“I was very thankful to have received the first issue… The need for a publication of just this variety had occurred to me in the past year…

No doubt some differences of viewpoint will arise with respect to certain of the interpretations put forward in your newsletter … In particular I have been impressed with the format for discussion provided by scientific journals such as Science and Nature. In these journals an article that has created some controversy may be the subject of a letter to the editor (of limited length) . …it does permit a fuller discussion of some of the points raised. The author of the original article is then permitted to comment on the points brought out in the letter to the editor, and the subject is (usually) dropped. I would suggest your adopting a similar approach or providing for some sort of minimal system of commentary and dialogue.

As an example, the article on the coup in Turkey did not appeal to me because I prefer to think of the groups referred to in Ezekiel as denoting families or races, and not geographical locations. The racial group that dominates Turkey today are the most recent of newcomers to Asia Minor, having arrived from Central Asia approximately 600 years ago…”

We appreciate the suggestion, and this issue provides an opportunity for using it. Concerning Ezekiel 38, 39, the problem we have with a purely racial interpretation is exampled by Gomer. McClintock and Strong’s article under “Gomer” says “… there can be little reasonable doubt that both the name and the people are to be recognized by the Cimbri of the north of Europe, described by the classical writers sometimes as a German, sometimes as a Celtic race. The preponderance of authority is in favor of the latter… ,” This puts much of Ireland, Scotland, and northwestern Europe allied with Gog (Russia) against Israel if interpreted ethnically. Since this conclusion does not match current or anticipated political alignments, we think this procedure of interpretation is not the intended one.

Concerning Togarmah McC&S says: “The Jews say that by Togarmah… we are to understand the Turks… however, as a geographical term [Togarmah] is connected with Armenia…. ” (Vol. 10, pg. 451) Present-day Turkey seems to be indicated in either event. This conclusion is favored also by recently published studies of other Christian groups. Nevertheless, we admit to an uncertainty.

“Was interested in the Dragon article in your Nov. 1980 issue. Allow me to suggest a modification of the view so as to resolve a problem:

• The four attributes of the enemy are identical in Rev 12:9 and 20:2. Both verses specifically identify the dragon with the great enemy.
• The dragon became the ensign of Imperial Rome (but not before the 3rd Century), as shown below. Also shown is a coin of Constantine, showing the way many Christians viewed the fall of heathen Rome in the light of Rev 12:9.

The two points are reconcilable. Consider God’s four attributes, which are given in Ps 89:14, and again symbolized as four living ones in Ez 1:5-10 and Rev 4:6-8. These are counterfeited by the four deathly attributes of the Adversary:

Each symbol is used carefully in Revelation. Thus the dragon signifies Satan in his role as head of civil and economic power – especially Roman power.”

 

[The difference: the article said the dragon was “primarily the civil power as a tool of the adversary,” while this letter suggests “Satan in his role as head of civil and economic power.”- BT]

The author remarks that in either case action against the “dragon” is evidence by disruption in civil governments.

ON JESUS’ BIRTH AND THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM

3 brethren have brought to our attention recent newspaper articles in Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego indicating a growing acceptance of the revised dating of Christ’s birth. We quote from The Fresno Bee, Saturday, Dec. 13,1980, article titled “New ‘star’ research revises birth date of Jesus Christ.”

“This year, Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles presents a new Christmas Star program based on increasingly accepted research by a Pasadena scholar who argues that Jesus was born in 3 or 2 BC – not 7 or 6 BC … At least 10 other planetariums in the United States, Germany and Greece also are revising their shows this Christmas season to correspond with the dating theory of Ernest Martin, director of the Foundation for Biblical Research. Scores of others are considering a  shift. ‘There seems to be everything to be said for your case, and very little left to stand against it,’ Prof. Richard Reece of the University of London’s Institute of Archaeology said to Martin recently… The heart of the matter, as Martin sees it, is evidence that Herod actually died in 1 BC rather than in 4 BC as commonly believed… ”

ON “THE IRONY OF ‘DESOLATION’ IN THE GOSPEL AGE COVENANTS”

(Each number implies a separate correspondent.)

1. “Would dissent . . . from saying both covenants were operational during the Gospel Age. Would personally allow only the penalty phase of the Law.”
2. “The article seems to be saying that the Law Covenant represented by Hagar, and the Grace or Faith Covenant represented by Sarah are both ‘operable’ during the Gospel Age. I do not think this is Scriptural. ‘Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances . . . nailing it to his cross.’ (Col. 3:14) Anything nailed to the cross, figuratively is crucified, put to death. Rom. 10:4, ‘Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.’ I will agree that in a sense we could correctly say that the Law Covenant is still binding on those who do not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, as the promised Messiah, as the Redeemer, etc., and therefore a Jew might consider himself still obligated to the keeping of the Mosaic Law. But, he would be harboring an erroneous view. Its antitypical fulfillment began with Jesus. The article’s reference to, shall I call it a paranomasia as in Isa. 7, Sinai Mountain, ‘Arabah,’ is interesting, but in my opinion misapplied.”
3. “Would it be better to say that two covenants were then at issue, not necessarily options for the Gospel Age?
4. Inasmuch as the life principle of Jesus was a perfect transferred life, I find it difficult to say ‘The Law produced life for… the man Jesus.’ Does it state the matter satisfactorily to say that the Law proved Jesus to be a perfect man? The expression seems the outgrowth of the concept that there was only one offspring from the Hagar Covenant. Did not Ishmael, the offspring of Hagar, represent the natural seed of Abraham which was producing under the Law Covenant for the hundreds of years before the Sarah Covenant’s barrenness ceased? Isa. 50:1 seems to be speaking of the children of Hagar, and the taking away of their mother… thus there must have been imperfect children from the Law Covenant who transgressed. Gal. 4:29, 30
5. I understand ‘devoted to Sin’ as a definition of ‘Sinai’ to mean the moon or moon-god Sin, rather than our English  word for M&S, ‘Sinai,’ pa. 767, ‘… perhaps [if Shemtic] thorny, … possibly [if Egyptian or Zabian] devoted to Sin, i.e., the moon. ‘Pg. 768, ‘…sacred to the God of the moon. ‘ Unger Bible Dictionary: ‘… It may…,, take its name from the moon got Sin, whose cult had made its way into Arabia.’ “

We have heard from the author, and summarize his responses:

1, 2) The author is glad to avoid the expression “two covenants are operable” to avoid misunderstanding, but does point to the qualifying expression of the article “… in some form.” He agrees (as all do) that God no longer offers blessings through the Law Covenant. His thought is that it exists by virtue of Israel holding to it, just as Paul referred to Israel in his day as still “under the law.” (1 Cor. 9:20) The allegory recognizes this, as Hagar attended Ishmael in the wilderness. He sees that Israelites who have no faith in Christ are morally obligated to the Law until they see release under the New Covenant.

3) That is acceptable. “Option” was used only from the perspective of the Jew who was perplexed on the subject.

4) The editor is sympathetic with the correspondent’s com meet. The author recognizes that Ishmael is used to repre. sent natural Israel, and that the Law did have disobedient children. But he is still inclined to the explanation of Isa. 54:1 as contained in the article.

5) The author appreciates the correction.

 

We urge that the presentations of this journal be tried thoughtfully by all readers. “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.” We do not necessarily endorse every expression of contributed articles appearing herein. Information on the authorship of any article is freely supplied on request.

Download PDF