

“If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now (νυν [nun]) it is hidden from your eyes.”

In Acts 1:6, we read:

“So when they met together, they asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time—ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ (en tō chronō toutō)—going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’”

Both these verses are about the ‘now’, but just as much about ‘Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem’, the city of the great King. After all, Jesus discussed the coming of the Kingdom of God with the disciples gathered around Him. This important theme is undeniably linked to the message of the entire Old Testament, including Jesus’ own teaching both before His death and after His resurrection.

At His entry into Jerusalem, when the Mount of Olives is mentioned once again, Jesus referred to a key message in Zechariah 9:9:

“Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!

Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

At that event, however, when the slopes of the Mount of Olives shook and echoed with the exultation of the crowd, Jesus was overcome by a deep sorrow, He wept, because the things which would bring peace to His people were at this time still hidden from their eyes. The foundation for His kingship would lie in the sacrifice of His death on the cross, when He was slain as the Lamb of God, which would have universal significance.

Well, this sacrifice was—prior to His ascension in Acts 1—an accomplished fact.

The Lamb of God had been slain.

Would the restoration happen now?

Would He fulfil His ‘entry into Jerusalem’ now?

The question of the disciples is understandable. But Jesus’ answer is:

“It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8).

The kingdom will be restored to Israel, but this will only happen by God’s intervention in the Gentile world, in judgment and mercy. With this answer, Jesus wanted to open the eyes of the disciples for the universal meaning of His entry into Jerusalem. During His entry into Jerusalem, the crowd must have undoubtedly recognised the image of the just and triumphant king riding on a colt, from Zachariah 9:9. All the disciples had immediately begun to praise God with a loud voice with the words from Psalm 118:26, which specifically refer to the Messiah:

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest” (Luke 19:38).

Zechariah 9:9, however, is firmly connected to verse 10:

“I will take away the chariots from Ephraim
and the war-horses from Jerusalem,
and the battle-bow will be broken.

He will proclaim peace to the nations.

His rule will extend from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

The concept that the salvation by this King would be restricted to the nation as such was the sad misunderstanding at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. Some of the Pharisees who were part of the crowd even asked Him to rebuke His disciples, but Jesus answered:
“If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out” (Luke 19:40). Even the prophet Isaiah had said:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.” (Isaiah 49:6)

It has never been God’s intention for the Jewish nation to be only a ‘consumer’ of His salvation, but rather an ‘instrument’, so that the ‘ends of the earth’ should seek the Lord, and that a kingdom of peace would be established, according to Zechariah 9:10.

However, before that time of salvation comes about, both Jerusalem and the Gentile world will walk through a deep valley under God’s judgments. Jesus refers to this in Luke 19:43-44 and more extensively in Luke 21 in His speech about what will happen in the last days. It sounds like a final conclusion:

“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24).

Clearly a line is drawn here across the field of the future. It is a mark on the earthly timeline. Paul’s message in Romans 11:25 about the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ and the salvation of all Israel, as well as the expectations presented to us with authority at the Council of the Apostles (Acts 15:1-8) point to the same milestone placed by Jesus on the way to the end of the world.

An exact exegesis of the concept ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ is therefore of paramount importance for our eschatological expectation.

In essence, the last conversations between Jesus and His disciples on the Mount of Olives are exactly about the same issue. However, the atmosphere must have been very charged during these conversations, especially when the time concept of ‘now’ was mentioned in the expression ‘at this time’. In Luke 19:42, Jesus had also used the word ‘now’, but in a negative sense: “But now it is hidden from your eyes.”

Will the ‘lightning’ of His glorious future strike the tall ‘spire’ of this ‘now’?

Jesus had given instructions to His apostles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:2). Part of this was ‘not to leave Jerusalem’ (Acts 1:4). But they still had the other ‘now’ of Luke 19:42 in their minds. At that time, too, Jesus had gone from the slopes of the Mount of Olives straight to the temple. But at that time, it was with a unique purpose that He commuted between the Mount of Olives and the temple; for after arriving at the temple, He drove out the merchants, saying: “My house will be a house of prayer, but you have made it ‘a den of robbers’” (Luke 19:46; Isaiah 56:7; Jeremiah 7:11).

The disciples had experienced how, as usual, He had spent the evenings and nights on the Mount of Olives, and how, in the mornings, He had taught in the temple what He had heard from His communication with the Father. But, by the authority of the religious representatives of this same temple, an extremely hostile reaction surfaced. A great multitude came with swords and clubs in order to arrest Him in that very place. At this, Jesus drew their attention to His regular visits to the temple with the words: “Am I leading a rebellion that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled” (Matthew 26:55-56).

And now, when Jesus was about to leave from the Mount of Olives, He gave His circle of disciples strict orders, through the Holy Spirit, not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for the gift which His Father had promised, and about which they had heard Him speak. This meant that, after His farewell, they had to return from the Mount of Olives and go to the temple in Jerusalem. Would they now be welcomed in a different way than after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, when Jesus had come down from the Mount of Olives to the temple and had had to use a whip and had found Himself in a ‘den of robbers’? Would Jerusalem’s spiritual level now be different from Sodom and Egypt, “where also their Lord was crucified”? (Revelation 11:8). It would soon be Pentecost, the feast of the receiving of the Torah, but in what way had the prophets, who had presented the Torah to the people time and again, been received through the ages?

With swords and clubs!

Did Jesus ever teach anything else but the Torah?

And what was their reaction to this? Swords and clubs, including Judas’ kiss of betrayal. Ever since the beginning of creation, the kiss had been the salutation of the breath of life, hence a welcome to the life of the neighbour. “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48). The disciples had witnessed this too, and now, they, as the hated circle of Jesus, had to descend helplessly from the Mount of Olives towards a dark ‘cave of murder’.

Surely all these fearful deliberations will have accompanied the question about the ‘now’ of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. In His answer, Jesus does not deny the coming restoration of the kingdom to Israel as such. His answer even implies an affirmation of this expectation. His kingdom may not be of this world; it will, however, break through in this world, with the actual Israel as the principal axis in a mega-transformation in history. His promise of the baptism with the Holy Spirit should therefore not be taken as a change of course in a spiritual sense of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. They will yet as a nation be raised to the status of a kingdom of priests, and they will take their place among the nations analogous to that of the tribe of Levi among the other tribes.

The disciples’ question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel is, therefore, perfectly legitimate. The only restriction that Jesus makes in His answer is about the question of the timing: “It is not for you to know ‘the times or dates’ the Father has set by his own authority” (Acts 1:7).

However, His answer gets an immediate follow-up in the great commission and the promise: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

Of course, the follow-up to His answer to the disciples still refers to their question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. The first part of this verse should not be separated from the second part; in other words, the restoration of the kingdom to Israel will come by way of a worldwide apostolic testimony in the power of the Holy Spirit.

This verse has so often been separated from its context—as if the divine purpose of world mission would not be the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Because of this, the accurate future expectation for the church has been corrupted, and the ecumenical goal has been deprived of its proper course. So, the notion ‘to witness’ occupies an important place in Jesus’ farewell speech. The Greek word μάρτυρες (martyres) in Acts 1:8 is the same word which is used in the Septuagint for the word ‘witness’ in Isaiah 43 and 44. This is a word that belongs to the courtroom. *

With the order not to leave Jerusalem, the disciples are referred to a lawsuit. So in Acts 2, a ‘legal procedure’ is started which will end in ‘all Israel being saved’. Here the mission of ancient Israel is evidently laid upon the new spiritual patriarchs, the apostles, and upon all those who, through their testimony, believe in the Name of the Lord.

Also the terminology used in Acts 1:6 for the announcement of the ‘restoration’ shows how the Old Testament is absolutely being fulfilled in Jesus and His works. The Hebrew word weheshib, to turn, in Malachi 4:6, which has been used here for the turning of the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, has the same root as the word wahashibotim in Jeremiah 16:15 and the word wehoshabtim in Hosea 11:11, whereas in the Septuagint these terms are translated by the word αποκαταστησει (apokatastèsei), which corresponds to the word αποκαθιστάνεις (apokathistaneis), ‘to restore’, in Acts 1:6.

Moreover, in Mark 9:12, we encounter the same Greek word when Jesus promises: “Elijah does come first, and restores all things.” And in conclusion, the same term is used in Acts 3:21, when Peter talks about the time when God will restore everything.

So the fundamental concept is that a return to God is a necessary prerequisite for the return from exile. First of all, it is necessary that, through an Elijah-like prophetic ministry and its effects, the spiritual distance which has developed in the course of time is removed, so that subsequently, God’s intention regarding Israel’s election may be fully realised.

The same condition also applies to the ‘people of the covenant’ who legitimately belong to ‘the new covenant in His blood’, by their faith in Jesus. When, through the centuries, a gap has arisen between the spiritual patriarchs (the twelve apostles) and their distant posterity, then the New-Testament church can only be restored to the heights of Passover and Pentecost by way of a divine intervention; like a ‘Carmel judgment’. It is a condition set by the Holy Spirit to reach Jerusalem convincingly only by world missions. Therefore, our Gentile-Christian conversion must lead the way. It will not happen by might, nor by power, but by His Spirit (Zechariah 4:6).

Convincing people rules out force.

Jesus’ ‘speech from the throne’ on the Mount of Olives shows us the way to global integration of the kingdom of peace. The height of the fulfilled Feast of Tabernacles will also be attained among all the nations (Zechariah 14:16).

At His disciples’ question about when the restoration of the kingdom to Israel will take place, Jesus submits the times and dates completely to the plan which the Father has set by His own authority. In Acts 1:7, the original Greek text uses the word έξουσία (exousia) for the word ‘authority’. This word has a judicial meaning, namely in the sense of the authority to make legal decisions. So the ‘times and dates’ belong to this jurisdiction. This means that they have been included in the ‘lawsuit’ of the Holy Spirit. The ‘times and dates’ are like ‘power lines’ which are permanently ‘charged’ by the exousia, the Almighty Father’s own authority. God Himself will, by way of His own judicial authority, take part in the lawsuit set up for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. That is why the disciples are not allowed to leave Jerusalem, but have to wait there for the power of the Holy Spirit to come upon them, a power necessary to be witnesses in this lawsuit in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Prior to this, Jesus had announced the necessity of His departure and the coming of the Comforter:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you” (John 16:12-15).

According to Jesus’ farewell speech, the coming of the Holy Spirit would take place ‘in a few days’ (Acts 1:5). And on the day of Pentecost, as the disciples were all together in Jerusalem, according to His instructions, this baptism with the Holy Spirit took place, seven days after they had seen Jesus ascend into heaven.

Seven days between Ascension and Pentecost

The common understanding is that there is a period of ten days between the Ascension and Pentecost instead of seven. This miscalculation finds its origin in the fact that the church has abandoned the calendar of the Jewish festivals. Quite some time passed before the ecclesiastical authorities, i.e. the Pope and bishops, gathered at a Council and decided to put an end to the simultaneous celebration of the Christian Easter and the Jewish Passover. The preparatory work for this issue was done by the sometimes rather anti-Semitic preaching of influential church fathers.

At first, the early Christians celebrated Easter on the same day as the Jews celebrated Passover, namely on the 14th day of the month Nisan. They recognised Easter as the fulfilment of the Old-Testament typology of the Paschal Lamb, and hence, they strongly emphasised the date of Christ’s death. After a separation was made between Jews and Christians with respect to the date of celebrating Easter, the Christians who stood by the 14th of Nisan were called Quartodecimans. This separation was officially confirmed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., at which “all the churches agreed that Easter, the Christian Passover, should be celebrated on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox”
[30], i.e. after March 21st.

A millennium later, in 1322, on the eve of the Jewish Feast of Weeks, Pope John XXII ordered all the copies of the Talmud to be burnt triumphantly. In order to add to the festive joy, at least one Jew was burnt along with the books.
[31]

There is a lot more to be said about anti-Semitic measures taken at other Councils, such as the fourth Lateran Council held in 1215,
[32]
but we prefer to restrict ourselves to the facts which are directly connected to the church’s separation from the calendar of Jewish festivals, which includes the arrangement of the Jewish week. The issue did not end by shifting the festivals; the keeping of the Sabbath—contrary to Jewry—was shifted from the seventh day to the first day of the week. The Sabbath was considered to be part of the so-called ceremonial law, which had lost its force with the advent of Christ. According to Thomas of Aquino, the church had even received divine power to replace the Sabbath with the Sunday.
[33] The martyr Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who died in about 107, was already familiar with the sharp contrast between keeping the Sabbath and the Sunday observance.
[34]

Very soon, the Sunday was called ‘the day of the Lord’. One of the strongest arguments given for this opinion came from Revelation 1:10 [35], where it says that John ‘was in the Spirit’ on the Lord’s Day. When studying the original text, however, we find no connection whatsoever with the first day of the week. In Greek it says: γενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (egenomen en pneumati en te kyriake hemera), which means: I was in the Spirit on the day of the Lord.

The meaning of the ‘day of the Lord’ in this verse is ‘the Last Day’.

This explanation agrees with the use of this term all through the Scriptures. Examples illustrating this use can be found in Obadiah 1:15; Joel 2:31 and Malachi 4:5, where the Septuagint always translates ‘day of the Lord’ by ἡμἐρα κυρίου (hemera Kyriou), consistently meaning ‘day of judgment’ or ‘the end of the world’. There are also several passages in the New Testament in which the ‘day of the Lord’ relates to ‘the Last Day’, such as Acts 2:20; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Peter 3:10; sometimes only marked by ‘the day’, as for instance in 1 Corinthians 3:13 and Hebrews 10:25.

The charisma of the prophets includes being taken back in the spirit to past times, and in the same way being taken into the distant future. When Jesus appeared to John on the island of Patmos, the apostle was transported to the end times, enabling him to see in visions the way towards that time.

Since shifts were made in the calendar of the Jewish festivals as well as the arrangement of the Jewish week because of the negative attitude of the Church towards the Jews, it is obvious that our comprehension of eschatology and the Messianic future are also obscured.

In the course of time, the church has drifted away very much from Jesus’ original instructions to be His witnesses in Jerusalem and among all the nations.

‘Being witnesses’ is different from ‘acting as executioners’ in a divine lawsuit by which the Eternal God, as the Bridegroom, intends to betroth His people as His Bride. It is also essentially different from breaking away from the chosen people—by shifting the dates of the festivals—so as for the Church to claim the exclusive right for this position.

The covenant which the Eternal One made with His chosen people is represented in the Old as well as in the New Testament as a marriage contract. Of course this is metaphorical language expressed in human terms. But in spite of that, it remains divine reality.

When two people decide to get married, the preparations for the upcoming ceremony are very important. This also applies to deciding on the wedding date. Chronologically speaking, this date is the ‘reference point’ for the celebration. The bride and groom are looking forward to that ultimate moment for which everything is arranged and prepared. The bride is busy organising her adornments long ahead of time in order to meet her bridegroom in full glory.

Now concerning the relationship between God and His people, we find that Scripture is full of bridal symbolism. We read e.g. in Revelation 21:2: “I [John] saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.” And in Isaiah 61:10, pre-eminently the chapter describing the fulfilment of the Feast of Tabernacles in the advent of the kingdom of peace:

“I delight greatly in the LORD;
my soul rejoices in my God.

For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”

In chapter 62:5, Isaiah continues:

“…as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,
so will your God rejoice over you.”

And through the prophet Hosea, God speaks to His people, saying:

“I will betroth you in righteousness and justice,
in love and compassion.

I will betroth you in faithfulness,
and you will acknowledge the LORD” (Hosea 2:19-20).

This symbolism is maintained in the New Testament. John the Baptist, also called the preparer of the way for the Messiah (Malachi 3:1; John 1:23), says in his testimony about Jesus:

“The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete” (John 3:29).

In light of this elevated figure of speech, all prophecy can be classified as the task of the ‘master of ceremonies’.

This also applies to Moses. He had been called as the mediator to make preparations for the ‘marriage’ of God with His people at the appointed date, namely the fiftieth day after Passover, an event which, up till now, is being remembered by the Jewish people when they celebrate the Feast of Weeks, and which is celebrated by the Christians on the strength of its fulfilment by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). The name of this day, Pentecost, refers to the word ‘fifty,’ after the Greek word pentekoste.

The importance of the establishment of the Feast of Weeks on the fiftieth day after Passover becomes clear if we compare the seven days of preparation at the foot of Mount Sinai with the seven days between Jesus’ ascension to heaven and the day of Pentecost, as mentioned in Acts 2. After Jesus had risen on the third day, He ‘showed Himself alive’ to His apostles for forty days (Acts 1:3). According to Scripture, He showed Himself to Mary Magdalene on the very day of His resurrection (John 20:1-18). Hence this day is the first of a series of forty. So, counting from the date of Passover, on which He was handed over and crucified (Matthew 26 and 27), forty-two days had elapsed—which is six weeks—when He took leave of His apostles on the Mount of Olives and ascended to heaven. On the fiftieth day—the day of Pentecost—the Holy Spirit was poured out as promised.

That means that there were seven days of preparation between His ascension to heaven and the day of Pentecost.

This shows a striking parallel with the time of preparation for the ‘marriage ceremony’ of God with His people at Mount Sinai. According to Exodus 19:1, it was in the third month after the Israelites had left Egypt, on the very day that they came to the desert of Sinai; they camped there, in front of the mountain. ‘The very day’ means on the first day of the third month.

Their departure from Egypt took place in the middle of the month Nisan (Exodus 12:18 and 51), after which, at the Lord’s command, the people went from place to place during the whole month of Ijar experiencing the miracles of God; they arrived at the foot of Mount Sinai on the first day of the month Sivan. So six weeks had passed since the day on which they had been brought out from Egypt. This means that there was one more week left between their arrival on the first day of Sivan and the fiftieth day of God’s revelation on Mount Sinai. In that week, Moses acted intensively as a mediator between God and the people, in order to prepare them for the ‘wedding day’ on the fiftieth day, which is the Old-Testament Pentecost, Shavu‘ot. Reading this report in Exodus 19 is like listening to the private conversation between God and His people through Moses’ mediation and almost hearing how Bridegroom and Bride are exchanging their wedding vows.

After they pitched camp, Moses climbed up to God, where the Lord immediately made a significant link between the meaning of Passover and what Pentecost will entail. Moses received the following mission:

“This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’” (Exodus 19:3-6).

This is the way in which God asks for a response to His merciful work of redemption: the exodus from Egypt. The answer of His people must consist of their willingness to keep the covenant and to live up to the high function of being a royal priesthood before all the nations. When Moses brought this message to the people, they answered unanimously: “We will do everything the LORD has said” (Exodus 19:8).

The ‘Bride’ said: “I do”!

All of this is followed by divine promises and instructions to establish Moses’ credibility (verse 9) and the sanctification of the people, in order to prepare them for the theophany on the third day of this consecration, when the Lord would come down on Mount Sinai in sight of all the people (verse 11). The instructions for the sanctification of the people might be typified in the florid language of the Apocalypse as ‘the bride’s preparation of adorning herself for her husband’ (Revelation 21:2). That meant washing clothes, preparing themselves for the third day of the manifestation of God, putting strict limits around the mountain, not going up or touching the foot of the mountain on penalty of man and animal being put to death, and finally sexual abstinence (Exodus 19:10-15).

God’s special descent ‘in a dense cloud’ may also be regarded as the preparation to meet God and receive the Torah. For in this conversation with Moses, God made His voice heard to the people, with the purpose of procuring eternal validity for Moses’ credibility:

“The LORD said to Moses, ‘I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you’” (Exodus 19:9).

In a sense, the same thing happened at Jesus’ transfiguration on the mount. Peter refers to that event in order to emphasise the reliability of his message about the great power and future of the Lord:

“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:16-19).

Both the Old and New-Testament mediators had to be authorised by God, who descended and audibly spoke to the people. The Eternal God knows how difficult it is for prophets to be accepted and acknowledged.

On the fiftieth day at Mount Sinai, faith was needed, also on the side of the people. Faith in what Moses did, but above all faith in God’s promised approach, with the purpose of choosing a nation for Himself and lifting them to the status of a kingdom of priests among all the nations. So when the Old-Testament ‘Pentecost’ would arrive, the people (according to Exodus 12:37 six-hundred-thousand men, excluding women and children) were expected to leave their tents at Moses’ command and stand at the edge of the demarcation lines.

It was to be an assembling in faith, similar to that of the disciples in the week between Jesus’ ascension to heaven and Pentecost. They, too, were expected to have faith in Jesus’ words when He promised them the coming of the Holy Spirit. In ardent prayer, they waited together for the fulfilment of this promise.

The same spiritual mindset was needed for the six hundred thousand men leaving their tents and waiting together for God to come down.

A huge crowd was waiting at the other side of the demarcation lines at the foot of the mountain.

What an impressive scene!

Not only because of the spectacular mustering of such a crowd, but above all because the Lord descended in thunder and lightning, smoke and fire and earthquakes, while, moreover, the theophany was accompanied by increasingly loud sounds of trumpets:

“On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently, and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder” (Exodus 19:16-19).

It looks like a prelude to the Last Day, when all mankind will have to line up before God in order to be judged by one Man. Everyone will have to ‘leave their tent’, and the sound of God’s trumpet will become louder and louder.

The last trumpet!

Jesus says about this:

“At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (…) “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come” (Matthew 24:30-31 and 42).

When conjugating a verb, the stem will always remain recognisable. In the same way, the covenant made on Mount Sinai can be recognised in every fulfilment of the later festivals, even till the end, when the moment of the wedding of the Lamb has arrived.

When the ‘Pentecostal events’ on Mount Sinai find their New-Testament fulfilment in Acts 2, several points of similarity can be noted:

– The seven days between the arrival at Mount Sinai and the theophany on the fiftieth day, and the seven days between Jesus’ ascension to heaven and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost;

– The work of Moses as mediator in his profound communication with the Eternal God in order to prepare the people of Israel for His coming, and Jesus’ ascension to heaven in order to prepare the coming of the Holy Spirit, together with His disciples in prayer;

– God visibly speaking to the people: “You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven” (Exodus 20:22). There is a link here with the tongues of fire that appeared on the heads of the disciples during the New-Testament fulfilment. After all, the people also saw the lapidim
[36], the torches of fire, and God’s voice in the fire at Sinai.

– The sudden sound coming from heaven like the blowing of a violent wind which filled the whole house where they were sitting (Acts 2:2) reminds us of the sound of the trumpet becoming louder and louder, with the voice of God answering Moses (Exodus 19:19).

– God’s motivation for entering into a love relationship with the people He had chosen and asking for an answer of reciprocal love by obeying His commandments is the same one that Peter utters with the words: “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” (Acts 3:26). In Exodus 19:4, this motivation is expressed in a splendid figure of speech: “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself.” In the song of Moses, this is described even more extensively:

“Like an eagle that stirs up its nest
and hovers over its young,
that spreads its wings to catch them
and carries them on its pinions.

The LORD alone led him;
no foreign god was with him.” (Deuteronomy 32:11-12).

Jesus uses a similarly loving image when He says: “…how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings…” (Matthew 23:37). The purpose of His mission was to restore God’s love relationship with His people for which He voluntarily allowed Himself to be killed as the Paschal Lamb. In essence, the shadow history in the Old Testament and the fulfilling history in the New Testament form a complete unity. In the entire Scriptures, the command to obey God’s voice finds its motivation in the redemption that He accomplished. On the day of Pentecost, this redemption was universally proclaimed for all the nations. This is shown in the miracle of the languages. Babylon, with its confusion of languages, is defeated. The ‘dive of the eagle’ in order to catch its young is valid for every believer from every nation through Jesus’ death and resurrection. But again, there is the request for reciprocal love: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness” (2 Timothy 2:19).

– Another point of similarity is the demarcation line. God says to Moses: “Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy” (Exodus 19:23). This demarcation of the mountain formed part of the ‘liturgy of Pentecost’ in the Sinai. In a metaphorical sense, Jesus gave instructions for a similar demarcation in connection with the upcoming Feast of Pentecost, when He said farewell to His disciples on the Mount of Olives. He told them not to leave Jerusalem and to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit ‘in a few days’. God had already established the place and the time in His counsel and foreknowledge. Jerusalem, the city of the great King, had been appointed as the place where He would establish His Name (2 Kings 23:27; 2 Chronicles 33:4). The word of the Lord would go out from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:3). Considering the character and the function of this city, Jesus’ command to His disciples not to leave Jerusalem but to await the coming of the Holy Spirit right there, is a very clear demarcation.

– As seen before, the moment God sent His Holy Spirit did not appear to depend on any human intention, but, as it happened at the time in the Sinai, it had been established by the Eternal One exactly on the fiftieth day after Passover. Seven weeks after Passover, the day on which according to God’s counsel and foreknowledge, Jesus was handed over and nailed to the cross and killed by wicked people (Acts 2:23), the day of Pentecost dawned. In this way, God Himself maintained the Jewish calendar of festivals, in spite of the fact that the Messiah was rejected. The seven weeks between Passover and Pentecost are like a holy chain of golden links, which at the marriage ceremony in the Sinai as well as on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem adorns the bride of the Lamb. In essence, it is the same marriage ceremony, but now, it acquires a universal character. This transition to the universal does not mean diminishing the unique position that had been allotted to Israel as God’s chosen people; on the contrary, it is the way to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel and connected to it, the breakthrough of the kingdom of God. When Jesus was about to leave this earth and spoke about the time of the coming baptism with the Holy Spirit: “…in a few days”, He classified the day of Pentecost among the ‘times and dates’ which the Father has kept under His own authority. He Himself knew that it would be the fiftieth day after Passover, but at that moment, it was not yet the time for His disciples to know the exact date. In principle, the day of Pentecost is considered to be a ‘day of first-fruits’ among the ‘times and dates’ for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, which in itself implies that God will fully include Israel’s cycle of festivals in His work of fulfilments till the end of the Age. In the same way, the Feast of Tabernacles will have a fulfilment within the framework of time and space.

This perspective on the Future of the Lord is quite encouraging. But at the same time, we should ask ourselves how concretely today’s world, but in particular the Church, is focussed on this Future and to what extent it has even deviated from its origin in the apostolic era. It seems—to use Amos’ metaphorical language—as if the Lord is standing at the wall of Christianity, holding a plumb line and asking: “What do you see, Amos?” (Amos 7:8).

Amos’ answer was incredibly simple.

A plumb line!

At which God’s answer is: “Look, I am setting a plumb line among my people Israel …”

Suppose God sets a plumb line in the middle of the Christian Church to measure it?

In the middle of two millennia of ‘Church history’?

Is ‘our wall’ standing straight?

For sure, in the era of the first Church of Pentecost, ‘the wall’ was standing straight. This is evident from the reports of which we read in Acts 2:41-47:

“Those who accepted his message were baptised, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”

And in Acts 4:32-35:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”

That ‘the wall’ stood straight also appears from the apostles’ attitude, which spoke of the same forgiving attitude as was manifested by Jesus, even when His hands and feet were pierced by nails. He prayed on the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

We find this same attitude with Stephen when he was stoned to death: “Then he fell on his knees and cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them!’” (Acts 7:60).

After Saul’s conversion and his acceptance into the circle of the brothers, we read:

“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord” (Acts 9:31).

This same Paul, who first destroyed the Church by dragging men and women away and throwing them in prison and who also approved of Stephen’s execution, later says:

“… I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...” (Romans 9:2-3).

The Scripture passages cited above show how the first Christian Church was one in heart and mind and focussed on the salvation of the Jewish people through their Messiah.

The foundation of the Church had been well established by the apostles (Ephesians 2:11-22). There is therefore no justification whatsoever for Christians to develop an anti-Jewish attitude, even though in the beginning, they experienced persecution and imprisonment etc., as also the apostles endured. Jesus’ attitude of forgiveness, mirrored in the attitude of His followers, the apostles, should be a remaining example for the Christians coming after them.

The writer of the letter to the Hebrews gives an exhortation along the same lines:

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (Hebrews 12:1-3).

What went wrong?

How did the church fathers come to turn away from the Jews?

It is a fact that, shortly after the era of the apostles, there was a controversy about the date at which the Christian Easter should be celebrated. This so-called ‘Easter struggle’ reached its peak in the second century (!) AD, after which this issue was decided upon during the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. (The horrible motivation to do this was described earlier, in Chapter II).

In doing so, they dissociated themselves from the Jewish Passover on the 14th of the month Nisan.

One of the results of renouncing the fixed date of the Passover on the 14th of Nisan is that, due to the different calendar revisions of the past centuries, such as the change by Julius Caesar (the Julian calendar) and the one by Gregory XIII (the Gregorian calendar), Easter also is celebrated at different dates by Christianity. The resulting pain was universally felt for centuries. It was impossible to synchronise the dates of Easter. It remained an aspect of ecclesiastical disunity. Granted, for the church as a whole, Easter was still a very important feast, but there was no way to come to an agreement about its date, not even when an attempt was made in Constantinople in 1923. Since the end of the 19th century, a new calendar reform is in the pipeline, which should bring about stability for the date of Easter. Even the United Nations is engaged in this matter, and the World Council of Churches as well has been making attempts at establishing a fixed date for Easter.
[37] However, even if, in an astronomical way, according to the Jerusalem meridian, it were possible to calculate the moment of the full moon with mathematical precision, and thus to establish the date of Easter for all Christianity, then the schism caused at the Council of Nicaea will still not have been restored.

The Holy Spirit was poured out on the fiftieth day after Pesach, and by doing so, God Himself sanctioned the 14th of Nisan, making a permanent connection between Pesach and Shavu‘ot, and in the fulfilment of these feasts between Golgotha and Pentecost.

His resurrection was already a divine sanctioning of Jesus’ sacrificial death as the Lamb of God. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit, exactly on the fiftieth day after His death, was a clear sign that God had sanctioned the ‘divine string of seven Sabbaths’ as the legitimate fulfilment of His own promises (Leviticus 23:16). This very stringing together of seven times seven Sabbaths indicates that the feasts fundamentally relate to each other. In the Jewish tradition, this was an emphatic ‘Counting of the Omer’. Actually, Pentecost was a continuation of Pesach. This is a strong reminder of the foundation and power of the exodus, namely the blood of the Paschal Lamb.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the fiftieth day after Pesach was also a strong reminder from God’s side of how the foundation and the power of the deliverance is contained in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. We might say in the metaphorical language of these feasts: There was a ‘Counting of the Omer’ in heaven too. The date that was fixed for the marriage ceremony of God with His people in the ‘open-air temple’ of the Sinai is the same as the date of the marriage ceremony at the temple in Jerusalem in Acts 2: by God’s own authority, it was to be on the fiftieth day after Pesach. From that day on, anyone from the nations can now join the marriage feast of the Lamb.

Peter was the one who gave the speech at this wedding party and through the miracle of the languages, it was universally understood.

We may observe a perfect parallel between the ‘string of promises’ and the ‘string of fulfilments’ of the seven Sabbaths. Both these ‘strings’ cannot be stretched chronologically. In the history of the revelation of God, both of them constitute a constant factor chronologically. So we can speak of a holy independence of these eternal constants as opposed to calculating the exact moment of the full moon by means of astronomy.

The exact parallel—in every detail—between the string of the seven Sabbaths in the foreshadowing and that of the fulfilment contains the promise that at a certain time, the third great feast of Israel’s cycle of festivals, i.e. the Feast of Tabernacles, will be fulfilled with the same precision within the framework of earthly time. After all, Israel’s cycle of festivals is the prophetic base model according to which in the end times, all God’s decisive interventions (kairoi) will take place.

God did not break the divine string of fifty days between Pesach and Shavu‘ot – but the Church did, at the Council of Nicaea.

That decision was an attack on the marital relationship between God and His people.

Paul says the following about this: “Did God reject his people? By no means!” (Romans 11:1).
The Greek word for ‘reject’ ἀπώσατο (apōsato), reminds us of the phrase ‘certificate of divorce’ ἀποστασίου (apostasion) in Matthew 19:7. The same word is used in the Septuagint in 1 Samuel 12:22 and in Psalm 94:14, where in both cases, it is emphasised that the Lord will not reject His people, and Samuel even adds to this: “… for the sake of His great name.”

However, by turning away from the common date of celebrating Pesach, but especially by the perverse motive for this decision, the First Council of Nicaea high-handedly and with the pretension of speaking in the name of the Holy Spirit handed the Jewish people a certificate of divorce.

But God has not rejected His people. The marriage has not been dissolved. Whoever says so injures the name of ‘Yahweh’. Only a few branches have been broken off, but the ‘olive tree’ has not been cut from its roots nor has it been pulled up. On top of that, Paul says in Romans 11:17-24:

“If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!”

One day, all Israel will be saved! (Romans 11:26).

The guilt of the First Council of Nicaea is very great, and successive Councils have—in terms of the law of succession—accepted the inheritance of this guilt and dealt with it as being ‘compound interest’ by adding to it here and there, as in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 with its atrocious anti-Semitic regulations, which even served as a model for national-socialism in the second World War, resulting in the Shoah. Finally, the 2nd Vatican Council (11 October 1962 – 7 December 1965) did not really mend the breach with Jewry either, in spite of their proclamation that ‘the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture’.[38] If Cardinal Bea in his commentary “Vaticanum II — The church and the Jewish people” comes to the conclusion that the Jewish people are no longer God’s people in the sense of an institution for the salvation of mankind,
[39] then this Council has in fact accepted the resolutions of Nicaea I as well. Cardinal Bea’s words fully agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, drawn up to be executed by the 2nd Vatican Council and approved by Pope John Paul II:

“The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by ‘all Israel’, for ‘a hardening has come upon part of Israel’ in their ‘unbelief’ toward Jesus (…) The ‘full inclusion’ of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of ‘the full number of the Gentiles’, will enable the People of God to achieve ‘the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’, in which ‘God may be all in all’.”
[40]

According to this creed of the Roman Catholic Church, the return of Christ will immediately follow the conversion of Israel. According to this line of reasoning, the Jewish people can no longer be a salvation-blessing to mankind, because after they have recognised Jesus as the Messiah, we should immediately expect Christ’s glorious coming.

These views of the Roman Catholic Church are based on a faulty exegesis of the concept of ‘fulness of the Gentiles’.

We have previously established that, by dropping the calendar of festivals, which God established for the Jewish people, our understanding of the eschatology and the Messianic future were obscured as well.

Looking back, we may say that the guilt of Nicaea I developed into a monstrous guilt. This does not only apply to the Roman Catholic Church, but to all Christianity, from Orthodox to Evangelical, from large church denominations to the many Evangelical congregations. The date at which we celebrate Easter is still disconnected from the cycle of festivals as determined by God Himself (Leviticus 23) and which indeed He also honoured by its exact fulfillment.

“What do you see, Amos?”

“A plumb line!”

The ‘wall’ of Christianity appears to be completely askew. What has happened in church history with regard to God’s marriage with His people is so serious that it could well be compared to stealing the Ark of the Covenant with the purpose of placing it in the temple of Dagon as war trophy. Shifting the date of Easter—especially in light of the motivation—is, from an objective point of view, ‘stealing’ the Gospel, in order to place it as a ‘war trophy’ in one’s own sanctuary.

This does not mean that every church denomination can be called a temple of Dagon. When Jesus directs His messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor by means of His revelation to John, a small church as Thyatira is also acknowledged as a church, although they tolerated the prophetess Jezebel there (Revelation 2:18-20).

In the same way, the churches of our days can also be described as ‘church of the Lord’, but everything that impugns the Name of ‘Yahweh’, I AM WHO I AM, in Jezebel’s way needs to be resisted.

Taking as an example the ancient story of the loss of the Ark of the Covenant, it is striking how seriously and severely God reacted to the theft of the Ark.

The Ark of the Covenant in Dagon’s temple

It is striking that the Philistines did not put the Ark straight into a storeroom or in a museum for war documentation as their war trophy, but in their temple next to their idol Dagon. This shows how critical the controversy between true and false religion has become. After all, paganism, with its wide variety of polytheism, clearly does away with the acknowledgement of God as the Father of all Creation.

The pagan image of ‘temple’ often stems from the ancient mysticism of the primeval hill. This mysticism more or less suggests that a primeval hill emerged from the chaotic waters, a kind of ‘navel of the earth’. This hill was thought to be the place where the umbilical cord of the earth had been cut. This mysticism of the primeval hill was interpreted in the construction of pyramids and temples. [41]

This mythological notion was in itself a rejection of God as Father and Creator. This also applies to all sorts of other cultic forms in which creation was placed above the Creator, as was the case in the pagan steer cult and the perverse worship of Baal and Ashtoreth.

If God had tolerated the Ark to be placed in Dagon’s temple, this would automatically have implied that the exodus from Egypt, to which His Name was linked, had failed. After all, the exodus was not merely a deliverance from slavery from a purely social point of view, but above all, it meant a tearing away of the people from the attraction of Egyptian idolatry. This is even more valid when we read the following in the genealogy of Genesis 10:13-14: “Mizraim was the father of (…) the Casluhites (from whom the Philistines came) and Caphtorites.” The name Mizraim means Egypt. There must have been strong relations between the Philistines and Egypt, ethnically, i.e. through tribal kinship relations, but certainly also through their religion. Without a divine response to the Ark being placed in the temple of Dagon, the people of the covenant would have been back to square one.

However, God’s command to Moses to build the Ark of the Covenant and to place it in the Tent of Meeting was the first step to the building of the temple and the worship service in it. After all, the purpose of the temple of God was to worship and to proclaim God as the Father of all creation by means of Israel’s worship service. There are many places in Scripture where we read of God as Father in relation to the temple. The prophet Malachi says: “‘If I am a father, where is the honour due me? If I am a master, where is the respect due me?’ says the LORD Almighty”, and subsequently, he utters his prophetic criticism on the shortcomings of the priests in their temple worship (Malachi 1:6-14). God’s temple is diametrically opposed to every idol temple.

The New Testament continues along this line. Jesus’ teaching was impassioned by the faithful recognition of God as Father. This finds expression in how He speaks about the Father’s house, as in John 14:1-14. And when He talks to His disciples about prayer, He also calls God their Father: “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (…) your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven …’” (Matthew 6:6-9).

Jesus died with the Name of His Father on His lips: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” (Luke 23:46).

Caiaphas, being a high priest, prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation (fulfilment of the temple service), and not only for that nation, but also to gather the scattered children of God (Fatherhood). (John 11:52)

Jesus Himself says about His ‘official’ mission:

“The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No-one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father” (John 10:17-18).

The essence of Jesus’ mission is to reveal God’s redeeming disposition. By Jesus’ death and resurrection, God, as Father, stands surety for all of creation.

After His resurrection, He promised: “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17).

He will rebuild God’s temple in three days (John 2:19). His mystic body is God’s temple. It is a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Taking into consideration this profound relationship between God as Father and the temple service, in which the Ark of the Covenant took a central place, it was a serious insult and a provocation of God as Father, to place the throne of the living God as a war trophy in the idol temple of Dagon. This pagan temple in itself was a denial of God as the Creator. Here the antithesis with the realm of darkness is brought into focus.

Hence, God’s answer is magnificent. Magnificent, because His response is an answer intended for Israel, in the divine code of Israel’s worship, from between the two cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, i.e. from God’s throne and the atonement cover. For, it is written: “There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites” (Exodus 25:22). This is a basic principle for the fellowship of God with His people during the Old-Testament ‘dispensation of promise’, as well as during the New-Testament ‘dispensation of fulfilment’. Circumstances may change, but what God says is always aimed at His great purpose: to reconcile the world to Himself through Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

This revelation is intended in the first place for Israel, and after that for all mankind. There is no power in this world that can steal or claim this purpose of God for itself. No storm can blow away the cloud of God’s glory, the Shekhinah, from above the atonement cover.

After all, the essence of all preaching must be: Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Every point on the circumference of a circle is equidistant from the centre. In the same way, God’s revelation to mankind is focussed on the one and only centre: The Lamb which was slain, and which was chosen before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:18-20).

In this respect, we may even consider the proclamation of the Ten Commandments—the Decalogue—on Mount Sinai as spoken by God from the atonement cover, since the introductory words refer back to the deliverance out of Egypt, which was based on the blood of the Paschal lamb.

The message of the Philistine interlude

The message of the Philistine interlude was meant for Israel in the first place, but via Israel it is also of current interest for us. This message is up to date.

It is remarkable how God allotted two separate nights for His wrathful reaction to settle accounts with Dagon. On the first night, Dagon fell on his face before the Ark of the Lord. And after the people of Ashdod had put him back in place, they found him face down in front of the Ark of the Lord again the next morning; but this time, his head and both hands were cut off and were lying on the threshold; only his torso remained (1 Samuel 5:3-4).

This reminds us of Joseph’s conclusion, when he was summoned by Pharaoh to interpret his dreams: “The reason the dream was given to Pharaoh in two forms is that the matter has been firmly decided by God” (Genesis 41:32). Joseph had already experienced this with the dreams of the chief cupbearer and the chief baker. His God-inspired interpretation of these dreams had come true (Genesis 40).

It also reminds us of the ancient rule of law: “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Jesus also refers to this rule in Matthew 18:16.

In this judgment on Dagon, we can even hear the first words of the Decalogue: “You shall have no other gods before me”, and “You shall not make for yourself an idol” (Exodus 20:3-4).

Dagon was beheaded and his hands were cut off, and subsequently, the hand of the living God weighed heavily on the Philistines. To their bewilderment, the people of Ashdod in and around the city fell victim to an outbreak of tumours. They immediately linked this disaster to the fact that they had the Ark of the Lord in their possession, and so the only solution they envisaged was that the Ark of the God of Israel should be moved away from them. So they pushed the problem forward, and sent the Ark to Gath. However, God’s judgment struck there as well. Then they tried to burden Ekron, another city, with that ‘dangerous’ Ark. But no sooner had the Ark of God reached Ekron than the Ekronites cried out, saying: “They have brought the ark of the god of Israel around to us to kill us and our people” (1 Samuel 5:10).

The judgment for stealing the ark was administered in triplicate, which means that the matter was decided by God.

It looks like the Ekronites came to the same conclusion. In any case, they did not deal with this tricky matter in the same way as the people of Ashdod and Gath had done. They did not consider the outbreak of tumours, or the fact that so many people died, to be the result of a local epidemic, but they linked the theft of the Ark to this disaster that had hit them. This can be understood from the fact that they called all the rulers of the Philistines together with the message: “Send the ark of the god of Israel away; let it go back to its own place, or it will kill us and our people” (1 Samuel 5:11).

Psalm 78:66 [KJV] says:

And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts:

he put them to a perpetual reproach.

From the preceding verses, it is clear that these words refer, among others, to these Philistines:

“He abandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh,
the tent he had set up among men.

He sent the ark of his might into captivity,
his splendour into the hands of the enemy” (Psalm 78:60-61).

The words the Psalmist uses:
“And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts”, should not rule out that the tumours which broke out among the Philistines were a consequence of the perverse behaviour resulting from the Baal and Ashtoreth worship.

A real crisis situation was growing, as all over the city, the people were panicking, and their cry went up to heaven (1 Samuel 5:11-12).

The Ark of the Lord had been in their territory for seven months, which indicates a measure of fulness. God’s involvement with His chosen people is clear when looking at the judgments on the Philistines, as well as the loss of the Ark for seven months because of a corrupt priesthood. Then God intervened—by an initiative of the Philistines.

Their existential need brought them to the point of calling their priests and diviners, and asking them: “What shall we do with the ark of the LORD? Tell us how we should send it back to its place” (1 Samuel 6:2).

So the Philistines were also faced with the question of how to get out of this crisis situation. They had stolen the Ark by military power—but could they now take it back across the border to Israel by military power too? They realised that this issue concerned God. This made them submit to a judgment of God, following the advice of their Philistine ‘clergy’. Already during the judgment of Ekron, all the rulers of the Philistines had been called together. They did not look for a solution by negotiating with the Israelite authorities. The government of the Philistine territory consulted their own clergy. This problem had a religious dimension.

This explains why they were so cautious in trying to submit to a judgment of God. The impact of the incident was enormous. The answer of their clergy was: Do not send it back without a guilt offering. This guilt offering should consist of five golden tumours and five golden rats, according to the number of the Philistine rulers, since they had all fallen victim to the same plague. By doing so, they would honour the God of Israel, so hopefully God might withdraw the pressure of His hand from the people, their gods, and their land.

In order to manifest their submission to God’s judgment, a new cart had to be prepared. Two cows that had not yet been yoked were to be hitched to the cart, while their calves were taken away from them back to the stable. Then the Ark of the Lord had to be put on the cart, with the golden objects—as a guilt offering—placed in a chest next to it, after which the cows were to be sent on their way.

And then the Philistine clergy advised:

“… keep watching it. If it goes up to its own territory, toward Beth Shemesh, then the LORD has brought this great disaster on us. But if it does not, then we shall know that it was not his hand that struck us and that it happened to us by chance” (1 Samuel 6:9).

If the cows, contrary to their nature, would walk away from their calves with the cart containing the Ark of the Lord, then this would count for the Philistines as a true answer of God.

God responded to this total surrender to a judgment of God:

“Then the cows went straight up toward Beth Shemesh, keeping on the road and lowing all the way; they did not turn to the right or to the left. The rulers of the Philistines followed them as far as the border of Beth Shemesh” (1 Samuel 6:12).

Is it worth trying to hear a message for our time from this section on the Philistines?

Isn’t this distant story of God’s revelation too far removed from our modern times to learn a lesson from it for today?

At first sight this might be the case, but given the similarity between the annexation of the Ark of the Lord in order to place it as a war trophy in their own temple of Dagon, and what Christianity in all its divisions has achieved, it is a religious obligation to pay attention to the divine response to this initiative of the Philistines in ancient history. Besides, we ought to seriously consider and recognise all the features of this event as signals, written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for us as well.

The signals

We have already seen that God used two nights for His wrathful response to the fact that the Ark was placed next to Dagon. God had decided on this matter. He does not tolerate any other gods alongside Himself, or any idol to bow down to.

The next remarkable fact is that, on the second night, Dagon was found on the threshold with his head and both his hands broken off.

This cannot be a coincidence.

The threshold functioned as a guillotine.

Dagon was beheaded and his hands broke off on the spot.

Solomon, who was famous for the wisdom he had received from God, writes in his proverbs:

“The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the LORD” (Proverbs 16:33).

There is a divine strategy behind this. The threshold was synonymous for the border of the temple, and in a certain sense counted as pars pro toto—a part taken for the whole—for the entire temple and the surrounding temple premises. Moreover, the temple and its premises were considered to be one with the borders of the country. There was a ‘close affinity’ between the threshold of the temple and the borders of the country. If even the most sacred objects, including the temple or a church denomination, receive idolatrous worship, it brings with it ritual immorality as well as horrible cruelty.

And this is still going on!

If an Emperor or a ‘Führer’, a Pope or a King is worshipped in an idolatrous manner, this inflated illusion of holiness will soon spread to the citizens of that particular ‘heavenly kingdom’. The result will be that other nations and races or dissenters are easily humiliated and trampled underfoot, because they are regarded as an inferior species or even as vermin. The outcome of this is ethnic cleansing and genocide, executed with satanic cruelty.

There is a certain kind of class justice that shows unfair preferential treatment to a certain class of society in legal decrees. Similarly a certain type of racial justice exists that a priori judges a certain race unfairly in court. A kind of ‘religious justice’ is also known, in which the sentence is determined by the majority of the adherents. There is a constitutional justice as well, with an idolatrous political system acting so rigorously that an entire population is imprisoned as it were in a concentration camp. Everything in a system like this serves to strengthen the ‘fence’ around this ‘concentration camp’, including any possible economic progress. Any openness in the field of politics or religion is immediately squashed for fear that it should make a hole in the carefully built ‘fence’ around the dictatorial political system.

Dagon fell with his head on the threshold.

Scripture tells us that God establishes thresholds and boundaries. This began in paradise. However, when man, inspired by Satan, strives for autonomy and wants to decide for himself what the boundary is between good and evil, Adam, the ‘head’ of mankind, is exiled from paradise and death was the consequence (Genesis 3:19). Moreover, after man had been expelled, cherubim were placed to guard the borders of paradise with flaming swords, which they flashed back and forth to protect the way to the tree of life (Genesis 3:24). But there was also God’s promise: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This battle between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman would, in the future, always be decided by the serpent’s head being crushed.

When Pharaoh, in his self-deification, threatens to exterminate the seed of the woman by genocide, then this ultimately becomes his downfall. The golden head of the large statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, symbolizing the king himself, will not be able to withstand the rock which was cut out without human hands and which crushed the image, while the rock itself became a huge mountain filling the whole earth (Daniel 2: 34-35).

All the ‘big shots’ of religious and political systems that are in opposition to and compete with the Gospel will be destroyed, including the Antichrist of the end times.

Every ‘Goliath’, who blasphemes the ‘Name’, will be beheaded.

In the same way that God once marked the boundaries of paradise, He also established the borders of the Promised Land. By the casting of lots under the guidance of God, the boundaries of each tribe were established (Joshua 18:10).

Jesus also drew a boundary when He announced that Jerusalem would be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

When present-day ‘big shots’ in politics—with the best intentions—are looking for ways to bring about peace in the Middle East without considering these words of Jesus, they are taking a big risk.

Once, the Eternal One will mark the final boundary and will cut the thread of world history. At that time divine justice will come into effect and all judgment will be put into the hands of the Son. The head of our Redeemer may have been crowned with thorns here on earth—at His return with great power and glory, He has the ‘plumb line’ of the final judgment in His hand. Then profoundly the word of the psalmist will be fulfilled:

“The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:22-23).

Among the signals from the Philistine interlude that we should take to heart is also their motivation to surrender to a judgment of God. From history, they learnt a spiritual lesson, namely that the Egyptians holding onto God’s people is similar to the Ark of the Covenant being kept within the borders of Philistine territory. May this motivation specifically be a clear warning signal for us. After all, in the Revelation of John, we are told how, in the flow of history until the last day, God twice arranges an exodus campaign: first in chapters 8 and 9, and then, before the last round, in chapters 15 and 16. This exodus campaign is described in the symbolic language of the plagues of Egypt.

Against this background, we should bear in mind that such an exodus campaign, which, in the intensity of the plagues, reaches a climax—even up to a crisis situation—cries out for a solution. How can we possibly escape this deadly impasse?

The solution lies in the fulfilment of Revelation 10.

It will be an inescapable call for a judgment of God in the form of a Carmel judgment.

The surrender to a divine judgment in order to receive an answer from Above is not a strange element in the history of divine revelation.
When Jacob’s family reaches a crisis situation, the story developing around Joseph is a spiritual answer to their need.

When the limit of their existence in Egypt was reached, and all the newborn baby boys had to be thrown to the crocodiles, God gave a delivering answer by saving Moses through Pharaoh’s daughter, and having that same Moses lead the people out of slavery in Egypt.

The same thing happened during the reign of Ahab and Jezebel, when a crisis situation was reached and the earth was scorched due to the drought, which was a divine judgment because of the Baal worship. Then too, God brought deliverance by sending down fire on the altar after the people had surrendered to this judgment of God, calling out: “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!” (1 Kings 18:39). Immediately after that, God sent a downpour of rain and the plague of the drought was lifted.

When an unimaginable climax of war is announced in Revelation 9, God’s penultimate secret will be revealed in the roaring of the lion and in the supremacy of God’s Majesty, symbolised in the seven thunders and in the result of the establishment of the temple of the Spirit in Revelation 11:1.

Unfortunately, numerous objections are being raised against this expectation for the future. For instance, those who interpret the Apocalypse as merely a pamphlet of resistance—the purpose of which is to comfort the believers oppressed by the cruel Roman emperor in an Apocalyptic code language—and who try to file this last Bible book among other faded archives as being irrelevant to our religious life and our expectation for the future, are making a serious and most harmful mistake.

In itself, the symbolic language of the Apocalypse may also refer to the oppression of the Roman emperors; however, this should not a priori exclude that John also used this secret language as ‘colours’ on his literary ‘palette’ in order to portray the last days until the end of the world. The apostle, who, at his calling, was transported in a vision to the Last Day, had to write down “what must take place after this” for God’s servants. So, this concerned historical events in the future and the actual ways that would lead towards that great Day.

The Philistines’ motivation for surrendering to a judgment of God should profoundly serve as an example to us, particularly in the light of the future depicted in the Apocalypse.

A parallel can be seen in the plagues that struck Egypt and those that struck the Philistines with those that are announced in the Apocalypse. In all these cases, they reach a climax, resulting in a crisis situation.

The fact that the plagues of Egypt resulted in the killing of Egypt’s firstborn, while at the same time, the people of Israel, as God’s firstborn, were redeemed (Exodus 13:13) and by the blood of the Paschal Lamb were brought out from the Egyptian house of bondage (Exodus 12:17) indicates that the redemption of Israel is inextricably linked to the tenth plague over Egypt.

The impact of this redemption and the judgment over Egypt was so enormous, that the Philistines alluded to this event after they experienced the consequences of stealing the Ark of the Covenant and immediately looked for a solution through a judgment of God:

“Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When he treated them harshly, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?” (1 Samuel 6:6).

Earlier, when Israel had brought the Ark of the Lord into their camp, the Philistines had already drawn the conclusion: “Who will deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods? They are the gods who struck the Egyptians with all kinds of plagues in the desert” (1 Samuel 4:8). Now that they themselves fell victim to plagues, they understood that keeping the Ark of the God of Israel would be punished in the same way as when Pharaoh kept the people of Israel in Egypt.

Would God in our days respond in a different way to a similarly sinful attitude of Christianity, when they put a line through Israel’s future salvation destiny as a people, a destiny for the benefit of mankind, and thus, spiritually speaking, leave this nation under the ‘bondage of Egypt’? Or should we also allow for similar plagues as the ones that struck Egypt and the Philistines? John gives the answer in chapters 9 and 10 of the Apocalypse. The fulfilment of these chapters belongs to the ‘kairoi’, the dates about which Jesus spoke at time of His farewell on the Mount of Olives.

May this ancient Philistine initiative be a shining example to us!

Is it possible that some good can come from that far-away Philistine land after all?

It certainly is, just as it was from Nazareth (John 1:46).

The restitution

The way the Philistines prepared for a judgment of God is touching. They proceeded very cautiously. They showed great respect for the God of Israel in the way they handled the matter. Their surrender to a judgment of God was meant to show homage and honour to God, from start to finish. This attitude is initially displayed by their suggestion to make a new cart to carry the Ark of the Covenant. They considered a ‘second-hand’ cart not good enough for the God of Israel. This in itself is a token of homage.

In the New Testament, we read about a similar token of homage, when Jesus enters Jerusalem. Jesus requests a colt that no one has ever ridden (Luke 19:30). Joseph of Arimathea honoured Jesus by putting a new tomb at His disposal; in which no one had ever been buried (Luke 23:53).

In connection with this, it should be noted that, if a worldwide revival is to come about in the future and the promise of Romans 11:25-26 is to be fulfilled, Christianity should also provide ‘a new cart’.

Many a bookshelf in libraries all over the world can hardly bear the weight of all the books written about the relationship between the Church and Israel.

But where is ‘the new cart’?

Where is the initiative to work towards a united celebration of the Lord’s Supper, with the purpose of reaching the heart of Jerusalem?

Where is the ecumenical movement that will centre on the joint recognition of the blood of the Lamb in order to save Jerusalem by this proclamation of the death of the Lord?

Or has our denial of this commission gone so far that we are satisfied with the so-called ‘ecumenism of the heart’? With respect to the Lord’s Supper, it looks as if everyone is only looking out for their own interests.

The ‘mouldy planks’ of past rulings of Church Councils and the binding resolutions of Synods are not of any use for the ‘new cart’.

The Philistines understood that only unconditional surrender to God could save them now that their own idol was beheaded and his hands were broken off and the hand of the Lord weighed heavily on them. A new cart and a new approach were needed.

However, a new cart by itself was not sufficient to satisfy the Lord. According to the number of rulers of the Philistines, five golden tumours and five golden rats had to be made, because, as the Philistine clergy said: “the same plague has struck both you and your rulers” (1 Samuel 6:4). These models of the tumours and the rats were also meant to pay homage to Yahweh. And in the same way as requiring a new cart, using the precious metal gold for the models of the tumours and the rats is a sign of honour to Yahweh. Taking into account that the Philistines had close ties to Egypt in cultural and religious matters and because the number ‘five’ took a prominent place in their customs with respect to the titles of princes and prominent people, it may be the case that, apart from the fact that there were five rulers, this number also symbolised their recognition and respect of Israel’s God and King.

Can we, in our days, find the kind of retribution and remorse that comes close to resembling this homage and retribution of the Philistines? Penance marches to Jerusalem have been made and supplications have been uttered to ask for forgiveness of crimes committed during the crusades. A series of atrocities from the past and present have resulted in the words ‘Have mercy on us, O Lord’, such as: anti-Semitism, wars and suppression, discrimination and slave trade, pollution, moral decline and dissent among the churches. The Pope also donned a penitential garment for the part the Church played in the Galileo case, religious wars, crusades, discord among Christians, Christian support of dictatorships, complicity in slavery and racism, and local co-operation with the Mafia. [42]

During an impressive meeting on the ‘Day of Pardon’ on 12 March 2000, the following sins were confessed: sins in general, sins committed in the service of truth, sins which have harmed the unity of the body of Christ, the sin against the people of Israel, sins committed by acts contrary to love, peace, the rights of the nations, respect for cultures and religions, sins against the dignity of women and the unity of the human race, and sins in relation to fundamental human rights. [43]

The decision and motivation for this ‘mea culpa’ have been more extensively explained in the document: “Memory and Reconciliation: the Church and the faults of the past”. When reading this document, one cannot but get the impression that it was drafted in the spirit of the Gospel. It contains, among others, the following passage:

“Purifying the memory means eliminating all forms of resentment or violence left by the inheritance of the past from one’s personal and collective mind. This is done on the principle of a new, strictly historical-theological judgment, which in its turn marks a type of corresponding renewed moral behaviour.”
[44]

In itself, this is an accurate conclusion. Cleansing one’s conscience by a confession of guilt should certainly result in ‘renewed moral behaviour’.

However, in the light of what is said in the above-mentioned document and the impressive ‘mea culpa’ on the ‘Day of Pardon’ of 12 March 2000, how should we regard the beatification by Pope John Paul II of two popes who were each other’s direct opposites on 3 September of that same year?

According to Peter de Rosa, a former priest and qualified as an ‘eminent theologian’, Pope Pius IX, who proclaimed papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council, trampled human rights under foot: from freedom of conscience to complete equality of all citizens before the law, guaranteed in the new constitutions of a number of European countries in the nineteenth century. The pontificate was in favour of oppression of all these liberties. Pius IX even went so far that in 1852 he persuaded Tuscany to forbid Jewish doctors to practise medicine. So they were curtailed in their civil rights. Such was Pius IX’s reputation that De Rosa in his book about the ‘Dark Side of the Papacy’ comes to the conclusion: “There could hardly have been a pontiff in history on whom the church could bestow the accolade of ‘infallible’ with more trepidation.”
[45]

How are we to reconcile the fact that Pope John Paul II, who seemed so convinced of the guilt of the Church and does penitence for it, beatifies a pope like Pius IX?

Given Pius IX’s ‘reputation’, it is quite understandable that this beatification evokes indignation and protest.

The Dutch daily newspaper ‘Trouw’ states:

“Protests from Jewish quarters against Pope Pius IX who chased the Jews back into the ghetto, and who had a Jewish boy taken away from his parents in order to rear him as a Roman priest. Protest and ‘concern’ from the small Old Catholic Church, which is holding Pius IX responsible to a great extent for the schism of his time, because he pushed the doctrine of papal infallibility through in an unholy manner: ‘dogmatising papal authority (...)

Astonishment and total incomprehension: the present pope expresses his regret, pronounces mea culpas for centuries of anti-Semitism within his church, for the lack of respect for human rights, even lack of respect for life; and 6 months later, that same pope proclaims the beatification of a predecessor who personifies all of this.”
[46]

Without calling into question the sincerity of his repentance, we could ask if these attempts of penitence—especially in light of later developments—come in any way close to the ‘gold content’ of the penitence of the Philistines, and does all this remorse show a similar homage to God? Yet another question that arises is whether there is any connection in these repentance meetings and statements of contrition with the restoration of the Gospel (the Ark of the Covenant) to Israel? After all, a mere cleansing of our soiled past in order to enter a new millennium with a ‘clean slate’, will not do. That would be sheer opportunism, and as such even reprehensible. The old structures would remain intact, and there would be no question of a ‘new cart’.

When, in spite of all this penance, the Roman Catholic church regards itself as holy through the Virgin Mary, and without sin—contrary to the believers, who are sinners—
[47]
but that in the Great Jubilee Year 2000, an abundance of indulgence will be available, based on a decree of the Apostolic Penitentiary, which carries out the Pope’s decisions, as laid down in the ‘Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000’—the worst is to be feared. The conditions for this indulgence may vary from: “…a pilgrimage to one of the patriarchal basilicas, saying the rosary or the Lord’s prayer, visiting the Basilica of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, visiting their brothers and sisters in need, to abstaining from smoking or alcohol, and donating a proportionate sum of money to the poor”.
[48]

In the document: “We remember: A reflection of the Shoah”, we have already seen that the Church has withdrawn itself from a collective responsibility with regard to the sins from the past and has dissociated their believers in this respect. [49]

Again, God is the One who judges the intentions of the individual believers. The plumb line is in His hand. The Lord weighs the motives (Proverbs 16:2). But, if the ‘wall’ of our repentance appears to be ‘lopsided’ we will not be released from the pressure of His hand and from the ‘diseases’ that beset mankind on all five continents.

Meanwhile, it must have been an exceptionally exciting moment for the Philistines when they hitched the two nursing cows to the cart while their calves were taken back home. This was the ultimate moment.

Would the supernatural really take place?

Would their guilt offering indeed be satisfactory to Israel’s God?

The answer came from Above:

“Then the cows went straight up toward Beth Shemesh, keeping on the road and lowing all the way; they did not turn to the right or to the left. The rulers of the Philistines followed them as far as the border of Beth Shemesh” (1 Samuel 6:12).

The way the cows went straight towards Beth Shemesh is emphatically stated in three different ways: straight, keeping on the road, did not turn to the right or to the left.

The Ark is the Ark of the Covenant that radiates the Name of Yahweh: I AM WHO I AM.

When God answers, He does not zigzag. He leaves wriggling to the serpent. Likewise, when the Lord grants His people entrance into Canaan, they have to charge straight in as soon as the walls of Jericho fall down (Joshua 6:20). The way the cows went straight up to Beth Shemesh (house of the sun) was a complete miracle by the preponderance of the great Name. The lords of the Philistines followed this divine approbation of surrender to a divine judgment all the way up to the border of Israel. Humanly speaking, the cows might instinctively have turned back in the direction of their calves when they were halfway. But God does not do things by half measures. The Ark of the Covenant crossed the border and arrived in the Promised Land.

May all mankind once understand and take to heart the message of this lowing, caused by the preponderance and power of the Name. Then God will also show us in what way and with what guilt offering ‘the Ark’, which is for the Gospel in all its fulness, will have to be taken back to Israel, His chosen people.

29 About Jesus’ ‘commuting’ between the temple and the Mount of Olives see: Shofar series volume 1, pp 32-46

30 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, article 1170, 1992

31 Dr. Hans Jansen: “De paus en de jodenvervolging”, page 66, Uitgeverij Kok, Kampen, 1998

32 See Shofar series volume 1, pp 85-87

33 Prof. Dr. C.W. Mönnich (red.): “Encyclopedie van het Christendom”, protestants deel, Page 749, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Brussel, 1955

34 Prof. Dr. J.C. de Groot (red.): “Encyclopedie van het Christendom”, katholiek deel, page 791, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Brussel, 1955

35 J.P. Boendermaker en D. Monshouwer: “Johannes, de evangelist van de feesten”, page 21,22, Boekencentrum, Zoetermeer, 1993

36 See the explanation of Exodus 20:18-19 in Chapter II

37 Prof. Dr. A.J. Wiggers: “Grote Winkler Prins Encyclopedie, volume 10, page 579-583, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Brussel, 1974

38 Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, article 597, 1992

39 See Shofar series volume 3, page 145

40 Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, article 674, 1992

41 See for further explanation of the mysticism of the primeval mount: Shofar series volume 2, pp 23-27 and volume 3, pp 158-163

42 Henk Müller: “Schoon schip in Rome’s jubeljaar”, De Volkskrant, 24 december 1999

43 Universal Prayer “Confession of sins and asking for forgiveness”, Day of Pardon, 12 March 2000

44 International Theological Commission: “Memory and reconciliation: The church and the faults of the past”, December 1999

45 Peter de Rosa: “Vicars of Christ, the dark side of papacy”, page 247,248, Bantam Press, London, 1988

46 Translated from Dutch –
Pieter van der Ven: “Pauselijke pionnen in macaber stratego op het Sint Pietersplein”, Trouw, 2 september 2000, page 18
“Protesten van Joodse zijde tegen Pius die de Joden terug in het getto joeg en een Joodse jongen van zijn ouders weg liet halen en tot Roomse priester opkweekte. Protest, ‘bezorgdheid’ van de kleine Oudkatholieke kerk, die Pius IX in hoge mate verantwoordelijk houdt voor het schisma van zijn tijd, omdat hij op onzalige wijze het dogma van de pauselijke onfeilbaarheid heeft doorgedrukt: een ‘dogmatisering van de pauselijke macht’. (…)
Bevreemding en volslagen onbegrip: De huidige paus betuigt spijt; spreekt Mea Culpa’s voor eeuwen van Jodenhaat binnen zijn kerk; voor het gebrek aan eerbied voor de mensenrechten; zelfs aan eerbied voor het leven, en diezelfde paus spreekt een half jaar later de zaligverklaring uit over een voorganger die dat allemaal personifieert.”

47 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, article 829 and 867

48 William Wakefield Cardinal Baum: “Decree of the Apostolic Penitentiary – Conditions for gaining the Jubilee Indulgence”, 29 november 1998

49 Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy: “We remember: A reflection on the Shoah”, Holy See: Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, 16 March 1998

4. DAVID’S PLAN TO BUILD THE TEMPLE

The flight of the smooth stone

“David … chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine”
(1 Samuel 17:40).

When Goliath comes on the scene, it seems like one of the giants from the pre-Flood era has returned from history. Goliath wore a coat of scale armour of bronze, weighing five thousand shekels, which is about eighty kilos. He also wore bronze greaves on his legs, and a bronze javelin on his back. The iron point of his spear shaft weighed six hundred shekels, about ten kilos. He was over 9 feet tall (about 3 meters), and he had a shield bearer walking in front of him. This Philistine defied the ranks of Israel to a duel: if anybody in Israel’s army had the courage to fight and kill him, then the Philistines would be their servants, but if the Philistine would overcome and kill him, the Israelites would be the subjects of the Philistines and serve them.

When Saul and all the people of Israel heard these words, they were terribly afraid. This Philistine looked so impressive and terrifying that nobody from Saul’s army dared to fight him. Even Jonathan, the crown prince, who, according to 1 Samuel 14:6, had once professed: “Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few”, did not have the courage to do this.

Suddenly this young man David appeared on the scene. His father had ordered him to take some provisions to his brothers at the frontline. He arrived just as the two armies were lining up against each other, with Goliath shouting his usual defiance, as he had been doing for forty days, every morning and evening. When David heard these words, he noticed how Israel’s army, throughout all their ranks, trembled with fear for this ‘walking fortress’. But under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, David spoke up: “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Samuel 17:26).

After the Lord had rejected Saul, David had been anointed by Samuel among his brothers, according to 1 Samuel 16:12-13. From that day on, the Spirit of the Lord was upon David.

His eldest brother, Eliab, however, did not think much of this, for as soon as his younger brother David inquired about the situation at the frontline, he scornfully said: “I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle” (1 Samuel 17:28).

This is an important fact in the history of revelation—to have been anointed among your own brothers! Joseph knew from experience what this meant, and so did Jesus: His own people would not receive Him. God’s anointed usually walk a thorny path.

Saul’s ranks noticed David’s inquiries. His words were reported to Saul, who had David come to meet him. David said to Saul: “Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him” (1 Samuel 17:32).

In faith, David accepted this challenge to a duel with Goliath. But Saul did not take him seriously. He said: “You are only a boy, and he has been a fighting man from his youth”, at which David handed him his ‘credentials’ with the words:

“Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:34-37).

At this confession of faith, which was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit, Saul responded: “Go, and the LORD be with you.”

In spite of these pious words, Saul wanted to be on the safe side, so he tried to put armour against armour by offering David his own coat of armour. But it did not fit David. So David took it off and chose five smooth stones from a stream.

Five stones against five thousand shekels of bronze.

That is how David approached Goliath. When the Philistine caught sight of David, he disdained him for his youth. This was no match for him: an unarmed shepherd’s boy entering into a duel with eighty kilos of steel. Goliath felt seriously offended, and said: “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And he cursed David by his gods, and threatened to give his flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field.

David responded in a prophetic way:

“You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over TO ME, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’S, and he will give all of you into our hands” (1 Samuel 17:45-47).

When the Philistine approached to attack David, David ran towards him, put his hand into his bag, took a stone, slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone penetrated into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. Then David cut off Goliath’s head with his own sword.

The first stone immediately struck home.

But why did David choose five smooth stones from the stream? Was this a strategic precaution so as to have some spare stones in case he missed? If this had been his motive, it would not really have been in accordance with the style of his anointing by the Holy Spirit; neither would it have been along the line of his resolute action in the Name of the Lord. Believing is not the same as gambling. For David, this was not an ordinary game of chance, but in faith he acted in absolute surrender to the Name of the Lord.

So, if this is not a matter of calculation, what then is the purpose of these five stones?

It is well-known that the number ‘five’ contains a divine symbolism for Israel. The central idea of this symbolism is to do homage to kings and highly-placed members of the government, as was shown before in the initiative of the Philistines to return the Ark of the Covenant to Israel. It was also seen prior to this in the royal homage Joseph bestowed on Benjamin by giving him five portions of food at dinner.[50]

Much has been written about this symbolic numerical value. In the book “David, een Messiaans model” (David, a Messianic example), the author gives his opinion in his exegesis about the five stones of David:

“The number ‘five’ unmistakably points to the Torah. (…) The meaning seems to be that David wants to approach Goliath with the intention of the Torah. David is characterised here as a ‘tzadik’, a righteous person, someone who wishes to be guided entirely by the Torah which God gave to Israel. A ‘tzadik’ is capable of doing many things. He is the embodiment of a breakthrough in obvious thinking in which power is opposed by more power and violence must be overcome by more violence. The Torah ultimately makes it clear that Israel’s God does not save by sword or spear (1 Samuel 17:47a).” [51]

This exegesis is in every respect justifiable. Although it is not conceivable that David knew ahead of time that the Torah would contain five books, and that he therefore chose five stones, he certainly acted in the spirit of the Torah, and the Torah truly is a ‘fivefold homage’ to Yahweh. That is the essence of this symbolism and the point of comparison. By means of the five stones, David symbolically placed the glory of the Name of the Lord over against Goliath’s blasphemy.

And the very first stone hits its target.

In the ‘flight’ of this smooth stone lies the power of his anointing by God’s Spirit. The ‘flight’ of this stone is in itself a prophecy. Its effectiveness is God’s answer to David’s faith. Whether he himself fully understood the charismatic depth and the extent of his actions remains a question. Prophets have often announced messages that went far beyond their own understanding. This was also the case for the high priest Caiaphas, who prophesied: “You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50).

What happened in the valley of Elah near Socoh, is not unique. Over and over, armies in battle array face one another on the ‘slopes’ of history. And over and over, blasphemous war bragging can be heard.

For how long?

Until God puts an end to it by a Messianic appearance.

The battle between David and Goliath is a prophetic parable.

After forty days, David, as a prototype of the Messiah, put an end to Goliath’s boasting.

The number ‘forty’ also contains a consecrated symbolic meaning in the Scriptures. Therefore, the ‘flight of the smooth stone’ has a far-reaching result. It has not only marked David’s future life and disclosed his anointing and identity, but the effective flight of this smooth stone was—in a figurative sense—further relayed in his later suggestion to build a temple, and God’s response to it.

The term ‘to relay’ is a technical term for the concept of ‘passing on’, in the sense of catching a sound or an image from a great distance, which is then amplified and re-transmitted by another transmitter. In a figurative sense, we might see the flight of the smooth stone, which David used to eliminate Goliath, as the beginning of a continuing facet of the ultimate elimination of the Antichrist, of which Goliath was an exponent.

Through the prophet Nathan, David received the promise of an eternal dynasty. God would establish a house for him (2 Samuel 7:11). This would have unimaginably far-reaching effects. For when the great Son of David comes, and has His Father’s official command to lay down His life and take it up again (John 10:17-18), this surety of Jesus, which is a homage to the Father’s love, is ‘the sharp stone’ which cuts through all Satan’s thoughts and plans, and ultimately penetrates the mind of the Antichrist at the time of the last round in history.

Five small stones!

One of these little stones is enough to hit the mark, provided it has been slung with the intention to honour God.

The duel

In the meantime, David’s glorious act had set the course of events in Israel in motion in a tumultuous way. The Philistines took flight en masse, violently pursued by Israel. Their defeat was crushing. It stands to reason that this entire event evoked questions from Israel’s responsible authorities.

Saul felt uneasy and asked Abner, the commander of his army: “Whose son is that young man?” (1 Samuel 17:55). Undoubtedly Saul knew enough about David’s background. David already had been his personal ‘harp-therapist’ for a while. Moreover, Saul’s servants had circumstantially recommended David for this task. In his ‘curriculum vitae’, five specific characteristics had been mentioned (1 Samuel 16:18):

“…who knows how to play the harp.

He is a brave man
and a warrior.

He speaks well
and is a fine-looking man.”

Once again we come across the number ‘five’, this time in a list of positive qualities of David’s character.

So Saul knew who David was. Moreover, David had presented himself to the king to undertake the duel with Goliath, at which point he had tried to wear Saul’s armour. And yet, at David’s appearance in the field, he asked: “Whose son is that young man?”

Samuel’s words resounded deep in Saul’s soul: “You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!” (1 Samuel 15:26).

There was mistrust in Saul’s question to Abner. But Abner answered in solemn terms: “As surely as you live, O king, I don’t know.” After that, Abner is told to make inquiries about that young man (1 Samuel 17:55-56).

Formally, Saul was right in questioning his army commander, Abner, about David. After all, as commander of the army, he bore the highest responsibility in battle. However, David had not been registered, had no number, and had not been assigned to any army unit. As such, he was completely unknown. This young man’s name had never been mentioned during any of the serious deliberations of the war council. David’s action was holy and unique. We might even say that this is characteristic for God’s intervention all through the ages at the ‘kairoi’, the decisive moments in the coming of the kingdom of God.

So, after inquiring about David’s identity, Abner took him along to Jerusalem in order to—as was formally the custom—make his report to the king.

It became an official account. David reported to the highest authorities of Israel: King Saul, crown prince Jonathan, and general Abner, while holding Goliath’s head as a trophy and proof in his hands. It stands to reason that the evaluation and analysis of his victory in the duel was an important item on the agenda of these top-level talks. We can imagine that Saul must have been interested in the ‘slinging proficiency’ of the young man before him. In his report, David will certainly have stressed the responsibility of each Israelite to stand up for the holiness of God’s Name and the honour of the armies of the living God in a blasphemous challenge as that of the giant Goliath. For David himself, his action was a matter of course. He could triumphantly show the gaping wound through which the stone had penetrated Goliath’s head and pierced his brains.

It was impossible that he should have failed, because as he had told the Philistine before striking him down: “The battle is the LORD’S, and he will give all of you into our hands” (1 Samuel 17:47).

David’s act of faith with its mighty outcome in this successful battle must certainly have entailed something ominous for Saul. So it was not solely due to David’s professional ‘slinging proficiency’. This report made Saul think. Had not the prophet Samuel explicitly informed him: “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbours—to one better than you”? (1 Samuel 15:28). Yet it still took him a while to fully understand that David was the man who would replace him. Saul first tried, by military measures, to assign David to a vulnerable post, but wherever Saul sent him, David was successful. Finally, Saul realised and understood that the Lord was with David (1 Samuel 18:28).

A typological perspective

Immediately after David’s beautiful testimony, it became clear to Jonathan that Saul’s dynasty would not continue:

“After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. (…) And Jonathan made a covenant with David (…) Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt” (1 Samuel 18:1-4).

This gesture was clear: Jonathan actually renounced his right as heir to the throne. Later, when David was in the Desert of Ziph, being pursued by Saul, Jonathan comforted him with the words: “Don’t be afraid … my father Saul will not lay a hand on you. You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you. Even my father Saul knows this” (1 Samuel 23:17).

Since Scripture shows us emphatically that all Israel will be saved through ‘the fulness of the Gentiles’ and that, linked to this, the kingdom of God will break through, we can hardly avoid considering David’s detailed report to the authorities of Israel, while holding Goliath’s head in his hands, as well as Jonathan’s reaction to it, to be the typological, and at the same time prophetic design of the Eternal God, whose Council covers all times. After all, Goliath may be seen as the explicit prototype of the ‘harnessed’ power of darkness. Only someone anointed by the Spirit of God can conquer that.

Later, Jesus as God’s anointed and the great Son of David will come to destroy the works of Satan. Figuratively speaking, ‘the smooth stone’ which He ‘slings’ is the performance of His office, namely laying down His life in order to take it up again (John 10:17).

If the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ constitutes the way to bring Israel back to their Messiah, then the essence of our confession should be: Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).

Or, continuing with the metaphor of the duel between David and Goliath, this ‘striking down of Goliath’ by Jesus’ crucifixion will have to be reported in Jerusalem. And since Israel is representative of all the peoples of the earth, this will have to take place in the presence of all the authorities: from the warlords and military powers (Abner) to the rulers of the Church and religious concentrations of power (Saul). In a figurative sense: ‘Goliath’s head’ must be taken to ‘Jerusalem’. The ‘bloody wound in his forehead’ must be displayed. In the celebration of the one, then restored Lord’s Supper, the spot where the ‘smooth stone’ penetrated ‘the brain’ of the satanic opposition against God and His Anointed will be pointed out unanimously.

A breakthrough is to be expected at the coming deadlock of this world, showing a similarity with the Davidic breakthrough in the valley of Elah. The anointing of the Spirit on the redeemed Church of the Lord will prevail over every opposition. In that shape and with these characteristics, the fulness of the Gentiles will come about. The great Son of David will gather a people for His Name, thus bringing them to unity, and then restore David’s fallen tent: “…that the remnant of men may seek the LORD” (Amos 9:11-12; Acts 15:16-18).

The covenant Jonathan and David made is closely connected with David presenting his report in the presence of Abner, Saul and Jonathan. The testimony of David, holding Goliath’s head in his hands, established between them, what we call, ‘the communion of the saints’. There is a causal connection between David’s account of the duel and the awakening of their indestructible love for each other. 1 Samuel 1:18 starts with the word “as soon as “ [52], and then continues: “As soon as he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:1 [ESV]).

This is an indication of the establishment of the true ecumenical movement. It is the epitome of the frame of mind with which God’s people will become one flock under one Shepherd: mutual love—inspired by the preaching of the cross—will only be possible by the visible and convincing proof of the defeat of the enemy by the blood of the Lamb.

If ‘Goliath’s head’—figuratively speaking—may not be shown during the sermon, because it is too ‘distasteful’ and ‘bloody’ for our modern sensibilities, then we may have a box full of membership cards, but there will be no love and ultimately, the anointing of the Spirit will move away, as happened to Saul.

Saul was insensitive to David’s report. The only thing he could say was: “Whose son are you, young man?” And gradually, the Spirit moved away from Saul, and he became suspicious. In the end, even David’s harp could not control Saul’s paranoid moods. No splendid liturgy will bring an outcome under Saul’s government. The king of the Old-Testament ‘Church’ finally fell to his own sword. This fall, too, is part of the effect of the smooth stone.

Right after David’s testimony, Jonathan was prepared to renounce his right to the throne, and he put his words into action by laying down his princely regalia before David and immediately making a covenant with David as his soul mate. However, unlike Jonathan, Saul’s cousin Abner did not put his general’s uniform at David’s disposal. On the contrary, in the high rank he held in his position directly under the king, he would not only fight the Philistines, but also assist Saul as his commander-in-chief in chasing and pursuing David. This is evident, among other things, from the incident near the Desert of Ziph, in which David had a second opportunity to kill Saul, but did not do so, in spite of his men’s incitement, because he did not want to kill God’s anointed. Not only did Saul get a warning from David at this dramatic event, but so did Abner:

“You’re a man, aren’t you? And who is like you in Israel? Why didn’t you guard your lord the king? Someone came to destroy your lord the king. What you have done is not good. As surely as the LORD lives, you and your men deserve to die, because you did not guard your master, the LORD’S anointed. Look around you. Where are the king’s spear and water jug that were near his head?” (1 Samuel 26:15-16).

For David, this pursuit was only the beginning of his ‘via dolorosa’. The conflict would end in full-scale civil war, especially when, after Saul’s death, Abner crowned Ish-bosheth, Saul’s youngest son as king, opposing David, whose kingship had until then only been acknowledged by the house of Judah. Abner had been able to unite all the other tribes under Ish-bosheth’s sceptre. Nevertheless, the military chances for David increased continuously. This may have encouraged Abner to suggest to Joab, David’s commander-in-chief, to organise a contest between two groups, i.e. twelve men from the army of Benjamin for Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, and twelve men from David’s army.

Joab went along with this suggestion (2 Samuel 2:14).

It is questionable whether Abner’s motive for this enlarged ‘duel’ was to prevent a major massacre, now that Ish-bosheth’s men under the leadership of Abner and David’s men under the leadership of Joab stood facing each other on either side of the pool of Gibeon. As a soldier and a strategist, Abner may have thought that, through this representative action of the two groups, the chances of the kingship for the house of Saul and those for the dynasty of David would be equal again, and much would be gained if the bloodshed would be limited as it would not be two entire armies attacking each other. But, undoubtedly, there was another factor involved.

Dr. C.J. Goslinga observes in this connection: “Maybe we are seeing something more than general ‘ethics of war’ here”. [53]

It is a well-known fact that in ancient times, the people used to make legal decisions in a marked-out area. No wonder that the word ‘court’ was used for this. We also speak of ‘the Court of Justice’ and the ‘Supreme Court’. And because from the earliest times, the judicial power lay with the monarch, the place where the law was administered, and the assembly of the people who administered it in the name of the king was called the ‘court’.

So since time immemorial, the ‘court’ has been synonymous with the place of judicial administration. In fact, already in the Garden of Eden, after the fall of man, a divine legal decision was made. Paradise was a marked-out territory, the boundaries of which were guarded by cherubim.

Furthermore, a divine decision was made in the ‘court’ of Gethsemane, when Jesus declared Himself prepared to accept ‘the cup’. Likewise, a ‘court’ was chosen for His burial, and at His resurrection in the ‘court’ of Joseph of Arimathea, a divine legal decision was made: Jesus’ death brings atonement for the world.

From this perspective, we could also understand what brought people in ancient times to link the expectation of a divine legal sentence to a duel in a marked-out territory. A duel became a trial by ordeal, resembling the casting of lots for religious purposes.

We can also see the duel between David and Goliath in the valley of Elah in this light. Such a duel did not only take place in a marked-out territory but also had very strict rules. The losing party would become the property of the winning party (1 Samuel 17:9). That means that, since the challenge to a duel came from the side of the Philistines, the other party, who accepted the challenge, knew they had to submit to the prevailing war customs.

Saul totally agreed to David accepting Goliath’s challenge. It was a most crucial moment for all Israel when this shepherd’s boy, with a sling as his only weapon, went to meet the giant.

If we also take into consideration how in ancient times a duel was seen as a submission to a judgment of God, like a sacred ‘casting of lots’ or almost ‘asking advice from an oracle’, we can understand why, in a religious sense, it was just as great a risk not to see Goliath’s death as a judgment of God. After all, David’s victory was the result of the fact that Samuel had anointed the head of the young shepherd’s boy. Since the day of his anointing, the Spirit of the Lord had come on him in power; however, at the same time, the Spirit had departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:13-14; 18:12). So the anointing was the pivotal point around which everything turned.

God’s own Hand had turned the ‘switch’, but this fact had to prove itself from the course of history. After all, Saul had also been anointed, and David repeatedly respected Saul’s anointing.

Abner, too, was acquainted with Saul’s anointing. We should bear in mind that it will not have been easy for him to determine his position between these two men. The fact that the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul became evident gradually. It will not have been easy for Abner to determine his position as commander-in-chief during such a crucial interim period and to carry out his responsibilities at the same time. Moreover, he had to put up with a lot during Saul’s pursuit of David. Over and over, it proved to be impossible to capture David. The women singing and dancing after David had killed Goliath will have made him think as well (1 Samuel 18:7-9). Furthermore, Abner must have lost faith in Saul’s credibility because of the way he behaved by throwing his spear at his son Jonathan as well as when he tried to pin David to the wall (1 Samuel 20:33; 1 Samuel 18:11).

Things went noticeably downhill with Saul and reached an absolute low point when he went to see a witch at Endor, asking her to call up the spirit of Samuel, after which he was killed at Mount Gilboa together with Jonathan and two other sons. But even after Saul’s death, Abner remained true to Saul’s dynasty. This turned out to be his last resort. For David and his men remained undamaged, in spite of the fact that he passed through dangerous moments during all his wanderings, whereby he was nearly stoned by his own followers (1 Samuel 30:6). But apparently, there was no power in this world that could eliminate David. On the contrary, militarily speaking, he gradually became stronger.

The field of swords

Abner’s situation became precarious. That is why he suggested organising a ‘duel’ between two parties of twelve. This happened at the pool of Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:14-16).

One might wonder why he placed ‘twelve’ opposite ‘twelve’. The symbolism is clear. The real battle was for the monarchy of all Israel with its twelve tribes, sprung from twelve patriarchs. If there had been any conquerors from Ish-bosheth’s side after the duel—represented by Abner and his men—David’s army and his kingship would have been in a bad position, according to the rules of war of those days. So the issue was who would get the right to the monarchy over all Israel.

Whether or not they expected an answer from God at this duel can no longer be determined. What can be established, however, is that this formation was the complete opposite to the duel between David and Goliath.

Here we have to recall the oracle Samuel spoke to Saul:

“The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbours—to one better than you. He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind” (1 Samuel 15:28-29).

These words by ‘the Glory of Israel’
[54] are an ‘oath’, expressed by the prophet Samuel in existential earnestness. This is immediately followed by the order to Samuel: “You are to anoint for me the one I indicate” (1 Samuel 16:3). The power of this anointing became immediately evident, because the Spirit of God came on him in power and prepared him for the duel. The following events show clearly that it is impossible to fight someone who is anointed by ‘the Glory of Israel’. David’s anointing and Saul’s rejection are strongly manifested in the two duels, the one in the valley of Elah and the other by the pool of Gibeon. They are almost diametrically opposed to each other. This time, however, God did not answer. A massacre was the result.

Knowing how in the valley of Elah God had given a clear answer when David’s stone hit target, Abner must have taken God’s lack of an answer in this group duel as a judgment.

The place where the twenty-four young men died also formed a marked-out territory. It happened in a field called Helkath Hazzurim, which means: ‘field of swords’. Although this marking out of the field of swords may in a certain sense also be called a ‘Court of Justice’, Abner could not take his case and the sentence pronounced in the valley of Elah and appeal to a higher court. The oath of ‘the Glory of Israel’ could not be broken.

After this episode, Abner’s downfall appeared to be unavoidable and complete, in spite of all his faithfulness and loyalty to the house of Saul. What settled the matter was an incident, when Abner made advances to one of Saul’s concubines, after which Ish-bosheth suspected him of striving for the kingship over the house of Saul—as if he wanted to provoke a revolution in the palace because of this woman (2 Samuel 3:7-8).

At that moment, Abner decided to make a covenant with David, in which he promised to help unite all the tribes under David’s sceptre. He even pronounced this confession of faith:

“May God deal with Abner, be it ever so severely, if I do not do for David what the LORD promised him on oath and transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and establish David’s throne over Israel and Judah from Dan to Beersheba” (2 Samuel 3:9-10).

After having come a long way, Abner finally fully understood the anointing of David.

Who is David?

Although the oil that Samuel had poured on David’s head to anoint him contained an overwhelming power to victory, this was not immediately clear to all layers of Israel’s society. Neither was it clear to Abner, nor to Saul, who sometimes watched David suspiciously, thinking: “What more can he get but the kingdom?” (1 Samuel 18:8), but who still, in all his unsuccessful pursuits of David, confessed: “I have sinned. Come back, David my son. (…) I will not try to harm you again. Surely I have acted like a fool and have erred greatly” (1 Samuel 26:21). This was a rather ‘dubious’ confession, seen in the context of what was happening, and to which he, moreover, added the pious wish: “May you be blessed, my son David; you will do great things and surely triumph” (1 Samuel 26:25).

The common people did not immediately recognise the victorious power of the anointing oil either. An example of this is found in the episode with Nabal.

Nabal was a man who had a lot of livestock. But when David’s men had spent time and energy in guarding his extensive flock, he did not feel like rewarding them. He called out: “Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse?” There was contempt in this question. And he added: “Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?” (1 Samuel 25:10-11).

By saying this, Nabal, consciously or unconsciously, casted doubt on the power of David’s divine anointing. This fits in with his principle that he preferred to first reward his own shearers. In other words: My own people first.

Because of his wealth, Nabal literally and figuratively lived in a whirl of luxury, which blinded him for what was really taking place with the coming of the kingdom of God. Nabal’s indifference could have ended in a massacre if Abigail had not intervened. She did indeed understand the significance of David’s anointing, which was shown in her behaviour and the moving speech she held in the presence of David and his men. A speech which she starts by taking her place as surety:

“My lord, let the blame be on me alone. Please let your servant speak to you; hear what your servant has to say. May my lord pay no attention to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name is Fool, and folly goes with him. But as for me, your servant, I did not see the men my master sent. Now since the LORD has kept you, my master, from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hands, as surely as the LORD lives and as you live, may your enemies and all who intend to harm my master be like Nabal. And let this gift, which your servant has brought to my master, be given to the men who follow you. Please forgive your servant’s offense, for the LORD will certainly make a lasting dynasty for my master, because he fights the LORD’S battles. Let no wrongdoing be found in you as long as you live. Even though someone is pursuing you to take your life, the life of my master will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the LORD your God. But the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling. When the LORD has done for my master every good thing he promised concerning him and has appointed him leader over Israel, my master will not have on his conscience the staggering burden of needless bloodshed or of having avenged himself. And when the LORD has brought my master success, remember your servant” (1 Samuel 25:24-31).

David’s answer to this was:

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who has sent you today to meet me. May you be blessed for your good judgment and for keeping me from bloodshed this day and from avenging myself with my own hands. Otherwise, as surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, who has kept me from harming you, if you had not come quickly to meet me, not one male belonging to Nabal would have been left alive by daybreak” (1 Samuel 25:32-34).

Then David accepted what she brought him, and said to her: “Go home in peace. I have heard your words and granted your request” (1 Samuel 25:35).

After she came home, it was not long before her prophecy: “But the lives of your enemies he will hurl away as from the pocket of a sling” (1 Samuel 25:29) was fulfilled. Nabal was too drunk to listen to her story at that moment, therefore she told him hardly anything. Only the next morning, when he had slept off his hangover and could be approached again, Abigail told him what had happened. Nabal got such a shock that he had a ‘stroke’ and died not long afterwards. He was the first to be flung away from the ‘sling’ in God’s hand.

More people would follow.

How dangerous it is to say disdainfully: “Who is this David?” And to add to this: “Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days.” Nabal regarded David as an ordinary rebel.

This is exactly how it was and is with the great Son of David, Jesus, God’s Anointed.

Ever since His appearance, the question is asked: Who is this Jesus? Followed by: Well, in the course of the centuries, so many false Messiahs have appeared on the stage of history. There are lots of names.

Granted, in the course of history, there have been high hopes regarding the promised Messiah, who would bring deliverance from the many enemies and oppressors—expectations that often yielded just as many disappointments. But is it therefore justified to place Jesus on one line with the ‘rebels’, ‘zealots’, and other ‘revolutionaries’, who in the end appeared not to be the Messiah?

And what about the churches that tolerate ministers to doubt or even to disavow the actual purpose of Jesus’ coming to this earth, namely to reconcile in Himself the world to God? (2 Corinthians 5:19). Is this not also a denial of the anointing of the great Son of David?

From the story of Nabal, we can learn how treating the anointing by the Holy Spirit with contempt results in being ‘slung away’.

Abigail said to David: “…the life of my master will be bound securely in the bundle of the living by the LORD your God” (1 Samuel 25:29).

“By the LORD your God.”

The contrast, therefore, is: To be slung away, far from God. God can sling souls far away into eternal darkness.

How dangerous it is to mock the one who is ‘anointed by the Holy Spirit’, and how great is the responsibility of Christians to make sure that they will not obscure nor hinder the proper estimation of the Messiah, God’s Anointed.

Is Abner also among the prophets?

Now that we have established that the anointing of David was not immediately understood by all layers of Israel’s society, the next question is whether it would be difficult for the common man to make an accurate choice, since, for quite some time, two ‘anointed’ were opposing each other, both of whom had been anointed by Samuel. Besides, Saul had been chosen by lot in the presence of all Israel, after having been anointed by Samuel. His anointing had been quite clear to the whole nation.

David, on the other hand, was anointed among his brothers, so his anointing had to be proven on the basis of the events.

And what caused Samuel to pronounce the word of God over Saul: “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbours—to one better than you” (1 Samuel 15:28)? Was Saul’s sin so much greater than the mistakes David made?

We should be careful not to answer and judge all these issues according to human standards and understanding, and by doing so, to take God’s place on His judgment seat.

From the perspective of the history of salvation however, it is obvious that Saul’s actions threatened to impede God’s exodus to the very core. Sparing Agag, king of the Amalekites and arch-enemy of Israel, against Samuel’s explicit order, was an attack on the opening words of the Ten Commandments: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Exodus 20:1). God’s purpose with the exodus was Israel’s redemption from slavery (2 Samuel 7:23), and at the same time the deliverance from the grip of a deified totalitarian state, which was aiming for genocide. Furthermore, with this exodus, He set a model for the redemption of all mankind.

Through his compromise with Agag, Saul impeded the building of this bridgehead in a world alienated from God. A kingship over Israel cannot coexist with an opposition against God’s plan of redemption. By virtue of God’s own word, there is neither compromise nor coalition possible between the king of Israel and the king of Amalek (Exodus 17:14; Deuteronomy 25:17-19).

By choosing David, God opened the doors of redemption for Jerusalem as well as for the entire world, and this was in spite of the mistakes that David also made. However, with respect to God’s great plan of salvation, he remained to be ‘the man after God’s own heart’.

This great plan of God started far back in history, when He called Abraham. In him all the peoples on earth would be blessed. But how can a blessing proceed from Abraham’s offspring, when they are so divided?

This episode in the first years of the kingdom of Israel shows us the result of the ‘quarrels in Abraham’s tent’. We have seen Abner’s proposal, made out of desperation. However, a ‘quarrel’ in ‘Abraham’s tent’ will never remain ‘inside the tent’. Whether it is a case among Isaac’s posterity, such as it was in the time of Saul and David, or among Ishmael’s posterity, or even between ‘Isaac’ and ‘Ishmael’—a conflict in Abraham’s tent will attract opposing political and religious powers, and may in the end lead to a ‘duel between two groups’ with disastrous consequences.

Abner’s duel between two groups was so disastrous because in a military sense, they were well matched. Literally, it says: “Then each man grabbed his opponent by the head and thrust his dagger into his opponent’s side, and they fell down together” (2 Samuel 2:16).

What happened here on a small scale can also take place on a large scale and even on a global scale. Each ‘group division’, or even each continent, might nurture the thought that they are superior as far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, and the right to dominate the world is on ‘our’ side, so therefore, we accept the challenge to a ‘duel’. Should large parts of mankind literally fly at each other in a ‘duel’ on a global scale, together with a catastrophic ‘thrust of the sword in the opponent’s side’, then this planet will end as a ‘field of swords’: ‘Helkath Hazzurim’.

Can such a calamity be prevented?

Note that Abner’s life did not end on this ‘field of swords’. As mentioned in the prologue of this book, ‘Abner’ is still a ‘piece’ on the ‘chess board’ of world history. The ‘game’ is not yet ‘finished’ and the ‘pieces’ have not yet been ‘put away’ in the usual box.

In the end, Abner came to the conclusion that it was no use fighting a divine decision any longer, and so he assisted in uniting all the tribes under the sceptre of David.

At Abner’s death, King David walked behind the bier, wept at his grave, sang a lamentation and fasted. Then he said to his servants: “Do you not realise that a prince and a great man has fallen in Israel this day?” (2 Samuel 3:31-38). This attitude of David shows the nobility of his character and it is also very wise from a political perspective. Moreover it evinces respect for the ways God goes with people, which are higher than our ways.

When, at the threat of a global ‘duel’, a Third World War, in which the two camps stand opposite each other equally matched, we, as Christians, and as churches, proceed to a profound introspection, asking ourselves to what extent we display the features of ‘Abner’, we will have to ask that question with the same respect for God’s ways as David had.

Abner realised that he was fighting a lost cause.

If we hope to be spared a great war in the future, we will have to make a U-turn like Abner. After all, the bloody catastrophe of the ‘group duel’ contributed to the resolute reversal in Abner’s soul.

Today too, our situation is extremely serious.

The ‘train of the church’ has derailed at full speed.

The first Council of Nicaea was a catastrophe. It was, as said before, a slur on the Name Yahweh,
I AM WHO I AM. Apart from revoking the decisions of Nicaea I, and most of all the decision to do away with Israel’s Messianic future—namely that Israel as a whole will come under the rule of the great Son of David—there is nothing to be achieved ecumenically, nor regarding world peace.

A similar confession as Saul made: “I have sinned (…) and have erred greatly”, followed by a blessing for David but without any respect for his divine anointing will not advance the cause of unity at all. Our sincere confession of guilt will have to be combined with a deep respect for the calling that the Jewish people received with their divine anointing (Exodus 19:6).

Abner accompanied his confession of faith with action: “…if I do not do for David what the LORD promised him on oath” (2 Samuel 3:9).

The Church at large should not only come to the point of saying ‘no’ to the error of Nicaea I, but also positively to the deed, as formulated by the apostle Paul in Romans 11:31: “…in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you.”

We are now waiting for our ‘U-turn’.

The word ‘our’ should be fully emphasised. We cannot just say that a quarrel in Abraham’s tent will automatically antagonise neighbouring nations, for spiritually, we, as believers, also belong in a certain sense to Abraham’s tent. According to Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11-22, we, Gentile Christians, have, in Jesus Christ, entered into the citizenship of Israel. A quarrel in the ‘Gentile-Christian tent’ will as much set up the superpowers against each other, as a quarrel in Abraham’s tent, with which, of course, we mean the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael. And in both these cases, world peace is jeopardised.

How much the dissension of the churches has direct consequences for the chosen people became evident in the Second World War. What answer did we have to fascism, which tried to exterminate the Jewish nation entirely? Our disunity paralysed us. We even dared to stir up a spiritual strife about the ‘children of the covenant’, while the real ‘Children of the Covenant’ were driven into the gas chambers! [55]

We need to keep in mind that, by means of the many admissions of guilt at the turn of the millennium, it has been acknowledged that the ideas of the church regarding the Jewish people, beginning with the early church fathers, have contributed to making it possible for the Holocaust to take place. But then, the next question that should be asked is what were the consequences of this? The establishment of the State of Israel cannot be seen separately from these gruesome happenings. In fact, the contrary is true. It has come about in part also due to the impulses that the Holocaust has brought about. With the slogan: ‘Never again’, the Jewish State was established. This motto has even been inscribed on Israel’s military weaponry.

We can observe a chain reaction here: The fact that the Church separated itself from the Jewish people at the Council of Nicaea I, with a follow-up during the following Councils, evoked an anti-Semitism that spread insidiously for centuries, and which ultimately resulted in a religiously-founded mental contribution to the Holocaust, owing to which the Jewish people as a last resort moved to the land of their fathers. The ensuing conflicts with the surrounding nations are now also causing a threat of a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers.

Therefore, we should really pay close attention to the behaviour of a person like Abner. If we look at Abner’s life and behaviour as a ‘parable’ with a point of comparison, then this would be that Abner, together with Saul, pursued David for a lost cause, until, finally, he became aware of the crisis situation in which he had ended up. This is evident from his words to Joab, after the fierce battle following the ‘group duel’ that had ended so disastrously: “Must the sword devour forever? Don’t you realise that this will end in bitterness?” (2 Samuel 2:26). Joab’s answer to this was kind and positive. He “blew the trumpet, and all the men came to a halt; they no longer pursued Israel, nor did they fight anymore” (2 Samuel 2:28).

Undoubtedly, the experience of this disastrous ‘group duel’ and the ensuing development of the battle must have brought him to the realisation that there would be no blood left if the sword continued to devour between brothers. It was a crisis situation.

Abner was an important man. He continued to strengthen his position in the house of Saul (2 Samuel 3:6).

However, during a great part of his life, he fought for a lost cause.

If we compare this with the situation in our days, we may conclude that there are large church denominations which, through abandoning the Scriptures, are fighting for a lost cause. The danger is great that ‘the sword’ will eliminate all life of those who call themselves ‘spiritual Israel’, and that it will in the end also devour the blood of all mankind. This, too, is a crisis situation.

But there is hope!

Abner changes course and appears to believe in God’s oath, sworn to the house of David, and in the end, he capitulates for the new anointing, poured out over David’s head, as a token that God had entrusted him the kingdom.

If we, with a believing heart, take into consideration the promise of the angel Gabriel to Mary: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:32-33), we may draw comfort and hope from the way in which Abner finally turned around.

There may be many important religious leaders who entirely or partly are fighting for a lost cause, yet they will, through the working of the Holy Spirit and God’s intervention, experience the great turnaround so as to bring everything under the sceptre of the great Son of David.

The proverbial question in the Scriptures “Is Saul also among the prophets?” invites us, with respect to Abner’s complete turnaround, to ask the question: Is Abner also among the prophets?

Converging lines

After Saul’s death, David had every reason to assume that now, indeed, the time had come for him to become king over Israel, of which God had spoken to him through Samuel. Up to the very end, David had respected Saul’s anointing, but now, God Himself had made an end to Saul’s life. There was nothing more that stood in the way for him to take up the kingship for which Samuel had anointed him. David, however, refrained from undertaking all kinds of activities in order to effectuate his kingship. Now that Saul and Jonathan had fallen on Mount Gilboa, and David had wept over them in his lament, he took time out in order to take counsel with the Lord. David was aware that this was an important juncture in his life. Therefore he consulted the Lord: “Shall I go up to one of the towns of Judah?” at which God answered: “Go up.” But David did not just go up. He asked God specifically: “Where shall I go?” And then God answered from heaven very specifically: “To Hebron” (2 Samuel 2:1).

At first sight, this conversation between David and the Eternal One may seem a bit strange to us. Is it really so important that God precisely indicates the place to which David has to go?

In order to answer this question, we should first of all establish that Hebron is a place with prophetic significance. It was at Hebron, by way of speaking, that Abraham’s exodus out of Babel had come to an initial completion, and now that the door to an initial kingship was opening up for David, the exodus of God’s people out of Egypt was also nearing its completion. When the people, after the era of the judges, desired to have a king, this king received the order to execute God’s judgment on Amalek. We read in Deuteronomy 25:19:

“When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”

The order which the Lord gave to Saul in 1 Samuel 15:1-3, namely to execute this judgment, implies that the exodus out of Egypt would be finally completed. We know, that Saul failed to do so, and that the prophet Samuel, personally, settled accounts with the king of Amalek.

Now that, after Saul’s death, David, ‘the man after God’s own heart’, is ready to assume his duties as king of an enduring kingdom, the exodus out of Egypt will finally have been completed.

So, it is not unreasonable that David, at this important moment, asked for the way in which God was going to effectuate the kingship.

With the order to go to Hebron, David has joined the line of the patriarchs.

In this connection, it is important to observe what happened when Abraham settled at Hebron. God gave him the opportunity to walk through the length and breadth of the land, and on top of that, he received the promise: “All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever” (Genesis 13:14-17). Abraham’s settling at Hebron was not separate from Lot’s choice to live in the territory of Sodom and Gomorrah, an area, which—in his eyes—gleamed like the Garden of Eden, paradise.

Furthermore, it should not escape us, that immediately after that, in Genesis 14, we are told how Lot, who had been taken captive by the allied powers from the territory where the tower of Babel had been built, was brought back by an expedition of Abraham. It was on this liberation from the power of Babel, that the blessing of Melchizedek followed (Genesis 14:18-20).

Genesis 13: ‘Abraham’s settling at Hebron’ is organically connected to Genesis 14: ‘Lot’s rescue’. It ended in Abraham and Melchizedek meeting.

We may notice a parallel between David settling at Hebron, after which he was anointed king of Judah, and Abraham’s story. One can observe a similarity between the exodus out of Egypt, here initially completed through David, and the exodus out of Babylon, in those days completed by Abraham when he settled in Hebron. After all, there is a similarity between the pyramidal structure in the primal thinking of Egypt and the ‘ziggurat thinking’ of Babylon. [56]

Truly, David has, through the important indication of God, by settling in Hebron, fully joined the line of the patriarchs. Hebron takes a central place in Israel’s history of salvation. When there was famine in the land of Canaan, Jacob set out from Hebron to go to Egypt (cf. Genesis 37:14 and Genesis 46:1). Abraham settling in Hebron, followed by Lot being rescued and the blessing of Melchizedek have already been mentioned; and David settling in Hebron resulted in his kingship in Jerusalem.

Here too, mention is made of Melchizedek. The ‘enthronement psalm’ of David points to Melchizedek and his unique priesthood (Psalm 110:4), a priesthood, which was pointing to the high-priesthood of Jesus Christ, who, according to Hebrews 7:17, was taken up ‘in the order of Melchizedek’.

God’s instruction to David: “Go to Hebron”, is in itself a proof of the unity of God’s great deeds. Of this unity Melchizedek’s appearance forms a clear reflection. It is with this servant of the Most High that we find the harmony of the offices of prophet, priest and king.

As prophet, Melchizedek sees the real purpose of Abraham’s expedition to rescue Lot out of the imprisonment of Babel. Moreover, Melchizedek is priest forever, who has therefore the right to bless a royal figure as Abraham, and he is king of Salem, the city to which God, as the highest Prince of Peace, will connect His Name. On the basis of this threefold office and because he also had his seat in Jerusalem, he is a proto-type of Jesus Christ.

But why do we see this king of Salem with priestly stride go down to the King’s Valley, where Abraham, full of dust and sweat, appears with his army, after his victory over the allied forces from the territory where the tower of Babel had once been built?

We have already established that the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek is organically connected with the preceding rescue of Lot. Lot had left Babylon together with Abraham, an exodus which was entirely God’s doing, however small-scale it may have been. This meant that a (seemingly) insignificant beginning was made of the Old-Testament ‘church’. Babylon attacked this unity of God’s ‘church’: Lot, along with the citizens of Sodom, is taken back to Babylon.

But wasn’t this failure Lot’s own fault?

Partly it was.

It is true that Abraham and Lot had left Babylon together, but because of their considerable property and flocks, they were faced with difficulties when they settled in Canaan. The land did not provide enough space for them to live together. This caused strife between the herdsmen of Abraham’s livestock and those of Lot’s. So Abraham, who did not want a quarrel between them, proposed to use the land more effectively by separating, so there would be enough grazing land for both herds. He gave Lot the first choice (Genesis 13:5-9). Lot was not very courteous in his reaction by letting Abraham choose first, but he chose the area that looked to him like the Garden of Eden. This was not virgin territory, but it was inhabited by people who were wicked and sinful before the Lord. This caused him and his family, not only literally, but also spiritually, to be alienated from Abraham and his faith. Lot’s choice turned out to be disastrous for him.

When Abraham heard that his brother had been carried off into captivity, he acted at once and with his small army of three hundred and eighteen men, he pursued the captors and saved Lot from the hands of the allied armies from the East. This was no less than standing surety for his brother.

When the patriarch Abraham returned triumphantly, he obtained heavenly approval of his deeds through the gifts of bread and wine, but particularly through Melchizedek’s appearance and blessing in his capacity of priest of the Most High.

God finished off the exodus out of Babylon by means of Abraham’s expedition and He sealed it through Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek. The meeting of these two men of consequence at exactly that moment is far more important than we can comprehend. It is a message with an eschatological perspective in itself.

Essentially the same divine rounding off counts for the exodus out of the captivity and cruelty of the deified totalitarian ‘superpower’ Babylon—where the ‘oven’ can always be stoked seven times hotter—as well as the exodus out of the likewise cruel, deified, pyramidal power of Egypt, where baby boys were meant to be mere fodder for crocodiles. Melchizedek is directly (Genesis 14:18-20) or indirectly (Psalm 110:4) involved in the completion of both these exoduses.

No wonder that much has been meditated upon and written about this significant person who, according to some exegetes, lived not long after the flood.

Dr. F.W.Grosheide says about Melchizedek:

“He was king of Salem, later named Jerusalem, but he was not only king, but also priest. He combined those two functions, and he was a priest, not of a pagan idol, but of the Most High, that is the only true God, for it was also under this name that Abraham served God. Genesis 14:22. This is the significance of Melchizedek. In paradise, man was king and priest at the same time. It was sin that caused the splendour of his threefold office to be lost. And when it was about to be lost entirely, God intervened and brought a renewal through the Levitical priesthood. Melchizedek lived in the distant past when not everything had died out yet. Like Adam, he had a residue of the original office: he was king and priest at the same time. Therefore the order of Melchizedek was the original order, the priesthood, as God had established it. The Aaronic is the secondary order, given out of grace, when the original order had finished to exist. Melchizedek came before Aaron. Also, we assume that Melchizedek was not without sin, but we don’t know about it, so we cannot go into any particulars. This is not important either. The main issue is that he had received his priesthood from paradise, and because of that served God.” [57]

According to the description in Hebrews 7 and by virtue of his high status of priest of the Most High, Melchizedek, whose name means ‘king of righteousness’, is superior to Abraham, who himself was also held in high esteem. The Hittites even called him a ‘mighty prince’ (Genesis 23:6).

On the basis of his threefold eminence, Melchizedek has the right to receive the tithes from this ‘mighty prince’, Abraham, and to bless him as his superior. This ‘superior status’ is also evident from the fact that it is Melchizedek who approached Abraham. It is not Abraham who climbs the road in the direction of Salem in order to meet Melchizedek, but it is Melchizedek, who descends in his official function in order to bless Abraham, and to refresh him with bread and wine.

When Abraham lets himself be blessed by Melchizedek and gives him the tithes of all the spoils, he acknowledges that his victory over the kings of the East is God’s doing. Likewise, the right of ownership of the Promised Land belongs to God. In the centuries after Abraham, the liturgical statutes regarding the tithes and the consecration of the first-fruits were to have the same background, namely that the land belongs to God (Leviticus 25:23).

Abraham’s victory was not a human merit. When Melchizedek came down from Salem to the King’s Valley, it was God Himself who mercifully came down to Abraham, who acknowledged this by giving his tithes. It is a proto-typical image of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was incorporated in the unique priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek. In the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, He comes down with the sacrifice of His life in the bread and the wine. He Himself prepares the completion of the coming of God’s Kingdom. The price for that completion has been paid on Golgotha. When He was dying, He cried out: “It is finished!” For those who believe in Him, the sacrifice of His death on the cross has in principle accomplished the ‘exodus’ from the ’totalitarian’ power of Satan. When the rebel who was hanging on the cross next to Jesus asked Him to remember him when He would come into His kingdom—a question that implied the acknowledgement of His kingship—He had the authority to promise him paradise (Luke 23:43).

This promise of paradise is also typologically included when Abraham met Melchizedek. By their devastating attack, the allied powers from the area of the Tower of Babel had plunged the whole Promised Land into a horrible chaos. The smaller nations were not able to stand up to the ‘great Four’ of the East.

In Genesis 14, we find a miniature mirror image of world history. Later, it would become clear how the superpowers of the world regularly swallowed up smaller nations.

This truly is a characteristic fact.

The time and way in which Melchizedek came down from Salem to meet Abraham may be called prophetically characteristic as well, as Melchizedek, due to his status, is crowned with the afterglow of the splendour of paradise.

The notion ‘paradise’ is in absolute contrast with the notion ‘chaos.’

Abraham’s calling is to ward off the chaos from the holy land, which is destined to become the pledge of a new ‘Eden’, a new paradise. By descending to the Valley of the Kings in the Name of the Most High at this point in time, Melchizedek gives the church of the believers of all times the message that faith can overcome the world.

Abraham’s expedition against Babylon also today receives a concrete fulfilment through the working of the Holy Spirit. We, as believers, need to be mobilised for this new Abrahamic ‘witness expedition’. According to the word of the prophets and the apostles, the promised ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ will be followed by Israel’s conversion, after which the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and the times of refreshing will come (Amos 9:11-12; Acts 3:19-21; 15:14-17). These times of refreshing will be a pledge of the eternal redemption, prepared by God, when the end of the world has come. He will descend from the heavenly ‘Salem’ to all His own with bread and wine—an eternal condition for life—and the redeemed will bring Him their ‘tithes’ in the form of everlasting worship.

In the final phase of David’s life, we find the prelude to this coming glory. Before conquering Jerusalem, he reigned in Hebron over Judah for seven years. In Jerusalem, he was anointed king for the third time, now over the whole of Israel. David became more and more powerful, because the Lord God Almighty was with him, and a palace of cedar wood was built for him (2 Samuel 5:10-11).

Once David had settled as king in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies, it appeared to be impossible for the ‘man after God’s heart’, who, moreover—according to Psalm 110:4—knew himself to be included in the order of Melchizedek, to leave the Ark of the Covenant, the throne of God, where it was, namely in Abinadab’s house. With thirty thousand men, he set out to get the Ark of the Lord. They transported it on a new cart. However, this was against the regulations prescribed for the transportation of the Ark. It should have been carried by the Levites (Numbers 4:15, 18).

The Philistines were not acquainted with the Mosaic laws, so for them, the punishment for disregarding these laws by placing the Ark on a new cart to have it taken back to Israel by the two cows did not apply (1 Samuel 6).

It is clear from Uzzah’s death that these Mosaic laws regarding the Ark were still valid for Israel, when he touched the Ark, which was about to fall when the cows stumbled (2 Samuel 6:6-7). This heavy blow to Uzzah deeply grieved David. He became afraid of the Lord and wondered: “How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?” Therefore he did not want to take the Ark of the Lord with him in Jerusalem, but he took it to the house of Obed-Edom (2 Samuel 6:9-10).

When David was told that Obed-Edom’s household was blessed because of the Ark of God, he took courage and had the Ark brought to Jerusalem, but this time with the proper liturgical procedure. On that occasion, when the Ark of the Lord was brought up to Jerusalem, David danced before the Lord with all his might (2 Samuel 6:11-14).

David’s dance

“When those who were carrying the ark of the LORD had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might” (2 Samuel 6:13-14).

Anyone who does not know David’s background, and therefore does not take into account his high status in his threefold office of prophet, priest and king according to the order of Melchizedek, may wonder what inspired David to dance so ecstatically when the Ark was brought back to Jerusalem. Was it merely an explosion of joy without any definable and rational coherence? Was he overjoyed after all the successful battles he had fought against the Philistines? Or could there be a psychological explanation for this dance? After all, won’t a spring after having been pushed down for a long time show a fierce counter-reaction once the pressure is off?

None of these human factors and considerations apply to David’s dancing here. The background of his ecstasy may be explained in the specific calling of the Jewish people. The Most High had expressed the eternal significance of Israel’s election as follows: “You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6).

It would still take a long time for this high calling in the service of all the nations to be realised. Once the people of Israel had arrived in the Promised Land, the era of the judges showed very little of this high status. Everybody did what seemed right in their own eyes. The desire for a king who would restore law and order is very understandable. Moses had already anticipated this, and had given guidelines regarding the conditions a possible king was to fulfil (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). These conditions implied that the king, as the ‘shepherd’ of Israel, should be a reflection of the high office to which all Israel had been called.

Saul’s kingship disappeared.

The priesthood also underwent a rapid decline.

This led to the Philistines taking away the Ark of the Covenant. When David brought the Ark to Jerusalem, this was also a sign of the restoration of the priesthood as well as of the monarchy. The Ark was not ‘just a chest’, but it was God’s throne, over which the Name of the Lord Almighty, who dwells between the cherubim, had been proclaimed (2 Samuel 6:2).

David felt a spiritual affinity with the former king of Salem, Melchizedek. Later this would be confirmed again by Nathan’s prophecy about the everlasting dynasty of his house.

A series of miracles lay behind David. Samuel had anointed him in the company of his brothers, which was at first a somewhat secret and private matter, but which had now been fully disclosed and realised. This disclosure of his anointing started with the duel with Goliath. Furthermore, the Almighty maintained the effect of the power of this anointing by sparing him in the most precarious situations during his wanderings, when he was fleeing from Saul. Moreover, the struggle with the house of Saul ended in a miraculous way, because of Abner making a complete turnaround, bringing all the tribes he had previously kept under Ish-Bosheth out of loyalty to Saul, now under the sceptre of David. In fact, Jerusalem, too, was thrown into his lap, while the Jebusites were under the impression of being in an impenetrable fortress. Joab forced his way into the fortress through a water tunnel, and without any resistance, the city of peace fell into David’s hands. No wonder there are ancient legends about a non-aggression pact between Melchizedek, king of Salem, and Abraham.

David certainly did not allow himself to be carried away to dance ecstatically for political reasons, as if bringing the Ark to Jerusalem would contribute to the unity of his kingdom. He danced spontaneously, and was one with his people.

It is quite striking here how a ‘link’, a historical connection, becomes visible with God’s judgment on the Philistines. When things were at their worst, they took the well-known initiative to send the Ark back to Israel, thus surrendering themselves to a divine judgment. So, David was not called by God to retrieve the Ark by military force from the Philistines. The following words from Zechariah 4:6 apply in this situation: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD Almighty.”

All these elements make up the background of David’s ecstatic dance. It makes him a foreshadowing and a prototype of our Lord Jesus Christ who, after conquering death as the last enemy, will reign as King and will choose Jerusalem as His throne. On the day of Pentecost, He resides in ‘fire’ on His church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:3). The parallel with the background of this triumphant event will also become evident.

The return of the Ark cannot be seen apart from God’s intervention in the Philistine world. Likewise, it is not possible to separate the breakthrough of the Kingdom of God and the restoration of David’s ‘fallen tent’ from the the fulness of the Gentiles (Romans 11:25). Through judgment and grace in the Gentile world, a similar divine judgment will be brought into play in order to return the throne of God to Jerusalem.

David sensed this historical moment. He was in the Spirit and saw the Kingdom of God coming. He was excited. This literally means: ‘to be in God’. He threw off his royal robe and, like the Levites who carried the Ark, just wearing a linen robe, he danced in front of the Ark with all his might because of this great occasion (1 Chronicles 15:27-28). When the procession had taken six steps, he started offering sacrifices. The space of the seventh step is holy. It seems as if this entire procession is also a symbol and a foreshadowing of the way God’s church moves through the ages, until God’s Kingship will break through on a great and special Sabbath according to the times and dates the Father has set by His own authority. The seventh ‘step’ will be hallowed.

Michal looking through the window

And what about Michal?

Is she one with her husband in his ecstatic dance before God? Does she praise God with him to celebrate the return of God’s throne in Jerusalem?

No, Michal does not join him. She watches the scene from a window, from behind thick palace walls, her face red with envy and disgust looking at what is happening outside.

David is one with the people!

Just look at him!

Her father Saul would never have humiliated himself like that. He always preserved his royal dignity. So, when David comes home, she really tells him off.

In 2 Samuel 6:20, her name is mentioned with the characteristic clause: ‘the daughter of Saul’. Michal has the same mentality as Saul had. Is this procession the result of the fact that David was chosen over her father Saul? If that is the case, she wants nothing of it. Is this the noble distance worthy of a king? This is so different from how things are in the surrounding nations. They honour their kings with elegant parades, stirring fanfares, splendid banners and beautiful uniforms. None of all this glamour that usually belongs to a king is found here. On the contrary, David ‘disrobed’ himself in the sight of the people. Therefore Michal despised him in her heart (2 Samuel 6:16).

Yet, nobody should say that this attitude is due to an unrequited love. We read in the Scriptures that Michal loved David (1 Samuel 18:28). She even risked her life for him, by helping him to flee when her father wanted to kill him (1 Samuel 19:9-13). David also loved Michal. He promptly had her taken away from Paltiel, son of Laish, to whom Saul had given her in spite of the fact that she was already David’s wife (1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:14-16).

So it is clear that they had a good marriage. The real contrast lay much deeper, and was of a spiritual nature. Michal’s inner self was still rooted in the status quo of the earthly kingship. This attitude in her soul was stronger than the expectation of the coming kingdom of God, in which Abraham’s descendants would be a blessing for all the families of the earth. In fact, Michal saw the course of events in the same way as Saul did. Israel’s religion, their being chosen, the Ark with all that belonged to it, in short, the entire religious life, was in her eyes an aspect of Jewish culture, and therefore of minor importance to the nation as such, and to its king. In her way of thinking, religion is at the most the trimmings of state power. This line of thought agrees with how Saul had tried to grab the mantle of the prophet Samuel many years earlier.

Michal truly was Saul’s daughter.

However, secular matters will never prevail over prophetic ones.

Michal’s scorn does not get a hold over David’s dance. Her words were sharp. In a figurative sense, they were just as sharp as her father’s spear, which he had hurled at David trying to kill him:

“When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, ‘How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!’” (2 Samuel 6:20).

David’s answer, however, sounds very determined:

“It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD’S people Israel—I will celebrate before the LORD. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honour” (2 Samuel 6: 21-22).

Michal’s sharp words did not hit home. Here she struck upon an inviolable religious principle: It was ‘before the Lord’—so in his official function—that he danced. David’s resolve was the result of his inner connection to the Name ‘I AM WHO I AM’.

When, in the fulness of time, the great Son of David appeared, ‘Michal’ unfortunately did have many followers. When the sign, saying: ‘the king of the Jews’, was attached to the cross, many people mocked him: ‘How the king is honoured today—disrobed on the cross! Man of Nazareth, how you have advanced in rank! You said you would destroy the temple and build it up again in three days, didn’t you? If you are king, come down from the cross! He is calling Elijah to come and save him!’

Jesus’ hour has come. Powerfully His last words were: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:44). The answer to this was divinely resolute: He rose on the third day. On the day of Pentecost, He came in fire to rest on His disciples. Through the miracle of the languages, He answered all mankind over the heads of the Jews: I will advance from feast to feast, up to the eternal space of the ‘seventh step’, whereby the completed Kingdom will be handed over to the Father, and God will be all in all.

Nathan’s night

“After the king was settled in his palace and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, he said to Nathan the prophet, ‘Here I am, living in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent’” (2 Samuel 7:1-2).

The first thing that strikes us in the message which the prophet Nathan receives from God during the night, after his conversation with David, is that genuine prophecy does not necessarily follow from the most pious considerations. During the conversation between David and Nathan about the subject of building a temple, Nathan’s answer to David is: “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the LORD is with you” (2 Samuel 7:3).
However, after arriving home, Nathan’s assent to David’s proposal to build a temple was corrected by God.

This divine ‘rebuke’ to the prophet Nathan also contains a warning for the charismatic movement of our days not to put pious considerations on a par with true prophecy, which always and for one hundred percent comes from ‘Above’, and which sometimes must correct even our most sacred and most pious intentions. The following words of the Apostle Peter remain valid for all times and circumstances:

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

It is understandable that David, after the return of the Ark to Jerusalem, considered it inappropriate that he himself would live in a palace built of cedar wood and for the Lord to dwell in a humble tent. To solve this discrepancy, he proposed to build a temple. On the one hand, the answer God gave him through Nathan exceeded his expectations—God promised him an everlasting dynasty—but on the other hand, God referred to His dwelling in a tent during the journey of the people through the wilderness:

“Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?’” (2 Samuel 7:5-7).

God’s answer was not a direct criticism of David’s thoughts regarding the relation between his palace and a tent, but God did refer to the period of Israel’s ‘youth’ in the early days of their exodus from Egypt. Later, the prophets reminded the people over and over again of the ‘time of their youth’ during the exodus. An example of this is found in Ezekiel 16:60: “Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.”

And God says through Hosea:

“Therefore I am now going to allure her;

I will lead her into the desert
and speak tenderly to her (…)

There she will sing as in the days of her youth,
as in the day she came up out of Egypt” (Hosea 2:14-15).

It is a fact that Nathan’s answer, which he has to give in the name of God, also implies a reminder of the time of Israel’s ‘youth’ during the exodus. In a roundabout way, God tells David that the discrepancy does not lie in the fact that he resides in a palace of cedar wood, whereas God’s own throne is in a tent. Even in a temple made of cedar wood or stone, there can be a discrepancy between God and His people. For the Omniscient One has a clear view of the centuries and millennia to come, and He already knew that the temple would be destroyed twice: first under Nebuchadnezzar and later under Titus, but that nevertheless He would guarantee a dynasty for the house of David.

In the end, the word of the angel Gabriel to Mary will be completely fulfilled: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:32-33). This promise exceeds all the ups and downs, every fall and rise of the chosen people.

After listening to the promise of an eternal dynasty for his house, David dares to say a humble prayer (2 Samuel 7:27).

The word of God, pronounced by Nathan, also appeared to be a source of strength for future prophets to comfort Israel in times of threatening and real exile, and to exhort them to continue to expect the promised coming of the Messiah. Some of the most important Scripture verses and passages pertaining to this are Isaiah 22:22, 37:35, 55:3, Jeremiah 33:14-18, Ezekiel 34:23-24, etc.

In Zechariah 12, where the prophet announces the siege and deliverance of Jerusalem, we read:

“On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them. (…) And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. (…) On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity” (Zechariah 12:8, 10 and 13:1).

In the Gospel of Luke, Zechariah also prophesies about the house of David at the birth of John, the forerunner of Jesus:

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come and has redeemed his people.

He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David

(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
salvation from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us—
to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
the oath he swore to our father Abraham.” (Luke 1:68-73)

Our greatest prophet and teacher, Jesus, also adopted the line of God’s word spoken by Nathan to David, in proclaiming Himself to be ‘God’s temple’, a temple that would be destroyed, but which He would raise up in three days (John 2:19-22).

God’s promise to David of giving him an everlasting dynasty was fulfilled when “the Word became flesh”. By sending the great Son of David, Jesus, God chose Himself a ‘temple’ to ‘dwell’ in. John expresses it as follows:

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Sooner or later, leaders or crowds of people may assemble against this ‘temple’, but the words of Psalm 118:22 will always stand: “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.” Jesus Himself quoted this verse at the end of His parable about the wicked tenants, to which He added the conclusion: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:43).

So, ‘temple building’ and ‘kingdom of God’ are strongly connected.

In the course of time, many architects and numerous builders have presented themselves to build temples. This counts for the great world religions and the more local religions and ideologies (whether idolatrous or not), as well as for religiously-tinged political expectations of wellbeing. They were reputable men who built splendid temples of expensive material in sharp contrast to canvas or even cedar wood.

Likewise, all over the world, beautiful cathedrals, elegant churches and synagogues have been built which can compete with many other architectural showpieces as far as their beauty is concerned. Sometimes they are of such unique splendour and style, that a historical trust must see to it that no changes of any kind are made to the building, or that it does not run to ruin. Neither trouble nor expenses were spared to preserve this ‘cultural heritage’ for future generations.

But is all of this in agreement with the prophecy?

Revelation 11:1 refers to God’s plan to build a temple. It will not be a temple of stone, but “a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (Ephesians 2:22), a continuation of Him in Whom all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form (Colossians 2:9).

It will be Christ’s mystical body, which is brought to fulness. The apostle Paul says that “in him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord” (Ephesians 2:21).

The way this ‘temple’ will be built will depend completely on the roar of the lion and the mysterious voices of the seven thunders in Revelation 10. Many ‘architects’ in the fields of religion and politics, who now are trying to attain a paradisiacal situation by means of their own sanctuaries and ideologies, with a ‘river flowing from the temple’ as described in Ezekiel 47:1-12 that makes everything fertile, symbolising an oasis of peace, will—despite their best intentions—have to experience something similar to ‘Nathan’s night’, at the fulfilment of Revelation 10. They will even have to be summoned back in a much more serious way than Nathan was in those days.

Revelation 10 refers to a small open scroll that is ‘sweet as honey in the mouth’ but ‘turning the stomach sour’. Only true prophecy will lead to world peace. Jesus alone is the Prince of Peace.

The sharp borderline

God draws a sharp dividing line as regards David’s intention to build a temple. Nothing bad should be said about David’s sincere desire to do this. His intention, as such, was good in God’s eyes according to 1 Kings 8:17-19, in which the dedication of the temple is reported by Solomon in the following manner:

“My father David had it in his heart to build a temple for the Name of the LORD, the God of Israel. But the LORD said to my father David, ‘Because it was in your heart to build a temple for my Name, you did well to have this in your heart. Nevertheless, you are not the one to build the temple, but your son, who is your own flesh and blood—he is the one who will build the temple for my Name.’”

How deeply rooted this desire must have been in his soul becomes clear in Psalm 132:4-5:

“I will allow no sleep to my eyes,
no slumber to my eyelids,
till I find a place for the LORD,
a dwelling for the Mighty One of Jacob.”

In the verses 1 and 2 of this psalm, we read how David even made an oath and a vow to God.

Furthermore, the extensive material preparations for the building of the temple show how serious he was about seeing this carried out, even though he had to leave the actual building of the temple to his son Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:2-5). His devout involvement appears to be very intense as he even spoke about the divine plan of the temple with the words: “All this I have in writing from the hand of the LORD upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan” (1 Chronicles 28:19). This ‘writing’ must have been the basis for all the instructions he gave for the worship service in the temple to be built (1 Chronicles 23 ff.).

A design like this, given by God, is a reminder of the command the Lord once gave to Moses: “See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5).

Typologically the ‘writing’ also points to the future which we may expect when Revelation 10 is fulfilled. The prophecy by the angel with the small open scroll in his hand also has a bearing on the nature and the design of the temple of the Spirit in Revelation 11:1.

Building a temple is a most holy matter. Everything about it refers symbolically to the restoration of paradise. This restoration is based on the blood of atonement which already signified God’s act of redemption and deliverance in the night of the Passover. In the ancient ceremonial service, everything was centred around the Passover Lamb. The feast cycle also was founded on it, and God’s reign over the church and the world until the end of time is apocalyptically characterized by the words:

“Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the centre of the throne (...) He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (Revelation 5:6; Isaiah 53:7; Zechariah 4:10).

Ultimately, after earthly time, everything in the heavenly paradise will revolve around the Lamb and the temple:

“Therefore, they are before the throne of God
and serve him day and night in his temple;
and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them.

Never again will they hunger;
never again will they thirst.

The sun will not beat upon them,
nor any scorching heat.

For the Lamb at the centre of the throne will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” (Revelation 7:15-17).

Because of his inner attitude and his extensive material and spiritual preparations, David had come very close to the possibility of building the temple. However, during ‘Nathan’s night’, God drew a sharp dividing line between David’s desire and His own holy determination. The reason for God’s decision not to allow David to build the temple but to give this privilege to his son Solomon was: “You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight” (1 Chronicles 22:8, 28:3). With this reason, God immediately cut off the possibility of bringing the wars of the Lord on one line with the wars of the pagans, who explicitly made a strong connection between their cruel wars and the building of their temples.

In the book: “The symbolism of the biblical world”, the author states the following about the meaning of chariots in the ancient Orient:

“Certain battle scenes from Egypt or Assyria create the impression that the king’s overwhelming victory was entirely due to his chariot. It carried into battle not only the king, but also the standards of the gods. The chariot was not only the royal throne; it was also a temple. (...)

In Egypt, the king’s chariot was considered ‘a divine being; its constituent parts were considered to be animate, and their praises were sung in hymns’.” [58]

With a view to this connection between warfare and temple among the pagans that was accepted in those days, it is no wonder that God drew this sharp dividing line in ‘Nathan’s night’. For the entire history of Israel is evidence of a work which the Psalmist formulates in Psalm 44:1-3 with the words:

“We have heard with our ears, O God;
our fathers have told us
what you did in their days,
in days long ago.

With your hand you drove out the nations
and planted our fathers;
you crushed the peoples
and made our fathers flourish.

It was not by their sword that they won the land,
nor did their arm bring them victory;
it was your right hand, your arm,
and the light of your face, for you loved them.”

Census and judgment

Entirely contrary to Israel’s continuous confession: “the battle is the LORD’S”, and also contrary to the theme of David’s own psalms in which God is highly praised for His deliverances, David commanded the captain of his army at the very end of his life: “Go throughout the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheba and enrol the fighting men, so that I may know how many there are” (2 Samuel 24:2).

How powerfully do the cogwheels of God’s regime engage judgment and mercy together. For what follows is linked straight to the dividing line drawn by the prophet Nathan, when, by God’s order, he had to tell David: Not you will build the temple, but your son.

God’s holy sovereignty has more dimensions than we mortals can imagine. Paul remarks on this: “How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33).

David did indeed—according to Abigail’s words in 1 Samuel 25:28—conduct the battles of the Lord, i.e. a holy war; however, the way in which he shed Uriah’s blood in the framework of a ‘battle of the Lord’, was anything but holy. After that, God’s judgment hit him very sorely: The sword would never depart from his house, and his sin with Bathsheba would be revenged in broad daylight before all Israel (2 Samuel 12:7-14).

When we contemplate thematically the final phase of David’s kingship in Jerusalem, we may find how the dividing line, drawn by God in ‘Nathan’s night’, almost becomes a ‘high-tension cable’.

David had, so to speak, ‘made it’ in society. Nothing could happen to him any more! He had definitively defeated all his enemies. However, his inner self appears to have been seized by a devaluation of his original pastoral disposition.

It is often said that “power corrupts”. David’s attitude towards Uriah is indeed contrary to pastoral care. His sword contradicted the harp on which he used to play his beautiful psalms.

This internal alienation as regards his pastoral calling also became clear when David suggested to hold a census. Joab and all his captains were annoyed and didn’t see the use of it, but Joab had to abandon his opposition to the king’s orders, and so he went on his way and after nine months and twenty days returned to Jerusalem with the outcome: “In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand” (2 Samuel 24:9). According to 1 Chronicles 21:5, there were even more.

The result was: a standing army of about one and a half million soldiers and a deeply fallen king.

David knew quite well that this event was diametrically opposed to the regulations that were valid for the king. So he was deeply remorseful about it and said to the Lord: “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O LORD, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing” (2 Samuel 24:10).

Counting can be risky. This was certainly the case in David’s census. It gave the impression that he was going after his own honour, thereby betraying God’s mercy to which Israel exclusively owed their deliverance. Although he was firmly seated as victor, he was not supposed to trust in the power of numbers. In fact, his passion for ‘counting’ had already brought him under the spell of numbers. Pagan rulers, and particularly dictators, do depend on numbers and power, until—as was the case with king Belshazzar—a ‘hand’ wrote on ‘the wall’: “You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting” (Daniel 5:25-28).

‘Counting’ and ‘registering’ will be the principal mission of the Antichrist. He is even marked by a number, namely 666. This is – so to speak – his ‘trade mark’.

This is not how things should go with the ‘man after God’s heart’. God’s wrathful reaction is terrible. His punishment is in accordance with the nature of David’s transgression. He is allowed to count once more and to choose between three kinds of judgment:

– either three years of famine;

– or three months of fleeing from his adversaries, while the sword of his enemies will pursue him;

– or else three days of the Lord’s sword, namely the plague across the country and the angel of the Lord bringing destruction throughout all of Israel.

After the prophet Gad had delivered these options to the king, David was gripped by fear and chose the third judgment, saying: “Let me fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men” (1 Chronicles 21:11-13).

The judgment took place.

Seventy thousand men of Israel died!

David and the elders of Israel, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown, and in total humility, David took all the blame for this tragedy with the words: “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? O LORD my God, let your hand fall upon me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people” (1 Chronicles 21:17).

Immediately after this confession, things took a favourable turn: the prophet Gad had to tell David to go to the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite and build an altar to the Lord. After buying the threshing floor and sacrificing burnt offerings on the altar, to which God answered with fire from heaven, the Lord commanded the angel to “put his sword back into its sheath” (1 Chronicles 21:27).

This entire detailed biblical account of the census and the judgment contains elements which together resemble mysterious hieroglyphs. Are we dealing here exclusively with a precise historical account, or also with an eschatologically coded message? This question is legitimate, since, at the announcement of the birth of the Messiah, the angel Gabriel proclaims: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32). These very words imply an acknowledgement of the typological meaning of David’s life and reign. In both, things went from suffering to glory. This is one of the principal features of the typological similarity of David with his great Son, the Messiah.

The answer to the question whether this concerns a precise historical report or an eschatologically coded message is that it is both.

It is not important to scrutinise the smallest details on every page relating to David’s life for typological information; rather, the main points of David’s life and kingship are important. His pastoral role is one of these main points, a pastoral role from which he had deviated during the last phase of his life, but to which he was brought back through God’s intervention.

What did the beginning of David’s royal career look like?

For that, we need to go back to the moment of his anointing.

God had told the prophet Samuel: “I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king” (…) You are to anoint for me the one I indicate” Seeing Eliab, Samuel thought: “Surely the LORD’S anointed stands here before the LORD.” But the Lord answered: “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:1-7).

And so Jesse made all his other sons—seven in number—pass before Samuel, and each time the Lord answered: “This is not the one.” To Samuel’s question: “Are these all the sons you have?” came the striking answer: “There is still the youngest, but he is tending the sheep” (1 Samuel 16:11).

Keeping in mind God’s criterion of looking at the heart, we must come to the conclusion that He saw the heart of a shepherd in David, and that He therefore considered him qualified to be king over His people Israel.

God looks at things differently than we do. David would also make serious mistakes in his life, but God saw his pastoral heart, and in him, he also saw the Shepherd who would originate from him, namely the Messiah. As a shepherd’s boy, David was already willing to give his life for his sheep. He did not run away at the sight of a bear or a lion. This was an attitude ‘after God’s own heart’. In his distant offspring, the Son of God would give his life as the Shepherd of all mankind.

Jesus is the true Good Shepherd. He gave His life for the sheep.

Seeing this shepherd’s boy David, the Eternal One also has in view his great Son: Jesus, God’s only Son, who would be at the same time David’s Son and Lord (Psalm 110:1; Matthew 22:41-46).

All Jesse’s sons had to line up in their father’s yard—in fact, before God! That is how it is described in 1 Samuel 16:6, when Samuel saw Jesse’s first son, Eliab, appear. He thought: “Surely the LORD’S anointed stands here before the LORD.” They all had to appear one by one. And each time the answer was ‘no’.

Why this time-consuming procedure?

Why didn’t Samuel—led by the Lord—go directly to David, even though he was with his sheep?

Of course, God could have pointed out David in a direct way. This is what He did when He called Elisha. Elijah met him in the field while he was ploughing, and, while passing, Elijah threw his prophet’s mantle around him (1 Kings 19:19).

Was there a particular reason for the Lord to use this roundabout way in pointing out David? Is this ceremony, which took place in such a small family circle, not also one of the mysterious hieroglyphs that mark David’s life?

Certainly.

One by one, God made the older brothers pass by, in the same way as in the history of the world, He will make ‘seven’ of the ‘superpowers’ pass by without finding true ‘pastorship’ in any of them.

The word ‘rejected’ is heard seven times.

Crisis after crisis, coup after coup, war after war, but true pastoral care appears nowhere.

Does the world still have a future?

Yes, there is one more left, the youngest; he is with the sheep in the fields. He too has to come. However different his situation may be, without him, the sacrificial ceremony and after that the anointing and Messianic meal will not take place. When he steps forward, the Lord says: “Rise and anoint him; he is the one” (1 Samuel 16:12).

What unprecedented depth this scene has!

David was chosen. According to the prophets and apostles this has a typological dimension of a far-reaching scope.

‘Typology’ is more than ‘allegory’. Allegoric use of language may be a symbolic depiction of an idea or an abstract notion, whereas typology is, among other things, the doctrine of the significance of people and events of a preceding era as an example for those of a later era.

John J. Bimson says about this subject:

“In essence typology is distinct from allegory. When properly controlled, typology depends on the recognition of events, people or institutions in the Old Testament which correspond in some way to events, people or institutions in the New. The former are seen as foreshadowing the latter, providing a pattern to which the latter conform to some extent. The Old Testament pattern is referred to as the type, and its New Testament counterpart is the antitype; these are Greek terms used in the New Testament itself (Romans 5:14; 1 Peter 3:21).

Typology depends on the reasonable assumption that God is consistent in his dealings with the world and with His people, so that events in the history of God’s people will correspond to each other in ways that are not fanciful or trivial but real and fundamental. This is held to be true across the divide between the Old and New Testament, notwithstanding the radically new work of God in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ.” [59]

So, biblical typology consists in ‘a person’ or a ‘story’ being destined or formed by God in such a manner that its meaning counts as a prophetic prediction which will be fulfilled concretely at a predestined time.

That is why the fact that Jesse’s sons had to appear before Samuel is not just a ceremony without any further relevance outside the private family circle, as Eliab, David’s oldest brother, seemed to regard it. When David, during Israel’s battle with the Philistines, came to the battlefield to inquire how matters stood, Eliab said scornfully: “Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the desert? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is…” (1 Samuel 17:28). It was a direct attack on David’s pastoral role, the disposition which was pleasing in God’s eyes.

The ‘natural’ man does not understand the way a truly anointed person acts. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

David’s anointing meant nothing to Eliab, neither did Samuel’s horn of oil. This showed how he calculated and lived as a ‘natural’ man. He did not understand what the impact of David’s anointing was on the battlefield, even after the battle had come to a critical stage. When Eliab heard David asking the men of Israel: “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?” he sneered at him: ‘What are you doing here? Why don’t you stay with your sheep!’ (See 1 Samuel 17:26).

But David did not use a sword or a spear to put down Goliath, but he did it in the Name of the Lord, by which he illustrated God’s pastoral role. The battle was the Lord’s!

This pastoral disposition marked David’s life and kingship. In the last phase of his life, however, he lost track and alienated himself from his original pastoral role by commanding Joab to conduct a census, which implied that he relied on the power of his own great standing army.

But there is more. David really got caught up in a Babylonian principle.

Why did God react so harshly to this census so that seventy thousand men died under His judgment?

And after that, why was this judgment inextricably linked to the indication of the place where the temple had to be built?

This sort of ‘counting’ is in fact building ‘temple stairs’ to climb up towards heaven. In contrast to this, a link was made between the judgment over the census and the indication of the place where the temple had to be built (2 Samuel 24:18-25; 1 Chronicles 21:18-22:1). Overall, the temple was also meant to be a symbol of God’s pastoral care, i.e. God’s love in standing surety. The ‘inspiration’ for building a tower or pyramid is directly opposed to this.

Can we just compare this ‘counting’ by David with a kind of ‘Babylonian temple building’? Scripture gives us the answer: “Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.” (...) “This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel” (1 Chronicles 21:1 and 7).

History has proven that a satanically inspired ‘Babylonian counting’ always ends in dehumanisation and cruel oppression. Man becomes a number, which, in the most evil days of recent world history, was even tattooed on the arms of those who were registered.

The citizens of the chosen and redeemed people under David must have wondered, along with Joab what the purpose of this census was.

Normally, a conscription like this was to hand an overview to the authorities for taxation purposes. It is no coincidence that the great Son of David was born at a time when the emperor Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. At that juncture in time, God ‘calculated’ differently. He announced to the shepherds, of all people, the birth of that One Person, who was still absent among men: Jesus, the Christ—which means ‘the Anointed’—the Saviour of the world.

King Herod was frightened and as a vassal of the Roman ‘Babylon’, he started ‘calculating’: He gave orders to kill all the boys in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi (Matthew 2:16).

Herod’s unholy ‘counting’ had tragic consequences. The influence of the cruel Roman Empire was so intense that the leaders of Israel were also tempted to ‘count’ in an unholy way, for fear of the growing number of Jesus’ followers. They convened the Council, and said: “If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” Caiaphas, the high priest, expressed the ‘result’ of their consultations as follows: “You know nothing at all! You do not realise that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:48-50). So the deliberations of the chief priests and the elders took place under the continuous pressure of the army of the Roman occupation. Caiaphas ‘counted’ while wearing ‘Roman spectacles’ and in doing so, he surrendered to the powers of darkness. Jesus summarised the entire complex situation with the words: “But this is your hour—when darkness reigns” (Luke 22:53).

Judgment had to follow!

All this took place in the New-Testament time of fulfilment. However, there is a distinct parallel with the judgment on David’s census in the Old-Testament phase of ‘promise’. The temple is meant to be a symbolic reflection of the surety of God’s pastoral role. This pastoral role would manifest itself in the foreshadowing service of atonement.

The temple service with its cycle of feasts would call the people to a spiritual ‘re-experiencing’ of the Passover night and the Exodus, and it pointed to the final redemption through the Lamb of God and the atonement of His blood, which would take away the sins of the world. Furthermore, the temple with all its decorations and illustrations served as a reminder of the Garden of Eden and the fact that it was sealed off by cherubim with flaming swords. The temple, as a symbol of the Garden of Eden, remained inaccessible without the blood of atonement. At the same time the temple indicated the great Future of the kingdom of God, to which Revelation 11:1 also points. [60]

However, it is impossible to enter the ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’ without accepting the Lamb of God. The story of the cleansing of the temple (John 2:13 ff.) makes it clear that the building of the temple is all about the true pastoral surety. When Jesus was asked by what authority He was doing these things, He answered: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19). With these words, He spoke about the temple of His body and alluded to His pastoral substitutionary death and His resurrection.

When, in the future, there will be a further fulfilment of these words of Jesus and the Most High has designated ‘the third day of God’ for this purpose, then both Jews and Gentiles will have to seriously reckon with God’s own ‘border guards’, the cherubim. The legs of the ‘intermezzo angel’ of Revelation 10 are as pillars of fire. The cleansing of the temple is at hand.

The Old-Testament plan to build a temple clearly reveals the contrast with pagan temple building. Their chariots were important for their god and their divisions counted as the steps of their ziggurats, their temples. However, the building of the true temple is completely different. It is such a holy matter—holy in the original sense of ‘being set apart’ from ‘idolatrous paganism’—that its framework as well as the initiative to build it has to originate from God. Even the place where the sanctuary should be built can only be determined by God. The indication of the place where the temple was to be built took place in an absolute relationship to the judgment on David’s census. It has to become a house of God, where the Most High with His triune holy transcendence can find a dwelling place for His immanency. It is to be a house of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 56:7; Mark 11:17). Before any indication for the exact place for the building of the temple could be given, God wanted to thoroughly deal with any form of satanic inspiration. His judgment caused seventy thousand men to die. This truly was a divine sentence.

It is enough!

“The LORD … said to the angel who was afflicting the people, ‘Enough! Withdraw your hand’” (2 Samuel 24:16).

The judgment on David’s census should not be seen separately from God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants, in which He, as a blazing torch, passed between the pieces of the slaughtered animals that lay opposite each other (Genesis 15).

With this way of making an alliance in the old days, both partners declared that they would meet the same fate as these slaughtered animals if they would break the alliance. [61]

This form of treaty implies the requirement to stand surety for the alliance with one’s own life. By passing through the ‘blood street’, the Most High stood surety for His covenant with Abraham and his posterity. This might well be called the ‘utmost pastoral surety’.

Through His proclamation: “This is the new covenant in My blood”, Jesus, whose mission was to reveal God’s Name on the earth (John 17:6 ff), showed to all believers His readiness to take upon Himself the alienation that comes with ‘the breaking of the covenant’. This standing surety took place at Golgotha. The Good Shepherd gave His life for his sheep. At that moment, the Eternal One repeated the word that ended the judgment of the angel who had come with the ‘sword of the plague’: “It is enough!”. With God’s authority, Jesus, while dying on the cross, cried out: “It is finished!”

David was shattered by the terrible chastisement executed by the judgment angel. So when, clothed in sackcloth, he saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem, he fell facedown and took up the cudgels for his heavily-stricken people (1 Chronicles 21:16). At that moment, his pastoral heart began to speak again and he humbled himself before God.

This humility was followed by a restoration of the relationship between the Lord and His servant David, as well as for Jerusalem. By giving fire from heaven on the altar, God proved the genuineness of the atonement with His servant and also indicated where the temple was to be built, namely on the threshing floor of Araunah (1 Chronicles 22:1). That is the same place where God once provided a substitute for Isaac, Mount Moriah (Genesis 22:2; 2 Chronicles 3:1).

The contribution of the Jebusite Araunah to the offering was not rejected either, but God sanctioned it by His answer of fire from heaven on the altar (1 Chronicles 21:23-26).

An exemplary dénouement

Does the pericope about ‘census and judgment’ hold a message for us concerning the future?

The ‘mysterious hieroglyphs’ have been mentioned before. Would it be possible to decode these ‘hieroglyphs’, so we might catch any signals which would show us the way?

First of all, we need to bear in mind that the whole matter of David’s census and God’s judgment on this act, including its ending does not fall outside the scope of Abraham’s foundational vision described in Genesis 15. The Passover night and the subsequent exodus are a further development and fulfilment of this vision. And finally, it also applies to the future temple ministry in the Old-Testament dispensation. God took upon Himself the consequences of the fact that the covenant had been broken by demanding, in the Passover night, the ‘sign of the blood’ on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses, and so explicitly anchoring the symbolism of the slaughtered lamb in the temple service and the associated cycle of feasts.

In the New Testament, Jesus took upon Himself, on behalf of God, this promise of the substitution (Isaiah 53:5-7), by proclaiming during the institution of the Lord’s Supper:

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20).

In essence, David broke the covenant when he took the census. The destruction followed, but only partly. At David’s repentance, the angel of judgment was commanded to put his sword into its sheath again (1 Chronicles 21:27). In all probability, the judgment was called to a halt on the third day.

Furthermore, it should be noted that, when David humbled himself before God, the angel of the Lord immediately ordered the prophet Gad to have David build an altar on Araunah’s threshing floor (1 Chronicles 21:18).

Repentance and conversion are God’s gifts of grace (Ephesians 1:8).

By humbling himself before God and obeying the prophet Gad’s order to build an altar on Araunah’s threshing floor, David placed himself in the care of Him, about Whom he so sweetly sang in Psalm 23, under the theme: “The LORD is my Shepherd.”

The Lord responded by giving fire on the altar, and the plague stopped. This fire on the altar is God’s ‘Amen’, and counts as the divine affirmation of what He had said to the angel: “Enough!”

Thirdly, we should not ignore Araunah’s participation, this prominent and representative figure of the Jebusites, in the process of the census as well as in the judgment and the dénouement. As far back as the register of the nations in Genesis 10, we find the Jebusites mentioned (Genesis 10:15-16). They originated from Canaan, who in his turn was a descendant of Ham (Genesis 10:6; 1 Chronicles 1:8, 14). The chapter about the establishment of the covenant in Genesis 15, in which formidable signs are mentioned, such as a great darkness, a smoking brazier and a blazing torch passing between the pieces, the Jebusites are mentioned as the last in the row of nations to be given to Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 15:17-21). This promise would only be fulfilled when the sin of the Amorites had reached its full measure (Genesis 15:16).

It must convey something to everyone, from whatever race or tribe, that a distant descendant from Ham: Araunah, a purebred Canaanite is included in pointing out the future place of the temple. Araunah is also fully involved in the judgment on David. He also sees the angel of judgment with the drawn sword over Jerusalem. The ensuing negotiations with King David about the threshing floor passed off smoothly. When the two representative figures, David and Araunah, see the angel of the Lord, it says about David: “David looked up and saw the angel of the LORD standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem” and about Araunah: “Araunah … turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid themselves” (1 Chronicles 21:16 and 20). Both of them experience a miracle by which they observe the absolute transcendental.

In our days, one can expect that smooth peace talks for Jerusalem will not depend and be achieved solely by human diplomacy.

As it is and by means of the prophetic indication, God brings together two important men in peace: a representative of the non-Jewish world, Araunah, and the representative of the Jewish people, King David. Moreover, Araunah is not only involved in pointing out the place where the temple is to be built, but he also contributes to the offerings for the building of the altar on his threshing floor. He freely offers:

“Take it! Let my lord the king do whatever pleases him. Look, I will give the oxen for the burnt offerings, the threshing-sledges for the wood, and the wheat for the grain offering. I will give all this” (1 Chronicles 21:23).

Although David did not accept this courteous offer but wanted to pay the full price, it appeared from God’s answer by giving fire from heaven on the altar that He Himself had acknowledged and accepted this contribution from a representative of the non-Jewish world. God’s purposes regarding the building of the temple are universal.

Does this whole event serve as an example?

Might this be a prelude to the mighty moment when God, according to His Council and foreknowledge, will attune the fulness of the Gentiles to the fulness and the salvation of all Israel? (Romans 11:25).

We might even take it a step further. God’s fulfilling acts in the Gentile world in order to bring Israel to its full destiny are undoubtedly the intermezzo to which Revelation 10 alludes. On legitimate grounds exegetically, we might jump from David and Araunah’s meeting in the distant past to the Apocalypse.

When the penultimate secret of Revelation 10 is to be revealed and prophecy will be involved, the ‘little open scroll’ will have something to say to all the nations. By way of prophecy and the disclosure of God’s majesty in the thunders, the temple of the Spirit will arise (Revelation 11:1). This goal will not be attained by mere diplomatic dealings. God’s Spirit will have to open peoples’ eyes for the imminent curse of which the prophet Malachi spoke. Whatever contradictions there may be, David did not act as an occupying force over Jerusalem and he did not, as the conqueror, claim Araunah’s threshing floor, and Araunah did not insist on being the owner of the threshing floor, but both of them came to an agreement when they saw God’s angel of judgment. So in the future, too, every contrast will melt away at the sight of the imminent curse. The words of Revelation 9:13-21 are most significant in this respect. When people in both the Jewish and the non-Jewish world repent, God will command the angel of judgment to put his sword in its sheath again, or, as He says through the prophet Malachi in chapter 4:6:

“… lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”(NKJV)

or as the NIV states:

“…or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

50 See Shofar series, volume 3, pp 113-115

51 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. A. Jobsen: “David, een Messiaans model”, page 20, J.H. Kok, Kampen, 1992
“Het getal vijf wijst onmiskenbaar naar de Tora. (…) De betekenis lijkt te zijn: David wil met de intentie van de Tora Goliath tegemoet treden. David wordt hier gekenschetst als een tsaddik, een rechtvaardige, iemand die zich volstrekt wil laten leiden door de Tora die God aan Israël gegeven heeft. Zo’n tsaddik is tot veel in staat. Hij belichaamt de doorbraak in het vanzelfsprekende denken, waarbij macht tegenover macht staat, waarbij geweld met nog meer geweld moet worden overwonnen. De Tora maakt uiteindelijk duidelijk, dat de God van Israël niet verlost wordt door zwaard en speer (vers 47a).”

52 As stated in the NBG51 translation: “Terstond, nadat David opgehouden had tot Saul te spreken, werd de ziel van Jonatan verknocht aan die van David; en Jonatan had hem lief als zichzelf.”

53 Dr. C.J. Goslinga: “Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift – Samuël“, volume 2, page 39, J.H. Kok N.V., Kampen, 1956

54 In the Dutch NBG51 translation: de ‘Onveranderlijke Israels’, literally translated: the ‘Unchangeable One of Israel’

55 What is meant here is the doctrinal crisis that broke out in the Reformed Churches in 1942 concerning the statements about the relationship between covenant of grace and election on the one hand and faith on the other hand. This crisis ended in a separation from the authority of the Synod by means of the ‘Akte van Vrijmaking’ (= act of liberation), by which the Reformed Churches (liberated) came into existence on August 11th, 1944

56 See: Shofar series, volume 2, 23-34 , and volume 3, 158-163

57 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. F.W. Grosheide: “Korte verklaring der Heilige Schrift – Hebreeën”, page 77,78, J.H. Kok N.V., Kampen, 1935
“Hij was koning van Salem, het latere Jeruzalem, maar niet alleen koning was hij, ook priester. Hij verbond die twee ambten en hij was priester niet van een heidense afgod, maar van de Allerhoogste, dat is van de enige ware God, immers onder deze naam diende ook Abraham God. Genesis 14:22. Daarin ligt de betekenis van Melchizedek. In het paradijs was de mens koning en priester tegelijk. Door de zonde ging al meer de heerlijkheid van zijn drievoudig ambt teloor. En toen dat zo goed als geheel verloren was, greep God in en gaf in het Levietisch priesterschap een vernieuwing. Melchizedek staat in de oude tijd, waarin nog niet alles was uitgestorven. Hij staat als Adam, hij heeft nog een overblijfsel van het oorspronkelijke ambt, hij is koning en priester tevens. De orde van Melchizedek is daarom de oorspronkelijke orde, het priesterschap, gelijk God het had ingesteld. Het Aäronitische is het secundaire, zoals het uit genade gegeven werd, toen het oorspronkelijke was opgehouden. Melchizedek staat vóór Aaron. Ook bij Melchizedek zal zonde geweest zijn, we weten daar niets van om er in bijzonderheden van te spreken. Dat doet er ook niet toe. Hoofdzaak is, dat hij zijn priesterschap heeft uit het paradijs en daardoor God dient.”

58 Othmar Keel: “The symbolism of the biblical world – Ancient near Eastern Iconography and the Book of the Psalms”, page 238, The Seabury Press, New York, 1978

59 Alfred Edersheim: “The Temple: Its ministry and services as they were at the time of Jesus Christ”; Introduction by John J. Bimson, page 19, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, U.S.A., 1997

60 See: Shofar series, volume 2, pp 158-161 about the temple as symbol of paradise

61 See: Chapter 2 and Shofar series, volume 3, pp 20-27

5. THE MAIN SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ARK

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant.” (Revelation 11:19)

When John receives visions of the end of the world on the island of Patmos, he sees the temple of God opened and the Ark of the Covenant in plain view. Here the Ark must have a symbolic meaning, derived from the central place it occupied in the worship service of ancient Israel. The Apocalypse also attributes this central place to the Ark. The context of John’s vision of the open temple shows the effect the seventh angel has when he sounds his seventh trumpet (Revelation 11:15-19).

As regards the worship service of ancient Israel, there are numerous signs that point to the central position the Ark occupied.

First of all, it should be pointed out that the Ark was made at God’s command (Exodus 25:10-21). Furthermore, it is important that the Ark was placed in the Most Holy Place (Exodus 26:34), and that the Lord would speak with Moses from above the Atonement Cover concerning all His commands for the Israelites (Exodus 25:22). The fact that the two stone tablets, on which the ‘Decalogue’ or the ‘Testimony’ was written, had to be placed inside the Ark (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 6:11), demonstrates the centrality of the Ark, for the Decalogue sealed God’s covenant with Israel.

The sprinkling of the blood for the atonement of the sins of the people on the great Day of Atonement was of major importance (Leviticus 16:14). The Hebrew word for ‘Atonement Cover’ is ha kappo’reth, which actually means the ‘mercy seat’.

It is also remarkable that the ‘Song of Moses’, which contained a further explanation of the Decalogue, was placed at his command next to the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26). This Song of Moses appears again in the Apocalypse:

“And I saw what looked like a sea of glass mixed with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and over the number of his name. They held harps given them by God and sang the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb:

‘Great and marvellous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty.

Just and true are your ways, King of the ages.

Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name?

For you alone are holy.

All nations will come and worship before you,
for your righteous acts have been revealed.’” (Revelation 15:2-4)

The Song of Moses and the Song of the Lamb are in essence one and the same. It is the song of those who have gained the victory. In the last round of history, the Ark will be revealed in combination with praise and worship because of the definitive breakthrough of the kingdom of God.

During the exodus, the Ark largely functioned as a guide for the people. Exodus 40:38 says:

“So the cloud of the LORD was over the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel during all their travels.”

The additional description Numbers 10:35-36 gives of this event is impressive:

“Whenever the ark set out, Moses said,

‘Rise up, O LORD!

May your enemies be scattered;
may your foes flee before you.’

Whenever it came to rest, he said,

‘Return, O LORD,
to the countless thousands of Israel.’”

So God took upon Himself the leadership of the journey from resting place to resting place through the wilderness, with the Ark carried at the head of the army, all the way to the crossing of the river Jordan, the entrance into the Promised Land and to the fall of the firstfruits city, Jericho (Joshua 3, 4 and 6).

The Ark appears to be the sign of God’s guiding presence.[62]

Typologically, the Ark also functions as a guide towards the kingdom of God, and more concretely, to the advent of the Messiah, in Whom and through Whom the kingdom of God will be realised. This aspect of the function of the Ark is also found in John’s vision in Revelation 11, in which, prior to the opened heaven and the Ark becoming visible, the following proclamation resounds:

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

In view of the far-reaching significance of the typological history of the Ark, it is of utmost importance to pay close attention to this information for the strengthening of our faith, and especially for the confirmation of our hope.

Balak summons Balaam

In the story of Balak and Balaam, we receive a striking illustration regarding the central place the tabernacle and the Ark had in Israel’s camp. This event contains a message which is relevant for our days, as virtually all over the world, those who call themselves the ‘Church’ have raised the controversial question whether the classic ‘doctrine of Atonement’ through the Lamb of God should still be considered fully valid.

That is why the encampment of Israel’s army, as described in Numbers 2, along with the story of Balak and Balaam in Numbers 22-24, deserve our full attention.

We should never forget that the Name ‘YAHWEH’, I am who I am, is a ‘battle cry’. Rendering this Name by notions as ‘the Being’, or ‘the Substance’, which is in vogue nowadays,[63] smells of Hellenism. In an absolute sense, the Name ‘YAHWEH’ is connected to the exodus of God’s people out of the power of darkness. With that exodus, God stays the course: He is who He is!

Considering things in a purely human way, we must agree with Balak, the king of Moab, who concluded that there was no chance for him to conquer these people who were encamped in the desert opposite him. From a military point of view, things were not looking good for him.

From various reports that had reached him, he knew that the superpower Egypt had not been able to resist these people. The mighty Pharaoh had to let these people go. Neither had the ‘Reed Sea’—in Egypt the symbol of death and Hades—been able to hold and devour the Jewish people. They had gone—as if right through death—towards the opposite shore. Even the terrible desert, where nothing grew, had been able to swallow them up. There was meat and food in abundance: in the evening the quail had come, and in the morning there had been enough manna for them to bake bread according to their need (Exodus 16:13-16). And the rock had given water (Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:8).

The Amalekites, good soldiers indeed, had also opposed the Israelites, but they had been beaten by them (Exodus 17:8-16). And now, the Israelites had spread themselves out over a great part of Moab.

Balak was frightened. The Israelites seemed invincible. He left one option open: he was wondering if there could be some magic power, possibly a famous seer from the vicinity of Babylon, whom he might call upon to curse the people of Israel for a high fee.

The purpose of this ‘enchantment’, this summoning of magic supernatural powers, was to attack the special bond the Israelites had with their God, in hopes of severing this bond by means of magic formulae or curses. That might be a way for Moab to beat Israel in Balak’s thoughts.

So Balak sent messengers to this seer, Balaam, who lived somewhere between the Euphrates and the Tigris, and who was world-famous in those days, which is evident from Balak’s words: “…For I know that those you bless are blessed, and those you curse are cursed” (Numbers 22:6).

With a lot of money and by repeatedly sending messengers, Balak tried to persuade Balaam to come to Moab in order to curse Israel.

However, at the arrival of Balak’s very first delegation God told Balaam: “Do not go with them. You must not put a curse on those people, because they are blessed” (Numbers 22:12). Some people see an incongruity in this biblical story, because at the insistence of the second delegation of princes, more numerous and more honourable than the members of the first one, God said to Balaam: “… go with them, but do only what I tell you” (Numbers 22:20).

Yet we need not see any incongruity at all, as if God would have retracted His first order. Between these two seemingly contradictory statements lies a whole world of ideas. This course of events is to some extent comparable to the story of Pharaoh, who, time and again, hardened himself against God’s command to let Israel go, and, by doing so, could count on increasingly severe plagues. If Balaam did not want to comply ‘con amore’ to God’s order not to go, God said as it were: Well then, harden yourself! Let us have it! So much the stronger would His resistance be to the attempt at cursing the people. Balaam would not be able to say anything resembling a curse. On the contrary, the effect of the Name I am who I am will become all the more evident.

Balaam went along.

A seer, who, according to Numbers 23:7, was called from the territory where the Tower of Babel was built, sets out to try to curse the Israelites. Scholars estimate the journey he had to make at about six hundred kilometres.

Although we should not deduce too much from this geographical information, neither should we ignore it. A well-known expert in the occult is called from the region of Babylon in order to curse God’s work of the exodus, and, in doing so, to desecrate the Name I am who I am.

After all, Abraham had received the divine command to leave Ur of the Chaldees, which is Babylon. This was already like an exodus, and this line was extended to the deliverance out of Egypt, which God brought about for Abraham’s posterity.

God spoke to Moses at the beginning of His work of deliverance to redeem the people of Israel out of Egypt: “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3).

This statement by God shows that His Name I am who I am specifically refers to and is connected with the exodus.

We can conclude that God Himself, in His steadfastness against Balak and Balaam, was glorifying His Name.

When considering the climax of Balaam’s words, we see the evidence of the invincibility of this Name illustrated by Israel’s encampment as in a condition of perfect bliss. Through the Name of God, the attempt to curse the people is turned into words of blessing. All this has a much more profound background than we might suspect at first sight. Idolatrous Babylon always suffers defeat before the God of Israel.

According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:19-20, idolatry is always worship of demons.

When Balak calls on this occult seer because he is militarily at a loss, he is seeking help from the wrong side. In the end, the story of Balak and Balaam illustrates that the ‘head of the serpent’ will be crushed (Genesis 3:15).

When Balaam went on his way and before he could even utter one word, God gave him a severe lesson. When he arrived at a narrow passage between two vineyards which were walled in, as was customary in the East, his way was barred.

The entire scene described in Numbers 22:22-35 shows the miraculous way in which God opposed Balaam’s undertaking. It is precisely this supernatural way which God chose, that has caused so many people to doubt.

How could a donkey possibly see an angel? And why did the donkey see the angel standing with his sword drawn ahead of the ‘seer’? How could this animal speak and reproach Balaam: Why do you beat me? Is it acceptable for Balaam and his donkey to have a conversation, in which this animal calls Balaam to account for his behaviour, and that after so many years of dutiful service? Is this a legend, like the ones in ancient Rome and Greece, in which respectively an ox and a war horse were said to have spoken?

Of course, it is easy to shrug one’s shoulders and doubt the historicity of this biblical narrative, or to ridicule it. However, a warning would be appropriate here. One could flippantly draw conclusions, and so fall into the condemnation of Psalm 2, which says the following regarding haughty people and rulers who conspire against the Lord and His Anointed:

“The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the LORD scoffs at them.” (Psalm 2:4)

God controls the tongue of man and beast. Under that control falls the speaking of the serpent (Genesis 3:1-5); the confusion of tongues during the building of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:7-9); the temporary ‘suspension’ of Zechariah’s ability to speak at the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist, the herald of the Messiah, (Luke 1:20); the miracle of ‘tongues’ on the day of Pentecost, by which, in principle, the confusion of tongues after the building of the Tower of Babel was lifted (Acts 2:6-23); the ‘speaking in tongues’ by the congregation baptised in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:46-47; 19:6), and even, in general, prophecy.

The tension of a certain moment in the history of salvation can be so great, that Jesus said: “...if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out” (Luke 19:40).

Therefore, we should not laugh when we hear that a donkey spoke. The tension of that moment was very great indeed. Undertaking this trip with the intention of cursing a nation which has been called to proclaim God’s ‘words’ to all of humanity is so serious that the human tongue is incapable of expressing it.

Balaam had to proclaim in his second oracle:

“There is no sorcery against Jacob,
no divination against Israel.” (Numbers 23:23)

Whoever does try to do so, will have to deal with the Most High as his adversary. Israel may be chastised, but not cursed. The Name ‘YAHWEH’ is their surety for being blessed (Numbers 22:12). That is why the collision in the narrow pathway between the walled-in vineyards is unprecedented.

May this passage be a severe lesson, even today, especially for spiritual and political leaders. For, wherever this kind of soothsaying by a modern, idolatrous ‘Babylon’ is imitated, with the intent of cursing Abraham’s spiritual descendants, God will certainly reveal Himself as a formidable opponent in a ‘narrow pathway’. In our time, ‘Balaam’ has many followers and a lot of people accompanying him. The narrow pathway, in religious and political respect, is indeed at hand. Maybe Balaam’s donkey also has a message for mankind today in the narrow pathway of the future: “Why do you beat me?”

It should be clear to us that, already in Pharaoh’s days, nature arose in revolt in order to bring about the release of the Israelites: water changed into blood; the Nile was teeming with frogs, which entered the houses even up to the bedrooms; the dust of the ground changed into gnats; the land was plagued with swarms of flies; and hail, locusts and total darkness struck Egypt and its inhabitants.

It is the same with Balak and Balaam. Nature, as represented by the donkey, calls a man, Balaam, who is famous for being a ‘seer’ from the supernatural world, to account with the words: “Why do you beat me?” It must have been very humiliating for Balaam that the eyes of the donkey were opened to the angel of the Lord, who was standing in his way with his sword drawn. If, within the framework of this event, God opens the eyes of a donkey and gives her the ability to speak, we may conclude that this concerns a situation of ‘to be or not to be’. All of creation is in danger when the Passover blood, that forms the basis for the exodus, is despised.

Precisely on account of the above, it is necessary to make some critical observations. The whole event suggests a firm direction—even divine control. There is no disorderly jumble of coincidences in this narration. Exactly at the right time, the angel appeared in the narrow pathway between the walls of the vineyards, with his sword drawn in his hand. Geographically as well as chronologically, this shows divine guidance. The angel came just in time. ‘Babylon’ was on its way to curse Israel: a curse that would strike not only Israel, but all of creation.

God has chosen Israel, not only for the redemption of individuals, but to be the means, by way of the coming Messiah, for the redemption of all of creation.

If from Babylon and from everything which agrees with Babylon—in complete opposition to God’s work of redemption in the exodus—the curse is on its way, it will end in a narrow pathway between the walled-in vineyards, and at the same time between everything which is regarded as the ‘abundance of life’.

The seer’s foot will get stuck.

False prophecy will lead to a deadlock.

It is not only mankind which is suffering from the rejection of God’s exodus work, but also all of nature surrounding it. The suffering of nature, brought about by mankind, is incredible. This applies to plants and animals: both flora and fauna are being affected by the so-called ‘interests’ of mankind. It is clear that, within the framework of this book, this suffering cannot be fully elaborated. Besides, many reports on this subject appear in newspapers, magazines and books.

A few examples may serve as illustration:

Mankind does not shrink back from:

– unnecessary large-scale deforestation of ancient forests which are the ‘lungs’ of our earth;

– the use of chemicals in times of war, such as ‘agent-orange’, defoliating trees, so as to prevent the enemy from hiding in the jungle (Vietnam war of 1961-1975), by which, on a large scale, primeval forests were entirely destroyed, causing people and animals to suffer. Possibly more than one hundred thousand Vietnamese children, were born deformed or otherwise handicapped as a result of all of this; [64]

– because of economic interests, careless handling of elements necessary for the sustenance of life, such as water and air;

– inflicting cruelties on animals through tests which do not serve any responsible interest, as for instance in the cosmetics industry;

– endangering well-being through nuclear tests, whereby, apart from the human suffering, the ecological system of the areas in question was totally destroyed;

– risking the total destruction of the world by an ever-increasing spiral of nuclear armament, and disturbing the vulnerable balance of deterrence through the threat of constructing a defence shield, which is taking place at the moment of writing (July 2000), etc.

Is this list exaggerated?

We don’t think so.

The Bible summarises all such atrocities with the words: “The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. (…) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:19, 22).

We can read in Hosea 2:18-22 what will happen to creation, when—according to Romans 8:19—‘the sons of God will be revealed’:

“In that day I will make a covenant for them
with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air
and the creatures that move along the ground.

Bow and sword and battle

I will abolish from the land,
so that all may lie down in safety.

I will betroth you to me forever;

I will betroth you in righteousness and justice,
in love and compassion.

I will betroth you in faithfulness,
and you will acknowledge the LORD.

‘In that day I will respond,’

declares the LORD —

‘I will respond to the skies,
and they will respond to the earth;
and the earth will respond to the grain,
the new wine and oil,
and they will respond to Jezreel.’”

Is it not obvious, in light of the above, that the Creator of heaven and earth, in loving affinity with His creation, would give the power of speech to a donkey, a creature belonging to the animal world, for a moment, to express to a human being the unfair suffering inflicted upon her by a human being with the question: Why do you beat me?, and with the reproach: “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day?” (Numbers 22:30).

In fact, all nature calls out to mankind: Haven’t I served you, as long as you’ve been alive, by means of water and air and all the food I’ve produced for you? Haven’t I sustained and ‘carried’ you, from year to year and from century to century, so you could live and exist?

There is a saying: ‘Love is not a one-way street.’

God is the Father of all creation, and He is, therefore, connected in love with His whole creation. On the other hand, the Word of God says, regarding the human response to that love: “A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10). In Scripture, ‘knowing’ is the same as ‘loving’, and is also identical with ‘living in communion with God’. Mankind is called upon to love creation, and to respect it.

In no way do we have the right to endanger or to damage any kind of life, by whatever experiment. Our mission is to strive for the ‘Tikkun Olam’, ‘the restoration of the world’, i.e. ‘the wholeness of creation’. Although this aspiration is a priority of many environmental movements and organisations for the prevention of cruelty to animals—and their good intentions are highly appreciated—the ultimate effect as intended by God and proclaimed by the prophet Hosea cannot be isolated from His work of atonement.

This work of atonement, which started at Passover, was thwarted by Balaam’s conduct. However, with this attempt, he was literally squeezed in a tight corner. Every undertaking that intends to drive a wedge between God and His people and seeks to frustrate the exodus will result in a deadlock.

When his mission failed in the narrow pathway between the vineyards, Balaam acts in a most cruel way. He beats the donkey three times—the ill-treatment was complete.

So today, on a worldwide scale, a ‘narrow pathway’ is coming in sight as well. Mankind should bear in mind that opposing God’s plan of redemption from the power of darkness through the Lamb of God may bring about complete cruelty.

Balaam did not remain in this narrow pathway; in the end he got through, but on God’s conditions. He even had to hear how his life depended on the fact that the donkey stepped aside, out of the way of the angel of the Lord. The angel said to him:

“Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her” (Numbers 22:32-33).

Then Balaam said to the angel of the LORD: “I have sinned. I did not realise you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back.”

However, Balaam, whether he liked it or not, had to serve the exodus. Instead of a curse, he would only be able to utter the words that God would put in his mouth. Not a curse, but a blessing.

Notwithstanding his terrible experience on the narrow pathway, once Balaam arrived at Balak’s house, he dresses his divination up in cultic forms. Seven altars were built, and seven bulls and seven rams were slaughtered. On every altar, he and Balak sacrificed one bull and one ram. All this shows a false synthesis to the extreme. ‘Seven’ has always been a holy number. ‘Prophesying’ accompanied by a sacrifice is a sacred act, for pagans too. After all, Balaam accommodated Balak. He yielded to Balak’s wish to curse Israel, and this despite God’s earlier prohibition to go along with Balak’s messengers. God had been very angry when he did go (Numbers 22:22). The fact that he pronounced a blessing rather than a curse is only due to God’s intervention. Later, however, Balaam turned out to be the cause of the moral fall of the Israelites, because, on his advice, they turned away from the Lord (Numbers 25; 31:16).

Balaam’s heart was compliant to Balak in his wish to curse Israel, but his tongue was guided by God’s omnipotence.

Those who think that this episode is just a ‘fable’, without any historical foundation, and that this would not play a further role in Israel’s religious life, will find this thought immediately refuted by the words of the prophet Micah, who, in calling the people to a lawsuit of the Lord, reminds them of the story of Balak and Balaam:

“My people, what have I done to you?

How have I burdened you? Answer me.

I brought you up out of Egypt
and redeemed you from the land of slavery.

I sent Moses to lead you,
also Aaron and Miriam.

My people, remember
what Balak king of Moab counselled
and what Balaam son of Beor answered. (…)

that you may know the righteous acts of the LORD.” (Micah 6:3-5)

And he concludes that the only thing the Lord requires, is:

“To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)

The apostle Peter also refers to this episode when he talks about false prophets and false teachers:

“They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness” (2 Peter 2:15-16).

And John prophesied about the church in Pergamum:

“Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality” (Revelation 2:14).

So, evidently, the lesson and the impact from the story of Balak and Balaam is of unprecedented importance and severity.

When Balaam, after having sacrificed the animals on the altars, starts pronouncing his oracle—under God’s direction—we perceive a climax. The first oracle is a blessing which emphasises Israel’s unique existence:

“…I see people who live apart
and do not consider themselves one of the nations.

Who can count the dust of Jacob
or number the fourth part of Israel?

Let me die the death of the righteous,
and may my end be like theirs!” (Numbers 23:9-10)

The second oracle emphasises that there is no sorcery against Jacob, and that the people through their God who brought them out of Egypt, are invincible:

“No misfortune is seen in Jacob,
no misery observed in Israel.

The LORD their God is with them;
the shout of the King is among them.

God brought them out of Egypt;
they have the strength of a wild ox.

There is no sorcery against Jacob,
no divination against Israel.” (Numbers 23: 21-23)

The third oracle is preceded by the statement:

“The oracle of Balaam son of Beor,
the oracle of one whose eye sees clearly,
the oracle of one who hears the words of God,
who sees a vision from the Almighty,
who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened: (Numbers 24:3)

He then continued:

“How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob,
your dwelling-places, O Israel!

Like valleys they spread out,
like gardens beside a river,
like aloes planted by the LORD,
like cedars beside the waters.

Water will flow from their buckets;
their seed will have abundant water.

Their king will be greater than Agag;
their kingdom will be exalted.

God brought them out of Egypt;
they have the strength of a wild ox.

They devour hostile nations
and break their bones in pieces;
with their arrows they pierce them.

Like a lion they crouch and lie down,
like a lioness—who dares to rouse them?

May those who bless you be blessed
and those who curse you be cursed!” (Numbers 24:5-9)

Balak got very angry at Balaam. He says: “I summoned you to curse my enemies, but you have blessed them these three times” (Numbers 24:10).

He is so enraged that he decides to withhold the reward which he had promised Balaam. Balaam, however, mentions again that he is not able to go against the Lord’s command, but that he would only be able to pronounce the words which God inspired him to speak. Then he tells Balak what Israel will do to Babylon in the future. This future relates to the reign of the Messiah. In his fourth oracle he says:

“…the oracle of one who hears the words of God,
who has knowledge from the Most High,
who sees a vision from the Almighty,
who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened:

I see him, but not now;

I behold him, but not near.

A star will come out of Jacob;
a sceptre will rise out of Israel.

He will crush the foreheads of Moab,
the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.” (Numbers 24:16-17)

Next, Balaam speaks about the effect which the reign of the ‘Star which will come out of Jacob’ will have on the nations of the world. For the Oriental world, this imagery was completely clear: ‘a star will come out of Jacob; a sceptre will rise out of Israel’ refers to a powerful king.

Balaam’s oracle goes far beyond the horizon of contemporary events, and he sees the power that will emanate from Israel’s camp under the leadership of their King. Superpowers will tumble over each other in the future. Apparently, the image he sees because God has opened his eyes to it, shocks him deeply. He calls out: “Ah, who can live when God does this?” (Numbers 24:23).

In seven oracles, Balaam expresses the place which Israel takes when they are ‘blessed’ by God. With this, it becomes clear that the oracles about Israel’s encampment around the tabernacle, with the Ark of the Covenant in it, cannot be isolated from what God’s intentions are with the nations of the world.

Later, when Jesus institutes the Lord’s Supper, this also has a bearing on the powerful leaders of the earth. During the conversations with His disciples He says:

“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:25-30).

The Apocalypse, in which John had to write down ‘what must soon take place’, also contains the letters to the churches of Asia Minor, which are connected to the coming world history, and whose course John had to point out to God’s servants (Revelation 1-3).

In every aspect, the gospel has consequences for the world. The denouement of Jewish history in our days will not be an isolated event either, disconnected from the breakthrough of God’s kingdom among all the nations.

All in all, the episode of Balak and Balaam is informative for all generations. Among others, it teaches us that we should not get confused when people behave religiously when, as a matter of speaking, ‘seven bulls and seven rams are slaughtered’. Paul, too, discovered that there were false apostles who pretended to be apostles of Christ, and he drew the conclusion: “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Balaam’s end was also according to his works: he was killed with the sword, along with the five kings of Midian (Numbers 31:8).

The essential issue for all religious and political power structures is: How are they encamped?

Israel’s encampment around the Ark of the Covenant

“When Balaam looked out and saw Israel encamped tribe by tribe, the Spirit of God came upon him” (Numbers 24:2).

At the very moment when Balaam, whose eyes are opened, sees the way the tribes of Israel are encamped, the Spirit of God comes upon him, and, in the introduction to his third oracle, which he is about to pronounce, he emphasises three times that this oracle originates from God:

“ … the oracle of one ‘whose eye sees clearly’, the oracle of one ‘who hears the words of God’, ‘who sees a vision from the Almighty’, who falls prostrate, and whose eyes are opened” (Numbers 23:3-4).

In the encampment of Israel’s tribes, Balaam perceives God’s ultimate intention with His people. The power of the encampment is in its positioning around the Tent of Meeting containing the Ark of the Covenant. In Numbers 2:2 we read:

“The Israelites are to camp around the Tent of Meeting some distance from it, each man under his standard with the banners of his family.”

Balaam sees this way of camping—to put it in his own words—with his eyes opened. He sees them, each with the banner of his own family at some distance from the tabernacle, and yet entirely focussed on the centre of God’s works. He sees the tribes encamped around the Tent of Meeting, and therefore also focussed on the Atonement Cover, from which God speaks to His people and which is covered by the cloud of the glory of the Lord: the tent in which God rules as King and from which He leads his people and takes them to the Promised Land. In a vision, Balaam sees the power of this encampment because it is there where the God of the exodus is enthroned. He sees, as it were, God’s own perspective on this encampment. From his prostrate position he can only say:

“How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob,
your dwelling-places, O Israel!

Like valleys they spread out,
like gardens beside a river,
like aloes planted by the LORD,
like cedars beside the waters.” (Numbers 24:5-6)

The Spirit of God brought him into a state of mind which could best be described by the term ‘trance’, a term also used for Peter’s state of mind when, in a dream, he had to learn that the gospel was also destined for the Gentiles (Acts 10:10; 11:5).

Through Balaam’s natural eye things looked quite different from what he saw through the eye of the Spirit of God. The natural eye saw nothing but grey tents. There were no green valleys, no fruits, and no streams of water. What could be seen was just the bare wilderness of Moab and in it the entire camp of Israel. Spiritually speaking, this was indeed a presage of God’s kingdom, but to the human eye, at the same time, a confirmation that the kingdom of God does not come with visible signs (Luke 17:20). There, in the wilderness, Israel was encamped as an invincible army. So Balaam’s conclusion is:

“There is no sorcery against Jacob,
no divination against Israel.” (Numbers 23:23)

It is impossible to curse this nation, because God has blessed it.

Apart from the fact that the tribes of Israel were encamped surrounding the tabernacle, which contained the Ark of the Covenant, there is another element in their encampment from which we can learn. When God gives Moses and Aaron the order to have the tribes pitch their tents, He states that this needs to be done under the standards and banners of the families of all the tribes separately. Everyone has to pitch his tent near the standard and banner of his own family (Numbers 2). God does not apply uniformity to the tribes. He respects the individual identity of each tribe and family. For God, it was crucial that the tribes should be focussed on His guidance, on the cloud and on the blood of atonement. In this orientation, the nation would be invincible.

This is an example of true ecumenism. There is no need to throw all ‘standards’ and ‘banners’ on one heap and obliterate all individual identity. God respects the diversity of the ‘tribes’ in our communities as well. He only requires from every believer the attitude of his heart. Is each one of us, with the ‘standard of our tribe’ and under the ‘banner of our family’ encamped around the blood of atonement?

In their positioning around the ‘tent of the King’, the whole Israelite camp was ready for battle in an orderly way, ready to move. The poles were never to be taken out of the rings of the Ark (Exodus 25:15). The Ark and the people were on their way to Canaan.

If the Church of Jesus Christ, with all its differences and possibly all its ‘tribal standards’ is encamped in this manner, then any sorcery or divination against her will be impossible. Therefore, we may have hope. Even though, figuratively speaking, we are still in the wilderness of history, today we also have arrived at the border of ‘Canaan’, near the times of refreshing, near the kingdom of peace that will never be established by human systems, nor by human striving for unity, but only by focussing on the finished work of our great Prince of Peace. God is in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19).

To the point

When there has been a heat wave somewhere in the world and the ground has been parched for a long time, cloud formations appearing on the horizon are more than welcome. However, if it turns out that these clouds are only fleecy clouds, without water, blowing over without refreshing the thirsty earth, the people will be very frustrated. “Hope deferred makes the heart sick” (Proverbs 13:12).

It may seem a little strange in this context to suddenly talk about such a situation. The purpose, however, is to show that God will always remain faithful and that He will keep all His promises.

To our comprehension it is almost impossible to imagine how the Eternal God can make a covenant with a mere human being. Yet He did make a covenant with Abraham, a human being just like us. He used the traditional way of the ancient Oriental world, in which the two parties would slaughter animals (Genesis 15).

Although it has been explained before, we once again rehearse the symbolism of this act, considering that, in the exegesis of the establishment of the covenant on Mount Sinai and its fulfilment in the New Testament, a link with God’s covenant with Abraham is hardly ever made.

The fact that animals were slaughtered and cut in two when a covenant was established in the ancient Orient meant that both parties testified that this division would be their portion in case they would violate the covenant. Each party accepted this risk if the covenant were to be broken.

The Most High did the same thing by symbolically walking through the ‘blood street’ after a great darkness had fallen, and by doing so, He guaranteed for His covenant with Abraham and his posterity. At the moment when He ‘passed between the pieces’, the darkness was parted by a blazing torch and a smoking fire pot.

In Abraham’s vision, the establishment of this covenant was closely linked to the exodus out of Egypt, where the people would have to spend centuries in great darkness under the dictatorship of Pharaoh (Genesis 15:13).

When, at last, the moment of the exodus came, the sign of the blood on the doorframes signified the continued sign of the covenant. Vicariously, God took upon Himself the bloody division that came with the breaking of the covenant, and thereby showed His eternal faithfulness to His covenant with Abraham, and so revealed His Name I AM WHO I AM. This event was so important for the people of Israel that the exodus out of Egypt became the starting point of all the feasts, manners, customs and regulations.

Rabbi S. Ph. de Vries Mzn. writes the following about this:

“To the people of Israel, the exodus from Egypt became the order of the day of every circumstance. There is hardly a celebration, a regulation, custom, or habit to which the Exodus is not related, or alluded to. It goes without saying that there is a link to all the other feasts. Where would all the other feasts have sprung from if it were not from the birth of the nation! But also the Sabbath is said to be ‘a reminder of the Exodus out of Egypt’. We find this in the Torah itself, in the Decalogue of V Mos. 5, 15, and all over in the prayer books and in the worship used at the sanctification of the Sabbath. It is also obvious that the humane laws for the foreigner are motivated with reference to their own former slavery (e.g. II Mos. 23, 9 V Mos. 10, 19). Furthermore, the phylacteries are also connected to the deliverance out of Egypt (II Mos. 13 verses 9 and 16).” [65]

Even the typological stories and later prophecies refer to this Passover event, like Exodus 24, which is a further elaboration of the Passover meal and the exodus, and at the same time is a foreshadowing of the celebration of the Last Supper in Mark 14, Luke 22 and John 13. The Last Supper in itself is an indication of the great eschatological meal that will be prepared for all the nations (Isaiah 25:6-12).

In Exodus 24, the sign of the blood of the covenant is linked to the meal when the seventy elders, as representatives of the whole nation, beheld the God of Israel.

Dr. H. Baarlink writes about the eschatological perspectives of this meal:

“Isaiah 24:23 and 25:6-9 refer to this banquet with a prophecy, which, indeed, refers to this, but at the same time extends this line with an eschatological perspective. The same privilege of eating and drinking in the presence of God now takes place “on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem”, and “before His elders, gloriously” (Isaiah 24:23 [NKJV]). But the boundaries are widening. It is not only for His elders, as mentioned in Exodus 24, but “On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations” (Isaiah 25:6-7). It is a universal perspective, with as final consequence that it also implies the resurrection of the dead and the ultimate consolation of tears being wiped away from all faces. Then the answer will be the confession: “Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us” (Isaiah 25:9). [66]

When the fulness of time did come and the Lamb of God was given, then the typological stories with all their regulations appeared not to be just ‘fleecy clouds’ on the horizon of history, which in the end do not amount to anything that can lift the ‘spiritual drought’. YAHWEH, in a divine way, came to the point in the promised Messiah. This ‘coming to the point’ is expressed in all the gospels with the words: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” These words are both a reminder and a fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:31-33:

“‘The time is coming,’ declares the LORD,

‘when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

It will not be like the covenant

I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD.

‘This is the covenant I will make
with the house of Israel
after that time,’ declares the LORD.

‘I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.

I will be their God,
and they will be my people.’”

A ‘new’ covenant does not mean a ‘different’ covenant, but in Jesus a fulfilment of the old covenant. It has been established in a new relationship, brought about by Christ’s finished work. The letter to the Hebrews (8:13) also points to this new relationship.

The third cup, which, in accordance with the liturgical use of the Jews, is called the ‘cup of thanksgiving’ [67], and which is connected to the expectation of the coming of the kingdom of God, was presented by Jesus to His disciples with the words:

“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many, (…) I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God”
(Mark 14:24-25).

With these words, Jesus reveals how God, in the death of His Son, confirms the covenant He made with Abraham. In and through His Son, He passes through the ‘blood street’ and makes substitution for all sins committed by mankind. The doctrine as if God should have put the guilt and curse on another innocent being is reprehensible. It was God’s own heart that bled at Golgotha.

Even when Jeremiah refers to the fact that Israel broke the covenant with God (Jeremiah 31:32), we should not forget that the Jewish people were called His ‘firstborn’ (Exodus 4:22). In this capacity, Israel is representative for all mankind. When Jesus says, at the institution of the Lord’s Supper: “This is the new covenant in My blood,” He takes upon Himself, on God’s behalf, the disunity of which all mankind is guilty.

Here we have come to a theme about which, from day one in church history, there has been much discussion, namely: How do we look at the relationship between God and Jesus, as Father and Son, especially in light of the fact that Jesus was sent with the command to lay down His life and to take it up again? (John 10:18).

In order to understand things well, it is necessary to see how everything here is linked to the concept of ‘delegation’.

If we take as an example the concept of ‘ambassadorship’ as it relates to constitutional law, it is quite clear to us that the ambassador of a certain country living in another country is one with the country he represents. Even the embassy building is part of the concept ‘delegation’, and is considered territory of the country it represents. Consequently we do not speak of two countries. If, for example, the United Kingdom is represented by its ambassador in the Netherlands, then the British embassy is British territory, which does not mean that we have to do with two ‘United Kingdoms’.

This may be a somewhat profane imagery to compare the unity that exists between God and Jesus. Moreover, the unity between God and His Son is so exalted, that any comparison is weak and imperfect.

Israel’s foundational confession is: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). From out of the oneness of God, Jesus is the ‘Delegated One’. Because of that delegation, He is one with the Father. His words and His deeds are the ‘credentials’ which He, as the ‘Ambassador’ of the Father, has to ‘hand over’ to mankind. Part of these ‘credentials’ is also what He says about His relationship to the Father:

“The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (John 14:10-11).

His answer to the reproach of the Jews that He made Himself equal to God may likewise be reckoned as part of His ‘credentials’:

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:34-38).

Dr. A. van Selms writes about the biblical notion of ‘Sonship’:

“This word, as well as the entire New Testament—even though written in Greek—must be understood not in a Greek manner, but in a Semitic, Hebraic and Old Testament way.

In Hebrew, the notion ‘son of…’ is used to establish somebody’s real identity. In Psalm 72 the mirror of princes starts with the words: “Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness” (Psalm 72:1). This parallelism shows that the ‘king’ and the ‘royal son’ are one and the same person. We find a typical example of the same phenomenon in the New Testament. According to Matthew 13:55, the inhabitants of Nazareth, after hearing Jesus preach, said: “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” The parallel passage in Mark 6:3 says: “Isn’t this the carpenter?” Both these statements mean the same thing: the carpenter’s son is the carpenter, in the same way as the king’s son is the king. Even the flowery and abusive Oriental expression, such as ‘son of a dog’, could be quoted here as an example. With such an abusive word, one does not intend so much to indicate the father of the person in question, but rather to strike the man himself. In the story of Saul, a couple of dervishes [68] are contemptuously characterised with the question: “and who is their father?”

When Peter confesses: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), he makes no distinction between Christ and Israel’s God; on the contrary, he asserts the identity between the two.” [69]

This author also says the following about the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Scriptures:

“The relationship between the Father and the Son is of a moral character and is defined by the word love. (…) There is nothing ‘hidden behind’ God’s love: the secret is the secret of salvation; the mystery is not hidden behind the love of God, but is this love itself. The believer need not be in doubt as to whether the Father will confirm the Son’s act of love, for the Father and the Son are one.” [70]

What is this act of love other than that the Son of Man gave His life as a ransom for many? (Matthew 20:28).

In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him”
(John 3:16-17).

Jesus continually points to His unity with the Father, and to His ‘being sent’. He is God’s ‘Ambassador’, His ‘Delegate’. The ‘way’ in which this ‘delegation’ came about is part of the mystery of godliness:

“Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:

He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:16)

The Greek word μυστήριον (mustērion) for ‘mystery’ is a derivation from μυέω (mueó), which means ‘to shut the mouth’. In other words, the mystery of God with respect to the incarnation of the Word is ‘inexpressible’ for any human being.

The term ‘godliness’ εὐσεβείας (eusebeias) emphasises the ‘holiness’ of this mystery, and its magnitude is denoted by the word μέγα (mega), a word which is used, among others, for things that are too exalted for a human being.

He who reads Paul’s ode to the mystery of God, who revealed Himself in the flesh, will keep himself far from all human formulations.

In the great commission of Matthew 28:19: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Jesus does not want us to formulate these words any further in a framework of ecclesiastical dogmas.

Jesus says:

“Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”
(John 17:3).

Every statement about Jesus being sent by the Father which goes beyond these words is a scholarly violation of the holiness of this ‘delegation’. With our theological concepts, we are unable to glimpse through the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is the oneness of a ‘Messenger’ with His ‘Master’. Jesus preached what he had learned from the Father (John 15:15). It is not without reason, that in the transfiguration on the mountain, when God spoke from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased”, He also added the words “Listen to Him!” (Matthew 17:5).

God did not say: This is My beloved Son, put Him on the dissecting table.

Whoever reads these words may be startled and wonder if this is not expressed too graphically? Is it necessary to state this in such blunt terms?

Indeed, it is necessary. For this is exactly what happened in church history. As early as the fourth century, a great controversy arose on the subject of how the Church should see the relationship between ‘Father’ and ‘Son’, which resulted in the consolidation of the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). Later, the definition of the doctrine of the ‘two natures of Christ’ was established at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). [71]

How much the Church has been guilty of trying to formulate mysteries that go beyond the limit of human analytical thinking is expressed in the words found in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ about the doctrine of the Trinity. Literally it is formulated as follows:

“In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: ‘substance’, ‘person’ or ‘hypostasis’, ‘relation’ and so on.” [72]

Seen from a historical perspective, this attempt to formulate the ‘unformulatable’ resulted in the first permanent schism in the Christian world, caused by the Council of Chalcedon.
[73]
At this schism, several Oriental churches (among whom the Copts
[74]) seceded. Such divisions repeated themselves in the course of the history of the church. The attempt to analyse the miracle of the incarnation and to formulate it in doctrinal statements caused divisions among Christians, and thus the ground was cleared for liberalism, and barriers were raised which appeared impossible to demolish, with the result that, to the Jewish people, the view of Jesus as the ‘Ambassador’ of God, was obstructed.

Christianity is therefore far removed from Jesus’ own words about Himself. All His words and deeds show that He saw Himself as the ‘Ambassador’ of the living God.

Contemplating now the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31, and on the strength of Jesus’ own words: “This is the new covenant in My blood”, it is evident that His propitiatory death and His resurrection fit His divine ‘Ambassadorship’ entirely.

When God, therefore, comes to the point, and remembers His covenant with Abraham, and the subsequent breach of the covenant from the side of man, then it is also an either—or on God’s side. He has the right, either to impose ‘dividing’ mankind as a judgment, because of the breach of the covenant by the representative people of Israel, and thus by all mankind, or to renew the covenant, and to fulfil it—division and all—through the sacrifice of His ‘delegated’ Son. God, however, does not choose to destroy mankind; instead, He provides the great substitution. Jesus accepts the function of the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. To repeat, God is reconciling the world to Himself through Christ. It is around this Lamb of God that all mankind should ‘encamp’. The Lamb is in the centre of the throne (Revelation 5:6).

The vision that John had on the isle of Patmos about the holy dignity of the Lamb of God who was slain and who alone was worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals (Revelation 5:9) is the completion of that which had its beginning on such a small scale. John, however, sees thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand, uncountable numbers of angels around the throne, saying with a loud voice:

“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honour and glory and praise!” (Revelation 5:12)

All this started on a very small scale. At the Last Supper, the ‘once again called Israel’ was, in the most literal sense, ‘encamped’ around the Lamb of God. Was this miniature ‘camp’ of twelve apostles indeed able to overcome a world hostile to God?

The disciples were correctly encamped around the centre of God’s work of atonement, namely Jesus Himself. Their commitment to Jesus, in His essence of being the Lamb of God, who, in His suffering and death, would bring reconciliation to the world, was so strong that they were even allowed to ‘eat and drink’ Him in the symbols of bread and wine.

And yet...

In spite of the fact that the celebration of Passover was for them so obviously a symbol of the fact that mankind would be delivered from the slavery of sin through Jesus as the Lamb of God, their souls were about to be overcome by satanic confusion.

In the Gospel of John, we read about the conversations that took place at the Passover table, where Jesus ate the Passover meal with His disciples, before His difficult way to the cross, where He would lay down His life for the salvation of the world.

In John 14:1, we read how Jesus prepares His disciples for His death with the words: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”

At the time when Jesus spoke these words, the disciples were certainly not in a jubilant mood. In fact, a few things had preceded this. They had hardly recovered from the heavy-heartedness they had experienced after Jesus’ words: “One of you will betray me.” The uncertainty among them had been oppressive. They had looked at each other in order to find out about whom He had been speaking. Each one had wondered: ‘Am I the one?’ until Peter could not bear the tension any longer, and had said to John, who was reclining next to Jesus, “Ask him which one he means” (John 13:24).

Then Jesus had pointed out Judas by means of giving him a piece of bread which He had dipped in the dish. After that, Judas had immediately left in order to do his treacherous work, although to the disciples, it was not clear why he left at that point.

But the matter had not ended with that.

Right after Judas had left, Jesus began to speak about His parting with the words: “…I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come” (John 13:33).

This had been the next heavy blow.

First there had been all the tension about who among them would betray Jesus, a betrayal, by which the beautiful harmony of the ‘twelve’—three times four, the connection between heaven and earth—would fall apart, so that they would be exposed to the mockery of the outsiders for, after all, Jesus had presented Himself in this way as the ‘new family of Jacob’ with ‘twelve new patriarchs’, but now, in addition to that, He announced His departure from them, with the words: “Where I am going, you cannot come”. Had He not just literally said: “Follow Me”? For Peter, it was unimaginable not to follow Him. He jumped up, as it were, and said: “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you” (John 13:37).

But Jesus answered: “Will you really lay down your life for me? I tell you the truth, before the cock crows, you will disown me three times!” (John 13:38).

So, Jesus would leave them and He would be betrayed by Peter! This was even more shocking than what they had experienced just then when Judas had left. Peter, denying his Lord three times? And Jesus, going to a place where they could not follow Him? What about their unity then? Was this unity not exactly found in the fact that they were following Jesus? Everywhere in Palestine, people had seen Jesus and His disciples walking around. They had literally followed Him in all His travels. He also had gone before them as their teacher, and they had followed Him as His disciples. If now Jesus was going to some other place where they would not be able to follow Him, who else should they follow?

Peter?

But Peter was exactly the one who would deny the Lord three times. Doesn’t this mean that the unity of this early ‘Church’, which had been founded by the Word of the Lord, would get totally confused, and that they all would be offended because of Him? Would not everything burst like a soap bubble and never be restored again?

And then Jesus says: “Do not let your hearts be troubled” (John 14:1). For the words ‘be not troubled’, the Greek original text says: μὴ ταρασσέσθω (mē tarassesthō). The Greek word ‘tarasso’ contains much more than the concept ‘being troubled’. It means a strong emotion, in the sense of bewilderment, being shocked or confused. So, Jesus actually says to His disciples that they should not become mentally unbalanced, or totally confused. Of course, the Lord knows that at this moment, they have nothing to hold on to any more, and that they don’t see a ray of hope. To them, it seems as if all harmony is gone, because of the intensity of what had happened. Yet Jesus says: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me” (John 14:1-2).

When Jesus says: “Trust in God”, He does not mean this in a general sense; rather He points to their faith in the God of their ancestors, Israel’s God, and what He has done: the God who fulfilled His Word beyond the boundary of death, the God, for whom no wall was too high and no sea too deep when He saved His people.

Many times, God fulfilled His Word in ways which were humanly speaking impossible. Again and again, death stood between promise and fulfilment.

It started as far back as Abraham. God had promised him: “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). But he and Sarah did not get a child and they were past childbearing age. Then God said to him: Do not let your heart be troubled, Abraham. Do not get confused. It will yet happen. But Abraham fell facedown before God and laughed! It was too absurd to seriously think, be it even for a moment, that they might still have a child. The fact that they were beyond childbearing age stood between God’s promise and the fulfilment of His Word. But a year later Isaac was born.

At a later date in ancient history, the people of Israel were doomed to die in Egypt. Pharaoh ordered that all the little boys which were born as Abraham’s offspring should be thrown in the Nile, because he wanted to wipe out the entire nation. The enslaved people were trapped between the fortifications, and the sea separated them from the Promised Land. Joseph had said in days past: “God will surely come to your aid...” (Genesis 50:24), but it did not look like it at all. The people must also have been confused then. The rod of the slave drivers drove them into death, and the fulfilment of the eternal Word of God seemed to come to nothing. And yet, the exodus happened, because His Name is
I AM WHO I AM.

Again later on, during the exile in Babylon, the people thought that they would never be restored, but through the prophetic word to Ezekiel, the bones did come together again, which is a picture of Israel’s resurrection.

Jesus actually meant to clarify to His disciples that, if they believed in the God Who performed miracles, they should also believe in Him, for He was the fulfilment of the Old Testament. They should not focus on the dispersion and chaos, and they should not be confused by this ‘wilderness’. He said: “In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2). In His way to the cross, Jesus is the Guide to the Father’s house with its many rooms. For that reason, He is asking His disciples, who at that moment felt hemmed in, to believe that He is the fulfilment of the everlasting Word of God and to believe that all the lines are converging in Him and that things will not end in an infinite dispersion and destruction, but in the Father’s house with many rooms.

Jesus framed His mission of His substitutionary death and His resurrection in the shadow structures of the Old Testament, with the words: “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). Subsequently, He sent the Holy Spirit on the fiftieth day after Passover, in close connection with, and as a fulfilment of the Old-Testament cycle of feasts instituted by God, by which Jesus’ work, as the fulfilment of all Old-Testament promises, was sanctioned by God.

For a moment the circle of the disciples fell apart; however, not for good. Peter, who had denied the Lord three times, received divine comfort when the Holy Spirit came down, and he called out: “...this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16).

The disciples received the Comforter as God’s own power in their souls in order to speak to all Israel, and to the whole world, right there, in Jerusalem, which was raging with hatred, yet it was the city of the great King.

After the confusion over the break-up of their circle, the disciples experienced, through the power of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, that God came to dwell again in the ‘new Israel’, which He had called.

The unity among them, which had been broken by Judas’ betrayal, was re-established by the election of Matthias (Acts 1:26).

Twelve apostles.

Twelve witnesses.

Twelve ‘blazing torches’ before God.

Today’s ‘encampment’

Taking a global look at the ‘encampment’ of the Church of Christ today, the actual situation looks like a picture of the ‘broken altar’ on Mount Carmel in the time of the prophet Elijah.

Utterly divided!

When we compare the ‘stones’ of the altar on Mount Carmel with the existing ecclesiastical denominations, we can only come to the conclusion that, much the same as it was in the days of ancient Israel, restoration will only be possible through a miracle of God and a prophetic intervention, like in the days of Elijah.

The division between the churches, by which the mystical body of Christ has fallen apart, is not the only thing. In the Netherlands, a disagreement has arisen about the interpretation of that which forms the very core of the gospel: the propitiation of our sins through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross. This disagreement was, among others, stimulated by a book written by Professor Dr. C.J. den Heyer, entitled: “Jesus and the doctrine of the atonement: biblical notes on a controversial topic”.

Our reason for introducing this book is not because we want to treat a topic of minor importance in the realm of worldwide theological doctrine, but because we are dealing here with a professor of theology, i.e. somebody who trains future church ministers, who is questioning almost all the essential issues of the classical biblical doctrine of atonement. This has already provoked very strong reactions among believers, especially within the Reformed Churches. These reactions were treated extensively in the media, and they testify to great unrest. People have cried out in distress, saying: ‘Hands off the holy Ark’, reflecting the seriousness of the disturbance within the Reformed Churches.

In an Open Letter to the ‘Samen op Weg’ (Together on the Way) Churches [75] [SOW], the Reverend L.P. Blom, minister of the Dutch Reformed Church at Hoogblokland, writes in very moving words, the following:

“After taking note of the (now definitive) decision of the Synod of the Reformed Churches, something snapped inside me. It affects me profoundly in my role as a minister and in my being as a Christian. For me, it means that the Ark of God has been taken away by unholy hands. For, whoever touches Christ’s sacrificial atonement is tampering with the most holy things. This touches the very essence of the Church. (...)

The decision of the Synod also impacts the believers in the Dutch Reformed Church, since they too belong to one of the participating denominations. (...)

Recently, much work has been done to somehow put together a roof over the SOW churches. (...) Personally, for fear of collapse of this ‘roof’, I would rather not be under the roof of any house, certainly if I know that the underpinning is no good. This also applies to the Church. I consider it betrayal to the Gospel of atonement to blindly go along with this process and belong to a ‘church’ which does not have a clear confession, no beating heart, no vision, no identity and no name.” [76]

The complaint of the above-mentioned church minister concerning the decision of the Synod refers to their statement of April 3rd, 2000, saying that Dr. Den Heyer, ‘has remained within the framework of the confession’ with his ideas about atonement, and ‘within the boundaries of the form which professors have to sign’. Reverend J.W. Doff, chairman of the
Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands wrote an article in which he points out that—because of the many reactions on this decision of the Synod—the Synod also expressed some criticism on Dr. Den Heyer, to wit:

“...that in his book, he was not careful enough in relating Scripture and Doctrine with each other, and that he fell short in researching the significance and the power of the classic doctrine of atonement.” [77]

Space does not permit us to extensively treat the many cries of distress that have appeared in the press about Dr. Den Heyer’s book.

The way in which the above-mentioned professor questions certain issues is no small matter indeed. Reading the contents on the back cover of his book ‘Verzoening—bijbelse notities bij een omstreden thema’ (Jesus and the doctrine of the atonement: biblical notes on a controversial topic), one finds statements such as: “The discussion about the atonement in fact challenges the entire Bible.”

On page 132-133, Den Heyer writes:

“The central content of Christian faith itself is at stake. In the first century of our era Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross in Jerusalem. The church’s confession says that his death and atonement brought about reconciliation. But how am I to imagine that? How can the death of someone in a distant past mean salvation and redemption for me, living many centuries later? This notion no longer inspires many people today, but rather provokes opposition. Am I not responsible for the consequences of my own words and actions?

And yet more has to be said. The list of difficulties is not yet exhausted. Even belief in God is involved. In the classical doctrine of the atonement God seems to be his own prisoner. He has to correspond to norms and values which he himself is said to have established.” [78]

Imagine if Zechariah, at the appearance of an angel of the Lord at the right side of the altar of incense, who announced to him the birth of the forerunner of the Messiah, had said to the angel: ‘It is about two thousand years ago that God made a covenant with Abraham. This happened so long ago, no matter how important this may have been for Abraham—it no longer inspires me, so many centuries later.’

Just because he doubted even the possibility that God could give him a son, God’s judgment struck Zechariah and he could no longer speak. His reaction “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years”, was in God’s eyes the result of unbelief. The angel’s answer to this was: “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God …” (Luke 1:8-20).

Once the child was born, his tongue was loosed, according to what the angel had announced, and Zechariah praised God, and, filled with the Holy Spirit, he prophesied:

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come and has redeemed his people.

He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David

(as he said through his holy prophets of long ago),
salvation from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us—
to show mercy to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
the oath he swore to our father Abraham…” (Luke 1:68-73)

When the Eternal One makes a covenant, it is an eternal covenant. And when God proclaims a gospel, it is an eternal gospel (Revelation 14:6). God’s Word is not subject to wear and tear.

Dr. Den Heyer’s questions regarding the responsibility for the consequences of one’s own words and deeds are not the only ones in his book. It contains a whole collection of question marks. For example, he questions the authenticity of the authorship of the writers of the gospel. [79] Did the evangelists really write the gospels themselves—in other words, were they written by eyewitnesses—or were they chronicled by other authors at a later stage, and are we possibly dealing with a ‘vaticinium ex eventu’, ‘prophecy’ based on what has already happened?

We surely should observe with deep reverence how Jesus in His High-Priestly prayer explicitly prayed: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message” (John 17:20). The message of His witnesses is, therefore, kept safe by His intercession, knowing that the Father always hears Him (John 11:42).

Questioning the authenticity of the words of His witnesses is a direct assault on the unity of His Church, when we respect the context. For the text continues as follows: “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). So, even worldwide mission depends on this authenticity.

Another of Den Heyer’s questions refers to what John the Baptist said in the Gospel of John concerning Jesus being ‘the Lamb of God’. He writes:

“There are no texts in the three Synoptic Gospels which even suggest that John the Baptist spoke about Jesus in this way. But even if we assume that the Fourth Evangelist put these words in the mouth of John the Baptist—and that was certainly the case—it is legitimate to ask precisely what he intended and whether he would really agree with the way in which the metaphor of Jesus as the Lamb of God has been interpreted in church history and the history of dogma (...)

At all events it must be thought improbable that the evangelist wanted to make any connection with the ritual of the Day of Atonement. The ‘taking away’ or ‘carrying off’ of the sins of the world could certainly point in that direction, but in this connection the Torah does not speak of a lamb but of a goat which, laden—symbolically—with the transgressions of the people of Israel, was taken into the wilderness and let loose there (Lev. 16:20-22).

The Gospel itself seems to want to point towards the Passover Lamb. But here too we must consider whether if we follow this pointer, we are not too easily going in the wrong direction.” [80]

Perhaps we should ask Dr. Den Heyer a counter question:

Who gives you the right to doubt the authenticity of the words of John the Baptist, suggesting that it was the evangelist John who could have put the words: “Look, the Lamb of God” in John the Baptist’s mouth?

Is it impossible that somebody who was so filled with the Holy Spirit from before he was born could have come to that conclusion himself and proclaim: “Look, the Lamb of God?”

It should be very clear that the angel Gabriel attributed extraordinarily high qualifications to John the Baptist:

“... for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Many of the people of Israel will he bring back to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:15-17).

And even Jesus Himself says about John the Baptist that he is more than a prophet:

“This is the one about whom it is written:

‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’

I tell you, among those born of women there is no-one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he …” (Luke 7:27-28).

I repeat, would not a man who is so blessed by the Holy Spirit and who has received an office greater than that of a prophet be capable of speaking of his own accord about Jesus as ‘the Lamb of God’ who takes away the sin of the world’?

And furthermore, how should we understand the explanation of the relationship between the incarnation and the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Den Heyer:

“After all that has been said, the question remains what significance John attached to the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. It will emerge that once again the evangelist adopts surprising courses. Of course he can no longer speak in the same way as Paul about the cross and the crucified Jesus. Anyone who attaches so much importance to the incarnation becomes somewhat perplexed when reflecting on the ‘theology’ of the passion narrative. (...) The source of salvation and redemption is not Golgotha but the incarnate Word. Words like ‘reconciliation’ and ‘atonement’ do not occur in the Gospel of John, but one could say that the incarnation builds a bridge, removes the alienation between God and human beings, and overcomes hostility. (...)

What does the cross add to all this? A little and yet a great deal. John does not describe the suffering and death of Jesus as the absolute nadir on the way that he had to go. (...)

Unlike Paul, John directs his attention not downwards—to symbolize this ‘humiliation’—but ‘upwards’, as a sign of exaltation:

‘And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life’ (John 3.14).” [81]

Den Heyer ascribes to the evangelist John ‘surprising ways’. His observation about John’s so-called ‘perplexity’ with regard to the ‘incarnation’ and the Passion calls for clarification. Seriously, Dr. Den Heyer, I hope you are not using the crown text of the New Testament for the purpose of severing the connection between ‘incarnation’ and ‘cross’?

This crown text is found in the story of Nicodemus coming to see Jesus by night. He approached Jesus with the words: “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2). Jesus responded to this with a ‘knowing from Above’:

“I tell you the truth, we speak of what WE KNOW, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. (…) No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man”
(John 3:11, 13).

Jesus contrasts the ‘knowing from heaven’ with the ‘knowing’ of Nicodemus’. With a double ‘truly’
[82], He puts the full weight of the incarnation, from which His ‘knowing from Above’ originates, into the balance over against the ‘knowing as a rabbi’, with which Nicodemus came in. Jesus immediately connects this ‘knowing from Above’ to the message about the substitutionary and redeeming love of God with the words:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

Close attention should be paid to the comparison Jesus used to illustrate God’s love, i.e. the event of the judgment by snakes in the story of the exodus.

Twice there is a comparison: In John 3:14 ‘just as Moses’ and in verse 16 ‘for...so’. The comparison about the snake being lifted up in the desert—and in this situation, Jesus spoke with a ‘knowing from Above’—refers directly to His death on the cross. The absolute and perfect connection between ‘incarnation’ and ‘cross’ is included in this. Every exegete will admit that the words “so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (John 3:14) refer to His death on the cross.

His being lifted up on the cross, which meant for Him the deepest humiliation, is the foundation for His endless exaltation in the sense of receiving honour and glory at the right hand of God in heaven.

The ‘for...so’ (…) ‘that’ in John 3:16, by which God’s love for the world is proclaimed, has a lot of emphasis. The word ‘for’ is a conjunction, expressing the reason for something. And the word ‘(so) that’ points to the aspect of comparison.

In one of the following chapters in John’s gospel, Jesus proclaims: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). The apostle John says the same thing in his letter: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16).

Jesus’ statement in John 12:27-28 in response to some Greeks who wanted to see Him is also very clear: “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!”

John continues, saying:

“Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.’ The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. Jesus said, ‘This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die” (John 3:28-33).

Jesus characterises the comparison that He uses in his discussion with Nicodemus with the words: “… no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again” (John 3:3). In other words: It cannot be a rational conclusion, drawn from seeing His miracles.

At first, Nicodemus did not know how to understand the expression ‘to be born again’. He asks: “How can this be?” At which Jesus reproaches him: “You are Israel’s teacher and do you not understand these things?” (John 3:10). Jesus is, in fact, referring to the condition which is already mentioned in the Old Testament, as for example in Ezekiel 18:31: “Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit.”

And in Ezekiel 36:26-27:

“I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

Also David’s penitential psalm must have been well-known to the scribe. In this psalm, David writes: “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10).

Jesus points out to Nicodemus the importance of being born again in order to understand the things of the kingdom of God. Those who, therefore, without being born again and without faith, read the story of the judgment by snakes as an illustration of God’s love, may at first consider it an enigmatic metaphor. By using the story of the bronze snake from Numbers 21:4-9 as a comparison for demonstrating God’s love, Jesus has declared its typological significance as legitimate.

According to this comparison, God has done something unique.

The SON OF MAN—about whom Daniel spoke in terms like: “…coming with the clouds of heaven (…) He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14)—and who is to come “on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matthew 24:30-31), — this same SON OF MAN will first, in a dark moment of world history, be lifted up on a pole, as though He had to ‘suck’ towards Himself ‘all the venom of the world’ in order to make it powerless. For a snake on a pole is powerless.

This is how much God loved the world. Not just a single individual, but the entire world with all its nations. In that context, He gave His Son. Jesus applies this comparison to Himself.

When God called Moses, He said to him: “What is that in your hand?” Moses answered: “A staff”. Then God commanded him: “Throw it on the ground.” And when he had thrown it on the ground, it became a snake, and Moses ran away from it. But when, at God’s command, he had taken it by the tail, it turned back into a staff in his hand (Exodus 4:2-4): a staff, which became a symbol for Moses’ office to deliver the chosen people in the Name of I AM WHO I AM.

In this way, God made a connection with His opening words of the history of revelation:

“And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15)

Words, spoken by the Creator of heaven and earth after Eve had been tempted by the snake with the question that slid from his forked tongue: “Did God really say…?” (Genesis 3:1).

From that moment on, there would be conflict in the world.

Moses as well as Israel became aware of the importance of this prophecy. When Moses’ office was not acknowledged and the people rebelled against God and against Moses with the words: “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the desert? There is no bread! There is no water! And we detest this miserable food!” (Numbers 21:5), in short, when they protested against the mercy of the exodus, in actual fact against God’s love, then the ground vomited venomous snakes everywhere. And they did bite! Many Israelites died. The snakes crept under their tent cloth and everywhere, wriggled into their tents everywhere. Even when the elders and the patriarchs called out: Kill them!—it was to no avail.

A terrifying event.

Since Jesus gave a typological meaning to this story, we certainly should take this to heart. When today’s generation rebels against Jesus’ substitutionary death, which is meant to be the manifestation of God’s love, then the ground will vomit more and more ‘snakes’. And even though the ‘patriarchs’ of this world are trying to keep the evil consequences of this ‘rebellion’ under control, it will, also today, be in vain.

When many Israelites had already died from the poison of the snakes, and the people realised that this was an inescapable judgment of God, they came to Moses and said: “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us” (Numbers 21:7).

Then Moses prayed for the people, and God gave him the order: “‘Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live’. So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived” (Numbers 21:8-9).

Looking at the bronze snake was not without engagement. There was no choice between looking at the snake and the possibility of avoiding the poison. Looking at the snake meant surrendering to the deliverance offered.

We may now compare this with the words of Jesus in His conversation with Nicodemus: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18).

John’s message about the incarnation and the cross is not different from, but in full accordance with Paul’s hymn in Philippians 2:5-11, where he links the call for unity of the Church to the attitude of Christ:

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.”

We started this pericope by establishing the fact that in our days, the Church of Christ is thoroughly divided: a division which manifests itself among others in the interpretation of the essence of the gospel, namely the atonement. Those two aspects are connected.

There is a difference between division and diversity. Diversity and multicolouredness are allowed in the Church of God. This was also the case with the people of Israel during their encampment in the desert. The tribes—each of them with their own standard—were all encamped around the one centre, the Tent of Meeting, which contained the Ark of the Covenant with the Atonement Cover.

Everyone who has followed the history of the Church of Christ through the ages knows how serious our guilt is because of the Church’s straying away from the one centre: “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). It is not the issue to point to one person or one church as being responsible for this. There lies a collective responsibility of guilt with the entire Christian world.

A Jewish proverb says: If you point one accusing finger in the direction of another person, there are at the same time three fingers pointing at yourself.

We should bear in mind that, if the Lord starts calling people to give account—for God can also ask questions—every insignificant creature will look for a place to hide, realizing that he has lost his innocence.

Church of God, Christianity, where are you?

What is your position in relation to the Atonement Cover, the foreshadowing of what has been fulfilled by Jesus on Golgotha?

For wasn’t that the purpose of His incarnation?

The Ark and the eschata

The need of the ecclesiastical world has been touched to the heart by the cry of distress that the Ark ‘has been taken away by unholy hands’, a cry uttered from an inner grief concerning the ecclesiastical attitude towards the classical doctrine of atonement. For even in the Old-Testament dispensation, the Ark was a foreshadowing of what God would fulfil in Jesus in the fulness of time, namely to reconcile the world to Himself in Christ. Contemplating the basic aspects of the Ark, we see that the law was kept inside it, symbolically covered by the Atonement Cover, and how, on the basis of that atonement, the Shekhinah, the image of the Holy Spirit, was enthroned on the Atonement Cover.

The deep need of the Church, which, among others, becomes evident from the present-day discussion about atonement in the Dutch churches, is, however, not of a recent date.

The cry that the Ark ‘has been taken away by unholy hands’ expresses in a striking manner what actually did happen in the course of church history, starting with the atrocious statements made during the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. with regard to the Jewish people, by which the Church definitively separated itself from God’s chosen people. In this way, as a matter of fact, those who call themselves the ‘Church’ stole the ‘Ark’ from Israel, and treated it as ‘spoils of war’ in the Gentile world. Replacement theology, which is another consequence of the above actions, is very old and was already propagated by the church fathers with their anti-Semitic attitude. In order to justify this attitude, people for the most part have used Jesus’ parable about the unjust tenants, who thought they would be able to keep the vineyard for themselves by killing the owner’s son and thereby inheriting the vineyard for themselves. In this parable, Jesus says: “…the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit” (Matthew 21:33-46).

These words of Jesus were theologically interpreted by the Church as if He forever had written off the Jewish people. However, a parable should never be applied in such an absolute sense. The kingdom had been taken away from them so that it might be proclaimed in the Gentile world, for the purpose of restoring David’s fallen tent. Therefore it was taken away from them in part. After all, Jesus Himself said ‘until’: “…until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matthew 23:39).

Therefore, we should never propagate a replacement theology in an exclusive sense. The purpose is Israel; the means is the Gentile world. By this replacement theology, the Church has made itself the ‘purpose’ instead of the ‘means’

This notion is entirely contrary to Jesus’ speech just before His ascension. [83]

He answered the disciples’ question concerning the time of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel by commissioning them to preach the gospel to all nations. In that way the kingdom would be restored to Israel, which would result in the coming of the kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-11).

The disciples continued along these lines, which also becomes evident from what was discussed at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, as described in Acts 15. Paul’s message in Romans 9-11 and 15 is in full harmony with this.

The endless schisms in the Church of God are also caused by the fact that they abandoned this apostolic missionary principle and the ultimate purpose of Israel’s destiny, after which replacement theology could enter into the Church. It was only in the second half of the twentieth century that a change came about in the way the Church looked at this subject; before that, the ‘cancer’ of this replacement theology in an absolute and exclusive sense had been spread about for ages, and finally ‘invaded’ the entire ‘body of Christ’. We have already mentioned the consequences of this theology in the Roman Catholic Church; however, the churches of the Reformation have not hidden their views on the relationship between the Jewish people and the Church either. In a certain dissertation on this subject, various views of a number of prominent leaders from the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands are presented. The doctoral candidate did limit himself to the period 1869-1970 for his research. Here are a few of his examples by way of illustration:

Dr. Van Klinken writes (on page 200):

“The idea that the Jewish people as such were rejected because of their particular responsibility for Christ’s death on the cross was never really contested in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. The accusation was regularly mentioned, be it usually accompanied by ‘subtle’ comments. (...)

Ever since the 1920s, the guilt of the Jews was emphasised by theologians who were concerned about the millenarianism of the Maranatha movement, and who wanted to oppose the tendency to link eschatology to the history of the Jewish people. An example of this was the speech by F.W. Grosheide at the conference of the Reformed mission to the Jews in 1932. Grosheide’s concern about the influence of Da Costa’s Revival teaching and about the re-emergence of millenarianism led to a plea for a forcefully maintained replacement theology, but it also caused harsh statements about the Jewish people. The Jews were guilty before God.” [84]
[85]

Even the conviction that eschatology and the history of the Jewish people are somehow interrelated evoked a plea for a forcefully maintained replacement theology. However, this conviction of the Maranatha movement was perfectly biblical. Even though, perhaps, the ‘picture’ was hanging a little bit crooked here and there, this movement indeed rightly put the future of the Jewish people in relation to eschatology on the map once again.

In a meditation, K. Dijk presents yet another example of how the Reformed churches in general were thinking, namely the thought of a special judgment of God for the Jews.

“When Jesus Christ, the one and only Shepherd, is rejected, when the traitor’s price is paid for Him, when He is betrayed for 30 silver coins and sentenced to be crucified, then His blood is on the Jews and on their children, and Israel as a nation is rejected, then the line of grace is now passed on to the new covenant, the Jews are scattered all over the world and they are no longer a nation; they are thrown away like autumn leaves at the mercy of the wind, and no millenarian fantasy can undo this judgment of the Lord of Lords. The way of the Jews will forever remain a way of blood and tears, and their tribulation will last through all ages, because they have nailed Jesus Christ to the cross.” [86]

K. Dijk also propagated replacement theology, and that in the popular way by using the parable of the unjust tenants from Matthew 21:33-41.
[87] Besides, as a theologian, he was very assertive in his statements about a future expectation for the Jewish people.

Dr. Van Klinken:

“K. Dijk responded to an inquiry conducted by ‘Elim’ in 1937 briefly and to the point. His answer to the question how Christians should view the Jews was: ‘See Romans 11’; to the question whether on the basis of God’s Word, one could have certain expectations for the Jewish nation, he responded: ‘No, not as a nation’; to the question whether the Church has a task in relation to the Jews, he said: ‘Yes’, and to the question what that task might be: ‘Mission among the Jews’

On the eve of the Day of Atonement in 1938, a meeting took place in the Lutheran Church in Amsterdam, in which K.H. Miskotte expounded his contrary view on this issue before a large interdenominational audience. The Jews were still a blessing for the world, and a beneficially disquieting element. ‘Against the natural complacency of you and me, who are Gentiles by blood, it brings the afterglow of God’s Word. The fact that this blessing is misjudged is because we, Gentiles, cannot tolerate this reflection of God’s Word.” [88]

Due to the age-old clichéd ideas about the Jews, very offensive statements were heard in the Reformed Churches about the constitutional position of this nation in the country in which they lived:

“Curtailment of civil rights may have been out of the question in the Netherlands, but not so in Germany. In Reformed commentaries from the first years after 1933, it became obvious that the German curtailment of the Jewish civil rights was in principle not rejected. Grosheide wrote in 1933 that a constitutional special status of the Jews (a ‘right to hospitality’), different from a subsidiary position of the Jews in the Church, was not unacceptable.” [89]

The last example from Dr. Van Klinken’s dissertation refers to the view on the conversion of the Jewish people immediately prior to the return of Christ, as we have already seen in the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ [90], by which it is automatically ruled out that the Jewish people would still have a future within the history of salvation. The underlying thought of some theologians, such as the Rev. I. de Wolff, concerning the continuing existence of the Jewish people, was:

“...because, despite everything, they were the bearers of God’s promise to Abraham, which meant that at a moment prior to Christ’s return, the Jewish people would be converted (in De Wolff’s terms: they would acquire the blessings of the covenant). There was, therefore, no question of a special significance of the Jewish people, nor of a millennium, but there was indeed the expectation that the Jewish people would be converted prior to the (one-and-only) return of Christ. ‘Before this world perishes forever, Israel’s conversion will be the afterglow of God’s sun of love, the last miracle of grace before the eyes of a perishing mankind.” [91]

And so we have arrived at the second element of neglect by the ‘Church’ in relation to the salvation destiny of the Jewish people, as presented in Scripture: to be a light for the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:6). For this is the ultimate goal of Israel’s election.

Replacement theology has had a direct influence on the attitude of ‘the Church’ with respect to Israel’s future.

Dr. C. van der Waal, a respected exegete, writes:

“It is time that Christianity realises that the Church is where the covenant continues and that therefore, one should break with Jewish fables, including the fable regarding the restoration of Israel as a nation, which would be considered as a harbinger of the end. The Lord accepts Jews in His Church, and He does this without reproach. When they enter into the Church, the Jews once again become partakers of the covenant; before that, they were no longer part of it. We should break with the idea that today, Israel still is some kind of semi-church. And we should also break with the thought that there is still a special future for Israel. Romans 11:26 does not give any reason for this either. In this epistle, Paul talks about the Jews who were sons of the covenant and who, in his days (the merciful interim of forty years between Pentecost and the year 70 A.D.), had accepted the Gospel. In them, ‘all Israel’ was being saved. Today’s unbelieving Jews are no longer children of the covenant and there are no special promises for them. (...)

Paul admonishes the Church of Rome to not simply dismiss Israel: the resisting children of the covenant should be called back. But this does not mean that we should now think in terms of

1. regarding today’s Jews as being children of the covenant;

2. a prophecy with respect to the conversion of the Jews in the end times” [92]

This opinion about the future of the Jewish people is also discussed in Dr. R.J. van der Meulen’s dissertation on the Apocalypse. Jesus’ statement in Luke 21:24: “…Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” is, according to this author, commented on by Greijdanus as follows:

“About the Jewish people and what will happen to them, the Lord says nothing more at this point. He does not say that Jerusalem will be rebuilt and will become a Jewish city. (...) He only says that Jerusalem will not be a Jewish, but a Gentile city, until the fulness of the times of the Gentiles has come. Presumably this means: until the end of the ages, until the coming of the judgment of the world and the return of the Lord in glory ...” [93]

These words illustrate how much the main line of Jesus’ commission has been abandoned. For the main theme of Jesus’ conversation with His disciples before His ascension was that, by the power of the Holy Spirit and the word of their testimony in Jerusalem and to the uttermost parts of the earth, hence by way of the Gentile world, the kingdom would be restored to Israel, while as a result of this restoration, a breakthrough of the kingdom of God could be expected.

If we project the fulness of the Gentiles and the return of the Lord in glory at the end of the ages, then there would be no more possibility for the restoration of the kingdom to Israel.

We may therefore conclude that, if the basic idea indicated by Jesus for the mission, and with that for the coming of the kingdom of God, has been abandoned, the root of all guilty division and striving for a ‘false unity’ has been uncovered.

However, since God did not allow the Ark to be taken away and treated as spoils of war and be placed next to Dagon’s statue in the temple of the Philistines, we may therefore also expect that the Lord of Glory will not allow the Church in general to do essentially the same thing either, by completely negating Israel’s Messianic salvation destiny. When Jesus illustrated the purpose of His coming into this world by means of an Old-Testament story (John 3:14-18), then we should be encouraged to also see the story of the Ark being stolen and brought back under God’s judgments as an illustrative parable.

We started this chapter by quoting the verse from the Apocalypse: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant” (Revelation 11:19). The mention of flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder in the following verse underline the proclamation of God’s Kingship. So, the Ark of the Covenant and God’s Kingship over heaven and earth therefore are closely related. In addition, there is also a connection with the ancient story of David bringing back the Ark.

Dr. S. Alblas writes the following about this:

“As is the case in 1 Chronicles 16, God’s judgment over the nations is now proclaimed in Revelation 14:6-7, as a consequence of His Kingship. The conclusion must be that the appearance of the Ark in the heavenly temple (Revelation 11:19) as well as bringing the Ark to the tent in Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 15 and 16) indicate the proclamation of God’s Kingship, and with that the judgment over the nations.” [94]

Earlier, the author remarks:

“At the conquest of Jericho, there are seven priests walking before the Ark, blowing their trumpets. There is yet another instance in Israel’s history when seven priests are walking before the Ark, blowing their trumpets. When David is taking the Ark from the house of Obed-Edom to the tent which he has pitched for it in Jerusalem, seven priests are also walking before the Ark while blowing their trumpets (1 Chronicles 15:24a). (...)

Seven priests have been appointed to accompany the Ark on its journey to the tent in Jerusalem. Placing the Ark in the tent also means proclaiming God’s Kingship (cf. 1 Chron.16:31). The sounding of the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11:15 is also a proclamation of the Kingship of God: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ …” (...)

When David has brought the Ark into the tent, he tells Asaph and his associates to praise the Lord with the words from 1 Chron. 16:8-36.” [95]

The above-mentioned verse in Revelation 11:19 concerning the Ark of the Covenant becoming visible in God’s temple in heaven relates to the last round of history and to the end of the world. But before the end of the world—so we learn from the Apocalypse—we also may expect a precursory round (Revelation 10), and that is what is happening today. It is by way of the fulness of the Gentiles and Israel’s conversion that ‘the Ark’ (the gospel) will return to Israel. This event will also be a pledge of the definitive coming of God’s Kingdom.

So, the ancient history of the Ark points prophetically and typologically to the great decisive moments of the end times. From David’s command at the return of the Ark, “That day David first committed … this psalm (1 Chronicles 16:7) to Asaph and his associates to praise the Lord with a hymn of praise, it becomes evident how important this moment is. It may be called a ‘kairos’, a decisive moment in the coming of the kingdom of God, with a prophetic character. Asaph’s hymn of praise in 1 Chronicles 16:8-36 finds an analogous continuation in Paul’s hymn of praise in Romans 11:34-36 after unfolding the way to Israel’s restoration and Messianic future by way of the Gentile world, as well as in Romans 15:7-13, and finally in the Apocalyptic hymn of praise in Revelation 11:15-18, after which the Ark of His Covenant becomes visible in God’s temple in heaven.

The analogy of this hymn of praise with Asaph’s hymn of praise in 1 Chronicles 16 is unmistakable, when we read in verses 28-33:

“Ascribe to the LORD, O families of nations,
ascribe to the LORD glory and strength,
ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name.

Bring an offering and come before him;
worship the LORD in the splendour of his holiness.

Tremble before him, all the earth!

The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad;
let them say among the nations, ‘The LORD reigns!’

Let the sea resound, and all that is in it;
let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them!

Then the trees of the forest will sing,
they will sing for joy before the LORD,
for he comes to judge the earth.”

62 See Chapter 2 about ‘the Face of the Lord’

63 Dr. Kees Waaijman in among others: “De profeet Elia”, page 15 ff., B. Gottmer, Nijmegen, 1985 and: “Psalmen om Jeruzalem”, page 26 ff., J.H. Kok, Kampen, z.j.

64 Step Vaessen: “Vlucht uit Saigon – alleen Agent Orange bleef”, in “Het Nederlands Dagblad”, 29 april 2000

65 Translated from Dutch –
Rabbijn S. Ph. De Vries Mzn.: “Joodse riten en symbolen”, page 119, De Arbeiderspers, Amsterdam, 1968
“De uittocht uit Egypte werd bij het volk van Israël van alles de schering en inslag. Er is nauwelijks een viering, een voorschrift, een gebruik of een zede, waaraan niet de Uittocht is verbonden en waarover niet zijn geest en inhoud zweven. Dat alle andere feesten ermee in verband staan is zonder meer begrijpelijk en ligt vanzelf voor de hand. Waar zouden die andere feesten vandaan gekomen zijn, indien niet ook uit het feest der wedergeboorte! Maar ook de sabbath heet ‘een herinnering aan de Uittocht uit Egypte’. In de Torah zelf. In de Dekaloog van V Moz. 5,15.
En overal in de gebedenboeken en de lofspreuken bij de sabbathwijding. Dat de humane vreemdelingenwetten gemotiveerd worden met de verwijzing naar de eigen vroegere slavernij (o.a. II Moz. 23,9 V Moz. 10,19) ligt eveneens voor de hand. Maar ook de gebedsriemen worden aan de bevrijding uit Egypte vastgeknoopt (II Moz. 13 vrs 9 en 16)”

66 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. H. Baarlink: “Het evangelie van de verzoening”, page 73,74, Kok, Kampen, 1998
“In Js 24,23 en 25,6-9 wordt daarbij aangeknoopt met een profetie, die weliswaar daaraan herinnert maar tegelijk in een eschatologisch perspectief de lijnen doortrekt. Hetzelfde privilege van eten en drinken in de gemeenschap met God vindt nu plaats “in Sion en Jeruzalem”; daar zal dan “heerlijkheid zijn ten aanschouwen van zijn oudsten.” Maar de grenzen worden steeds wijder. Niet alleen voor zijn oudsten, zoals in Ex 24, maar “DE HERE der heerscharen zal op deze berg voor alle volken een feestmaal van vette spijzen aanrichten, een feestmaal van belegen wijnen… En Hij zal op deze berg de sluier vernietigen, die alle natiën omsluiert.” Het is een universeel perspectief ook met de laatste consequentie: het houdt ook de opstanding der doden en de definitieve vertroosting voor wenenden in. Dan zal men ook antwoorden door te belijden: “Deze is onze God, van wie wij hoopten, dat Hij ons zou verlossen.”

67 Rabbijn S. Ph. De Vries Mzn: “Joodse riten en symbolen”, page 130, De Arbeiderspers, Amsterdam, 1968

68 Dervishes are ecstatic prophets. See also 1 Samuel 10:12

69 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. A. van Selms: “Licht uit licht”, page 66, Uitgeverij Ploegsma, Amsterdam, 1948
“Wij zullen dit woord, evenals het gehele Nieuwe Testament, al is dat in het Grieks geschreven, niet Grieks, maar Semitisch, maar Hebreeuws en Oud-Testamentisch moeten verstaan.
In de Hebreeuwse taal wordt de uitdrukking ‘zoon van…’ gebruikt om een wezenlijke identiteit vast te stellen. De vorstenspiegel begint met de woorden: “O God, geef de koning uw rechten, en uw gerechtigheid de zoon des konings.” Het parallellisme bewijst, dat de ‘koning’ en de ‘zoon des konings’ één en dezelfde persoon is. Een typisch voorbeeld van hetzelfde vinden wij in het Nieuwe Testament. Volgens Matthéüs zeggen inwoners van Nazareth op het horen van Jezus’ prediking: “Is deze niet de zoon des timmermans?” De parallel bij Marcus heeft: “Is deze niet de timmerman?”
Beide uitspraken zeggen hetzelfde: de zoon des timmermans is de timmerman, gelijk de zoon des konings de koning is. Zelfs bloemrijke Oosterse scheldwijzen als ‘zoon van een hond’ zouden hier als voorbeeld aan te halen zijn. Met een dergelijk schimpwoord bedoelt men immers niet zozeer de vader van de betrokkene te kenschetsen, als wel de man zelf te treffen. In de geschiedenis van Saul wordt een stel derwisjen verachtelijk gekenschetst, doordat men vraagt: “Wie is hun vader?” (…)
Wanneer Petrus belijdt: “Gij zijt de Zoon des levenden Gods”, dan maakt hij dus geen onderscheid tussen de Christus en Israëls God, maar stelt hij juist tussen beiden de identiteit.”

70 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. A. van Selms: “Licht uit licht”, page 71,72, Uitgeverij Ploegsma, Amsterdam, 1948
“De betrekking tussen de Vader en de Zoon draagt een zedelijk karakter, wordt aangeduid door het woord liefde. (…) Er is niets ‘achter’ de liefde Gods: het geheim is heilgeheim; het mysterie zit niet àchter de liefde Gods, maar is deze liefde zelf.
De gelovige hoeft niet te twijfelen of de Vader wel zijn zegel zal hechten aan de liefdedaad van de Zoon, want de Vader en de Zoon zijn één.”

71 Cathechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, articles 456-483
The fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
“Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.” (art. 467 Catechism of the Catholic Church)

72 Catechism of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, article 251

73 Prof. Dr. A.J. Wiggers (red.): “Grote Winkler Prins Encyclopedie”, page 264, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Brussel, 1973
Prof. Dr. J.C. de Groot: “Encyclopedie van het Christendom”, (Katholiek en Protestants deel), grafisch beeld van de geschiedenis der christenheid, page 26,27, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Brussel, 1956 (Katholiek deel), 1955 (Protestants deel

74 “The Coptic Church, Heritgae and Hope”, Bishop Tadros, Port Said

75 The ‘Together-on-the-Way’ process’ is an attempt to unify the Dutch Reformed Church, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and the Lutheran Church. In 2004 this resulted in the founding of the ‘PKN’, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands

76 Translated from Dutch –
Ds. L.P. Blom in: “Het Nederlands Dagblad”, 3rd of May 2000
“Bij mij is er, na kennis genomen te hebben van het (nu definitieve) besluit van de gereformeerde synode, iets gebroken van binnen. Het raakt me in het diepst van mijn predikant-zijn en christen-zijn. Het komt er voor mij op neer dat de ark van God door onheilige handen is weggenomen. Wie namelijk de verzoening door het offer van Christus aantast, komt met zijn vingers aan het allerheiligste. Daar staat of valt de kerk mee. (…)
Het synodebesluit raakt ook hervormden, omdat dit gedragen wordt door een van de participerende kerken. (…)
De afgelopen tijd is er veel werk verricht om de koepel van de SOW-kerken in elkaar te timmeren (…) Wat mij persoonlijk betreft: ik zit, vanwege instortingsgevaar, niet graag onder het dak van welk huis ook, als ik weet dat de fundering niet deugt.
In de Kerk geldt dat precies zo. Zonder meer meegaan met dit proces en plaats nemen in een ‘kerk’ zonder eenduidige belijdenis, zonder kloppend hart, zonder gezicht, zonder identiteit en zonder naam, zie ik als verraad aan het Evangelie van de verzoening.”

77 Translated from Dutch –
Ds. J.W. Doff in: “Het Nederlands Dagblad”, 14th of April 2000
“...in zijn boek tekst en dogma niet zorgvuldig genoeg op elkaar heeft betrokken en de strekking en kracht van de klassieke verzoeningsleer onvoldoende heeft gepeild.”

78 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. C.J. den Heijer: “Jesus and the doctrine of the atonement: biblical notes on a controversial topic”, page 132-133, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1998, Translation © John Bowden. Original title: “Verzoening – bijbelse notities bij een omstreden thema”, Kok, Kampen, 1997

79 idem, chapters 6 and 7

80 idem, page 103,104

81 idem, page 101,102

82 The ESV and the NASB do render this with a double ‘truly, truly’

83 See: Introduction and Chapter 3

84 See: Introduction and Chapter 3

85 Dr. G.J. van Klinken: “Opvattingen in de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland over het Jodendom, 1896-1970”, (Diss.) page 200, Kok, Kampen, 1996
“De gedachte dat het Joodse volk als zodanig verworpen was, omdat het bijzondere verantwoordelijkheid droeg voor de kruisdood van Christus, was in de GKN nooit onomstreden. De beschuldiging werd regelmatig geuit, zij het doorgaans vergezeld van ‘nuancerende’ randopmerkingen. (…)
De schuld van de Joden werd vanaf de jaren twintig benadrukt door theologen die zich zorgen maakten over het chiliasme van de Maranathabeweging, en die de neiging wilden tegengaan om de eschatologie te koppelen aan de geschiedenis van het Joodse volk. Een voorbeeld was de rede van F.W.Grosheide op de conferentie van de gereformeerde jodenzending in 1932. Grosheide’s bezorgdheid over het doorwerken van de Réveilinvloed van Da Costa en over het weer opkomende chiliasme leidden tot een pleidooi voor een krachtig volgehouden vervangingstheologie, maar ook tot scherpe uitspraken over het Joodse volk. De Joden stonden schuldig voor God.”

86 Translated from Dutch –
idem, page 201
“Wanneer Jezus Christus, de geheel eenige Herder, is verworpen; wanneer voor Hem de verradersprijs is betaald; wanneer Hij voor 30 zilverlingen is overgeleverd; wanneer Hij ter kruisdood is verwezen, komt Zijn bloed over de Joden en hun kinderen, en als volk wordt Israël verworpen; de lijn der genade gaat over op het nieuwe verbond; de Joden worden verstrooid over de wereld en zijn geen natie meer; ze worden weggeworpen als herfstbladeren, waarmee de wind zijn woest spel speelt, en geen chiliastische fantasie kan dit oordeel des Heeren Heeren ongedaan maken. De weg der Joden zal zijn en blijven een weg van bloed en tranen, en door alle eeuwen heen duurt hunne verdrukking omdat zij Jezus Christus aan het kruis hebben genageld.”

87 idem, page 201

88 Translated from Dutch –
idem, page 273
“K. Dijk reageerde in 1937 met lapidaire kortheid op een door ‘Elim’ ingestelde enquête. Op de vraag hoe de Christenen moesten denken over het Jodendom, was het antwoord ‘Zie Rom. 11’, op de vraag of er op grond van Gods Woord verwachtingen gekoesterd mochten worden voor het Joodse volk ‘Neen, als volk niet’, op de vraag of de kerk tegenover de Joden een taak had ‘ja’, en op de vraag wat die taak dan was ‘Zending onder de Joden’.
K.H. Miskotte zette daartegenover in de Lutherse Kerk in Amsterdam, aan de vooravond van de Grote Verzoendag 1938, voor een breed interkerkelijk publiek zijn visie uiteen. Het Jodendom was nog steeds een zegen voor de wereld, en een heilzaam verontrustend element. ‘Tegenover de natuurlijke zelfgenoegzaamheid van u en mij, die heidenen zijn naar den bloede, brengt het de naglans van God’s Woord. Dat deze zegen miskend wordt, komt omdat wij, heidenen, dien afglans van Gods Woord niet kunnen verdragen.”

89 Translated from Dutch –
idem, page 235
“Beknotting van burgerrechten mocht in Nederland dan niet aan de orde zijn, maar in Duitsland wél. In gereformeerde commentaren in de eerste jaren na 1933 viel op dat de Duitse inperking van de Joodse burgerrechten niet principieel werd afgewezen. Grosheide schreef in 1933, dat een staatsrechtelijke uitzonderingspositie van de Joden (een ‘gastrecht’) anders dan een Joodse nevenpositie in de kerk, niet onaanvaardbaar was.”

90 See: Chapter 3

91 Translated from Dutch –
idem, page 335
“ …omdat het ondanks alles drager was van Gods belofte aan Abraham, wat inhield dat op een moment voor de wederkeer van Christus het Joodse volk zich zou bekeren (in de termen van De Wolff: de weldaden des verbonds deelachtig worden). Er was dus geen sprake van een speciale betekenis van het Jodendom of van een millennium, waar wél van de verwachting dat het Joodse volk zich kort voor de (enkelvoudige) wederkeer van Christus zou bekeren. ‘Eer deze wereld voor eeuwig ondergaat zal de bekeering van Israel ‘t avondrood zijn van Gods liefdezon, ‘t laatste genadewonder voor de oogen van een wegstervende menschheid.”

92 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. C. van der Waal: “En het zal geschieden in de laatste dagen…”, page 48-50, De Nijverheid, Oudkarspel, 1977
“Het wordt tijd dat het christendom eens beseft dat in de kerk zich het verbond voortzet en dat daarom gebroken moet worden met Joodse fabelen, ook de fabel over het herstel van de natie Israël dat een voorteken van het einde zou zijn. De Here aanvaardt Joden in Zijn gemeente en Hij doet dit zonder verwijten. Maar door het toetreden tot de kerk komen de Joden weer in het verbond; ze waren er niet meer in. We moeten breken met de gedachte dat Israël vandaag nog een soort halve kerk is. En we moeten eveneens breken met de gedachte dat er een speciale toekomst voor Israël te wachten is. Ook Rom.11:26 geeft daar geen grond toe. Paulus heeft het daar over de Joden die bondskinderen waren en in zijn tijd (het veertigjarig genadig interim tussen Pinksteren en het jaar 70) het evangelie aanvaardden. In hen werd ‘geheel Israël’ gered. De ongelovige Joden van vandaag zijn geen verbondskinderen meer en voor hen zijn er geen speciale beloften. (…)
Paulus roept de kerk in Rome op om Israël niet zomaar af te schrijven: de afkerige verbondskinderen moeten teruggeroepen worden. Maar dit zegt niet, dat wij thans moeten uitgaan van
a. een beschouwing van de Joden van heden als verbondskinderen;
b. een profetie inzake de bekering van de Joden in de eindtijd.”

93 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. R.J. van der Meulen: “De openbaring in het laatste bijbelboek”, (Diss.) page 238, N.V. Drukkerij P. den Boer, Utrecht, 1948
“Over het Joodse volk en wat daarmede geschieden zal, spreekt de Heer hier niet verder. Dat Jeruzalem weer herbouwd en een Joodse stad zal worden zegt Hij niet.(…) Slechts zegt Hij, dat Jeruzalem geen Joodse, maar een heidense stad zal zijn tot de volheid van de tijden der heidenen gekomen is. Dat zal wel betekenen: tot het einde der eeuwen, tot de komst van het wereldgericht en de wederkomst des Heren in heerlijkheid…”

94 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. S. Alblas: “De ark van het verbond in het laatste bijbelboek”, (Diss.), page 183, Jan Haan, Groningen, 1993
“Evenals in 1 Kron. 16 wordt nu in Op.14:6-7 als gevolg van Gods koningschap zijn oordeel over de volken uitgeroepen. De konklusie moet zijn dat het verschijnen van de ark in de hemelse tempel (Op.11:19), evenals het gebracht worden van de ark in de tent te Jeruzalem (1 Kron.15-16), betekenen het uitroepen van Gods koningschap en daarmee het oordeel over de volken.”

95 idem, page 180,181
“Bij de verovering van Jericho zijn het zeven bazuin blazende priesters die voor de ark uitgaan. Er is echter nog een moment in de geschiedenis van Israël waarbij zeven bazuin blazende priesters voor de ark uitgaan. Wanneer David de ark vanuit het huis van Obed-Edom brengt naar de tent die hij voor haar heeft gespannen in Jeruzalem, zijn het zeven priesters die voor de ark uit op trompetten blazen (1 Kron.15:24a) (…) Zeven priesters hebben de taak om de ark te begeleiden op haar reis naar de tent in Jeruzalem. Dit plaatsen in de tent betekent ook een proklamatie van Gods koningschap (vgl 1 Kron.16:31). Als in Op.11:15 de zevende bazuin klinkt, wordt ook daar Gods koningschap geproklameerd: “Het koningschap over de wereld is gekomen aan onze Here en aan zijn Gezalfde…” (…)
Als David de ark in de tent heeft gebracht, draagt hij Asaf en zijn broeders op God te loven met de woorden genoemd in 1 Kron. 16:8-36.”

6. THE CONSISTENT PATTERN OF GOD’S INTERVENTION

“The word of the LORD came to me: ‘What do you see, Jeremiah?’ ‘I see the branch of an almond tree,’ I replied. The LORD said to me, ‘You have seen correctly, for I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled’” (Jeremiah 1:11-12).

With this striking metaphor of the almond tree, already in full bloom in early spring, while the rest of nature is still in deep hibernation, God indicates that He is watching over His Word. This watchfulness started right at the beginning, when God ‘circumcised’ cosmic time and created an exceptional history of revelation. That’s why He also took Abraham from the ends of the earth (Isaiah 41:9), so that in him, all generations of the earth would be blessed. God has watched over this promise throughout all the stormy events throughout the ages. This watching over His Word also concerned the coming of the Promised One.

Again and again, we see how God tested Abraham by creating a crisis situation.

To begin with, it was overwhelming enough to obey God’s instructions to leave his father’s house and his relatives, in short, to cut off all his family ties, and to leave Ur of the Chaldees. But when he arrived in the Promised Land, it appeared to be inhabited by Canaanites, who were not at all pleased with his coming, and on top of that, he was confronted with another crisis: a severe famine broke out.

Abraham’s faith was put to the test: Does God still watch over His promise?

The famine drove him across the border of the Promised Land. For the second time, he had to move, with everything he owned, this time in order to dwell as a foreigner in Egypt.

We can hardly imagine how much psychological tension this must have caused in the soul of the patriarch. God had promised him a great posterity—a promise that included the coming of the Messiah (John 8:56). But what was he going to do without any children in a land that had been promised to him? Both he and Sarah were getting beyond child-bearing age.

All in all, everything Abraham experienced after having been obedient to God’s calling, did not look very encouraging: The land that God had shown him was already inhabited, the promise of a great posterity seemed to remain a promise which would never be fulfilled—according to nature, their time was passing by quickly—and on top of that, a severe famine broke out, which forced them to move again, this time away from the Promised Land to Egypt.

Furthermore, Sarah was a beautiful woman, and in those days, it was not unheard of for somebody to take a beautiful woman away from her husband and give her to the deified king of the country where they were seeking refuge, and to even kill the husband.

Abraham got very concerned. So many things could happen! God had said to him: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse” (Genesis 12:3). Later, God would speak to him with the words: “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward” (Genesis 15:1).

But shouldn’t he protect himself?

This caused an inner conflict in Abraham.

God may watch over His promise, but shouldn’t he himself also take care in case his beautiful wife would be taken away? Would it not be wise to play a trick here? Should he, in this crisis situation, fully put his trust in the Lord, whatever might happen, or could he also be a little shrewd himself? Abraham decided, for his own safety, to use a little white lie and to present Sarah to Pharaoh’s officials as his sister. Sarah was in fact his half-sister, his father’s daughter, but not his mother’s (Genesis 20:12). A half-truth, however, is the same as a full lie, also in our vernacular. And then it becomes clear how God in this crisis situation uses the Gentile world in order to get the patriarch, father of all believers, back on the right track. Because of Sarah, He inflicted serious plagues on Pharaoh, at which Pharaoh summoned Abraham and said: “Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife?” (Genesis 12:19). Then Pharaoh gave Sarah back to her husband, without even demanding back the many goods that he had given to Abraham as a kind of dowry.

Abraham played the same trick another time in the land of the Philistines on Abimelech, king of Gerar (Genesis 20). But this time, his error was even more serious. By then, Abraham as well as Sarah had been addressed by the Lord concerning the son that Sarah would bear, and that in this son, the promise of a great posterity would be fulfilled (Genesis 18:10-15). By saying to the king of Gerar that Sarah was his sister and letting him take her, he did not only endanger Sarah’s honour and his marriage, but also herewith sullied God’s promise, and ultimately the Promised One. For, the king really got the opportunity to approach Sarah. So with his lie, Abraham did indeed endanger the Messianic future.

But also here, God watched over His Word, and he kept the king of Gerar from sinning against Him (Genesis 20:6). During the night, He came to Abimelech in a dream and said to him among others: “…if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die” (Genesis 20:7).

So for the second time—in this parallel story—we see God’s intervention in the Gentile world, rescuing Abraham and safeguarding the Messianic future.

God’s interventions for the chosen family took place in crisis situations, and in both these cases, the issue was that they had to temporarily settle in a foreign country and that Abraham felt he needed to protect himself from being killed for Sarah’s sake. In Genesis 20:13, we read how Abraham even made Sarah promise him: “…when God caused me to wander from my father’s household, I said to her (…) this is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, ‘He is my brother.’”

However, here too, God made it very clear to this gentile king that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, thus watching over His Word which He had spoken to Abraham.

Judah and Tamar

We also find that God watched over His Word in what happened between Judah and Tamar. God had a plan with Judah. Later, when his father Jacob was on his deathbed, he formulated this plan with the words: “Judah, your brothers will praise you” (Genesis 49:8).

Scripture does not tell us to what extent Judah knew about this when he met Tamar. He must have been aware, though, of the special function his family had in God’s plan of salvation. His father certainly would have told him about what God had said to Abraham when He called him: “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing (…) and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:2-3). In addition, the Lord had also manifested Himself to Jacob at Bethel, where He had repeated this promise to him (Genesis 35:9-13).

Therefore, Judah could have known that God had a specific purpose of redemption with his family. Yet he left the circle of his brothers and went to stay with Hirah of Adullam, a Canaanite royal town (cf. Joshua 12:15). Soon, he fully adopted Canaanite culture and married the daughter of a Canaanite man, who bore him three sons: Er, Onan and Shelah.

For his firstborn, Er, Judah took a woman called Tamar. Some people say that she was the daughter of the high priest Shem, Noah’s son; others say that she was a Canaanite woman who had grown up among idolaters, but converted to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. [96] In any case, she did not belong to the holy family, but to another nation, hence she was a ‘Gentile’.

Judah’s son Er provoked God’s displeasure, and the Lord put him to death (Genesis 38:7). Next, Judah ordered his second son, Onan, to marry his brother’s widow Tamar. This levirate marriage by which a man had to marry his widowed sister-in-law was a general custom among the ancient peoples of the Orient. Later, Moses included this regulation in the laws concerning marriage, in order to protect the widow (Deuteronomy 25:5). The firstborn son out of this marriage had to be recorded in the genealogical register in the name of the deceased brother, so that his name would not be blotted out from Israel. The general motive for this was not only the reproduction of name and posterity, but especially the preservation of the family inheritance. This even had an extra dimension in Israel because ‘building one’s brother’s house’ also meant keeping the possibility open that his family might one day bring forth the Promised One.

Onan knew that the offspring that he would get with Tamar would not belong to him, and in his way, he made sure that Tamar would not get a child. This also displeased the Lord, and He put him to death as well. Then Judah ordered his daughter-in-law to live as a widow in her father’s house until his third son, Shelah, would have grown up. Judah, however, had no intentions to give Tamar to Shelah. He was afraid that this son would also die, like his two other sons.

Time went by and Judah’s wife died. When the period of mourning had passed, he went with his friend Hirah to a shepherds’ festivity. Then Tamar seized the opportunity. According to the custom of those days, she had the right to a levirate marriage, and she had noticed that Judah had not kept his promise to give her to his third son.

In the story that now unfolds, it becomes obvious once again how God in a crisis situation watches over His promise, and introduces a gentile woman in His preparations for the coming of the Messiah.

When Tamar heard that her father-in-law would come to Timnah in order to have his sheep shorn, she took off her widow’s garment, disguised herself with a veil and went to sit down by the side of the road to Timnah. Judah, seeing the woman and thinking that she was a prostitute, said that he would like to sleep with her. Tamar asked beforehand what the reward for her services would be, and Judah promised her a young goat from his flock. Then Tamar asked for a pledge, namely his signet ring, its cord, and his staff.

So he gave those personal items to her.

The pledge that Tamar claimed was well planned. She wanted his ‘passport’. The signet ring was worn on a string around the neck and counted as a signature, and the staff was a token of the person’s dignity and office. No distinguished person would ever appear in public without his staff.

Without any objection, Judah gave up his personal properties, with the intention to send her the young goat through his friend, counting on getting his pledge back from her. His friend, however, could not find the woman anymore; even worse, according to the local population there had not even been a prostitute. So Judah dropped the matter, for fear of making a fool of himself.

Three months later, Judah was informed that his daughter-in-law had been guilty of prostitution and was now pregnant. Judah did not hesitate one moment. He ordered preparations to be made to have mother and child burned to death.

But in the nick of time, this gentile woman, Tamar, came forward with the items belonging to the man who had made her pregnant. With death staring her in the face, she said: “I am pregnant by the man who owns these” (Genesis 38:25). Judah, look and see: whose are this signet ring with its cord, and the staff? Is not this your own ‘signature’? Seeing his personal belongings, which clearly identified him, Judah had to admit: “She is more righteous than I” (Genesis 38:26).

In the same way as two gentile kings had to rebuke Abraham, here, the gentile woman, Tamar, is called to force Judah to keep the marriage laws that were valid in those days.

Many people have speculated why this story was placed in the middle of the description of Joseph’s life and deeds. It seems like an illogical interruption, which, in fact, it is not. In the same way as Judah had to acknowledge: “She is more righteous than I”, he later had to admit in front of Joseph: “How can we prove our innocence? God has uncovered your servants’ guilt” (Genesis 44:16).

It is remarkable how this story about Tamar resembles the story of Ruth. Death struck Judah’s house twice. First his eldest son, Er, died, then his second son, Onan, and finally Tamar, by appealing to the custom of the levirate marriage, found a way to rebuke Judah, and subsequently she gave birth to the forefather of the future Messiah. Ruth, also a gentile woman, became, after the death of Elimelech’s two sons and through the levirate marriage, an ancestress of the house of David, hence of the Messiah.

One day, the Gentile-Christian world will, with the marks of the Torah—perhaps at the very last moment, when the stake is being prepared—be able to come forward and say in relation to the promised Messiah: Whose personal items do we have here with us? Whose staff is this, Judah? It is the promise of the Torah, fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

The acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah will never vanish into smoke and thin air, no matter what fire is threatening us in this nuclear age.

Moreover, we also learn from the story of Judah and Tamar that Tamar gave birth to twins. The first one who stuck out his hand got a scarlet thread around his wrist as a sign that he was the firstborn, but when he drew back his hand, his brother worked his way out and became the firstborn. Here, too, God crossed His hands. It was not the one who, by sticking out his little hand, seemed to be the first one to be born, but the second one, Perez, who powerfully breaking through, became the ancestor of the Messiah.

The pattern of God’s intervention does not only concern the bringing in of the Gentile world in moments of crisis, but also God’s autonomous election. It is an election that often differs from what people have in mind. Over and over again, He crosses His hands of blessing. So it was with Cain and Abel, with Jacob and Esau, with Ephraim and Manasseh, and also here, with Perez and Zerah.

Joseph

Another example of God watching over His word is the story of Joseph’s life. It is a mighty parable of the future of the Lord, and it should therefore definitely be mentioned when we illustrate the consistent pattern of God’s intervention. In the denouement of this story, we see how Egypt—a Gentile nation—is used to bring the chosen family back, and to give them shelter and sustenance of life in the crisis situation of that moment.

The statement that Joseph’s life in its full context is a parable of the Messianic future should not just be discarded as being an allegory or a spiritualisation. Jesus said: “Before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58). Before He came to earth, He had, as it were, filled in His own ‘passport’, and so He could later say to the teachers of the law: “You diligently study the Scriptures (...) these are the Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39). He Himself created the events that, ahead of time, already were a depiction of the great work for which He came to earth. Therefore, it is not only His appearance that is recognisable for the believers, but at the disclosure of history, also the meaning, the function and the destiny of the chosen people in the end times (1 Corinthians 10:11).

We can be brief about the theft of Joseph’s prophetic cup. [97] The issue is that the rejection of the ‘Master Dreamer’ by his brothers is a foreshadowing of the rejection of Him, Who is the Word itself. The ‘theft’ of Joseph’s prophetic charisma finds its continuation in the rejection of Jesus as the Word of God.

The rejection of Joseph as a prophet resulted in two exile journeys. Due to the famine in Canaan, Jacob and his family had to find refuge in Egypt, a pagan country. For the family, this was the only way to survive. This crisis situation was the opportunity for the ‘prophet Joseph’ to deal with his brothers, so they could be saved from famine and spiritual alienation from God’s truth. In Egypt, Judah acknowledges that God uncovered their guilt (Genesis 44:16)

Here again, we see a connection between a crisis situation and the involvement of the Gentile world in relation to the chosen people, a connection, which again is a foreshadowing of what will take place in the crisis situation in the near future. At the unfolding of Israel’s history, the Gentile world will also be used, but not without first having to search their own hearts, because the entire ecclesiastical or Christian world, from East to West, is guilty of ‘stealing the prophetic cup’—the denial of Jesus of Nazareth—and, because of that, also of a deadlock in a crisis situation of the entire human race.

The conversion of the Jewish people in the near future, in which the Gentile-Christian world will play their own part as ordained by God, will confirm the ancient story of Joseph as a mighty parable of the future of the Lord.

Rahab

The part that the gentile woman Rahab played at the entrance of the chosen people into the Promised Land literally and figuratively took place in a crisis situation.

It was an ‘intermezzo event’ between the death of Moses, who had led the chosen people out of Egypt and through the wilderness up to the border of Canaan, and the people’s entry under the leadership of Moses’ successor, Joshua. We read how God says to Joshua:

“Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites. I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses. (…) No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you. Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them” (Joshua 1:2-3 and 5-6).

The book of Joshua is characterised by the oath God swore to the forefathers. The tone of the book of Joshua is distinctive.

When Joshua had given instructions to the people on how to proceed when they would enter the land, the people answered: “Whatever you have commanded us we will do, and wherever you send us we will go. Just as we fully obeyed Moses, so we will obey you. Only may the LORD your God be with you as he was with Moses” (Joshua 1:16-17). Then, Joshua sent two spies to investigate the country.

These two spies met Rahab, whose house was part of Jericho’s wall. By lodging these men in her house, Rahab risked her life.

It was a crucial moment.

However, in this crisis situation, God used Rahab in His plan of salvation. She is therefore rightly recorded as a hero of faith in Hebrews 11:31: “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” The apostle James says in his epistle that she was “considered righteous for what she did” (2:25).

Rahab is held in high esteem in Scripture; she even is one of the ancestresses of the Messiah, along with Tamar, Ruth, and the Hittite Uriah’s wife, the mother of Solomon (Matthew 1:5-6). So, Rahab, as an ancestress of the Messiah, belongs to the holy family, and is therefore included in God’s oath to Abraham: “… and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3).

Through God’s grace, Rahab knew that it was all over with Jericho. Jericho was the firstling city, ‘pars pro toto,’ part for the whole, and at the same time representative for the entire land. Because what happened, God Himself pointed out that the land definitely belonged to Him, as He had emphatically said regarding the purchase and sale of it: “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants” (Leviticus 25:23).

Dr. B. Maarsing writes the following about this:

“Against the background of the Year of Jubilee, we find three important statements in this verse: 1. As regards the land, it may never be sold permanently. The one who would sell it should always have the possibility to reclaim it. 2. The land is Yhwh’s. He is and remains the owner. He decides to whom it may be entrusted. 3. The status of the Israelites may be compared to Abraham’s status, as appears from Genesis 23:4, where the patriarch says to the Hittites: ‘I am an alien (geyr) and a stranger (toshab) among you’, by which he declares how much he depends on their goodwill. In the land that yhwh has given to His people, the Israelites are nothing more than geyrim (aliens) and toshabim (sojourners), entirely abandoned to and dependent on His mercy.” [98]

God is the Owner of the land, and He gives it to His chosen people. The fall of Jericho as the firstling city into the hands of the Israelites is a sign that God, in His mercy, will also give them the entire land. But the land remains His, and is—along with the people—in the service of the coming kingdom of God.

Along these lines, we should also understand the words in Joshua 2:1: “Then Joshua son of Nun secretly sent two spies from Shittim. ‘Go, look over the land,’ he said, ‘especially Jericho.’” He actually meant: When you have seen Jericho, your have seen the land. Then you know how things are. Jericho is representative.

Rahab, in her faith, seems to have understood much about God’s ways. She voices her confession with the words: “… everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below. Now then, please swear to me by the LORD that you will show kindness to my family, because I have shown kindness to you” (Joshua 2:11-12).

God does not write off this gentile woman Rahab. Having come to the conclusion that Israel’s God was invincible, she saw only one possibility to escape the judgment over Jericho, namely to become one with the people and Israel’s God, and so she stood surety for that people’s delegates who had sought lodging with her.

Along with Joshua and the spies, Rahab already shared in the secrets of the coming kingdom of God. It is indeed remarkable how her words: “Hide yourselves there three days until they (the pursuers) return…” (Joshua 2:16) precisely agree with what Joshua says in chapter 1:11: “Three days from now you will cross the Jordan here to go in and take possession of the land the LORD your God is giving you for your own.”

The concept of ‘the third day’ contains a principle.

Rahab, the gentile woman, had, in a way, foreknowledge of this mystery. Joshua had sent the two spies in secret. But Rahab started her statement with: “I know that the LORD has given this land to you” (Joshua 2:9). For her, the issue was clear: Jericho, as a fortress, was for her a thing of the past.

Rahab’s house was built in the wall of the city. There, before God, Rahab and the spies made a covenant and took an oath. In the end, the spies reported their experiences to Joshua, and Joshua relied on Rahab’s confession, for the two men could inform Joshua of nothing else but what Rahab had told them. The essence of this confession was:

“I know that the LORD has given this land to you and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you”
(Joshua 2:9).

In other words: We are lost, you are invincible.

Moreover, her faith appeared to have been partly based on her experience and interpretation of Israel’s miraculous exodus out of Egypt. She mentioned the following as facts:

“We have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed” (Joshua 2:10).

These words of Rahab imply recognition of God’s exodus work. Her ‘knowing’ was based on that. It is a ‘knowing by faith’, but not disconnected from the interpretation of Israel’s history.

For Rahab herself, there was nothing she could rely on anymore: not on the power of the king, neither on the fighting prowess of the people, nor on the thickness of the walls. Jericho was a thing of the past.

How absolute God’s grace was in giving this city as a ‘pars pro toto’ for the entire land appears from Joshua’s oath with respect to a possible rebuilding of this fortress:

“Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:

At the cost of his firstborn son
will he lay its foundations;
at the cost of his youngest
will he set up its gates”. (Joshua 6:26)

It was an oath that, nearly six centuries later, appeared not to have expired. At the very moment when Ahab, who was very much under the influence of Jezebel, dared to have the walls of Jericho rebuilt, the descendants of Hiel, the architect of the project, were killed (1 Kings 16:34). By rebuilding this fortress, they insulted God’s grace.

It is remarkable how God in such a crucial moment as the entry of His people into Canaan, after having led them out of slavery from Egypt, not only introduced a gentile woman, but that she also had foreknowledge of God’s plans. Rahab had a share in a mystery.

This episode contains all the elements that serve to foreshadow the Messianic future.

In the intermezzo event of Revelation 10, the Gentile world will also be allowed to share in God’s penultimate secret, and, just like Rahab in those days, they will be allowed to assist—through God’s grace and in the acknowledgement of Jesus as His Messiah—in leading the chosen people into the coming kingdom of God.

Ruth

The significant element in Israel’s history of revelation, starting with Abraham, is the substitution. In the entire existence of God’s chosen people, this finally results in the divine gift of the ‘Redeemer’. In microform, this also applies to the seemingly simple book of Ruth. It narrates the experiences of a family who were not faring too well. Nevertheless, the book of Ruth has a prophetic content: The redeemer from need and death has a central place, also in Ruth’s life.

The book of Ruth, which begins with the description of a famine in Israel and the death of all male members of this family from Judah, ends with the birth of Obed and the announcement of the house of David. Ruth, the Moabitess, was allowed to be one of the ‘builders’ of this house. Through David’s house, God opens the gate to the Messianic future and maintains His eternal covenant, as is written in Isaiah 55:3:

“I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.”

Later, the apostle Paul refers to this statement in his impressive speech in the synagogue of Antioch, in a nutshell sketching Israel’s history in order to explain how, according to His promise, God caused the Saviour, Jesus Christ, to be born for Israel from the house of David. In this speech to the people of Israel, he says among others: “We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers, he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“‘You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.’

The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words:

‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David’”. (Acts 13:32-34)

Ruth, the Moabitess, a gentile woman, God introduced in a crisis situation, with the very purpose of fulfilling the promise to the ancestors, and in this way, she became an ancestress of the Messiah.

The famine in the land of Israel must have been a severe test of faith for Elimelech. His name means: ‘My God is King’. But his fate in life seemed to contradict his name. Every day, he was confronted with the reality that he was not able to provide for his family in a land that should have been flowing with milk and honey. Finally, he left his country, taking his wife Naomi and his two sons, Mahlon and Kilion, with him, in order to live as strangers in the land of Moab.

Moab did not have a very good reputation. The inhabitants were descendants of the sad things that occurred between Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:37). The Israelites abhorred the Moabites. In Deuteronomy 23:3-4, we read how Moses said to the people: “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you.”

So Elimelech arrived in an area not too favourable to raise his sons in. The inhabitants observed a fertility cult, which resulted from their traditional pantheistic religion. They worshipped Chemosh, the god of rain and thunder, who brought blessings and lived with his wife Asherah, the mother of the earth.

Heaven and earth would mate with each other in a magic way for the fertility of the land, and their deed was copied by the followers of this religion. By having intercourse in the open field, men and women attempted to attract the dew from heaven, in order to stimulate the earth’s fertility. [99]

It is from among these very people that Elimelech’s sons took their wives, with the risk of a complete assimilation of his entire family.

However, God intervened.

When Elimelech had died, and also Mahlon and Kilion had passed away, Naomi and her two daughters-in-law prepared to return to Israel. Maybe the deaths of her husband and her two sons had given her an extra impulse to return to Israel when she heard that God had come to the aid of His people by giving them bread, and that therefore, she would once again have a future there. In itself, it is amazing that her two Moabite daughters-in-law accompanied their mother-in-law on the way to the border. But when the critical moment came and they had almost reached the land of Judah, Naomi spoke to them seriously and admonished her two daughters-in-law to go back to Moab, for in her eyes, the opportunity to remarry would not be possible in Israel. The possibility of a levirate marriage would be out of the question. “But Naomi said, ‘Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons—would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the LORD’S hand has gone out against me!’” (Ruth 1:11-13).

Tearfully, the women fell into each other’s arms. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-bye and returned, but Ruth clung to her. Then Naomi said: “Your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her” (Ruth 1:15).

But Ruth clung to her and voiced the moving confession:

“Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me”
(Ruth 1:16-17).

Ruth fully committed herself to Israel’s God and put the prospects of her life into God’s hands. Then the miracle happened that she ‘by chance’ ended up in the fields belonging to Boaz, who was of the clan of Elimelech and appeared to be one of their kinsmen-redeemers. This story clearly shows how God watched over the family name: ‘My God is King’. Israel’s King, who is also the King of the clans, watches over His Word.

Ruth’s life contained many moving events, such as going to the threshing floor, her symbolic deed in uncovering Boaz’ feet and lying down, continually gleaning and gathering the leftover grain for Naomi under the blazing sun—it is all included in the wonderful guidance of God as King over this family.

Ruth was chosen. She was known by the Lord, and therefore, she knew God. For her too, God’s kingship became reality when He gave her a kinsman-redeemer.

After all, when Ruth went to Boaz’s threshing floor, it was her appeal to the levirate marriage, to the duty of the kinsman-redeemer, according to God’s law, the Torah. Ruth, a gentile woman, is the one who mentions this to Boaz. She said: “‘I am your servant Ruth,’ (...) ‘Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer’” (Ruth 3:9). It must have been exceedingly difficult for Ruth, being a Moabite woman to initiate a conversation about the levirate marriage. The basis for this gentile woman’s nightly visit however, was the Torah.

Then Boaz said:

“‘The LORD bless you, my daughter. This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. And now, my daughter, don’t be afraid. I will do for you all you ask. All my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of noble character’” (Ruth 3:10-11).

When Ruth came back to her mother-in-law after that night and told her everything, Naomi said: “Wait, my daughter, until you find out what happens. For the man will not rest until the matter is settled today” (Ruth 3:18). Naomi reassured Ruth, for she understood that Boaz would take Ruth. And indeed, Boaz suited the action to the word and married Ruth, with the elders and all the people who were in the town gate as witnesses. The words he spoke showed his nobility:

“Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses!” (Ruth 4:9-10).

And all the people who were in the town gate and the elders, said:

“May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. Through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah”
(Ruth 4:11-12).

Then Ruth gave birth to a son: Obed. This name, which the neighbour women gave him, means ‘servant’. This name also looks forward to David, who, as a servant and dressed only in a priest’s garment, danced and rejoiced in front of the Ark when he brought it back to Jerusalem. He was a prefiguration of the suffering servant of the Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came to the world only to serve mankind all the way to being forsaken by God on the cross, so that He could be the Redeemer for all.

Jesus is David’s Lord and also David’s Son, and Israel’s only Redeemer, as Isaiah states it:

“‘Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame.

Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.

You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.

For your Maker is your husband—
the LORD Almighty is his name—
the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer;
he is called the God of all the earth.

The LORD will call you back
as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—
a wife who married young,
only to be rejected,’ says your God.

‘For a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with deep compassion I will bring you back.

In a surge of anger

I hid my face from you for a moment,
but with everlasting kindness

I will have compassion on you,’

says the LORD your Redeemer.” (Isaiah 54:4-8)

The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a kinsman-redeemer” (Ruth 4:14).

In this moving story, it becomes clear once again how, for a chosen family in a crisis situation, a gentile woman is introduced in order to complete His work of redemption by providing a kinsman-redeemer. God has applied this principle throughout the ages, and He will also apply it when, in the end times, the denouement of Israel’s entire history must come about, as Isaiah says in chapter 55:5:

“Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations that do not know you will hasten to you,
because of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendour.”

Jonah

The Hebrew name ‘Jonah’ means ‘dove’. The word of the Lord came to Jonah with the order: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it…” This command holds a profound symbolism: A ‘dove’ being sent to the Assyrian ‘bird of prey’, because its wickedness has come up before the Lord (Jonah 1:1-2). If we realise that, in Scripture, the ‘dove’ is the symbol of the Holy Spirit, we have all the more reason to closely study the story of Jonah.

There must be some significance in the fact that the Lord symbolises the innermost nature of His being and of His own breath with a dove. This should remind us of Jesus’ baptism, as recorded in Matthew 3:16-17:

“As soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he (John the Baptist) saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.’”

Jesus’ immersion in the water is an image of His ‘immersion’ when He died on the cross and was forsaken by God, and His coming up out of the water symbolises His resurrection. At this action, which has a deeper meaning, not only in relation to His own life, but also in a wider perspective, relating to His chosen people, the heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit came down on Him like a dove. And immediately after Jesus had been baptised, He was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. But when, through the power of the Holy Spirit, He had resisted the devil three times, He experienced a paradisiacal state of peace: He was with the wild animals, and angels served Him. They, as it were, prepared a table before Him (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13).

There is profound symbolism in this!

Of course, this event has its foreshadowing in the Old Testament, as Jesus’ entire life and all He did is a fulfilment of the Torah.

So it must have had a profound meaning when God sent Jonah to Assyria. A ‘dove’ commanded to preach to a ‘bird of prey’.

Is it correct, though, to typify Assyria as a ‘bird of prey’?

The answer to this is given by Scripture itself: Isaiah prophesies that Assyria with “Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land” (Isaiah 8:8). And that ‘bird of prey’, Assyria, did indeed come down on Israel, which should have been God’s ‘turtledove’. In a lamentation about the destruction of the temple, Asaf wrote in Psalm 74:19:

“Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beasts.”

It is amazing how the superpowers of this world, from ancient times until today, again and again have the image of a bird or animal of prey in their standards in order to express the power of their nation. The dictator of the ‘Third Reich’, for instance, while inspecting his troops, could not resist emphasising that he wanted to see the ferocity of the tiger in the eyes of his soldiers.

Dictators are merciless, which is reflected in their choice of wild animals by which they want to symbolically identify themselves.

How different is God!

When He wants to overpower Assyria, He does not oppose it with His ‘bird of prey’, but with a dove: Jonah. And when He wants to conquer and destroy the big ‘bird of prey’ that terrorises and threatens mankind with his ‘beak’ and his ‘claws’, He gives His Son Jesus. The apostle John writes: “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (1 John 3:8).

With the authority of Jesus, we may interpret the story of Jonah as a parable of the Messianic future, because when some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Him for a sign, He said:

“A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:39-41).

It appears from the context that Jesus’ words about the sign refer to the end of the world. However, this does not exclude that the preparation for the end of the world is also related to this sign. We may cite Hosea’s prophecy:

“He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us;
he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds.

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.” (Hosea 6:1-2)

When Jesus said: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39), then redemptively He takes upon Himself the sin of those who resisted a calling which would deliver the world from chaos, and substitutionally endures for His people what Jonah experienced in the shadow history after he fled to Tarshish, away from his calling.

This does not exclude, however, that the same sign of Jonah, which Jesus redemptively suffered, could be applied to the chosen people themselves—in a historical process—when they refuse to be the instrument in God’s hand to overcome the chaos that is about to overrun this world. It is part of the mystery of Israel that this nation and their Messiah form a unity. Jesus has fulfilled all the Old-Testament prophecies and shadow histories in Himself. But when this ‘people of revelation’ has to go a way parallel to the one Jesus went, it is not inconceivable that Jesus’ words about the sign of Jonah, which they will as yet receive, also implies the way this nation will have to go in history. A way of ‘falling’ and ‘rising’, which ultimately will result in a third day, ushering in a time of blessing for all mankind.

Ezekiel prophesied about Israel’s resurrection when he was told to speak to a valley full of dry bones, of which the Lord said: “…these bones are the whole house of Israel” (Ezekiel 37:11), and promised:

“O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD”
(Ezekiel 37:12-14).

This is what Paul refers to when he says: “For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15).

The prophet Isaiah expresses Israel’s calling as follows:

“This is what God the LORD says—he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: ‘I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness;I will take hold of your hand.

I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness’.” (Isaiah 42:5-7)

And in Isaiah 49:6:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Israel’s mission has a universal purpose of salvation. God loves the world, and wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Timothy 2:4).

This also applied to Nineveh. In the end, God said to Jonah: “And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?” (Jonah 4:11 [NKJV].

This ultimately was God’s holy intention. This is why He sent Jonah to call the inhabitants of Nineveh to repentance—a mission from which he fled. He found a ship to go in the opposite direction, away from his mission. But however much he tried to flee, it did not mean that he was able to escape his calling. Jonah may have thought that each sea mile would take him further away from the presence of God, but then, there was still God’s omnipresence, as David says in Psalm 139:7-10:

“Where can I go from your Spirit?

Where can I flee from your presence?

If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.”

The verses of this psalm also became a reality in Jonah’s life.

From experience, Jonah had to learn that rejecting his calling would bring chaos to the world. From the inside of the fish, he expresses in the following way how much the lesson God taught him brought him in distress:

“‘In my distress I called to the LORD, and he answered me.

From the depths of the grave I called for help,
and you listened to my cry.

You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas,
and the currents swirled about me;
all your waves and breakers swept over me.’

I said, ‘I have been banished from your sight;
yet I will look again toward your holy temple.

The engulfing waters threatened me,
the deep surrounded me;
seaweed was wrapped around my head.

To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in forever.

But you brought my life up from the pit,

O LORD my God.

When my life was ebbing away, I remembered you, LORD,
and my prayer rose to you, to your holy temple.

Those who cling to worthless idols
forfeit the grace that could be theirs.

But I, with a song of thanksgiving, will sacrifice to you.

What I have vowed I will make good.

Salvation comes from the LORD” (Jonah 2:2-9)

When Jonah thinks that he is able to hide in the hold of the ship and go to sleep, God causes a storm on the sea.

It is striking how the process of Jonah’s attempt to escape his mission also involved the Gentiles. When they had literally reached a crisis situation and the ship was on the point of breaking up, the gentile seamen found him in the hold of the ship, fast asleep. The captain was astonished that somebody could be so soundly asleep while such a violent storm had come up, and the frightened seamen were crying out, each one to his own god, and they had already thrown all the cargo overboard. Jonah had missed all this. The captain had to wake him up asking him to pray to his God so they would not perish. The other gods that had been invoked had not been able to bring any solace in this perilous situation. Finally, these Gentiles cast lots in order to find out through an oracle the person who was responsible for this calamity that had befallen them.

The lot fell on Jonah.

Then the seamen rushed to Jonah, asking: “Tell us, who is responsible for making all this trouble for us? What do you do? Where do you come from? What is your country? From what people are you?” (Jonah 1:8).

Jonah had to be completely honest: “‘I am a Hebrew and I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the land.’” This terrified them and they asked, “What have you done?” (Jonah 1:9-10).

Jonah had already told them that he was fleeing from the Lord. But he had not told them any more than that. And now these Gentiles had to ‘wake him up’, not only literally, but also in a spiritual sense. After Jonah had told them everything, they asked him: “What should we do to you to make the sea calm down for us?” Then Jonah replied: “Pick me up and throw me into the sea and it will become calm. I know that it is my fault that this great storm has come upon you” (Jonah 1:11-12).

These words make it clear that Jonah realised that his desertion was wrong, and that he was prepared to take the initiative of standing surety for the seamen, with the risk of perishing in the raging waves. We can compare this decision with David’s repentance, when the angel of judgment struck, and David confessed before God:

“Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? O LORD my God, let your hand fall upon me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people” (1 Chronicles 21:17).

With his answer to cast him into the sea, Jonah stood surety for the seamen. But at first, these Gentiles did not want to do what he suggested, for fear of being held accountable for killing an innocent man. This was going too far. Jonah’s proposal went against any sailor’s ethics. One does not just throw a passenger overboard, not even at his own request.

So the men continued rowing …

These seamen certainly cannot be accused of anti-Semitism. They risked their lives by keeping Jonah on board. They rowed hard to bring the ship back to the shore, but without success. The sea grew even wilder than before. It had become unmanageable—until they stopped calling to their own gods, but rather cried to the Lord, saying: “O LORD, please do not let us die for taking this man’s life. Do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man, for you, O LORD, have done as you pleased” (Jonah 1:14). After that, they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the sea stopped raging. Then we read that these men greatly feared the Lord, offered a sacrifice to the Lord, and made vows to Him (Jonah 1:13-16).

Ultimately the seamen could not do anything else but throw Jonah overboard. Jonah wished to fall into the hands of God. Now that he surrendered to a judgment of God, as once the Philistines did when they had reached a crisis point, God performed an extraordinary miracle: He sent a fish which swallowed Jonah up and spit him out again on a new shore three days later. Now Jonah had experienced what the consequences were of fleeing from his calling to go to Nineveh and proclaim God’s message there. After Jonah’s confession and prayer of thanksgiving inside the fish, God spoke to him a second time, and this time, Jonah went in God’s power, and Nineveh repented. In the way of ‘falling’ and ‘rising up again’, ‘the dove’ had defeated the ‘bird of prey’, Assyria.

The sign of Jonah

“The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven” (Matthew 16:1).

In Greek, the term ‘σημεῖον’
(sēmeion)
is used for the word ‘sign’. In order to understand how to interpret this request of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, it is important to know that in this context, the word ‘sēmeion’
(singular) is always used, and never ‘sēmeia’ (plural). In this case, it refers to a sign of a unique nature, which is very different from the signs and miracles that Jesus performed during His time on earth, like the miracles of healing and e.g. when He changed water into wine. Although the request for a sign must be seen against this background, it is obvious that, in this particular case, it refers to a specific sign. This becomes clear when reading the above-mentioned verse. The religious elite desired to see a sign from heaven, so as to test Him. In fact, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law wanted a sign from heaven, as proof that Jesus’ conduct was authorised by God. [100]

In Matthew 12:22 ff, we observe a justification for this interpretation, where Jesus heals a demon-possessed man, who was blind and mute. Among the people who witnessed this miracle, the question arose whether He might be the Son of David—and thus the Messiah. But the Pharisees who heard this said: “It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons” (Matthew 12:24), at which Jesus, knowing their thoughts, responded. Following this event and Jesus’ answer, some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Him for a sign (Matthew 12:38). They wanted to see something that would point directly to Jesus, and which would therefore take away any doubt they had as to His divine authority.

We should interpret Jesus’ answer in this context.

When Jesus says: “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39), He presents Himself in the first place as a ‘prophet of repentance’, for he also says: “… one greater than Jonah is here” (Matthew 12:41), and at the same time, He refers with these words to the ancient Jewish understanding that the prophets acted with the authority of God. Added to that, there are examples in the Old Testament of prophets who were instructed to be a sign of God in their life and conduct, as Isaiah said about himself: “Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion” (Isaiah 8:18). So even Isaiah’s children were included in his prophetic function. Ezekiel, too, was made a sign to the house of Israel (Ezekiel 12:6).

In His answer to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, Jesus also presents Jonah as a sign, first of all with reference to Himself: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40), but also with reference to the Jewish people in the future, for the continuation of His reply contains an eschatological element:

“The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here” (Mathew 12:41-42).

With these words, Jesus clearly points to the end of the world. He gives Jonah’s life and conduct a symbolic interpretation, which is meaningful up to the end times. Will the intermezzo event of Revelation 10, in which—in a global crisis situation—the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ and ‘Israel’s repentance’ come about, be an exception to this? Will not something of the ‘sign of Jonah’ become visible in the ‘spiritual resurrection’ of the chosen people on the third day of God, which was also confirmed by their Messiah’s resurrection? In fact, Paul writes concerning Jesus Christ, that He, according to the spirit of holiness, by His resurrection from the dead, was declared with power to be the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

We may conclude that what Jonah had to go through, as well as being a prophet, was a typological indication of Jesus’ life, Who, by standing surety, also fulfilled this episode, but that this episode is at the same time a foreshadowing of the circumstances in which Israel will reach its Messianic destiny.

Jonah went through quite a story and shirked his calling: he deserted. All this was part of his typologically so important appearance. For today as well, mankind has, in more than one respect, an ‘unwilling Jonah’ on board.

In the first place, it is imperative for us as Christians to ask ourselves whether we have carried out our ‘Jonah function’. To what extent is it our fault that a ‘tempest’ is about to break loose in the big ‘sea of the world’? God disposes of the storehouses of the wind (Job 37:9; Psalm 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13). Could He not also now cause a great ‘storm’ to break loose in the areas of religion and politics?

In tears, Jesus said about Jerusalem: “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes” (Luke 19:42), and: “Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matthew 23:38-39).

After all, in Scripture and in all God’s works, ultimately it is all about the One, Jesus of Nazareth, Who is the great Ambassador of God.

It is understandable that Christians—especially against the background of their own ecclesiastical history—wish for the Jewish people to have a ‘home of their own’, but can we therefore just ignore Jesus’ words? He is the Son of God, the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His being (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus says in Mathew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

In the end, it is not a matter of finding political solutions in the Middle East, but of the kingdom of God.

Gentiles said to Jonah: “What have you done?” (Jonah 1:10).

Certainly, there is a deep guilt on the Jewish people with respect to their Messiah, but we ought to start examining ourselves first.

What have we done?

The gospel has come to us so that we might be ‘Jonah’ who, in great unity of the Spirit and in God’s love, hand each other the cup united in His blood, with the aim of causing the Jewish people to discover and recognise their Messiah.

However, we have fled.

We have declined our calling.

And since we found our own ecclesiastical matters more important than fulfilling our calling to provoke the Jewish people to jealousy, we have reached the opposite result.

Should we then be surprised that the ‘storm’ of ‘division’ is about to break up the ‘ecclesiastical’ ship? How long do we want to continue ‘rowing’, so as to reach shore under our own steam? Do we really believe we can manage to do this outside of the ancient Book and without fulfilling our calling towards the Jewish people? The ‘oars’ will break. The storm will get worse and the men will be out of breath.

And what next?

The Jonah story teaches us that everything which in the eyes of God is guilty of a ‘Jonah flight’ will be ‘thrown overboard’. If we continue to dodge our calling as explained by the apostle Paul in Romans 9-11, if we continue to refuse to find our unity in unanimously acknowledging the Lamb of God in the Lord’s Supper, whereby we focus on receiving the Jewish people in mercy, then ‘the ship’ will ultimately no longer be able to carry us. Those who keep running away from the presence of God and from his essential mission will sooner or later be thrown ‘overboard’, and will—in judgment and in grace—fall into the hands of God’s mercy.

The fact that Jonah ran away from his assignment brought him on a voyage during which he had to endure storms. But the storms escalated, especially after he had confessed everything pertaining to himself: his background, the God he feared, his calling, and his attempt at running away from his calling. But in spite of all of that, the seamen tried to overcome all of this by rowing on.

When we proclaim that the ‘sign of Jonah’, as a prophetic parable of the Messianic future, specifically in relation to the people of revelation, will continue to be significant, then it is not up to us to make sure that this episode is brought about. God Himself will do this through the power of the One Who passed through the heavens in order to fulfill all things. The ‘sign of Jonah’ is given to Israel as a parable in historical form—within the framework of world history. It is a gift from Above.

Many people are already wondering: What will be the end of all of this? A feeling of being paralysed regarding the outcome of ‘Jonah’s voyage’ is now coming over the ‘captains’ of the ‘world ship’. The ancient Jonah story tells us, even today, how to get out of the deadlock and how to abate the ever-escalating violence of the storm.

On the ship, which was bound for Tarshish, far away from Nineveh and on the point of breaking up, a strange ‘summit conference’ took place in the end, whereby Jonah proposes: “Pick me up and throw me into the sea, … and it will become calm” (Jonah 1:12).

We should not speculate on what this might mean in apocalyptic sense in the events of the world. The future, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will reveal this, and then it will also become clear which part today’s Gentiles will have in this process.

What Jonah proposed was, however, a strange idea, and the remarkable thing is that after he said this, the seamen tried to row on in an attempt to reach land by their own strength—with Jonah on board. But they did not succeed. Finally, in order not to perish, they had to give in to Jonah’s proposal, and they threw him overboard, while crying out to the Lord. Suddenly, the seamen realised what they needed to do, and just as suddenly, in the near future, there will be the understanding of what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah, when the ancient prophetic stories will be fulfilled by the Risen Lord.

There is hope!

For in the end, Jonah did go to Nineveh, and he did bring the people his eschatological message: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned” (Jonah 3:4). The number forty already implies the eschatological dimension. At Jonah’s preaching, the people of Nineveh repented—Nineveh, a metropolis, which, as the capital, was representative for the superpower Assyria, and which was at the same time the image of all mankind turned away from God. This whole event is a prophetic parable of the Messianic future by which, in a time of great need and distress, the way will also be shown to mankind today.

Exile and restoration

From the way in which the Lord applies exile and restoration, His consistent dealings with His chosen people become clear. We see how Gentiles are introduced in the crisis situations of exile and return from exile. When it concerns the judgment of exile, Nebuchadnezzar is called God’s ‘servant’ by the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 27:6). And when God—after a fixed period of chastisement—decides on a different sort of crisis situation, namely the return from exile, He introduces Cyrus, the king of the Persians. The different kinds of crisis situations at that time concerned the people’s lack of perseverance in continuing to believe for a restoration after the exile. Here, too, God speaks to His people through His prophets, among others Ezekiel, who was led by the Lord in the spirit to a valley full of dry bones. The Lord used this image to reveal what was the spiritual condition of the house of Israel: dry, with no expectations, and cut off. They had given up all hope of restoration. It was a spiritual crisis situation, to which Ezekiel had to speak with words of hope: “I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37:1-14).

The same prophet also speaks of the river coming out from under the temple, which will make everything healthy and alive, with fruit trees growing on both banks, whose leaves will not wither nor will their fruit fail. They will bear fruit every month, because of the water flowing from the sanctuary (Ezekiel 47:1-12). Likewise, the prophet Zechariah speaks of living water which will flow out from Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:8), words which, among others, point to Jesus, Who says in John 7:38: “Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” With these words, Jesus also refers to the Holy Spirit which all those who believe in Him would receive. And finally, these words refer to the New Jerusalem, in which there will be a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Revelation 22:1ff). These visions of comfort by the prophets helped the people persevere in times of judgment and exile, and they speak of God’s faithfulness in leading them out of exile time and again, and in restoring and renewing the covenant.

In the ancient history of exile and restoration, we perceive a threefold intervention by God:

1. The exile was announced by prophets.

2. The duration of the exile was also made known to the prophets by God.

3. The return from the exile was determined by God through the intervention of Cyrus.

After the division of the kingdom of Israel in the time of Rehoboam, two kingdoms emerged: the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The kingdom of Judah consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the kingdom of Israel consisted of the remaining ten tribes. In the year 722 B.C., the greater part of Israel was taken away to Assyria, which had been foretold by the prophet Amos (Amos 7:10ff). But soon after that, judgment over Judah came as well: an exile to Babylon, which took place in stages, and which was completed in 586 B.C. with the destruction of the temple. This exile had also been announced long beforehand by, for example, the prophet Isaiah to King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20:17, where he said: “The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your fathers have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD.” The prophet Micah also predicted Judah’s exile to Babylon:

“Writhe in agony, O Daughter of Zion,
like a woman in labour,
for now you must leave the city
to camp in the open field.

You will go to Babylon”. (Micah 4:10)

The prophet Jeremiah, who lived during the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, had to say the following to the people in God’s name:

“‘Turn now, each of you, from your evil ways and your evil practices, and you can stay in the land the LORD gave to you and your fathers for ever and ever. Do not follow other gods to serve and worship them; do not provoke me to anger with what your hands have made. Then I will not harm you.’ ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the LORD, ‘and you have provoked me with what your hands have made, and you have brought harm to yourselves.’ Therefore the LORD Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words, I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. This whole country will become a desolate wasteland’” (Jeremiah 25:5-11).

But immediately after that, God announced the limit of the judgment:

“‘… and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.’ ‘But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt,’ declares the LORD, ‘and will make it desolate forever. I will bring upon that land all the things I have spoken against it, all that are written in this book and prophesied by Jeremiah against all the nations. They themselves will be enslaved by many nations and great kings; I will repay them according to their deeds and the work of their hands.’” (Jeremiah 25:11-14).

So the Lord made known to Jeremiah the duration of the exile, namely seventy years. Jeremiah had to use Israel’s fate as an example to Judah and admonish her to return to the Lord, so that she might not be overtaken by the same fate as her ‘sister’ and would likewise be carried away in exile (Jeremiah 3:6-4:4).

According to Jeremiah, there will even be a reunification and reconciliation between Judah and Israel once they return to the Lord:

“At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the LORD, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honour the name of the LORD. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts. In those days the house of Judah will join the house of Israel, and together they will come from a northern land to the land I gave your forefathers as an inheritance” (Jeremiah 3:17-18).

Jeremiah’s prediction about the duration of the exile was for Daniel the starting point to call on the Lord in prayer and confession, and to beseech Him to act by lifting the exile of the people, for His own Name’s sake:

“In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom—in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the LORD God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes” (Daniel 9:1-3).

These words are followed by Daniel’s moving prayer, in which he, being one with the people, confesses the sins, the iniquities and the unfaithfulness of the people, a prayer which he concludes with the words: “O LORD, listen! O LORD, forgive! O LORD, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name” (Daniel 9:19).

And while Daniel was still speaking and praying, the angel Gabriel came to him in swift flight, and informed him regarding the length of time to finish the transgression, to make an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, and to bring in everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:20-24).

Even the angel Gabriel, who stands before God, was—according to Jeremiah’s prophecy—brought in for the lifting of the exile in 516 B.C., exactly seventy years after the destruction of the temple. That is how precisely God abides by His word.

It is remarkable how the return from exile was planned by God through the coming of Cyrus, king of the Persians. Cyrus was known as a capable general, who could conquer armies surprisingly fast—something which made the ends of the earth tremble with fear, and from which they tried to seek safety with their self-made gods (Isaiah 41:5-7). But in order to make it clear to the people of Israel that they had nothing to fear as long as they put their trust in Him, Yahweh challenged the ‘islands’, and said:

“Be silent before me, you islands!

Let the nations renew their strength!

Let them come forward and speak;
let us meet together at the place of judgment.

Who has stirred up one from the east,
calling him in righteousness to his service?

He hands nations over to him
and subdues kings before him.

He turns them to dust with his sword,

(…)

Who has done this and carried it through,
calling forth the generations from the beginning?

I, the LORD —with the first of them
and with the last—I am he”. (Isaiah 41:1-4)

These words are part of the Lord’s answer regarding Israel’s state of distress in their exile. The answer begins with the words:

“Comfort, comfort my people,
says your God.

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the LORD’S hand
double for all her sins”. (Isaiah 40:1-2)

In the continuation of Isaiah 40, God portrays in moving words His faithfulness and majesty towards His people—until He in a straightforward manner speaks to Israel’s complaint, as if God was not doing justice to them:

“Why do you say, O Jacob,
and complain, O Israel,

‘My way is hidden from the LORD;
my cause is disregarded by my God’?

Do you not know?

Have you not heard?

The LORD is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth”. (Isaiah 40:27-28)

In the context of this announcement concerning the lifting of the exile and with reference to His Name, I AM THAT I AM, the Lord declares that He has raised up Cyrus, His servant.

Dr. W.A.M. Beuken summarises God’s plea in Isaiah 41:1-7 as follows:

“He made a start with the rebuttal of Israel’s complaint that their cause did not concern Him (Isaiah 40:27) by entering into a lawsuit with the nations, and by silencing them (vs. 1). Cyrus’ triumphal march (vs. 2) can be nobody’s doing but the Lord’s, who, as of old, also now validates His Name YHWH: He is with Israel’s latest generation (vs. 4). What He claims against the nations is likewise—if not more—a new disclosure of His unchangeable nature for His people, and with that, an assurance of His assistance. The description of the foolish reactions of the nations to Cyrus’ triumphs also contains a message for Israel. Panic-stricken (vs. 5), they try to find firm ground with each other (vs. 6), and they encourage each other to worship their self-made gods (vs. 7). By mockingly placing their origin in a clear light, God dethrones His illegitimate rivals and prepares for Israel the way to a life of hope, because only those who do not see YHWH behind the present events, have a reason to be afraid”. [101]

Immediately following these verses, God continues by announcing Israel’s deliverance:

“But you, O Israel, my servant,

Jacob, whom I have chosen,
you descendants of Abraham my friend,

I took you from the ends of the earth,
from its farthest corners I called you.

I said, ‘You are my servant’;

I have chosen you and have not rejected you.

So do not fear, for I am with you;
do not be dismayed, for I am your God”.

(…)

“For I am the LORD, your God,
who takes hold of your right hand
and says to you, ‘Do not fear;

I will help you.

Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob,

O little Israel,
for I myself will help you,’ declares the LORD,
your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel”. (Isaiah 41:8-10; 13-14)

For this purpose, He raised up Cyrus:

“This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:

‘For your sake I will send to Babylon
and bring down as fugitives all the Babylonians,
in the ships in which they took pride.

I am the LORD, your Holy One,

Israel’s Creator, your King’”. (Isaiah 43:14-15)

In Isaiah 44:28, God even calls Cyrus His ‘shepherd’, who will accomplish everything that He wants by rebuilding Jerusalem, and by laying the foundations of the temple. And in Isaiah 45, where the Lord calls Cyrus His ‘anointed’, He, Himself, tells Cyrus for what purpose He has called him:

“For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen,

I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honour,
though you do not acknowledge me.

I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.

I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting
men may know there is none besides me.

I am the LORD, and there is no other.

I form the light and create darkness,

I bring prosperity and create disaster;

I, the LORD, do all these things”. (Isaiah 45:4-7)

The Persian king Cyrus, a Gentile, was introduced in behalf of the deliverance of the chosen people, and for the world to know that there is only one God, Yahweh. The beginning of the Persian kingdom, which ushered in the people’s deliverance out of exile, merged seamlessly with the fulfilment of the word of the Lord, as spoken by Jeremiah (2 Chronicles 36:21). The last verses of 2 Chronicles 36 and the first ones of the book of Ezra announce:

“In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfil the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: ‘This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you—may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem’” (Ezra 1:1-3).

God had given Cyrus all the kingdoms of the earth. His reign also spanned the territories to which the first exiles had been taken in 722 B.C. In principle, the ‘release’ from slavery in exile did not only concern Judah, but the entire nation of Israel. The amnesty was universal.

This story of exile and restoration also contains a warning and an encouragement for us: The true exodus out of the worldwide exile will not be determined by people. Mankind will one day witness how in the Messianic future, similarly in a crisis situation, the Gentile world will—in judgment as well as in mercy—be involved in the great restoration and the return of the Jewish people, and, related to that, in the breakthrough of the kingdom of God among all the nations.

“And the glory of the LORD will be revealed,
and all mankind together will see it.

For the mouth of the LORD has spoken”. (Isaiah 40:5)

96 Marion Th. Kunstenaar: “Aartsmoeders”, (red. Bettine Siertsema), page 63, Kok, Kampen

97 This matter has been fully discussed in the third volume of the Shofar series: “Joseph’s Cup”

98 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. B. Maarsing: “De prediking van het Oude Testament, Leviticus, page 232, G.F. Callenbach bv, Nijkerk, 1974
“Dit vers doet in verband met de achtergrond van het jobeljaar drie belangrijke uitspraken: 1. Wat het land betreft, het mag niet onherroepelijk verkocht worden. Altijd moet de mogelijkheid open blijven dat de verkope ie het wordt toevertrouwd is een zaak waarover Hij beslist. 3. De status van de Israelieten is te vergelijken met die van Abraham blijkens Gen.23:4, waar de aartsvader tegen de Hethieten zegt: ‘een ger en tosab ben ik bij u’, waarmee hij uitspreekt hoezeer hij van hun goedgunstigheid afhankelijk is. Op het land dat JHWH aan zijn volk heeft gegeven, zijn de Israelieten niet meer dan gerim en tosabim, geheel aangewezen op en afhankelijk van zijn barmhartigheid.”

99 Dr. K.H. Miskotte: “Het gewone leven”, page 354, (Verzameld werk, deel 10), J.H. Kok, Kampen, 1984

100 Gerhard Kittel: “Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament”, pages 232,233, W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart, 1964

101 Translated from Dutch –
Dr. W.A.M. Beuken: “De prediking van het Oude Testament, Jesaja, deel 11 A”, page 68, Callenbach B.V., Nijkerk, 1986
“Hij heeft een begin gemaakt met de weerlegging van Israëls aanklacht dat zijn rechtszaak Hem niet zou raken (40:27), door een rechtsgeding met de volken aan te gaan en hen tot zwijgen te brengen (vs. 1). Kores’ snelle zegetocht (vs. 2) kan het werk van niemand anders zijn dan van Hem die zoals vanouds ook nu zijn naam yhwh waarmaakt: Hij is met het jongste geslacht van Israël (vs. 4). Waar Hij tegen de volken aanspraak op laat gelden, is tevens, zo niet meer nog, voor zijn volk een nieuwe openbaring van zijn onveranderlijke aard en daarmee een verzekering van bijstand. Ook de beschrijving hoe dwaas de volken reageren op Kores’ overwinningen bevat een boodschap voor Israël. Zij zoeken in paniek (vs. 5) vaste grond bij elkaar (vs. 6) en praten elkaar hun zelfgemaakte goden aan (vs.7). Door hun herkomst spottend in het licht te stellen onttroont God zijn onrechtmatige mededingers en bereidt Hij voor Israël de weg naar een leven van hoop, want alleen wie YHWH niet achter de huidige gebeurtenissen ziet, heeft reden tot angst.”

7. THE FULNESS OF THE GENTILES

The decisive moments

1. The fulness of the time:

“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” (Galatians 4:4-5 [NKJV]).

2. The fulness of the Gentiles:

“Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24).

3. The fulness of the times:

“… having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, …” (Ephesians 1:9-11 [NKJV]).

These three ‘fulnesses’ refer to the decisive moments when God profoundly intervenes in the reality of the history of Israel as well as that of the nations. These are the ‘καιροι’ (kairoi), the special moments of the Father’s intervention. The word ‘fulness’ certainly contains something of a historical limitation.

The ‘fulness of time’, when God sent His Son, refers to the fulfilment of God’s original promise of redemption in Genesis 3:15, in which He promises that His Son will crush Satan’s head.

Regarding the concept ‘fulness of the Gentiles’, there are various interpretations. Some commentators interpret this to have a quantitive meaning: ‘the full number’ or ‘a closed quantity’ of chosen people. But this interpretation does not indicate a fulness of time.

When something promised by God is not yet fulfilled, we are confronted with a ‘void’. When this ‘void’ is filled up through an act of God, such as for instance the fulfilment of God’s original promise in Gen. 3:15, Scripture speaks of a fulness. Against this background, Luke 21:24 should be interpreted, where Jesus speaks of the fulfilment of the times of the Gentiles. In this verse, Jesus is drawing a line across the field of the future towards the moment in which God, according to His sovereign plan, will do with the Gentile world what He had already indicated to Moses. Literally, God had said:

“They made me jealous by what is no god
and angered me with their worthless idols.

I will make them envious by those who are not a people;

I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.” (Deuteronomy 32:21)

It is as if God wanted to say: If you, Israel, with whom I have concluded a marriage covenant, are running after others, and with that provoke Me (as your husband) to jealousy; if you are turning to idols, the support and the practices of the Gentiles, then in turn, I also will go to the Gentiles in order to make you envious. And what is shameful adultery for you, Israel (see among others Ezekiel 23 and Hosea 2), is for Me the most profound revelation of faithfulness, for it still concerns your salvation: you will remain loved on account of the patriarchs. At the same time, My salvation will reach the ends of the EARTH, for that is its purpose—according to what I promised Abraham.

In his argument concerning Israel’s fall and the salvation of the Gentiles in Romans 11, Paul connects this promise to the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ (Romans 11:11).

In this way, the Jewish people will become envious that He, in whom we, through grace, have received life, appears to be none other than the God of their fathers, Yahweh, the One who performed the mighty signs of His glory in giving the law and in prophecy, in miracles and deliverances in ancient Israel.

That is why we are not allowed to reduce this promise to a general calling in relation to Israel, valid for all times. This general calling does indeed exist; however, in Romans 11, the apostle is focussing on a concrete point in the future. When he speaks to the Gentiles about the importance of his ministry in terms like: “…in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them” (Romans 11:13-14), he knows at the same time that, when the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ has come in, all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:25-26 [NKJV]). It will be a concrete act of salvation by God, at a concrete point in time, for the purpose of the redemption of His people. The task of the gentile world to provoke Israel to jealousy will be completed when Israel is saved, as was mentioned by Paul.

This exegesis dovetails harmoniously with Jesus’ words in Luke 21:24b: “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This does not refer to the return of the Lord, as is sometimes believed. Here, the Saviour intends to say that, when the dispensation in which particularly the Gentiles were partakers of eternal salvation comes to an end, Jerusalem’s subjugation will also cease, because then, by accepting their Messiah, a new era will also begin for Israel.

From the discussion of the disciples with the Resurrected Lord just before His ascension and accession to the throne, we may deduce that our earthly history will still be the platform on which great events in connection with Israel will take place. For when the disciples ask Him: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” His answer is not a straight ‘no’, but it has a positive thrust: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:6-8).

We have by far not paid enough attention to the words: “…and you will be my witnesses...”, which are part of the Master’s reply to the disciples’ question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Moreover, we can observe a fixed order in God’s ways of dealing with the world throughout history. It is becoming ever so obvious that the original promise of Genesis 3:15 is the axiom of world history. In all the vicissitudes of history, in the fluctuations of events, Satan will never and nowhere succeed in nullifying this ‘constitution’. Time and again, there are moments in which he seems to succeed, and these are at the same time the principal moments in the struggle between the realm of light and the realm of darkness. That is where we find the punctuation marks, the commas, and the exclamation marks, in the long ‘sentence’ of history. These principal moments appear to be the crisis- and turning points, the times of fulfilment, the fulnesses. These spiritual dates are the moments when Satan becomes official, namely at the decrees, proclamations, installations, and constitutions, which in essence aim at the destruction of the ‘woman’s seed’, and intend to deify man. At such points in time, the Almighty intervened and put Satan back within his boundaries, which was a living proof of the veracity of God’s original promise. God’s interventions always took place at the low points, as for example at the time of the Flood, and when Moses was saved in the papyrus basket.

Another striking example is found in the story of Ahab. Almost six centuries had passed since Joshua’s oath:

“Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho:

“At the cost of his firstborn son will he lay its foundations;
at the cost of his youngest will he set up its gates.” (Joshua 6:26)

However, Ahab and Jezebel had become indifferent to the fact that the land had been given to them by God. A city without walls was a nuisance for a king, who, along with his queen, worshipped Baal and had set up a sacred pole for this idol, thus provoking the Lord to anger more than all the kings of Israel who had reigned before him. Ahab was only interested in military power, and an open fortress did not fit that picture. Therefore, he rebuilt Jericho. And, although it meant nothing anymore to Ahab and Jezebel, after six centuries, Joshua’s word was fulfilled (1 Kings 16:29-34). [102]

Today we see the same picture. The words that Jesus spoke two thousand years ago and His death for the forgiveness of the sins of the world no longer seem to inspire us. [103] We hear statements like the following:

“Paul and John, Mark and Matthew, and all those other theologians of the first generation faced a task which was certainly not simple, but can be said to have been extremely exciting. They sensed that the lives had been fundamentally changed. They looked with new eyes on the world around them and at their fellow men and women; they also looked with new eyes at the present and the future; and they dared to suppose that they now also lived in another relationship with God (...)

In order to give form and content to these new experiences, hesitantly and cautiously they used words and concepts the scope of which presumably they themselves did not always completely realise: forgiveness of sins, grace, peace, salvation, new creation, justified by faith, freedom, overcoming death, dying and rising to new life, reconciled with God and with their fellow men and women.

We live many centuries later. The ‘youthful’ experiences of the first generation of Christians do not always speak to us directly. Over the course of the centuries splendid theological systems have been developed, but they no longer satisfy us today.” [104]

... as if God’s words are subject to wear and tear, or to our sense of durability!!!

Joshua pronounced a curse over any attempt at rebuilding the city of Jericho, so the ruins might be a lasting evidence of the fact that the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan was God’s gift of grace.

Exactly the same is true for the eternally-valid words of Jesus, the great Joshua, when He says: “Look, your house is left to you desolate (…) until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’” (Matthew 23:38-39). With these words, He proclaims that Jerusalem’s desolation will remain effective until His Name and work are acknowledged.

Today we find ourselves spiritually in a situation similar to that in the days of Ahab and Jezebel: a time in which syncretism flourishes, and now, too, the mixture of faith and unbelief produces a false synthesis, destruction and degradation of society. When churches allow themselves to give a legitimate place to those who absolutely deny the fundamental truths of the gospel—whether they are regular church members or clergy—for the sake of maintaining the unity of the church, this can only be called striving for a false synthesis. In this way of ‘halting between two opinions’, no message can be heard in the direction of Jerusalem.

This is also the case when, in the same spirit and trend, a ‘Samen op Weg’ (Together on the Way’) movement is created. The false synthesis between faith and unbelief within the churches in the Netherlands appears to create a frustration with regard to the position concerning the Middle East and an embarrassment and hesitation to take a clear position concerning this issue. [105]

Almost everywhere, there is a lack of obedience to Jesus’ words about exile and return (Matthew 23:38-39). This can partly be attributed to an incorrect interpretation of the concept ‘fulness of the Gentiles’.

The word πλήρωμα (plērōma) does not mean in this context: ‘the complete number of people entering into the kingdom of God at the end of time’—contrary to what many people often presume—but rather, ‘a historic beginning of God’s fulfilling actions in the history of church and world. [106]

In the Scriptures, the concept ‘plērōma’ has several meanings, as e.g. in Colossians 2:10, where Paul applies the concept ‘fulness’ to the spiritual life of the individual believer who is ‘in Christ’: “…you have been given fulness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.” Here, the word ‘pléroó’ means ‘to be or make complete’ or to ‘to bring to perfection’. In Ephesians 4:10, “…in order to fill the whole universe” means more precisely ‘to put into effect’, ‘to realise’. In Romans 11:12, the terms ‘plērōma’ and ‘hēttēma’ (ἥττημα) represent contrasting concepts:

“But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss (hēttēma) means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fulness (plērōma) bring!” (NIV)

“Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?” (KJV)

The NIV
‘loss’ as well as the KJV
‘diminishing’ do not fully do justice to the word ‘hēttēma’. Literally the word means ‘defeat’.

If we now compare in Romans 11 the verses 12 and 15, we see that the words ‘fall’ in verse 12 and ‘rejection’ in verse 15 are correlative concepts; likewise, ‘fulness’ in verse 12 and ‘acceptance’ in verse 15. ‘Fulness’ is the opposite of ‘fall’, as ‘acceptance’ is the opposite of ‘rejection’. The same is true for ‘broken off’ and ‘grafted in’ in the verses 17-24.

The concept ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ in Romans 11:25 (NKJV) and ‘fulness of the Jewish people’ in Romans 11:12, therefore, does not just mean ‘the full number’ or the ‘fulness of the Spirit’, even though God’s fulfilling acts will certainly result in the fulness of the Spirit.

It was through the Holy Spirit that, when Jesus was presented in the temple, Simeon spoke the words: “This child is destined to cause the ‘falling’ and ‘rising’ of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against” (Luke 2:34). With these prophetic words, he expressed how God intervenes in history through the coming of the Messiah.

The ‘fulness of the Gentiles’ in conjunction with the ‘fulness of the Jewish people’ will be an intervention of God in world history which will mark the end of His ‘silence’.

The silence broken

The word ‘silence’ in the Scriptures often means more than just ‘not speaking’. In Joshua 10:12, we read:

“O sun, stand still over Gibeon,

O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

Literally in Hebrew, it says: “Sun and Moon be silent!” The word dom, derived from ‘damam’ is also used elsewhere in Scripture, e.g. in Psalm 37:7 and 62:5, in Jeremiah 47:6 and in Lamentations 3:28. When it doesn’t concern God’s saving actions, it is not always the word ‘damam’ which is used. In Isaiah 62:1, 64:12, and 65:6, the word chashah is used, which means among others ‘doing nothing’, and in Zephaniah 3:17, where the prophet says: “He will be quiet in His love” (NASB), the word used is charash, which can mean ‘be silent, keep quiet’ as well as ‘playing deaf’. In the context of this verse, it is evident that ‘be quiet in His love’ means that God will call a halt to the judgments.

In spite of the fact that in Hebrew, different words are used for ‘being silent’, they all have something in common, especially when it concerns ‘God’s silence’, for it contrasts with ‘God’s actions’ in fulfilling His promises.

In this sense, God’s word came in 1948:

“If I remain silent for two days, do you think, O man, that a day of fulfilment for My redeemed ones will never dawn?”

These words, too, show the contrast between ‘God’s silence’ and, at the dawn of the third day of God, ‘God’s speaking’ in redemption. ‘Silence’ in contrast to the fulfilment of a divine promise—and this especially concerning the message about the situation of, and the relationship between Christianity in general and the Jewish people as a whole. [107]

There is no need to think that there is no divine plan and that mankind is only caught in a silent universe. Jesus lives and executes, at God’s right hand, the will of the Most High. It does not mean that God was inactive for two thousand years either. There certainly was divine guidance and deliverance, with respect to the Jewish people as well as in His church in the Gentile-Christian world. We may remember, for instance, the many missionaries, who, in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances preached the gospel, and still do. Many of them can testify of God’s guidance in their work and of miraculous answers to prayer. But, in the two days of God that have passed since the fulness of time, there has been no significant turn in the destiny of the nations through the fulness of the Gentiles and the conversion of Israel. We are expecting this event at the dawn of the third day of God. It will be a ‘day of fulfilment’ for His redeemed ones.

In Romans 11:25-26, Paul speaks about the ‘fulness of the Gentiles’, and in conjunction with that, the fact that all Israel ‘will be saved’. Paul does not just put these two categories side by side as two separate statements about salvation. Rather, there will be a cause-consequence relation between the coming of the fulness of the Gentiles and Israel’s conversion. The fulness of the Gentiles, therefore, entails ‘God speaking’, and thus breaking the silence. A mystery is revealed. This is why Paul speaks in veiled language about a ‘mystery’. There is a mystery relating to Israel, and God will reveal this mystery by speaking, and bringing about the fulness of the Gentiles —after two thousand years of ‘silence’. A turn in Israel’s destiny will come about through a turn in the destiny of the nations. In a very special way, His Word will come to pass. His words have always been redeeming and fulfilling deeds, and they will bring about a totally new situation which nobody has counted on.

This twofold fulfilment of God’s promises for the Gentile world and Israel also sheds new light on eschatological issues concerning the millennium. A pre-Sabbath for the nations will come about. When the moment has come at which the turning point in the Christian world has taken place and has produced the unity which Jesus alluded to in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:21) and Israel has come to their Messianic destiny of being a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), then the spiritual battle for the kingdom of God will on the one hand lead to the binding of Satan and his total defeat, but on the other hand—before he is bound—it will cause an enormous opposition by infernal, dark powers. This is what the Apocalypse refers to in chapters 6, 10 and 20.

The one thousand years

“When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’ Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed” (Revelation 6:9-11).

“I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4-6).

It is not surprising that the exegesis of Revelation 20, where mention is made of a thousand years, causes confusion. This verse raises questions, such as: How is it possible that the martyrs of the final phase of time on earth will reign with Christ as kings for a thousand years? How is this possible since, chronologically, this period of one thousand years will precede the great apostasy? These seem to be contradictory. [108]

The literary style of the Apocalypse may shed light on this issue. This style proceeds along the following lines: First, world history in its entirety is indicated by the ‘seven seals’; after that, the specifics are mentioned in the form of ‘trumpets’.

Revelation 6 gives the main line of world history, in which at ‘the fifth seal’, a beginning is made of the description of the last round. However, Revelation 20 falls under the specifics of the trumpets.

So there are two phases in the history of the martyrs. First, the Gentile-Christian Church will have to come to her destiny in the fulness of the Gentiles, and then Israel’s conversion will follow. In this way, the Church out of Jews and Gentiles, brought to unity, will engage in world mission. This world mission, however, will also imply martyrdom, as is referred to in Revelation 20:4, “…the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.”

On this mission of the one Church out of Jews and Gentiles, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ Himself as the chief corner stone, a ‘pre-Sabbath’ will be established, which, because of its length of time, may be a prelude and foreshadowing of the eternal Sabbath. David sings in his song at the dedication of the temple: “For his anger lasts only ‘a moment’, but his favour lasts ‘a lifetime’” (Psalm 30:5).

But when, for the restoration and the building of the one altar of the Lord, the blood of martyrs will have been shed, then it is also conceivable that the souls of those who were involved in this world mission and who were killed because of the word of God and their testimony will call out: “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” (Revelation 6:10).

At this question, they will receive the divine affirmation of their martyrdom: they will reign as priests with Christ (each one of them will receive a white robe), but they will have to wait a little longer, until the end of the pre-Sabbath and also the suffering of their fellow servants and brothers in the phase of the great apostasy has come to an end, i.e. until to them also, God’s counsel has been fulfilled (Revelation 6:11).

In the original Greek text, we read here ‘πληρωθῶσιν’ (plērōthōsin), which is a conjugated form of the verb ‘pléroó’. Considering the context, it is plausible that this also means an ‘intervention by God’ for redemption. It is also possible that it refers to ‘the full number’, as translated in the NIV. It is remarkable that the KJV does not choose this translation, but uses the term ‘be fulfilled’. The degree of the sufferings is most likely also implied in these words in Revelation 6:11.

The souls under the altar are, as it were, calling out to God to take action: How long will it take before you avenge our blood? In other words: How long does your silence last with respect to the revenge for our martyrdom? God’s answer is that they should wait a little longer, until also their fellow servants and brothers would be ‘fulfilled’, i.e., those who would be killed like they had been killed. This implies that the end times will contain two phases of martyrdom.

The first phase is the period in which the great world mission by a unified Church out of Jews and Gentiles will take place, which will result in the dawning of the pre-Sabbath. This is a mission which will also require martyrs’ blood.

The second phase is the period of the last round, in which the great apostasy will take place. This period, too, will not come to an end without the shedding of blood of true believers.

The ‘souls under the altar’, who, in the ‘general overview’ of world history in Revelation 6, are calling out for revenge for their blood are the same as “…the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God” in the ‘detailed specification’ in Revelation 20. These are the martyrs who will fall during the first phase, and they are, as it were, representative for the entire Church of the martyrs of all times, starting with Abel.

The martyrs that will fall in the second phase are those about whom God speaks in the general overview in Revelation 6:11, in His answer to ‘the souls under the altar’, i.e. “their fellow servants and their brothers’, to whom God’s counsel must be fulfilled first, and “who were to be killed as they had been.” When this phase of martyrdom has ended, the conclusion of earthly time and the Lord’s return will take place in the ‘fulness of times’.

In Chiliastic circles, people have tried to solve the problem of this passage by introducing a construction of a twofold return of Christ. In the book “Wegwijs in religieus en beschouwelijk Nederland” (“Knowing your way around religious and contemplative Holland”), this teaching is spelled out in the following manner:

“Followers of chiliasm assume that Christ will first come back to raise the deceased believers from the dead. The believers who are still alive will then be changed in the twinkling of an eye. After Satan is ‘bound’, the so-called millennium will begin. When after this, Satan is once again released, Christ will return a second time in order to definitively judge the ‘living and the dead’.” [109]

This assumption goes against Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:29-30:

“Immediately after the distress of those days

‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.”

These words of Jesus are in agreement with the continuation of the general overview of world history in Revelation 6: 12-17:

“I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black little sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late drops from a fig-tree when shaken by wind. The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?’”

Contrary to what chiliasm teaches, Jesus will not return twice, but there are indeed two phases in the martyrdom of His redeemed.

This also agrees with John’s vision of the beast coming out of the sea. In Revelation 13:3-4, we read that the fatal wound of this beast would be healed, and that the whole world would worship the beast and the dragon, who had given authority to the beast. The beast from the sea had already been active in an atrocious way, before he had received the fatal wound .

The beast received his fatal wound through a twofold act of fulfilment by God: He brought about ‘the fulness of the Gentiles’ and ‘the fulness of Israel’. The fact that his fatal wound eventually healed, and he received authority once again and “was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies” (Revelation 13:5), indicates that there are two phases of time in which the beast can do his blasphemous work, and an intervening period, in which he is made powerless.

This also brings to light that, both before the beginning of the pre-Sabbath as well as before the coming of the eternal Sabbath at the end of the ages, the opposition against this will be unprecedented, and that the true believers will experience terrible repression and persecution (Revelation 6:9; 20:4 and 6:11).

But however intense the satanic opposition may be, the Apocalypse also states how in the end, he will be defeated:

“They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.” (Revelation 12:11)

When—continuing on from the twofold story of the martyrs—in Revelation 20, John says: “This is the first resurrection”, it is certainly possible to interpret this as a spiritual resurrection. Scripture itself leads us to this interpretation. Considering for example Ezekiel 37, we see how God typifies the people’s vanished hopes and their feeling of having been cut off as ‘dry bones’, whereas He calls the lifting of their exile a ‘coming up out of their graves’. This, of course, does not mean that, in their exile, the people would literally rise from their graves.

In the New Testament, Paul says with respect to the fulness of Israel: “…what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (Romans 11:15). And in Revelation 3:1, John is told to write to the angel of the church in Sardis: “I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.”

The metaphor of ‘death’ and ‘life’ is not foreign to the Scriptures. However, when it concerns the specifics of these terms in the historic course of events in the final phase, possibly the two witnesses, mentioned in Revelation 11:3, may cast more light upon them.

This also counts for the deeper explanation about ‘the beast out of the sea’ and the ‘beast out of the earth’, mentioned in Revelation 13.

For the time being, we cannot go any further than to establish that the fulness of the Gentiles and the fulness of Israel, which together will result in the ‘restoration of everything’ and usher in the times of refreshing from the Lord (Acts 3:19-21) in which the earth will be full of the ‘knowledge’, i.e. ‘worship’ of the Lord (Isaiah 11:9), will also get their absolute counterpart in the ‘great apostasy’ in the last round of history. With this purpose, Satan—as he has done time and again in the history of salvation—will endeavour to imitate God by having his own ‘ambassador’, the Antichrist, appear on the earthly scene and to imitate a kind of ‘resurrection’ in healing the fatal wound of the beast, and by giving him authority over every tribe, people, language and nation, so that all the inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast, all whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world (Revelation 13:7-8).

A dark hour will come for God’s people when Satan summons all powers of hell and the entire world bows down before the beast.

But the Antichrist does not have the final word.

Scripture promises in 2 Thessalonians 2:8:

“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendour of HIS COMING.”

102 More is written about the subject of ‘Hiel’s way of building’ in ‘Competition of the altars’, pp 85-116, and in Shofar series volume 1, pp 58-59

103 Dr. C.J. den Heijer: “Jesus and the doctrine of the atonement: biblical notes on a controversial topic”, page 132-133, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1998, Translation © John Bowden. Original title: “Verzoening – bijbelse notities bij een omstreden thema”, Kok, Kampen, 1997

104 Idem, pp 134-135

105 The Daily TROUW: “Raad van Kerken talmt met Israël-standpunt”, 21 December 2000, page 6

106 See: Shofar series volume 3, pp 150-154

107 The full contents of the direct messages have been published earlier in “Een Pascha voor Jahwe” (1965) and in “My Vengeance is Merciful” (1971), as well as in the Introduction to the Shofar series “A Call to the Church and to Israel” (2002).

108 See: Shofar series, volume 2, pp 163-167

109 Translated from Dutch –
Drs. E.G. Hoekstra en M.H. Ipenburg: “Wegwijs in religieus en beschouwelijk Nederland”, Page 258, Kok, Kampen, 1995
“Aanhangers van het chiliasme nemen aan dat Christus eerst zal terugkeren om de gestorven gelovigen te doen opstaan uit de dood. De nog levende gelovigen zullen in één ogenblik veranderd worden. Nadat de satan ‘gebonden zal zijn’, begint het zogenaamde duizendjarig vrederijk. Als daarna de satan weer ontbonden is, komt Christus voor de tweede keer weder om definitief te oordelen over ‘de levenden en de doden’.”

POSTSCRIPT

When the manuscript of this book was finished in January 2001, the author died rather unexpectedly at the age of 86. This happened in the period when volume 4 of the Shofar series, “The Fulness of the Gentiles”, was being prepared for publication. He himself was still able to make the final corrections in the Dutch version of this book.

We have witnessed how, even in the last days of his life, he gave himself wholeheartedly and worked with great effort on his spiritual testament.

Inspired by God and with great skill, he wrote down his message in these first four volumes of the Shofar series. The remaining three volumes which he had intended to write were meant to be a further elaboration of the first four volumes.

Rev. Leenhouts had already done preliminary studies and collected the necessary materials for the other three volumes. There remains a possibility that, on the basis of this material and according to the directions indicated by the author, more publications will appear in the future under the responsibility of the publisher, though not as part of this Shofar series.

The publisher

Table of Contents

Preface

Prologue

1. Decline and restoration of the kingdom

2. Decline and restoration of the priesthood

3. The initiative of the Philistines

4. David’s plan to build the temple

5. The main significance of the ark

6. The consistent pattern of God’s intervention

7. The fulness of the Gentiles

Postscript