- Could Hosea 13:6-9 be a precursor to the four beasts of Daniel 7?
Yes, I think so. Daniel 9:2 shows that Daniel was a keen Bible student and studied the written works of the previous prophets; and Hosea (op. cit.) had revealed that God had promised forgetful Israel that He would tear her successively as a lion, a leopard, a bear and a wild beast. Just as John’s apocalyptic symbols grew out of Daniel’s, so these four beasts of Daniel 7 likely grew out of Hosea’s previous reference.
- Why did only a few of the O.T. prophets exercise the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit? Did all the others lack the necessary faith to perform them?
The miracles that accompanied the prophetic witness appeared at the rare and specific redemptive periods in history that God chose to manifest them; and God only uses His power in accord with the furtherance of His will and purpose. We can accept the Scriptural testimony that the prophets were men of faith (Heb. 1:1, 11 etc.) and the fact that God worked differently through each is a mark of His prerogative rather than a reflection on the prophets. We cannot judge another’s faith on such outward appearances for it is God who reads the heart and knows the true worth of a man (c.f. 1 Sam. 16:7).
Acts 8:9-24 especially shows us that it is God who chooses when and where His gifts will be given, in an instance where certain presumptuous men wished only to glorify themselves.
- What were “the prophecies which went before on” Timothy (1 Tim. 1:18)?
Prophetic utterances which pointed to Timothy. Probably a Christian prophet (or prophets) in the first century church at Lystra gave utterance to the fact that God had specially chosen Timothy for the ministry of the gospel. His gift would thus have been recognised by the elders of the church as being of God and they would have indicated token identification with his special task by laying their hands on him. Thus Paul could say that Timothy received his gift “by prophecy, with the laying on the hands of the presbytery” (1 Tim. 4:14). That Timothy received the gift from God was attested by divine prophecy, but in no way was the gift conferred by “the laying on of hands”.
Even Paul himself added his token assent that Timothy had a gift of God by later laying his hands on Timothy, too. (2 Tim. 1:6), Incidentally, the notion that the laying on of the hands of the Apostles was the means by which the Holy Spirit was always given to the first century disciples, could, with profit, be critically examined in the light of the N.T. evidence.
- How could John look on the Great Whore (Rev. 17:6) with great admiration?
I don’t think that he did. The record says that he saw the woman with a golden cup in her hand (v.4) full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication . . . And that he saw her drunken (v.6) with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (what an awful picture!); and when he saw her he “wondered with a great wonder” (R.V.) i.e. she repulsed him, made him feel sick. And from the description just given, can you wonder?
(N.B. the word rendered ‘admiration’ in the A.V. is a middle English word which in the seventeenth century, when the A.V. translation was made, meant quite other than it does today. It has turned around in its meaning; as e.g. has the word ‘let’ in Rom. 1:13, which once meant ‘hindered’, but now means ‘allowed’.)
- Some brethren use the word “Apocalypse” instead of “Revelation” for the last book of the Bible. Is it a better word?
Depends on whether you are a pedant or a purist. Dr. Thomas, I believe, fell into the former category; perhaps because of his “bilious temperament” (see Dr. Thomas: His Life & Work, p.144), certainly because he appears to have had a predilection for extravagant language, seldom using a simple English word where he could use a profound one; or better, borrow or coin a foreign word for the purpose.
The word “Apocalypse” is a case to point. It comes from the word “Apokalupsis” in the Greek text (from apo, away, and kalupto, cover or conceal), and means, as the “Diaglott” shows, and all translations confirm, “Revelation”.
I see little purpose served in affecting pedantry for its own sake (cf. 1 Cor. 14:2,9, 19), or for that tenuous imagined doctrinaire connection with “the Doctor” which some seem to consider a virtue. A handy maxim for all might be: “Avoid euphuistic verbosity by expressing your sedulous and premeditated cogitations without double entendrance, rhetorical prurocity, prurient jocosity, or thrasonical bombast.” Moral: Use proper words, speak simply and directly and avoid the use of big words that confuse; because five words with understanding are better than ten thousand in an unknown tongue.
- A lot of brethren use the word “Revelations” (plural) instead of the given word “Revelation” (singular) for the last book of the Bible. Does it matter?
Clearly the book is about the revelation (singular) that God gave to the Lord Jesus Christ, which he sent and signified by his angel to John on the island of Patmos. We ought to realise this and use the term, as a title, with precision.
However, it is also true that the magnificent record contains many startling and thrilling “revelations” so that it is generally a fair comment to speak of the book in terms of its numerous revelations.
I think it is a fine point, one that can be commented upon for interest, in passing; but not one to be pressed dogmatically.
- How important are the terms of the O.T. Hebrew Apocalyptic (that word again) prophets to a correct understanding of the Revelation?
Tremendously. A quick random check gives me no less than 111 points of contact between the symbology of Ezekiel alone and the Revelation, and doubtless there are many more. This could be repeated for Daniel, Zechariah, et al.
But to understand the connection, I think one should realise the way the symbols are used. They are invariably similar, but with differences, e.g. Compare the great throne vision of Revelation 4 with the cherubic vision of Ezekiel 1. The similarities require our appreciation of the Hebrew source and meaning of the symbol, but the difference demands a reassessment of the symbol in its new context.
The challenge: “Similar, yet different. Why?”
- What Scriptural evidence is there that prophecy can have more than one fulfilment?
Have a look at Isaiah 53:12, “he was numbered with the transgressors:” and then turn up the two marginal references, Mark 15:28 and Luke 22:37. Two different times and places, yet they are both said to fulfil the Isaiah quote. Does prophecy have more than one fulfilment?
- What do you make of the Lamech song of Gen. 4:23-24? Is It a prophecy?
Reading the song in its context, it would seem that Lamech is able to comfort his two wives, who may have had good cause for concern about their welfare in a violent age (particularly among the descendants of Cain), because his sons have put bronze and iron instruments into his hands. His confident boast is that if any man should attack him, he, Lamech, might at most be wounded but the assailant will be surely slain. Whilst Cain’s demise should be avenged seven-fold, there was now power in the hands of Lamech’s family to avenge their father seventy-seven-fold.
A prophecy? Yes, of all men who boast in their own confidence, even when referring to the very words of God (for Lamech uses the words of God to his forefather Cain). But it is significant that, at the same time, there were men who “began to call upon the name of the LORD” (v.26).
- Dr. Thomas says that “stars” in Scripture stand for powers in the political heavens. Do you agree?
No. I don’t think a symbol in Scripture always has the same meaning: e.g. in Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37:9) the stars were clearly Joseph’s brethren (cf. v.10), as they were many times over in Gen. 15:5 and 22:17. In Jude 13 the stars are heretics. In Rev. 1:16 the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches (v.20), whereas in 12:4 the third part of the stars of heaven are in the train of the dragon’s tail and are described as his angels (v.7).
But then, I don’t think Bro. Thomas was so inflexible as to always put a fixed meaning upon a Bible symbol, as you suggest. The star-angels of the seven churches he thought were the presbyteries anointed with Holy Spirit (see Eureka, vol. 1, pp.136, 161, etc.).
- A reader asks: In your treatment of Jer. 31:33 in the October 1974 ‘Believer’, p.8, did you mean to imply that “we will never be able to cease from sin, and therefore will always fear judgment? …It is true that if God were to mark iniquities none would stand, but does God say this about unrepented iniquities, or iniquities that we never will repent?”
No, I have no patience with a dogma that says that sin is inevitable and that there is nothing that can be done about it. Such a view, in effect, calls upon God to abdicate as the Almighty and says that sin in man is so powerful that God can do nothing to help man overcome it, except forgive him after the fact. Rather, the Scriptures teach that God is able to keep us from falling (Jude 24), and because He offers us grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16) we pray lead us not into temptation (Matt. 6:13).
The example for underwriting that Jesus left us (1 Peter 2:21) teaches me that God is more than able to do in me what I by myself, can never do, i.e. overcome sin in me. (Rom. 8:3.)
To the question: Can I ever overcome sin? The answer is an emphatic NO! But to the question: Can God ever overcome sin in me? The answer, in faith, is a triumphant YES, through Jesus Christ my Lord!! (Rom. 7:25).
What I meant in the above reference is that where sin exists then there is a fearful relationship to judgment but I drew attention to David’s thankful awareness that “there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared” (Psa. 130:3-41. I indicated on a previous occasion that the only unforgivable sin is the unrepented sin, and in the April 1974 ‘Believer’, p.8, made some further observations on David’s confession “Behold I was shapen in iniquity” (Psa. 51:5).
I hope this will help.
“The Valley of the Shadow”