Whose kingdom will be established in 2 Samuel 7:12-13?                             By Jack Kettler

“And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also, the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee a house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever.” (2 Samuel 7:11-13) (underlining emphasis mine)

A New Testament reference:

“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” (Luke 1:32)

It is noteworthy that Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges connects Luke 1:32 with 2 Samuel 7:12:

“32. shall be called] i. e. shall be. The best comment on this verse is furnished by the passages of Scripture in which we find the same prophecy (Micah 5:4; 2 Samuel 7:12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 16:5; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 34:24; Hosea 3:5; Psalm 132:11) and its fulfilment (Php 2:9-11; Revelation 22:16). The throne of his father David] according to Psalm 132:11.” (1)

God makes a covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7:11-13. What is a covenant?

The Davidic covenant is where God promises that a descendant of David will reign on Israel’s throne over the people of God forever.

Francis Turretin was a professor of theology at Geneva during the Reformation. Turretin explains in more depth what a covenant is:

“A covenant denotes the agreement of God with man by which God promises his goods (and especially eternal life to him), and by man, in turn, duty and worship are engaged…This is called two‐sided and mutual because it consists of a mutual obligation of the contracting parties: a promise on the part of God and stipulation of the condition on the part of man.” (2)

Herman Witsius was a Dutch theologian, pastor, and a leading professor of the seventeenth century. He concurs with Turretin:

“A covenant of God with man is an agreement between God, about the way of obtaining consummate happiness; including a commination of eternal destruction, with which the contemner of the happiness, offered in that way, is to be punished.” (3)

In summary, God’s Covenant with David or The Davidic Covenant:

The Davidic covenant is recorded in 2 Samuel 7:8-16. The Lord declares that he will build a house and preserve David’s lineage by establishing His kingdom and throne forever. The prophets, during Israel’s exile, reminded the people of the restoration under a Davidic king who would bring peace and justice. For one example, see (Ezekiel 37:24-28).

Luke 1:32 identifies David’s greater son as the Lord Jesus Christ.

To answer the title question about who will fulfill this promise, David’s greater son will accomplish this:

“And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom forever.” (2 Samuel 7:12-13)

In conclusion, from the Westminster Confession on the Covenants:

“Chapter VII. Of God’s Covenant with Man”

“I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant, (Isa 40:13-17; Job 9:32-33; 1Sa 2:25; Psalm 113:5-6; Psalm 100:2-3; Job 22:2-3; Job 35:7-8; Luke 17:10; Act 17:24-25).”

“II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, (Gal 3:12); wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, (Rom 10:5; Rom 5:12-20); upon condition of perfect and personal obedience, (Gen 2:17; Gal 3:10).”

“III. Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, (Gal 3:21; Rom 8:3; Rom 3:20-21; Gen 3:15; Isa 42:6); commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, (Mar 16:15-16; John 3:16; Rom 10:6, 9; Gal 3:11); and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe, (Ezekiel 36:26-27; John 6:44-45).”

“IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed, (Hebrews 9:15-17; Hebrews 7:22; Luke 22:20; 1Co 11:25).”

“V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel, (2Co 3:6-9): under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, (Hebrews 8-10; Rom 4:11; Col 2:11-12; 1Co 5:7); which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, (1Co 10:1-4; Hebrews 11:13; John 8:56); by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old Testament, (Gal 3:7-9, 14).”

“VI. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, (Col 2:17); was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, (Mat 28:19-20; 1Co 11:23-25): which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, (Hebrews 12:22-27; Jerimiah 31:33-34); to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles, (Mat 28:19; Ephesians 2:15-19); and is called the new Testament, (Luke 22:20). There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations, (Gal 3:14, 16; Act 15:11; Rom 3:21-23, 30; Psalm 32:1; Rom 4:3, 6, 16-17, 23-24; Hebrews 13:8).”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      F. W. Farrar, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Luke, (Cambridge University Press, 1898), e-Sword version.

2.      Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, (Phillipsburg New Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), p.574.

3.      Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Reformation Heritage Books, reprinted 2010), p. 45.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Georgia

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

North Carolina

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts

John Hancock

Maryland

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

New York

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple

Massachusetts

Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire

Matthew Thornton

Primary Source by Richard Henry Lee, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, John Hancock (1776)

---

Additional Text

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee brought what came to be called the Lee Resolution before the Continental Congress. This resolution stated “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states …” Congress debated independence for several days. The Committee of Five — John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson — was given the job of drafting a formal Declaration of Independence. They gave the task of writing the document to Jefferson.

The Declaration contained 3 sections: a general statement of natural rights theory and the purpose of government; a list of grievances against the British King; and the declaration of independence from England. More than 20 years later, the Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution would contain prohibitions against the government to prevent the same forms of tyranny as were listed as grievances. Jefferson’s writing was influenced by George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, as well as by his study of natural rights theory and the writings of John Locke, including Two Treatises of Government. Franklin and Adams edited Jefferson’s draft, and the final document was presented to Congress about two weeks later.

On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to declare independence from England. Congress made several changes to Jefferson’s draft, including removing references condemning slavery. On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was adopted. John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress, signed it that day. The rest of the Congress signed two months later. By affixing their names to the document, the signers courageously pledged to each other their “lives … fortunes … and sacred honor.”

Many consider the Declaration of Independence to be the philosophical foundation of American freedom. It has been quoted by such citizens as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. They have called it a beacon of hope for people everywhere.

---

---

What was the nature of the love between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel?   By Jack Kettler

“And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (1 Samuel 18:1)

Based upon 1 Samuel 18:1, were David and Jonathan homosexuals?

As will be seen, this passage does not teach David or Jonathan to be homosexuals.

Additionally:

David had multiple wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13) and lusted for Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). Additionally, Jonathan was married to a woman, as seen in (2 Samuel 9).

Strong’s Hebrew 157:

“aheb: to love

Original Word: אָהַב

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: aheb

Phonetic Spelling: (aw-hab’)

Definition: to love”

It is impossible to reach a conclusion that David was a homosexual based on Strong’s Lexicon. To do so is viewing the text with prejudice.   

Unencumbered by today’s sexually deviant propaganda, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers explicates: 

“(1) The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David. — We have in this and the following chapters somewhat of a detailed account of David at the Court of Saul. In 1 Samuel 16 this Court life of the future king has been already touched upon, notably in 1Samuel 18:21-23, where the affection of Saul for David was mentioned, where also the appointing of the young shepherd to a post about the king’s person is recorded. But this mention in 1 Samuel 16 considerably anticipated the course of events. In relating the results of this affection of Saul for David, the writer of what we may term the episode treating of the influence of music and poetry passed over, so to speak, the story of several years, in the course of which took place the single combat of David with the Philistine giant, and the victorious campaign in which the young hero took so distinguished a part. The history here takes up the thread of the future king’s life, after the campaigns which immediately followed the discomfiture of the Philistine champion (1Samuel 18:6 and following). 1Samuel 18:1-4 simply relate the beginning of the world-famous friendship between Prince Jonathan and David.”

“The Hebrew is rendered “was knit,” or better, was bound up. This is a strong term, and is used in Genesis 44:30 of Jacob’s love to Benjamin: “seeing that his life is bound up in the lad’s life.” Aristotle, Nicom. ix. 8, has noted that friends are called one soul.”

“Jonathan loved him as his own soul. — As has been before remarked, the character of the princely son of Saul is one of the most beautiful in the Old Testament story. He was the type of a true warrior of those wild, half-barbarous times—among brave men seemingly the bravest—a perfect soldier, whether fighting as a simple man-at-arms or as the general of an army—chivalrous and generous—utterly free from jealousy—a fervid believer in the God of Israel—a devoted and loyal son—a true patriot in the highest sense of the word, who sealed a devoted life by a noble death, dying as he did fighting for his king and his people. The long and steady friendship of Jonathan no doubt had a powerful and enduring influence on the after life of the greatest of the Hebrew sovereigns. The words, the unselfish, beautiful love, and, above all, the splendid example of the ill-fated son of Saul, have no doubt given their colouring to many of the noblest utterances in David’s Psalms and to not a few of the most heroic deeds in David’s life.”

“We read of this friendship as dating from the morrow of the first striking deed of arms performed by David when he slew the giant. It is clear, however, that it was not the personal bravery of the boy hero, or the rare skill he showed in the encounter, which so singularly attracted Prince Jonathan. These things no one would have admired and honoured more than the son of Saul, but it needed more than splendid gallantry and rare skill to attract that great love of which we read. What won Jonathan’s heart was the shepherd boy’s sublime faith, his perfect childlike trust in the “Glorious Arm” of the Lord. Jonathan and David possessed one thing in common—an intense, unswerving belief in the power of Jehovah of Israel to keep and to save all who trusted in Him.”

“The two were typical Israelites, both possessing in a very high degree that intense confidence in the Mighty One of Israel which was the mainspring of the people’s glory and success, and which, in the seemingly interminable days of their punishment and degradation, has been the power which has kept them still together—a people distinct, reserved yet for some mighty destiny in the unknown future.” (1)

Comments:

The above commentary entry is similar to all commentaries of the time period. It would have been unthinkable that the question of David and Jonathan being homosexuals could be supported by this text. 

Jacob’s love for Benjamin is similar to David and Jonathan. For example, Jacob did not send Benjamin with his brethren; “for he said, lest peradventure mischief befall him.” (Genesis 42:4)

Those individuals using 1 Samuel 18:1 as a proof text are reading into the passage something that is not there and is inexcusable. It is similar to the Critical Race Theory advocates who use the same tactics, reading into the Scriptures things that are not in the text. Searching the Scriptures to find a proof text is a pretext.

However, since there are those who pervert the Word of God, it would seem prudent to examine some examples of the misuse of Scripture. Leviticus chapter 18 is a good place to start.

It will be profitable to examine some of Greg Bahnsen’s work “Homosexuality a biblical view:.”

“The list of injunctions in Leviticus 18 is introduced with emphatic divine authority: “You are to perform my judgments and keep my statutes, to walk in them; I am the Lord your God; [40] it ends, “Thus you are to keep my charge. … I am the Lord your God.” [41] The next chapter  contains further laws, introduced with these words: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy”;[42] it ends, “You shall thus observe all my statutes, and all my ordinances, and do them: I am the Lord.”[43] Chapter 20 is a continuation of such injunctions: “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘You shall also say to the sons of Israel…’”;[44] it similarly ends, “Thus you are to be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy.”[45] In contrast to such ethical requirements reflecting the lordship and holiness of God, chapter 21 begins a new section dealing with requirements for priests and their cultic service. The preceding passage [46] contains some requirements that are no longer observed in their Jewish form, e.g., those which symbolize the separation of Israel from the abominations committed by her pagan neighbors [47] and a few ceremonial instructions. [48] But the predominant character of its commandments is moral, and their content is generally recognized as binding today (e.g., prohibiting incest, adultery, child sacrifice, idolatry, oppression of the poor, slander, hatred, unjust weights and measures). Christ Himself appealed to them as summarizing all the law and the prophets. [49] Therefore, the context does not support the automatic dismissal of the prohibitions against homosexuality as ceremonial. The defender of homosexuality must produce a viable criterion for distinguishing between moral and ceremonial laws, or else consistently reject them all (contrary to the emphatic word of Christ). We have New Testament warrant for discontinuing obedience to the sacrificial system, [50] and the failure to observe the symbols of separation from the Gentile no longer displeases God. [51] However, the Scriptures never alter God’s revealed law regarding homosexuality, but leave us under its full requirement. [52] Indeed, the Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality, the New Testament itself stressing that it is contrary to God’s law, [53] bringing God’s judgment and exclusion from the kingdom. [54] Therefore, the prohibition against homosexuality cannot be viewed as part of the ceremonial system prefiguring Christ or as temporary in its obligation.” (2)

Romans Chapter One, the subject of homosexuality, is another text that is relevant.

It would be wise to continue with Dr. Bahnsen’s analysis:

Romans 1

“Identical principles are authoritatively revealed in the first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, thus providing explicit New Testament confirmation of the Old Testament ethic regarding homosexuality. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error…. And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things [the sins listed in verses 28-31] are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. [70] In this context Paul was teaching that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against those who turn from their proper relationship to the Creator; suppressing the truth of God, they resort to various forms of idolatry, serving the creature with darkened minds and foolish reasoning. In response, God gives them over to impure lusts and the dishonoring of their bodies—specifically, to homosexuality, which in turn stimulates further depravities. Men who give up God and His law are eventually given up by God to wander in morally polluted practices that become a way of life. Specifically, the penalty for man’s rebellion against the true service to God is homosexuality, which Paul described with reinforcing disapprobation as “impurity,” “dishonoring of the body,” [71] “degrading passions,” [72] “indecent acts” (or “shameless deeds”), “error,” [73] the “improper” activity of a “depraved mind.” [74] Homosexuality exchanges the natural use of sex for unnatural sexual practices, [75] thereby evidencing immoral perversion in the most intimate of human relations and being “worthy of death.” [76] The best commentary on this teaching is found in the Old Testament, upon which Paul drew heavily. Scripture’s most obvious condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically immoral is found in this Romans passage. Nevertheless, there are those who seek to evade its straightforward indictment. In the first place there are those who maintain that Paul did not single out homosexuality as especially offensive among sins; it is not taken up as a subject in its own right but merely dealt with incidentally among the results of a perverted relationship to God—presented simply as part of a broader pattern of pagan excesses. Such a response to Paul’s words is plainly wrong. After all, homosexuality is presented precisely as an appropriate illustration of sinful depravity. Indeed, it is Paul’s key illustration of the perversion that results from rebellion against God, a conspicuous symptom of such rebellion. The subject is discussed, to be sure, in relation to its roots and effects, but the moral character of homosexuality is nonetheless discussed in its own right as well. Its vile character clinches Paul’s argument concerning the consequences of suppressing the knowledge of God, and thus what Paul said in describing it cannot be minimized. To contend that homosexuality in Romans 1 is portrayed merely as a punishment for sin and not as a sin itself is to forget that God often punishes sin by turning men over to that sin and its effects completely. [77] This is exactly what Paul said about homosexuality: it is both sin and punishment for sin. [78] Second, there are supporters of homosexuality who claim that Paul is condemning lust and promiscuity, not homosexual love and devotion; the assumption is that the moral quality of homosexuality cannot be judged in isolation from the attitude and context in which one exercises it, the interpersonal support it supplies, and the personal fulfillment it offers. Supposedly there are distinctions to be drawn, with the result that we should recognize a commendable Christian practice of homosexuality in contrast to depraved versions of it. But such a suggestion is mere wishful thinking without biblical support. Paul was quite adept at drawing careful moral distinctions. He recognized pertinent qualifications that had to be made and gave his readers details of intricate ethical problems (such as those regarding meats offered to idols, marriage and divorce, spiritual gifts, exhortations and rebukes, uses and abuses of the law). If homosexuality could gain divine approval in any sense, Paul would have indicated as much and drawn the distinctions which men now wish to impose upon his text.” (3)

Another relevant text:

From Matthew Poole’s Commentary on 1 Timothy 1:10, the reader learns:

“The two next terms express violaters of the seventh commandment, whether by fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, or any beastly lusts.”

“Men-stealers; the word signifieth such as carry men into captivity, or make slaves of them in the first place; it signifies also any stealing of men. It is probable the first of these is the man-stealing principally intended, being the most common sin by pirates at sea, and soldiers at land; yet not excluding any other stealing of men from their relations, which he instanceth in, as one of the highest violations of the eighth commandment. By liars, he meaneth such as knowingly speak what is false, especially to the prejudice of others.”

“By perjured persons he means such as swear falsely. And cause it would be too long to reckon up all kinds of sinners, he comprehends them all in a general phrase, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, that is, the holy and pure truth of God, that is not corrupted, but judges aright of good and evil:”

“for these he saith the law is made, that is, to deter from such crimes, or to condemn for them; but not to terrify such who either never were guilty of such flagitious crimes, or if they have been guilty, yet are now washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God, as the apostle speaks, 1Corinthians 6:11. The law (as the apostle here saith) was never made to terrify, or to condemn and affright, these, for, Romans 8:1: There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (4)

Jude, the brother of James, declares:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)

In closing:

Jesus never directly addressed the subject of homosexuality. To use this silence as an argument in support of homosexuality is to use a fallacious argument, namely, an argument from silence.

Jesus did speak to a topic that has implications on a relevant lifestyle question, that of marriage:

“And he answered and said unto them, have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Matthew 19:4-5)

It should be noted that in Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus is quoting from Genesis 1:27; 2:24.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul mentions, “the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality” will inherit the kingdom of God.

Then Paul says:

“And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11)

In the above passage, the Apostle provides hope for those struggling with sexual sins.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, 1 Samuel, Vol.2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 370.

2.      Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical view (Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey), pp. 39-41.

3.      Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical view (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company), pp. 47-50.

4.      Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Peabody, Massachusetts Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 774-775.

 Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon

What is the point of Jotham’s Parable in Judges 9?                             By Jack Kettler

“And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.” (Judges 9:7)

The tree is a common metaphor for Israel. Hence, the Parable of the Trees:

·         The Olive Tree is a symbol of Israel’s Religious blessings (9)

·         The Fig Tree is a symbol of security and success for Israel (11)

·         The Vine is a symbol of Israel’s Spiritual blessings (13)

·         The Bramble represents Satan’s realm and brings forth no fruit (15)           

Introductory comments:

In distinction from the other trees, the bramble is not suitable. Jotham is making a point about Abimelech and the appalling mistake being made by the leaders of Shechem.

Shechem’s leaders conspire with a concubine’s son to kill Gideon’s sons. They make Abimelech the ruler. Gideon’s youngest son survives and brings a curse. Using a parable, he says Abimelech and Shechem’s leaders will destroy each other. The leaders try to kill Abimelech and unite behind a new leader. Abimelech discovers the plot and destroys Shechem. When attacking a tower in a nearby town, Abimelech’s skull is crushed by a millstone. Accordingly, Gedeon’s youngest son’s curse is fulfilled.

Commentary entries for the parable of the trees:

7 “And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.” (Judges 9:7)

Starting with Matthew Poole’s Commentary in verse seven:

“Mount Gerzim lay near Shechem, and near Mount Ebal. The valley between these two mountains of Gerizim and Ebal was a famous place, employed for a religious use, even for the solemn reading of the law, and its blessings and curses, Deu 11:29 27:12 Joshua 8:33; and therefore, it is probable it was still used, even by the superstitious and idolatrous Israelites, for such-like occasions, who delighted to use the same places which their religious ancestors had consecrated and used.

Lifted up his voice, and cried; so as they that stood in the valley might hear him, though not suddenly come at him to take him.

Ye men of Shechem; who are here met together upon a solemn occasion, as Josephus notes, Abimelech being absent.

That God may harken unto you, when you cry unto him for mercy; so, he conjures and persuades to give him patient audience, as they did.” (1)

8 “The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.” (Judges 9:8)

Yet again, from Matthew Poole’s Commentary in verse eight:

“A parabolical discourse, usual among the ancients, especially in the eastern parts; wherein, under the names of trees, men are represented.

To anoint a king, i.e. to make a king, which was oft done among the Israelites, and some others, with the ceremony of anointing. By the olive tree he understands Gideon.” (2)

9 “But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” (Judges 9:9)

The Pulpit Commentary’s entry is helpful in verse nine:

“Verse 9. – They honour God and man: God, by the frequent offerings of oil with the meat offerings (Leviticus 2:1-16, etc.); and man, e.g., by the solemn anointing with oil of kings, priests, and prophets (1 Samuel 16:12, 13; 1 Kings 19:16; Psalm 89:21). To be promoted, literally, to wave, or move, over, i.e. to rule, in the case of a tree. Judges 9:9” (3)

10 “And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.” (Judges 9:10)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers says the following in verse ten:

“(10) The fig tree. — The luscious fruit and broad green shade of the ancient fig would naturally make it the next choice; but it returns the same scornful answer.” (4)

11 “But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?” (Judges 9:11)

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible has this to say in verse eleven:

“Honour God and man – Alluding to the constant use of oil in the meat-offerings Leviticus 2:1-16, and in the holy ointment Exodus 30:24-25. In like manner, the allusion in Judges 9:13 is to the drink-offerings of wine. See Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 15:10.” (5)

12 “Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.” (Judges 9:12)

Yet again, from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers in verse twelve:

“(12) Unto the vine. — We might have felt surprise that the vine was not the first choice, but the low-growing, trellised vine, which needs support for its own tendrils, might seem less suitable. Indeed, ancient nations talked of the female vine—

“Or they led the vine

To wed her elm; she round about him flings

Her marriageable arms,” &c.—Milton.” (6)

13 “And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” (Judges 9:13)

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says the following in verse thirteen:

“13. wine, which cheereth God and man—not certainly in the same manner. God might be said to be “cheered” by it, when the sacrifices were accepted, as He is said also to be honored by oil (Jud 9:9).” (7)

14 “Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.” (Judges 9:14)

Back to Matthew Poole’s Commentary in verse fourteen:

“The bramble, or thorn; a mean, and barren, and hurtful tree, fitly representing Abimelech, the son of a concubine, and a person of small use, and great cruelty.” (8)

15 “And the bramble said unto the trees, if in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” (Judges 9:15)

Again, from the Pulpit Commentary in verse fifteen:

“Verse 15. – If in truth, i.e. truly, as the same phrase is rendered in vers. 16, 19, with integrity of purpose and sincerity of heart. The English would be less ambiguous if it ran, “If ye anoint me king over you in truth.” The speech of the bramble indicates the grounds for suspicion already existing between Abimelech and the men of Shechem. Let fire come out, etc. – keeping up the propriety of the image, as the natural function of the bramble was to kindle a fire, and as it had no other use; showing, too, how a base bramble could destroy a noble cedar, and the base-born Abimelech could bring ruin upon the lords of Shechem. Judges 9:15” (9)

In closing:

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary sums up verses 7-21 of chapter nine:

“9:7-21 There was no occasion for the trees to choose a king, they are all the trees of the Lord which he has planted. Nor was there any occasion for Israel to set a king over them, for the Lord was their King. Those who bear fruit for the public good, are justly respected and honoured by all that are wise, more than those who merely make a figure. All these fruit-trees gave much the same reason for their refusal to be promoted over the trees; or, as the margin reads it, to go up and down for the trees. To rule, involves a man in a great deal both of toil and care. Those who are preferred to public trust and power, must forego all private interests and advantages, for the good of others. And those advanced to honour and dignity, are in great danger of losing their fruitfulness. For which reason, they that desire to do good, are afraid of being too great. Jotham compares Abimelech to the bramble or thistle, a worthless plant, whose end is to be burned. Such a one was Abimelech.” (Judges 9:7-21) (10)

Application deduced from the study of the entire Book of Judges:

“Today, the equivalent of Israel’s Judges are the lower magistrates, i.e., governors, judges, sheriffs, county commissioners, and elected representatives. Some on this shortlist have begun to stand up against fed gov tyranny. Pray that many more like Samson of old will stand up for righteousness and freedom and cast off the yoke of the modern-day Philistines who overthrew the legitimate government!” – Jack Kettler

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1.      Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Judges, Vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 477.

2.      Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Judges, Vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 477.

3.      H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Judges, Vol. 3., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 101.

4.      Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Judges, Vol. 2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 223.

5.      Albert Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY, Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, Judges, Vol. 2 p. 548.

6.      Charles John Ellicott, Bible Commentary for English Readers, Judges, Vol. 2, (London, England, Cassell and Company), p. 223.

7.      Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Judges, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1977) p. 192.

8.      Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible, Judges, Vol. 1, (Peabody, Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishers, 1985) p. 477.

9.      H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary, Judges, Vol. 3., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing Company reprint 1978), p. 101.

10.  Matthew Henry, Concise Commentary, Judges, (Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p. 413.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon

How is Exodus 3:14 to be understood along with New Testament implications? By Jack Kettler

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” (Exodus 3:14)

Looking at the Strong’s Lexicon:

“God

אֱלֹהִים֙ (’ĕ·lō·hîm)

Noun – masculine plural

Strong’s Hebrew 430: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God.”

The three occurrences of “I AM” in the passage are identical.

“I AM

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה (’eh·yeh)

Verb – Qal – Imperfect – first person common singular

Strong’s Hebrew 1961: 1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out 1a) (Qal) 1a1) —– 1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a1b) to come about, come to pass 1a2) to come into being, become 1a2a) to arise, appear, come 1a2b) to become 1a2b1) to become 1a2b2) to become like 1a2b3) to be instituted, be established 1a3) to be 1a3a) to exist, be in existence 1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a3d) to accompany, be with 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about 1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone.”

Consulting Strong’s Concordance, Hebrew 1961 for Exodus 3:14:

“hayah: to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Original Word: הָיָה

Part of Speech: Verb

Transliteration: hayah

Phonetic Spelling: (haw-yaw)

Definition: to fall out, come to pass, become, be.”

Regarding the Divine Name from Smith’s Bible Dictionary:

“The key to the meaning of the name is unquestionably given in Gods revelation of himself to Moses by the phrase “I AM THAT I AM,” (Exodus 3:14; 6:3) We must connect the name Jehovah with the Hebrew substantive verb to be, with the inference that it expresses the essential, eternal, unchangeable being of Jehovah. But more, it is not the expression only, or chiefly, of an absolute truth: it is a practical revelation of God, in his essential, unchangeable relation to this chosen people, the basis of his covenant.” (1)

What can be determined thus far? “I AM” (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה)means self-existent one or He who inhabits Eternity.   

The following Commentary entries provide additional insights:

Barnes‘ Notes on the Bible gets right to the point:

“I am that I am – That is, “I am what I am.” The words express absolute, and therefore unchanging and eternal Being. The name, which Moses was thus commissioned to use, was at once new and old; old in its connection with previous revelations; new in its full interpretation, and in its bearing upon the covenant of which Moses was the destined mediator.” (2)

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible entry is more detailed than Barnes’:

“And God said unto Moses, I am that I am…. This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is: it is said (z), that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it, “I am all that exists, is, and shall be.” And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written the contraction of “I am” (a). Our Lord seems to refer to this name, John 8:58, and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, “I shall be what I shall be” (b) the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:”

“thus, shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it, “I am he that is, and that shall be.” This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.”

“(z) Phutarch. de Iside & Osir. (a) Plato in Timaeo. (b) “ero qui ero”, Pagninus, Montanus, Fagius, Vatablus.” (3)

Geneva Study Bible is apropos”

“And God said unto Moses, I {n} AM THAT I AM: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

“(n) The God who has always been, am, and shall be: The God almighty, by whom all things have their being, and the God of mercy, mindful of my promise.”

Relevant cross-reference passages and New Testament implications:

“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

“Then said Jesus unto them, when ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” (John 8:28)

“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58)

The Strong’s Lexicon is important regarding John 8:58:

“I

ἐγὼ (egō)

Personal / Possessive Pronoun – Nominative 1st Person Singular

Strong’s Greek 1473: I, the first-person pronoun. A primary pronoun of the first-person I.”

“am!

εἰμί (eimi)

Verb – Present Indicative Active – 1st Person Singular

Strong’s Greek 1510: I am, exist. The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist.”

Vincent’s Word Studies explains the New Testament implications for John 8:58: 

“Was, I am (γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι)”

“It is important to observe the distinction between the two verbs. Abraham’s life was under the conditions of time, and therefore had a temporal beginning. Hence, Abraham came into being, or was born (γενέσθαι). Jesus’ life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι). See on John 1:3; see on John 7:34.” (4)

What was Jesus claiming in John (8:58)? The two following passages answer this question:

“Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)

“The Jews answered him, saying, for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:33)

Jesus connects “I Am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) with “I Am” (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה)

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, like his previous entry cited, gets right to the point:

“For blasphemy – See the notes at Matthew 9:3.”

“Makest thyself God – See the notes at John 5:18. This shows how they understood what he had said.”

“Makest thyself – Dost claim to be God, or thy language implies this.” (5)

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible in detail fashion explains the text:

“Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, …. Whether it will be believed or not, it is certainly fact:”

“before Abraham was, I am; which is to be understood, not of his being in the purpose and decree of God, foreordained to sufferings, and to glory; for so all the elect of God may be said to be before Abraham, being chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world: or that Christ was man, before Abraham became the father of many nations; that is, before the calling of the Gentiles; for nothing is said in the text about his being the father of many nations; it is a bold and impudent addition to it: and besides, Abraham was made the father of many nations, as Ishmaelites, Israelites, Hagarenes, &c. long before the incarnation of Christ; yea, he was so from the very promise in Genesis 17:5, which so runs, “a father of many nations have I made thee”; so that this appears a false sense of the text, which is to be understood of the deity, eternity, and immutability of Christ, and refers to the passage in Exodus 3:14. “I am that I-am–I am hath sent me unto you”, the true Jehovah; and so Christ was before Abraham was in being, the everlasting I am, the eternal God, which is, and was, and is to come: he appeared in an human form to our first parents before Abraham was, and was manifested as the Mediator, Saviour, and living Redeemer, to whom all the patriarchs before Abraham looked, and by whom they were saved: he was concerned in the creation of all things out of nothing, as the efficient cause thereof; he was set up from everlasting as Mediator; and the covenant of grace was made with him, and the blessings and promises of it were put into his hands before the world began; the eternal election of men to everlasting life was made in him before the foundation of the world; and he had a glory with his Father before the world was; yea, from all eternity he was the Son of God, of the same nature with him, and equal to him; and his being of the same nature proves his eternity, as well as deity, that he is from everlasting to everlasting God; and is what he ever was, and will be what he now is: he is immutable, the same today, yesterday, and forever; in his nature, love, grace, and fulness, he is the invariable and unchangeable I am.” (6)

If any doubt remains about whom Jesus was claiming to be, Scripture’s testimony is certain:

The Shema:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7)

This present writer is familiar with the questions surrounding 1 John 5:7.

Hence, the following:

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible provides a positive presentation for the inclusion of the 1 John 5:7 text into the Canon:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, …. That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher’s copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens’s, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the “sixth” century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the “fourth” century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the “third” century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a “hundred” years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ’s sonship are,” (underling and bolding emphasis mine)

“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The “Father” is the first Person, so called, not in, reference to the creatures, angels, or men, he is the Creator, and so the Father of; for this is common to the other two Persons; but in reference to his Son Jesus Christ, of whose sonship he bore witness at his baptism and transfiguration upon the mount. The “Word” is the second Person, who said and it was done; who spoke all things out of nothing in the first creation; who was in the beginning with God the Father, and was God, and by whom all things were created; he declared himself to be the Son of God, and proved himself to be so by his works and miracles; see Mark 14:61, &c. and his witness of himself was good and valid; see John 8:13; and because it is his sonship that is, here testified of, therefore the phrase, “the Word”, and not “the Son”, is here used. “The Holy Ghost” is the third Person, who proceeds from the Father, and is also called the Spirit of the Son, who testified of, Christ’s sonship also at his baptism, by descending on him as a dove, which was the signal given to John the Baptist, by which he knew him, and bare record of him, that he was the Son of God. Now the number of these witnesses was three, there being so many persons in the Godhead; and such a number being sufficient, according to law, for the establishing of any point: to which may be added, that they were witnesses in heaven, not to the heavenly inhabitants, but to men on earth; they were so called, because they were in heaven, and from thence gave out their testimony; and which shows the firmness and excellency of it, it being not from earth, but from heaven, and not human, but divine; to which may be applied the words of Job, in Job 16:19; it follows,”

“and these three are one; which is to be understood, not only of their unity and agreement in their testimony, they testifying of the same thing, the sonship of Christ; but of their unity in essence or nature, they being the one God. So that, this passage holds forth and asserts the unity of God, a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the proper deity of each person, and their distinct personality, the unity of essence in that they are one; a trinity of persons in that they are three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and are neither more nor fewer; the deity of each person, for otherwise their testimony would not be the testimony of God, as in 1 John 5:9; and their distinct personality; for were they not three distinct persons, they could not be three testifiers, or three that bare record. This being a proper place, I shall insert the faith of the ancient Jews concerning the doctrine of the Trinity; and the rather, as it agrees with the apostle’s doctrine in words and language, as well as in matter. They call the three Persons in the Godhead three degrees: they say (d),”

“Jehovah, Elohenu (our God), Jehovah, Deuteronomy 6:4; these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery, in the beginning Elohim, or God, created, Genesis 1:1, &c.”’

“And these three, they say, though they are distinct, yet are one, as appears by what follows (e):”

“come see the mystery of the word; there are three degrees, and every degree is by itself, yet they are all one, and are bound together in one, and one is not separated from the other.”’

“Again, it is said (f),”

“this is the unity of Jehovah the first, Elohenu, Jehovah, lo, all of them are one, and therefore: called one; lo, the three names are as if they were one, and therefore are called one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit it is made known, and they by the sight of the eye may be known, , “that these three are one”: and this is the mystery of the voice which is heard; the voice is one, and there are three things, fire, and Spirit, and water, and all of them are one in the mystery of the voice, and they are but one: so here, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one, the three, forms, modes, or things, which are one.”

“Once more (g),”

“there are two, and one is joined unto them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu is joined unto them, and it is the seal of the ring of truth; and when they are joined as one, they are one in one unity.”’

“And this they illustrate by the three names of the soul of man (h);”

“the three powers are all of them one, the soul, spirit, and breath, they are joined as one, and they are one; and all is according to the mode of the sublime mystery,”’

“meaning the Trinity.”

“Says R. Isaac (i) worthy are the righteous in this world, and in the world to come, for lo, the whole of them is holy, their body is holy, their soul is holy, their Spirit is holy, their breath is holy, holy are these three degrees “according to the form above”. – Come see these three degrees cleave together as one, the soul, Spirit, and breath.” (7)

In closing:

When LORD appears in all capital letters, it indicates that the word Yahweh is used in the Old Testament. When using lowercase letters, the translator indicates that the word Adonai is found in the Hebrew Bible. Adonai means “sovereign one.”

God identified himself as the great “I AM” in Exodus 3:14

“I Am” means that He is immutable. The ‘I am’ means that He is self-existent and unchanging in His Being. The name also describes His self-existence or aseity.

New Testament Implications:

Jesus identified himself as the great “I AM.” Therefore, Jesus is God, and He and the Father are one, along with the Holy Spirit.  

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon

Is “my messenger” the same as the Lord in Malachi 3:1?                              By Jack Kettler

“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap: And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.” (Malachi 3:1-3)

Introduction:

Malachi’s prophetic ministry took place approximately a hundred years after the decree of Cyrus in 538 B.C. that ended the Babylonian captivity and permitted the Jews to return to their birthplace with the task of rebuilding the temple.

Outline:

• God’s love for Israel: Chapter 1:1-5
• Profanity by the priests rebuked: 1:6—2:9
• God rebukes the people for lifestyle sins: Chapter 2:10-17
• Prophecy regarding the two messengers: Chapter 3:1-6
• God’s rebuke of religious sins: Chapter 3:7-18
• Malachi’s prophecy regarding the day of the Lord: Chapter 4:1-5

Relevant cross-reference passages:

“This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Behold, I will send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way before You.’” (Matthew 11:10)

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: ‘Behold, I will send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way.’” (Mark 1:2)

To rephrase the question in the title of this study:

Is Malachi 3:1 referring to one or two different people, Lord and messenger? Part of the difficulty of this text is that different voices appear in the 1^st person or 2^nd person.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges favors the one-person view:

“Malachi 3:1. God Himself takes up (Malachi 3:1-6) the challenge, “Where is the God?” &c.

“my messenger] They had been provided, in the priests, with a standing order of “messengers” of Jehovah (Malachi 2:7). From time to time His special “messengers”, the prophets (Haggai 1:13), had been sent to them. The last of such prophets, bearing as his only name, “Jehovah’s messenger”, was now exercising his office among them. But a yet more special “messenger” is to inaugurate that coming of Jehovah which they profess to desire. See Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27.”

“Prepare the way] Comp. Isaiah 40:3; and for the nature of the preparation, “by preaching of repentance”, Matthew 3:1-12.”

“the Lord] “He who had before spoken of Himself in the first person (“I will send”), now speaks of Himself in the third person.” Maurer. For a similar change of person, which is not uncommon in Hebrew, see Malachi 2:16 above. “We are sure He which spake those words was (Jehovah) the Lord of hosts; and we are as sure that Christ is that Lord before whose face John the Baptist prepared the way.” Pearson on the Creed. Article, Our Lord.”

“ye seek … ye delight in] A reference, not without irony, to the demand of Malachi 3:17, “where is” &c.”

“his temple] He, then, who comes is the Lord of the Temple. Haggai 2:9.”

“even the messenger of the covenant] The R.V., by printing “and” in the text instead of “even” (which however it retains in the margin), and also by the punctuation which it adopts, leaves room for the view that “the messenger of the covenant” is to be identified, not with “the Lord”, but with “the messenger” spoken of at the beginning of the verse, who is to “prepare the way” before Him: “And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts”. The weight of argument, however, seems clearly to preponderate in favour of identifying the “Messenger of the Covenant” with “the Lord”, who shall “suddenly come to His temple”. For thus the idea of the messenger, which pervades this prophecy (see Introd. pp. 13, 14) culminates (as do the Old Testament ideas of the prophet, the priest and the king) in the Messiah, who is in the highest sense the Messenger of God to man. The Angel, or Messenger, whose presence in the Church was recognised from the beginning (Acts 7:38; Exodus 23:20-21; Exodus 32:34; Exodus 33:2; Exodus 33:14; Isaiah 63:9), follows up these “preludings of the Incarnation” by being “made flesh and dwelling amongst us”. The covenant, which was before the Law (Galatians 3:17) and yet by virtue of its later introduction “a new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13), He comes, in fulfilment of promise and prophecy (Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 55:3), as its Messenger and Mediator (Hebrews 12:24), to inaugurate and ratify with His blood (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 13:20); while He vindicates His claim to be “the God of judgment” whom they desired, by the work of discriminating justice which He performs (Malachi 3:2-5).” (1) (Underlining emphasis mine)

While the above commentary favors the idea that the messenger and the Lord can be understood to be the same, the following passage from Malachi seemingly refutes that view:

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:” (Malachi 4:5)

Elijah is called a messenger in Mark 1:2, and Malachi 4:5 quotes Isaiah in the following passages:

“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (Isaiah 40:3)

“As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (Mark 1:2)

Therefore, as seen thus far, there are two messengers, one is Jesus, and one is John the Baptist.

Consider the following commentary evidence that further establishes this.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers favors the two-person view:

“(1) I will send. — Or, I send. It is the participle used as the prophetic present. (Comp. Note on Malachi 1:11.)”

“My messenger. — Heb., Malachi, my angel, or my messenger, with a play on the name of the prophet. In Malachi 2:7, he calls the priest the angel or messenger of the LORD. There can be little doubt that he is influenced in his choice of the term by his own personal name (see Introd.). This “messenger,” by the distinct reference to Isaiah 40:3, contained in the words, “and he shall prepare,” &c., is evidently the same as he whom [the deutero-] Isaiah prophetically heard crying, “In the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Moreover, from the nature of his mission, he is proved to be identical with the “Elijah” of Malachi 4:3. These words had their first, if not their perfect fulfilment in John the Baptist (Matthew 17:12).”

“The Lord. — This word “Lord” occurs eight times with the definite article, but always, except here, with the name of God following it: viz., Exodus 23:17, followed by “Jehovah;” Exodus 34:23, by “Jehovah, the God of Israel;” in Isaiah 1:24; Isaiah 3:1; Isaiah 10:33; Isaiah 19:4, by “Jehovah Zebaoth;” and in Isaiah 10:16, by “the Lord of Zebaoth.” And here, as elsewhere, it must mean God Himself, because He is said to come “to his temple,” and because He is said to be He “whom ye seek:” i.e., “the God of judgment” (Malachi 2:17).”

“Even—i.e., “namely,” for so the Hebrew conjunction “and” is frequently used: e.g., Exodus 25:12; 1Samuel 28:3.”

“The messenger (or angel) of the covenant. — This expression occurs only in this passage. Identified as He is here with “the Lord,” He can be no other than the Son of God, who was manifested in the flesh as the Messiah. In the word “covenant” there is, perhaps, some reference to the “new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31), but the meaning of the word must not be limited to this.”

“Delight in.—Rather, desire.” (2)

In closing:

“The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi 3:1.” In Malachi, the Hebrew word mal’aki means messenger. Thus, LORD Yahweh) is different from the messenger here, in Malachi 3:1. In Malachi 3:2, the refiner is Yahweh. Malachi 4:5 settles this by saying, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” Therefore, the LORD and messenger are not identical. The passage is talks about John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus Christ.

As seen above, the New Testament in (Matthew 11:10) and (Mark 1:2) settles the idea, confirming that two distinct individuals are in view. Thus, it can be said that a greater David (Christ), a greater Elijah (John the Baptist). The first messenger being sent is John the Baptist. The other person is Jesus the Messiah, the Messenger, Lord, Lord of Hosts.

The Geneva Study Bible correctly notes:

“Behold, I will send my {a} messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the {b} Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the {c} messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

(a) This is meant of John the Baptist, as Christ interprets it; Lu 7:27.

(b) Meaning, the Messiah, as in Ps 40:17 Da 9:17,25.

(c) That is, Christ, by whom the covenant was made and ratified, who is called the angel or messenger of the covenant, because he reconciles us to his Father, and is Lord or King, because he has the rule of his Church.”

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

1. , by Thomas Thomason Perowne, Malachi, (Cambridge University Press, 1890), e-Sword version.

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at:

When does Zechariah 14:4 take place?                                             By Jack Kettler

“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” (Zechariah 14:4)

Introduction:

Zechariah was both a prophet and a priest. His prophetic ministry started in 520 B.C. He was a contemporary of the prophet Haggai.

Approximately 20 years after returning from the Babylonian exile during the time of the Persian King Cyrus in 538 B.C., the foundation of the temple had been laid soon after the return in 536 B.C. After the foundation of the temple was laid, the work ceased. Over time, discouragement set in among the people seeing the temple unfinished.

Outline:

• Introduction (1:1–6)
• Prophecies and Visions (1:1–8:23)
• Night visions and a sign-act (1:7–6:15)
• Fastings and feasts (7:1–8:23)
• The King returns (9:1–14:21)
• First vision: leaders and their people (9:1–11:17)
• Second vision: the people and their leaders (12:1–14:21)

Relevant cross-reference passages:

“And the glory of the LORD rose up from within the city and stood over the mountain east of the city.” (Ezekiel 11:23)

“The fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the beasts of the field, every creature that crawls upon the ground, and all mankind on the face of the earth will tremble at My presence. The mountains will be thrown down, the cliffs will collapse, and every wall will fall to the ground.” (Ezekiel 38:20)

“Then the man brought me back to the entrance of the temple, and I saw water flowing from under the threshold of the temple toward the east (for the temple faced east). The water was coming down from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar.” (Ezekiel 47:1)

The astute reader will notice the apocalyptic language used in the above passages, particularly in Ezekiel 38:20. Apocalyptic language is a special genre in literature, and missing this can lead to serious misinterpretations.  

What about Zechariah 14:4? Is it apocalyptic?

“The presence of visions, symbolism, and eschatological imagery classify Zechariah [particularly ch. 14] as a prophetic-apocalyptic writing.” (1)

Zechariah Chapter 14 is not a descriptive narrative like the book of Acts or didactic like the book of Romans. Apocalyptic literature, like poetical literature, is not to be taken literally.

For example:

“He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” (Psalm 91:4)

Characteristics of Apocalyptic Literature:

“An apocalypse is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.” A.

1. John J. Collins “Apocalyptic Literature” from The Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds

“There are a number of traits that are often (though not in every case) found in apocalyptic texts that are less occasionally found in prophetic texts. These traits include the following: narrow eschatology…mediated revelation…unusual imagery…setting of oppression…deterministic view of history and attendant optimism…and pseudonymity and prophecy after the fact.” B.

• Tremper Longman III & Raymond B. Dillard An Introduction to the Old Testament (pg. 387-88)

“Apocalyptic entails the revelatory communication of heavenly secrets by an otherworldly being to a seer who presents the visions in a narrative framework; the visions guide readers into a transcendent reality that takes precedence over the current situation and encourages readers to persevere in the midst of their trails. The visions reverse normal experience by making the heavenly mysteries the real world and depicting the present crisis as a temporary, illusory situation. This is achieved via God’s transformation this world for the faithful.” C.

• Paul D. Hanson Visionaries and Their Apocalypses

The German Protestants, Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament offer one of the best commentaries on this portion of Scripture:

“This time the Lord will come to the help of His people. Zechariah 14:3. “And Jehovah will go forth and fight against those nations, as in His day of battle, on the day of slaughter. Zechariah 14:4. And His feet will stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which lies to the east before Jerusalem; and the Mount of Olives will split in the centre from east to west into a very great valley, and half of the mountain will remove to the north, and its (other) half to the south. Zechariah 14:5. And ye will flee into the valley of my mountains, and the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel, and ye will flee as ye fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. And Jehovah my God will come, all the saints with Thee.” Against those nations which have conquered Jerusalem the Lord will fight כּיום וגו, as the day, i.e., as on the day, of His fighting, to which there is added, for the purpose of strengthening the expression, “on the day of the slaughter.” The meaning is not “according to the day when He fought in the day of the war,” as Jerome and many others suppose, who refer the words to the conflict between Jehovah and the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:14); for there is nothing to support this special allusion. According to the historical accounts in the Old Testament, Jehovah went out more than once to fight for His people (cf. Joshua 10:14, Joshua 10:42; Joshua 23:3; Judges 4:15; 1 Samuel 7:10; 2 Chronicles 20:15). The simile is therefore to be taken in a more general sense, as signifying “as He is accustomed to fight in the day of battle and slaughter,” and to be understood as referring to all the wars of the Lord on behalf of His people. In Zechariah 14:4 and Zechariah 14:5 we have first of all a description of what the Lord will do to save the remnant of His people. He appears upon the Mount of Olives, and as His feet touch the mountain it splits in half, so that a large valley is formed. The splitting of the mountain is the effect of the earthquake under the footsteps of Jehovah, before whom the earth trembles when He touches it (cf. Exodus 19:18; Judges 5:5; Psalm 68:8; Nahum 1:5, etc.). The more precise definition of the situation of the Mount of Olives, viz., “before Jerusalem eastwards,” is not introduced with a geographical purpose – namely, to distinguish it from other mountains upon which olives trees grow – but is connected with the means employed by the Lord for the salvation of His people, for whom He opens a way of escape by splitting the mountain in two. The mountain is split מחציו מזרחה וימּה, from the half (i.e., the midst) of it to the east and to the west, i.e., so that a chasm ensues, which runs from the centre of the mountain both eastwards and westwards; so that the mountain is split latitudinally, one half (as is added to make it still more clear) removing to the south, the other to the north, and a great valley opening between them.”

“Into this valley the half of the nation that is still in Jerusalem will flee. גּיא הרי is the accusative of direction (Luther and others render it incorrectly, “before the valley of my mountains”). This valley is not the valley of the Tyropaeon, or the valley between Moriah and Zion (Jerome, Drus., Hofm.), but the valley which has been formed by the splitting of the Mount of Olives; and Jehovah calls the two mountains which have been formed through His power out of the Mount of Olives hârai, “my mountains.” Nor is it connected with the valley of Jehoshaphat; for the opinion that the newly-formed valley is merely an extension of the valley of Jehoshaphat has no foundation in the text, and is not in harmony with the direction taken by the new valley – namely, from east to west. The explanatory clause which follows, “for the (newly-formed) valley of the mountains will reach אל אצל,” shows that the flight of the people into the valley is not to be understood as signifying that the valley will merely furnish the fugitives with a level road for escape, but that they will find a secure place of shelter in the valley. ‘El ‘Atsal has been taken by different commentators, after Symm. and Jerome, in an appellative sense, “to very near,” which Koehler interprets as signifying that the valley will reach to the place where the fugitives are. This would be to Jerusalem, for that was where the fugitives were then. But if Zechariah had meant to say this, he could not have spoken more obscurely. ‘Atsal, the form in pause for ‘âtsēl, as we may see by comparing 1 Chronicles 8:38 and 1 Chronicles 9:44 with 1 Chronicles 8:39 and 1 Chronicles 9:43 (cf. Olsh. Gramm. 91, d), is only met with elsewhere in the form אצל, not merely as a preposition, but also in the name בּית־האצל, and is here a proper name, as most of the ancient translators perceived, – namely, a contracted form of בּית־האצל, since בּית is frequently omitted from names of places constructed with it (see Ges. Thes. p. 193). This place is to be sought for, according to Micah 1:11, in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and according to the passage before us to the east of the Mount of Olives, as Cyril states, though from mere hearsay, κώμη δὲ αὕτη πρὸς ἐσχατιαῖς, ὡς λόγος τοῦ ὄρους κειμένη. The fact that Jerome does not mention the place is no proof that it did not exist. A small place not far from Jerusalem, on the other side of the Mount of Olives, might have vanished from the earth long before this father lived. The comparison of the flight to the flight from the earthquake in the time of king Uzziah, to which reference is made in Amos 1:1, is intended to express not merely the swiftness and universality of the flight, but also the cause of the flight, – namely, that they do not merely fly from the enemy, but also for fear of the earthquake which will attend the coming of the Lord. In the last clause of Zechariah 14:5 the object of the coming of the Lord is indicated. He has not only gone forth to fight against the enemy in Jerusalem, and deliver His people; but He comes with His holy angels, to perfect His kingdom by means of the judgment, and to glorify Jerusalem. This coming is not materially different from His going out to war (Zechariah 14:3); it is not another or a second coming, but simply a visible manifestation. For this coming believers wait, because it brings them redemption (Luke 21:28). This joyful waiting is expressed in the address “my God.” The holy ones are the angels (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2-3; Daniel 7:9-10; Matthew 25:31), not believers, or believers as well as the angels. In what follows, Zechariah depicts first of all the completion secured by the coming of the Lord (Zechariah 14:6-11), and then the judgment upon the enemy (Zechariah 14:12-15), with its fruits and consequences (Zechariah 14:16-21).” (2) (Underlining emphasis mine)

Keil and Delitzsch, as seen from the underlined section of the commentary distinguish Zechariah 14:4 from the Second Coming.  

The next entry will be a contemporary preterist commentary on Zechariah 14:4:

ZECHARIAH 14 AND THE COMING OF CHRIST by Gary DeMar

“In the premillennial view of Bible prophecy, the events depicted in Zechariah 14 are most often interpreted as depicting the second coming of Christ when Jesus will descend from heaven and stand on the Mount of Olives and from there set up His millennial kingdom. The chronology outlined in Zechariah, however, does not fit this scenario. Events actually begin in chapter thirteen where it is prophesied that the Shepherd, Jesus, will be struck and the sheep will be scattered (Zech. 13:7). This was fulfilled when Jesus says, “You will all fall away, because it is written, ‘I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED’” (Mark 14:27). What follows describes events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. God will act as Judge of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. As the king, He will send “his armies” and destroy “those murderers, and set their city on fire” (Matt. 22:7).”   

“For I will gather all the nations [the Roman armies] against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered [Matt. 24:17], the women ravished [Luke 17:35], and half the city exiled [Matt. 24:16], but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city [Matt 24:16] (Zech. 14:2).”

“This happened when the Roman armies, made up of soldiers from the nations it conquered, went to war against Jerusalem. Rome was an empire consisting of all the known nations of the world (see Luke 2:1). The Roman Empire “extended roughly two thousand miles from Scotland south to the headwaters of the Nile and about three thousand miles from the Pillars of Hercules eastward to the sands of Persia. Its citizens and subject peoples numbered perhaps eighty million.” (1) Rome was raised up, like Assyria, to be the “rod of [God’s] anger” (Isa. 10:5). “So completely shall the city be taken that the enemy shall sit down in the midst of her to divide the spoil. All nations (2), generally speaking were represented in the invading army, for Rome was the mistress of many lands.” (2) Thomas Scott, using supporting references from older commentators and cross references to other biblical books, writes that Zechariah is describing the events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70.”

“The time when the Romans marched their armies, composed of many nations, to besiege Jerusalem, was “the day of the Lord” Jesus, on which he came to “destroy those that would not that he should reign over them” [Matt. 22:1-10; 24:3, 23-35; Luke 19:11-27, 41-44]. When the Romans had taken the city, all the outrages were committed, and the miseries endured, which are here predicted [Luke 21:20-24]. A very large proportion of the inhabitants were destroyed, or taken captives, and sold for slaves; and multitudes were driven away to be pursued by various perils and miseries: numbers also, having been converted to Christianity, became citizens of “the heavenly Jerusalem” and thus were “not cut off from the city” of God [Gal 4:21-31; Heb. 12:22-25]. (3)”

“Forcing these series of descriptive judgments to leap over the historical realities of Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 so as to fit a future judgment scenario is contrived and unnecessary. A proximate fulfillment is more logical and consistent with basic hermeneutical principles.”

“Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle (14:3).”

“After using Rome as His rod to smite Jerusalem, God turns on Rome in judgment. Once again, Assyria is the model: “I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets …. So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, ‘I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness’” (Isa. 10:5-6, 12-13). “It is significant that the decline of the Roman Empire dates from the fall of Jerusalem.”(4) Thomas Scott concurs: “It is also observable, that the Romans after having been thus made the executioners of divine vengeance on the Jewish nation, never prospered as they had done before; but the Lord evidently fought against them, and all the nations which composed their overgrown empire; till at last it was subverted, and their fairest cities and provinces were ravaged by barbarous invaders.” (5)

“And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south Zech. 14:4).”

“It is this passage that dispensationalists use to support the view that Jesus will touch down on planet earth and set up His millennial kingdom. Of course, one of the problems in making Zechariah 14:4 refer to Christ’s second coming is the absence of any reference to Him coming down. But let’s assume that Jesus’ coming is implied. How else would Jehovah be able to “stand on the Mount of Olives”? Numerous times in the Bible we read of Jehovah “coming down” to meet with His people. In most instances His coming is one of judgment. In no case was He physically present. Mountains, like sun, moon, and stars, are often used to represent tribes, nations, and kingdoms. For example, Israel is depicted as a mountain (Amos 4:1; Zech. 4:7; John 4:21; Rev. 8:8; 21:10).”

“The symbolic nature of mountains comes from the Apostle John’s Jewish heritage. John was a Jew, and the book of Revelation must be interpreted with one eye on the Old Testament: “The Book of Revelation is the most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery of any New Testament book. This book speaks not the language of Paul, but of the Old Testament Prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.” (6)

“In the Old Testament, a mountain was often a symbolic reference to a kingdom or national power. The prophet Isaiah wrote of a time when “the mountain of the LORD’S temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it” (Isaiah 2:2). In Jeremiah 51:25, God issued a stern warning to the nation of Babylon: “’I am against you, 0 destroying mountain, you who destroy the whole earth,’ declares the LORD, ‘I will stretch out my hand against you, roll you off the cliffs, and make you a burned-out mountain.’”

“The prophet Daniel saw a vision in which “the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35). What did the mountain symbolize? “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” (2:44). The Old Testament uses the figure of a mountain to refer to a kingdom. Jesus describes Israel’s judgment in terms of a mountain being “taken up and cast into the sea” (Matt. 21:21; Mark 11:23). Jesus delivered His judgment discourse concerning the destruction of the temple from the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24-25).”

“Notice how many times God’s coming is associated with mountains.

• “So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey. . . (Ex. 3:8).

• “Then Thou didst come down on Mount Sinai, and didst speak with them from heaven. . . (Neh. 9:13a).

• “Bow Thy heavens, O LORD, and come down; touch the mountains, that they may smoke” (Psalm 144:5).

• “For thus says the LORD to me, ‘As the lion or the young lion growls over his prey, against which a band of shepherds is called out, will not be terrified at their voice, nor disturbed at their noise, so will the LORD of hosts come down to wage war on Mount Zion and on its hill’” (Isa. 31:4).

• “Oh, that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at Thy presence — (Isa. 64:1).

• “When Thou didst awesome things which we did not expect, Thou didst come down, the mountains quaked at Thy presence” (Isa. 64:3).”

“In Micah 1:3 we are told that God “is coming forth from His place” to “come down and tread on the high places of the earth.” How is this descriptive language different from the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives with the result that it will split? Micah says “the mountains will melt under Him, and the valleys will be split, like wax before the fire, like water poured down a steep place” (1:4). “It was not uncommon for prophets to use figurative expressions about the Lord ‘coming’ down, mountains trembling, being scattered, and hills bowing (Hab. 3:6, 10); mountains flowing down at his presence (Isaiah 64:1, 3); or mountains and hills singing and the trees clapping their hands (Isaiah 55:12).” (8)

“Isaiah 40:4 is descriptive of earth-moving events that did not literally take place.”

“Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. Let every valley be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; and let the rough ground become a plain, and the rugged terrain a broad valley.”

“The New Testament specifies how we should interpret these verses by applying them to the coming of Christ. Christ’s coming is preceded by “every mountain and hill” being brought “low” (Luke 3:5). Was there a major realignment of the topography of Judea when Jesus came on the scene after the announcement of John the Baptist? Was any mountain or hill “made low”? And yet, the prophecy was fulfilled in the first century.”

“What is the Bible trying to teach us with this descriptive language of the Mount of Olives “split in its middle”? The earliest Christian writers applied Zechariah 14:4 to the work of Christ in His day. Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) wrote: “But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives.’ For thus had Zechariah pointed out: And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives’ [Zech. xiv. 4].” (9) Tertullian was alluding to the fact that the Olivet prophecy set the stage for the judgment coming of Christ that would once for all break down the Jewish/Gentile division. Matthew Henry explains the theology behind the prophecy in this way:”

“The partition-wall between Jew and Gentiles shall be taken away. The mountains about Jerusalem, and particularly this, signified it to be an enclosure, and that it stood in the way of those who would approach to it. Between the Gentiles and Jerusalem this mountain of Bether, of division, stood, Cant. ii. 17. But by the destruction of Jerusalem this mountain shall be made to cleave in the midst, and so the Jewish pale shall be taken down, and the church laid in common with the Gentiles, who were made one with the Jews by the breaking down of this middle wall of partition, Eph. ii. 14.(10)”

“You will notice that there is no mention of a thousand year reign following the presence of Jehovah on the Mount of Olives. While we are told that “the LORD will be king over all the earth” (14:9), this does not mandate an earthly millennial reign of Christ. This language is neither new or forward looking. “For the LORD Most High is to be feared, a great King over all the earth. He subdues peoples under us, and nations under our feet” (Psalm 47:2, 3). This is exactly what happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”

Notes

1. Otto Friedrich, The End of the World: A History (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1982), 28.

2. G. N. M. Collins, “Zechariah,” The New Bible Commentary, F. Davidson, ed., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1954), 761.

3. Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, According to the Authorised

Version; with Explanatory notes, Practical Observations, and Copious Marginal References, 3 vols. (New York:

Collins and Hannay, 1832), 2:955

4. Collins, “Zechariah,” 761.

5. Scott, The Holy Bible, etc., 956.

6. Ferrel Jenkins, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, 22.

7. Charles H. Dyer, World News and Bible Prophecy (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1993), 150-51.

8. Ralph Woodrow, His Truth is Marching On: Advanced Studies on Prophecy in the Light of History (Riverside,

CA: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1977), 110.

9. “Tertullian Against Marcion,” Book 4, chapter XL, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:417.

10. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 6 vols. (New York: Fleming H. Revel, n.d.), 4:1468. (3)

In closing:

Promoters of dispensational premillennialism contend that Zechariah 14:1-3 is describing events leading up to the “Battle of Armageddon.” The final climax is Christ descending upon the mount of Olives” in verse 4, where Christ overthrows His enemies to start the millennium. However, Zechariah 14 has no reference to a millennium; it has to be read into the text. Why are early Church leaders like Tertullian, who was closer to the prophetic event and closer to the apostles that are discounted and prophetic interpreters over 2000 years away into the future, not?

The Mount of Olives was split in the middle by the Messiah when He broke down the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles. Zechariah has been fulfilled by Christ at His first advent. Fulfilled prophecy is much more edifying than future speculations. Furthermore, fulfilled prophecy proves the divine inspiration of Scripture.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jack-Kettler/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJack+Kettler

“Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows”

Blood of the Prophets:

By Will Bagley

University of Oklahoma Press; 1st Ed. edition (January 1, 2002)

Reviewed by Jack Kettler

Author’s Bio:

“Will Bagley has written and edited more than twenty books on overland emigration, frontier violence, railroads, mining, the creation of computer search technology, and the Mormons. Some love him, some hate him, but his work has won every major prize in Western History—an Old Joe, the Spur, the Wrangler, the Caroline Bancroft, the John W. Caughey Prize for the year’s most distinguished book on the history of the American West, and the Merrill J. Mattes Award for Excellence in Writing. He is not “anti” anything: he simply tries to tell the stories and find the truth of what happened.”

Publisher’s Description:

“The massacre at Mountain Meadows on September 11, 1857, was the single most violent attack on a wagon train in the 30-year history of the Oregon and California trails. Yet it has been all but forgotten. Will Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets is an award-winning, riveting account of the attack on the Baker-Fancher wagon train by Mormons in the local militia and a few Paiute Indians. Based on extensive investigation of the events surrounding the murder of over 120 men, women, and children, and drawing from a wealth of primary sources, Bagley explains how the murders occurred, reveals the involvement of territorial governor Brigham Young, and explores the subsequent suppression and distortion of events related to the massacre by the Mormon Church and others.”

A Review:

Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Will Bagley is an exceptionally well-crafted account of one of the most infamous and tragic events in the history of the American West. This book delves into some of the darkest corners of the American experience, exploring the roots and the aftermath of this terrible atrocity. As a historian, Bagley has a unique perspective on the massacre and its impact on the Westward Expansion of the 1800s. He thoroughly analysis historical and archival documents and interviews to investigate the event and its aftermath.

The book opens up with a riveting description of what happened at the Mountain Meadows in September of 1857—a group of over one hundred and twenty men, women, and children seeking a new life in California were slaughtered by local Mormon militia members. Bagley shares with the reader how this event shook the American West and caused much tension between members of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the US government. He then takes us on a journey to uncover this event’s deeper meaning, what led to it, and how it has been remembered and reflected on by various parties throughout history.

The investigation into the massacre allows Bagley to track the source of dissension and violence that surrounded Utah’s new settlers during the 1850s. He explores the complex political tensions between Utah’s Latter-Day Saints and the US government and paints a vivid portrait of life during this time. Bagley’s research leads him to conclude that Brigham Young, the revered leader of the Latter-Day Saints, was ultimately responsible for the massacre because of his misplaced belief in the physical Kingdom of God now theology. 

The “Blood of the Prophets” is essential for readers interested in American West’s history. Bagley expertly weaves an engaging and informative story that explores the origins of a tragedy that still haunts the American landscape. He offers a nuanced and sensitive exploration of this dark chapter in American history that will leave readers with much to consider. In addition, the book also includes a comprehensive bibliography allowing readers to explore further the historical evidence and aftermath of this terrible event.

The interaction of Bagley with Juanita Brooks’ “The Mountain Meadows Massacre” is masterful. Bagley is indebted to Brooks but not dependent.    

Bagley and Brooks had a longstanding professional relationship. Bagley used Brooks’ book as a primary source in his research for his book, “The Blood of the Prophets.” They also participated in various lectures and interviews to discuss the Mountain Meadow Massacre and other events in Utah’s history. Bagley greatly respected Brooks’ work and acknowledged her as the “quintessential scholar” of early Utah history. They often disagreed in their opinions regarding the facts surrounding the Massacre. However, Brooks’ dedication to the truth and Bagley’s exploration of the records allowed their discourse to be productive and informative.

Overall, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows is an excellent and well-researched account that provides a powerful and engulfing exploration of the violence and tension of the American West during this time. With a unique and insightful perspective, Bagley writes an engaging and comprehensive book that stands as an essential exploration for anyone interested in the history of the American West and the trials and tribulations that came with it. After twenty years since its publication, Bagley’s book is highly recommended!

End of review*

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

*  Assistance from AI Chat and Grammarly

A Brief List of Arguments for a Young Earth                                               By Jack Kettler

Lack of sediments in the ocean bed:

The average thickness of all sediments on the ocean floor globally is only 1,300 feet, even though sediments have been amassing for supposedly billion years. If natural processes had occurred, the ocean floor would have been filled with sediments many miles deep. However, this is not supported by observed evidence.

The faint Sun paradox:

During Earth’s early history, the sun’s radiance was much less than it is now in the Phanerozoic period, approximately 541.0 million years ago. In reality, the radiative output was so low that all surface water on Earth should have been frozen. However, evidence shows that it was not.

The quickly decaying magnetic field:

The Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that shields living things from solar radiation, which is necessary for life to exist, which is why scientists were surprised by the discovery that this field is rapidly fading. If this rate continues, the field and the Earth will be no older than 20,000 years!

Helium in radioactive rocks:

Due to the extremely low solubility of helium, even though it diffuses quickly from the rocks, it cannot escape the rocks completely. Thus, even after hundreds of thousands of years of uranium and thorium decay, the rocks are still full of helium atoms. Why?

Carbon-14 in fossils, coal, and diamonds:

Carbon-14 is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. However, its half-life of 5,730 years is so short that any remaining carbon-14 in fossils is expected to decay after a few hundred thousand years. However, astonishingly, carbon-14 has been detected in fossils that are supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old since the invention of radiocarbon dating. Why is that?

Why are there still comets in existence?

Comets travel billions of miles through the cold expanse of space until they come close to the sun. The sun’s heat causes the comet’s ice to evaporate and dust to be released, forming a stunning tail. Nevertheless, since comets have very little mass, each time they come near the sun, they lose more and more of their mass until they finally disappear. Comets cannot survive the billions of years that they travel through space. So why are there still comets? Does a hypothetical “oort cloud” solve this problem? Where is this cloud? Has anyone ever seen it? Is belief in an “oort cloud” blind faith?

Why is there such as small amount of salt in the Sea?

Salt accumulates in the world’s oceans but at a slower rate than what is added each year, which means that if the oceans have been around for billions of years, their salt content should be much higher than what is observed today.

DNA in prehistoric bacteria:

Scientists were amazed to discover bacteria from 250 million years ago had almost identical DNA to modern bacteria. This discovery was unexpected since, given the known mutation rate,  the DNA of a modern bacteria should have changed significantly over 250 million years.

Soft Tissues and Biomolecules in Fossils:

Under the microscope, Dr. Mary Schweitzer was astonished to find that the fossilized femur of a Tyrannosaurus rex from the Hell Creek Formation of Montana showed signs of blood vessels and red blood cells with nuclei. Dr. Schweitzer’s remarkable finding challenged the long-held assumption that soft tissues cannot survive millions of years of fossilization. – Scientific American, (December 2010, pp. 62–69).

Population growth not consistent evolutionary dates:

Evolutionary theory suggests that the human population should be much larger than it is today, yet the world’s population has only recently reached eight billion. This discrepancy between expectations and reality indicates an issue with evolutionary dating methods. It implies fewer individuals were born for three to six million years than expected.

In closing:

The above summary of problems for evolutionists is a brief sampling of issues that have never been addressed adequately. The present writer makes no claim of originality for the words in this overview and summary.  

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of 15 books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon.

How does touching a dead body make one unclean in Haggai 2:13?              By Jack Kettler

“And Haggai said, “If one who is unclean because of a dead body touches any of these, will it be unclean?” So, the priests answered and said, “It shall be unclean.” (Haggai 2:13)

Introduction:

Haggai’s prophecies to the people of Jerusalem took place in 520 BC, approximately eighteen years after the return from exile in Babylon (538 BC).

Outline:

• The Setting: 1:1-2
• The Rebuke: 1:3-6
• The Summons to Rebuild the Temple: 1:1-15
• The Way of Repentance: 1:7-8
• The Response of the People: 1:12-15
• The Path of Repentance and Hope for a Future Temple: 2:20-23

Why does touching a corpse or something unclean make a person unclean? What is the solution to restore cleanliness?

Two relevant cross-reference passages:

“If a descendant of Aaron has a skin disease or a discharge, he may not eat the sacred offerings until he is clean. Whoever touches anything defiled by a corpse…” (Leviticus 22:4)

“‘He who touches the dead body of anyone shall be unclean seven days.” (Numbers 19:11)

In verse 13, Haggai echoes Moses from Leviticus and Numbers. What can be learned about the nature of this uncleanness?

The Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament comments on the cross-reference passage from Numbers 19:11 and informs the reader on the nature of the uncleanness:

“Whoever touched a corpse, “with regard to all the souls of men,” i.e., the corpse of a person, of whatever age or sex, was unclean for seven days, and on the third and seventh day he was to cleanse himself (התחטּא, as in Numbers 8:21) with the water (בּו refers, so far as the sense is concerned, to the water of purification). If he neglected this cleansing, he did not become clean, and he defiled the dwelling of Jehovah (see at Leviticus 15:31). Such a man was to be cut off from Israel (vid., at Genesis 17:14).” (1)

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers notes a unique characteristic of this type of defilement:

“(13) Unclean. — The defilement incurred by contact with a dead body was one of the deepest. (See Numbers 19:11-16.) On the force of the term tmê nephesh, compare the passages Leviticus 21:11; Leviticus 22:4; Numbers 6:6.” (2) (underlining emphasis mine)

The Pulpit Commentary elaborates further on the seriousness of this defilement:

“Verse 13. – Unclean by a dead body; Septuagint, ἀκάθαρτος ἐπὶ ψυχῇ: Vulgate. pollutus in anima. These versions are closer to the Hebrew, “unclean by a soul,” than the Authorized Version, but not so intelligible. “Soul” (nephesh) is used to mean a person, and, with the attribute “dead” understood, a corpse, as Leviticus 21:1. The full phrase is found in Numbers 6:6, 11. Contact with a dead body produced the gravest ceremonial uncleanness, which lasted seven days, and could be purged only by a double lustration and other rites (Numbers 19:11, etc.). This uncleanness was doubtless connected with the idea that death was the result of sin. Any of these. The things mentioned in the preceding verse. It shall be unclean. In accordance with Numbers 19:22 A polluted human being communicated his pollution to all that he touched. It was owing to the defilement that accompanied contact with the dead that the later Jews used to whiten the sepulchres every year, that they might be seen and avoided (Matthew 23:27, and Lightfoot, ‘Her. Hebr.’ in loc.). Haggai 2:13” (3)

The Pulpit commentators connect Haggai 2:13 with Numbers Chapter 19; identical cases of defilement are seen.

Consulting Christ in the Bible Commentary, The Complete Old Testament, the reader learns about how the cleansing of defilement for touching a dead body is cleansed: 

“The most impressive of all the ordinances provided for the wilderness life of Israel was that which is known as the ordinance of the red heifer, described in Numbers 19, and referred to explicitly in Heb. 9:13, as the special type of the provision which Christ has made for our continual cleansing and keeping amid the defilements of our earthly journey.”

“The Type of Christ 2. The selection of the heifer was expressive of the person and sacrifice of Christ. She was to be red, and the rabbis tell us that there must be no single hair of any other color. She must also be without blemish of any kind, and must never have come under the yoke (Num. 19:2). This was fulfilled in the spotless purity of the Lord Jesus, and in the fact that He was under no obligation on His own account to suffer for sin, or to take the place of the criminal; but was purely voluntary in His sacrifice, and able through His perfect righteousness to make atonement for the guilty. The unmixed color of the living victim vividly portrays the sufferings of Christ, and the emphatic truth that His one business was to be the sacrifice for sins. His mission was all pure crimson. He had not two aims—to please Himself, and save men. He only came to redeem a lost world. 3. The heifer was next taken outside the camp and slain, so Christ was crucified outside the gate as an outcast and a criminal (Num. 19:3; Heb. 13:12). 4. The blood was then sprinkled seven times before the Tent of Meetings, implying the offering of Christ’s life is a perfect satisfaction for the guilt of man and a complete ransom for the soul and its forfeited inheritance (Num. 19:4; 1 Peter 1:19).” (4)

More on defilement and how only Christ can cleanse an individual:

“9. The causes of defilement for which this ordinance was to be applied were extremely suggestive. They were chiefly for persons who became defiled by touching the dead (Num. 19:2, etc.). This represents the presence and influence of the carnal nature which the apostle describes as the “body of death” (Rom. 7:24) hanging about the soul, unless it is wholly laid off. The corpse of the victim, as in ancient times, was chained to the body of the murderer (Rom. 7:24). A poor criminal in St. Louis told the chaplain of his prison one day, that every night in his dreams he saw the body of the man whom he had slain fastened to him by ropes and dragging him down into a horrible vortex, and that he could not shake it off. So many souls are carrying themselves as weights of corruption and death, and there are no sources of defilement so terrible as those that come to us from our sinful nature. Sometimes the touch of the dead comes from our taking back, in recollection and reflection, our former and our forgiven sins. This always contaminates the conscience. Sometimes from not wholly leaving off the old man and reckoning ourselves dead indeed, by the habit of faith. It is only as we refuse to count him our true self that we can be free from his contagion. It is the believer’s privilege to hand him over to Christ, to be by Him held and slain. But if for a moment he forgets this in the wild assaults of natural impulse, and allows a fear to assert itself and intimidate him from his new vantage ground, he will become defiled and unable to hold his victory. More frequently the touch of the dead arises from yielding to the instigations and desires of the flesh, either willfully, or under sudden or hasty temptation. Of course, such yielding is always sin, and brings contamination and condemnation; and there must be instant cleansing, or there will be a complete loss of communion and peace. These two considerations are the most important elements in a life of victory over the flesh, and they are both emphasized again and again in the sixth chapter of Romans, which is the very manual of this teaching. “Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires” (Rom. 6:12), is the apostle’s statement of the one; and, “count yourselves dead to sin” (Rom. 6:11), is the equally important direction in respect to the other. If, for a moment, either of these is disobeyed, the soul will be swept by the breath of evil, and must instantly repair to the water of separation before its purity and communion can be restored. Happy indeed are they who have learned this secret of continual cleansing. It is further implied, however, that defilement may come unconsciously from the elements of evil that are around us constantly in a sinful world. Every open vessel which had no covering bound upon it was unclean. The air was so full of contagion that in order to avoid it even the vessels had to be closed. This is intensely true in Christian life. The soul must keep its doors locked, or it shall be continually denied. Some natures are so open to everything that comes, that they just absorb the floating particles of evil that are in the air, even as in some manufacturing cities the purest linen absorbs the coal soot from the atmosphere. Walking as we ever do through such an atmosphere, we must just live in the blood and Spirit of Christ as the very elements of our spiritual existence, even as the pebble in the running brook is kept ever shining with the freshness of the crystal stream. This was what Jesus meant when He said to His disciples: “You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you” (John 15:3); and then added with solemn emphasis, “Remain in me, and I will remain in you” (John 15:4).” (5)

In closing:

The pronouncement of defilement upon one who touched a corpse is symbolic of the predicament of the human race that is fallen sin and dead, awaiting the wages of sin, eternal punishment. God called His people to be separate from the impurities of the world. The Old Testament purification processes pointed to Christ’s perfect sacrifice. 

If Judah follows the instructions laid out by Haggai, this will be the results:

“In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Haggai 2:23)

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

Notes:

Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at Amazon