- Is there a basic theme in the Hebrew Prophets?
I would say the approaching “DAY OF THE LORD”, which because it is so fundamental is never really introduced or explained. Since the world is evil and righteous men do not fully attain their reward in this life, the redress will come when God intervenes to establish His sovereign will in the earth. (cp. Amos 5:18; Isaiah 2:12; Zephaniah 1:14; Jeremiah 46:10; Ezekiel 30:2; Obadiah 15; Zechariah 14:1; Malachi 4:5).
- Is the final judgment to be upon Israel or the Gentiles?
Upon both. The average Israelite liked to see the Day of the Lord as first and foremost a judgment on his enemies, but in this he was wrong. The prophets (e.g. Amos 5:18) stressed that it was judgment on Israel, too. (See 1 Peter 4:17). And this is fitting, since God Is the “Judge of all the earth”.
- Is the last-day harlot (Revelation 17:1) the papacy, or a papal confederacy with another force, or is she something yet to evolve?
Following the standard continuous historical approach, I would say the Papacy, but there is an interesting alternative offered by Bro. Harry Whittaker in his REVELATION pp, 213-19 where he suggests Jerusalem. It depends upon the scheme of interpretation you adopt.
- How can there be a rebellion at the end of the millennium (cf. Revelation 20) when the scriptures teach “they shall learn war no more”?
How about a SPONTANEOUS uprising at Satan’s instigation (v.7) that does not require detailed preparation? Cain didn’t need to “learn” fratricide. His action sprang impulsively from his evil heart. Isn’t the same sort of thing, in view of the nature of man, possible on a grand scale?
- Is it possible that the binding of “satan” of Revelation 20 refers to the confining of paganism to the Asiatic countries for a thousand years (from Charlemagne 800 AD to the French Revolution 1800 AD) after which the revolutionary spirit released paganism to gather Gog and Magog to the battle of Armageddon?
Any interpretation is POSSIBLE (see ques. 3 above), depending upon the scheme you adopt. For myself, I find it difficult to credit Charlemagne with the “Christian” victory over paganism. I would have thought Constantine had the prior claim. As for the release via the French Revolution, of an ASIATIC paganism into the theatre of nineteenth and twentieth century history would invite some evidence which Asiatic countries? It is certainly an interesting theory, its strongest appeal seemingly resting on the thousand year span from Charlemagne to the French Revolution (both significant dates). Perhaps the reader would care to elaborate further?
- Was Dr. Thomas possibly incorrect in his view of the millennium (in Revelation 20)?
The Day will declare it. Meantime, and at the moment, I am reasonably satisfied with his exposition of this section of prophecy; but for another approach again please see Bro. Harry Whittaker’s interesting notes in “The Last Days” pp. 41-44; and Chapter 38 of his “Revelation”. Apocalyptic prophecy has always had more interpretations than it has had symbols. One thing is certain. If we disagree with Dr. Thomas there are two alternatives. Either, that one of us is correct; or that we are both wrong.
- Following your remarks last month when do you think the seventy “weeks” expire?
I don’t know; nor did Jesus. He understood the time of the coming of the “abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet” (see Matthew 24:15), but he didn’t know the time of the end (Mark 13:22). Nor do I. There are signs and guidelines in the prophetic word, particularly Revelation, whereunto we do well to pay heed “But of the day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, NEITHER THE SON, but the Father only.”
- Then you don’t think the seventy “weeks” were consecutive?
Not necessarily. I suggest that Bro. Harry Whittaker’s gap theory (see “The Last Days”, p. 15) is worth considering. The Anglo-Saxon mind demands an inflexible, continuous historical approach; but the Hebrew was more interested in the NEXT event than WHEN it would happen. Perhaps the period depicted sixty-nine consecutive “weeks”, a gap of two thousand odd years and then the final “week”. What do you think?
- What did the gourd signify in Jonah 4:6?
The incident indicated an important lesson to Jonah. His attachment to this ephemeral plant stood in stark contrast to his indifference to the fate of a great city. God used the incident to indicate to Jonah how much He cared for His whole creation.
- What does the expression “cannot discern between their right hand their left hand” mean?
The expression in Jonah 4:11 could be an oblique reference to the pathetic state of Ignorance of the true God that the people of Nineveh were in at that time. So blind, they were incapable of spiritual or moral discernment and thus in pitiable plight. Or, it could be a direct reference to the little children, under three years of age, who literally could not tell their right hand from their left. What do you think?
- If the hairy mantel (cf. Zech 13:4) was a distinctive feature of a prophet how could Ahaziah identify Elijah from such a description in 2 Kings 1:8?
At that time it was not. Rather it was the dress of the average poor peasant, strikingly different from that of the sanctuary prophets. The impact of Elijah made it ever afterwards the distinctive badge of a prophet.
- Why did Elijah challenge the priests of Baal to a contest at Mount Carmel? (cf. 1 Kings 18:19)
The seaward side of Carmel at that time was Phoenician territory and was considered particularly sacred to that Baal, who, above all, was considered by the Phoenicians to be the god and controller of the thunderstorm. Elijah therefore carried the war into the enemy’s camp and challenged their Baal on his own ground. The required “fire” was the lightning for which their Baal was particularly renowned and Elijah so structured the challenge to give the Phoenicians no ground for later rationalisation. Jehovah certainly proved to be the Mighty One!
- Where, in such a drought, would Elijah get twelve barrels of water to saturate the altar and fill the trench? (cf. 1 Kings 18:33-35).
Most probably it was SALT water from the sea. Notice, afterwards, that Elijah went up onto Carmel and told his servant to look towards the seas for a sign (I Kings 18:42-43).
- Why did Elijah flee to Mount Horeb? (cf. 1 Kings 19:8).
Jezebel’s defiant boast (f Kings 19:2) was a claim that, in spite of the Carmel incident, nothing had changed. She had not been defeated: Elijah had not touched the heart of the people. (cf 1 Kings 18:37). And Elijah knew she was right. So he fled to Sinai, the mount of the covenant (of Deut. 5) and twice charged Israel with complete failure, implying that the covenant had not been worthwhile. God rejected this conclusion by quietly “whispering” the message of the “Remnant” to Elijah (I Kings 19:8), a revelation not made known to Judah until the time of Isaiah, centuries later (cf. Isaiah 6:9-13).
This is why I believe Elijah stood with Moses and the Lord at the Mount of Transfiguration. He marked the beginning of a new chapter in prophecy — THE CHAPTER OF THE REMNANT. When he returned to Horeb he implicitly wrote FINIS to the chapter begun there by Moses, and pointed up the limitations of that original covenant. The failure of the scribes and rabbis to understand the role of Elijah (a failure that involved an inadequate comprehension of the later prophetic message) rendered them incapable of recognizing the full and final Revelation when He came. Thus Elijah must precede the great and terrible day of the Lord, to turn the hearts… (Mal. 4:5-6).
“The Valley of the Shadow”