.jpg)
No.16. “The fullness of the Gentiles”
(Rom. xi. 25).
We have seen that the promise to Abraham concerning his seed has followed the same pattern that has characterized the earlier moves in the outworking of the purpose. Their failure came to a head just before the Babylonian captivity, and with Nebuchadnezzar, ‘the times of the Gentiles’ began.
The testimony of Daniel
The times of the Gentiles begin (Dan. i. 1, 2).
“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god” (Dan. i. 1, 2).
With these words the book of Daniel opens, and it may not be too much to say that they are only paralleled by the words of Acts xxviii. in their burden of crisis and dispensational change. With such vast issues hanging upon these momentous words, vast because they cover the whole sweep of Gentile dominion and vaster still because they lead steadily on to the kingdom of Christ which is to last for ever, with such issues and such a burden, no pains should be spared in acquainting ourselves with all that God has written for our learning in relation to this crisis in the history of man. Space will not permit of the full quotation of Jer. xxv. 1-26. We can but point out one or two features that connect this passage with the opening words of Daniel.
The reader will be struck by the fact that whereas Dan. i. 1 speaks of the ‘third’ year of Jehoiakim, Jer. xxv. 1 speaks of the ‘fourth’ year of that same king in connection with the coming of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem. This apparent discrepancy has not passed unnoticed by the critic, and is one of his many ‘proofs’ of the untrustworthiness of the book of Daniel.
The Hebrew word translated ‘came’ in Dan. i. 1 is bo, and it frequently has the sense of ‘went’ or ‘marched’. This, however, has been denied. Dr. Samuel Davidson says: “The verb bo does not mean to set out . . . . . but to arrive at” (Introduction to the O.T. Vol. III, page 181), and when men of such standing and authority speak thus, who are we to oppose them? Humility is indeed a grace to seek and preserve, but while Gal. ii. remains for our encouragement, we may still dare to bring all statements to the touchstone of the Word. Dr. Davidson’s statement but illustrates the uncritical character of so-called ‘higher criticism’, for it has been computed that the Hebrew word bo is used in the sense of ‘to set out’ in each of the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and six out of the twelve minor prophets.
Let us look at Jonah i. 3 and translate it as Dr. Davidson would have it: “And Jonah . . . . . went down to Joppa, and he found a ship arriving at Tarshish.” If this could be sense, then in some miraculous way Jonah would have no sooner set foot on board at Joppa than he would have ‘arrived’ at Tarshish. Doubtless this would have made the journey far more pleasant than it actually was, but the simple fact is that the Hebrew word bo does mean that the ship was ‘going’ or ‘setting out’ for Tarshish. The plain fact of Dan. i. and Jer. xxv. is that the former writer tells us the year in which Nebuchadnezzar ‘set out’ from Babylon, while the latter tells us when he arrived. Moreover, Jeremiah tells us what occupied Nebuchadnezzar on his journey from one capital to the other:
“Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh-necho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah” (Jer. xlvi. 2).
Instead therefore of discovering a discrepancy in the narrative of Scripture, we have the obvious fact that Nebuchadnezzar took time to accomplish his march from Babylon to Jerusalem, and was obliged to meet and overcome Pharaoh at Carchemish by the Euphrates before he could arrive.
In Jer. xxv. 3 the prophet reminded Israel that since the thirteenth year of Josiah (see Jer. i. 1, 2) the word of the Lord had come urging them to turn from their evil, and because they had not turned He said:
“Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land . . . . . and this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer. xxv. 9-11).
What God therefore had threatened, He brought to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and the historic record of the captivity of Jehoiakim is found in II Chron. xxxvi., the last chapter of the Hebrew Bible.
Yet with all this apparent on the surface of Scripture, and needing no more scholarship than ability to read in one’s mother tongue, Kuenen in his Historic Critique de l’Ancien Testament has the audacity to say:
“We know by the book of Jeremiah that no such event (as the siege of Jerusalem, Dan. i. 1) took place in the reign of Jehoiakim.”
“We know.” We also know that it is written: “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”, and by such statements they demonstrate that they are but ‘blind leaders of the blind’.
Jehoiakim was appointed king of Judah by Pharaoh-necho in the place of Jehoahaz (II Kings xxiii. 34). He did evil in the sight of the Lord, and filled Jerusalem with innocent blood. He was succeeded by Jehoiachin. In the reign of the latter, Nebuchadnezzar carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, whereas Dan. i. 1, 2 tells us that at the first he only carried away a part.
Jehoiachin or Jeconiah is deprived of the Jehovah element in his name, and as Coniah is utterly rejected by the Lord:
“Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. xxii. 30).
It is evident that Israel is passing; dominion is leaving them and is being transferred for the time being to the Gentiles. This is emphasized by such statements as Dan. i. 2, “And the Lord gave . . . . . into his hand” or Jer. xxv. 1, “The fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . . . that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar”. The times of the Gentiles had therefore begun. And so with Zedekiah the glory departs, and Ezek. xxi. reveals the condition of things that will obtain ‘until He come’:
“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until He come Whose right it is, and I will give it Him” (Ezek. xxi. 25-27).
Daniel’s prophecies are occupied with this period of overturning, of the exalting of the base and abasing of the high. “This shall not be the same”, saith the Lord—“This shall not be His” as the Hebrew reads, i.e. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion and dynasty would not be a real continuance of the throne of David. It would be in character rather a rule and dominion of wild beasts. The words ‘It shall be no more, until He come’ leave us in no doubt that the throne thus vacated shall be occupied by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
The times of the Gentiles are characterized by one great feature, marked by the Lord in Luke xxi. 24: “And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” The kingdoms that succeeded Babylon may have been larger or smaller, more powerful or weaker, more autocratic or less so, but the one essential characteristic of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, and the present mandatory power, is the Gentile domination of Jerusalem. That is the great distinguishable feature, and will only be removed when “He comes Whose right it is”.
We have therefore a period of time which fills the ‘gap’ caused by Israel’s failure, which gap is filled by the dynasty started with Nebuchadnezzar and which will persist until, in the Day of the Lord, ‘the stone cut out without hand’ strikes this colossus, and ‘the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ’. One of the characteristics of the times of the Gentiles is the ‘treading down of Jerusalem’. Those times will not end until Jerusalem is free from the yoke of Gentile dominion, surveillance or protection. Each succeeding ruler of the Gentiles has dominated Jerusalem. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, the League of Nations, the British Mandate, the United Nations, and so on to the last Dictator and his ten subservient kings at the time of the end. When Jerusalem is at length free, the times of the Gentiles will be ‘fulfilled’ (pleroo), and ‘the fullness’ (pleroma) of the Gentiles will have come (Luke xxi. 24; Rom. xi. 25). Immediately following this statement concerning the times of the Gentiles, the epistle to the Romans goes on to say ‘and so’ or ‘thus’ “All Israel shall be saved” (Rom. xi. 26). The ‘gap’ in the outworking of the Divine purpose in Israel is stressed in Rom. ix.-xi., because of their failure, but a ‘remnant’ shall be saved at the beginning, and had the Lord not left them a ‘seed’ they would have been like Sodom and Gomorrha. Throughout the period covered by the Acts, ‘all day long’ the Lord stretched out His hands ‘to a disobedient and gainsaying people’ (Rom. x. 21). However low Israel may have fallen during this period, the answer of God to Elijah was a parallel ‘I have reserved unto Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal’ (Rom. xi. 4). Yet such is the grace of God, the very ‘diminishing of them’ led to the enriching of the Gentiles, and leads the Apostle to ask ‘How much more their fullness’? The figure of the olive tree, with its broken branches but emphasizes the ‘gap’ that is in view, and the fullness of the Gentiles occupies the interval occasioned by Israel’s blindness (Rom. xi. 25). Israel’s failure in the days of Nebuchadnezzar led to the times of the Gentiles speaking nationally, but Israel’s spiritual failure registered in Acts xxviii. led to the present dispensation of Gentile blessing, the church which is called by the wondrous title “The fullness of Him that filleth all in all”. This, however, is so great a theme that it must be considered in a separate study.
------------------------
(From The Berean Expositor vol. 42, page 256).
------------------------
“We know.” We also know that it is written: “Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”, and by such statements they demonstrate that they are but ‘blind leaders of the blind’.
Jehoiachin or Jeconiah is deprived of the Jehovah element in his name, and as Coniah is utterly rejected by the Lord:
“Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” (Jer. xxii. 30).
It is evident that Israel is passing; dominion is leaving them and is being transferred for the time being to the Gentiles. This is emphasized by such statements as Dan. i. 2, “And the Lord gave . . . . . into his hand” or Jer. xxv. 1, “The fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . . . that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar”. The times of the Gentiles had therefore begun. And so with Zedekiah the glory departs, and Ezek. xxi. reveals the condition of things that will obtain ‘until He come’:
“And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until He come Whose right it is, and I will give it Him” (Ezek. xxi. 25-27).
Daniel’s prophecies are occupied with this period of overturning, of the exalting of the base and abasing of the high. “This shall not be the same”, saith the Lord—“This shall not be His” as the Hebrew reads, i.e. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion and dynasty would not be a real continuance of the throne of David. It would be in character rather a rule and dominion of wild beasts. The words ‘It shall be no more, until He come’ leave us in no doubt that the throne thus vacated shall be occupied by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
The times of the Gentiles are characterized by one great feature, marked by the Lord in Luke xxi. 24: “And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” The kingdoms that succeeded Babylon may have been larger or smaller, more powerful or weaker, more autocratic or less so, but the one essential characteristic of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, and the present mandatory power, is the Gentile domination of Jerusalem. That is the great distinguishable feature, and will only be removed when “He comes Whose right it is”.
We have therefore a period of time which fills the ‘gap’ caused by Israel’s failure, which gap is filled by the dynasty started with Nebuchadnezzar and which will persist until, in the Day of the Lord, ‘the stone cut out without hand’ strikes this colossus, and ‘the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ’. One of the characteristics of the times of the Gentiles is the ‘treading down of Jerusalem’. Those times will not end until Jerusalem is free from the yoke of Gentile dominion, surveillance or protection. Each succeeding ruler of the Gentiles has dominated Jerusalem. Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, Turkey, the League of Nations, the British Mandate, the United Nations, and so on to the last Dictator and his ten subservient kings at the time of the end. When Jerusalem is at length free, the times of the Gentiles will be ‘fulfilled’ (pleroo), and ‘the fullness’ (pleroma) of the Gentiles will have come (Luke xxi. 24; Rom. xi. 25). Immediately following this statement concerning the times of the Gentiles, the epistle to the Romans goes on to say ‘and so’ or ‘thus’ “All Israel shall be saved” (Rom. xi. 26). The ‘gap’ in the outworking of the Divine purpose in Israel is stressed in Rom. ix.-xi., because of their failure, but a ‘remnant’ shall be saved at the beginning, and had the Lord not left them a ‘seed’ they would have been like Sodom and Gomorrha. Throughout the period covered by the Acts, ‘all day long’ the Lord stretched out His hands ‘to a disobedient and gainsaying people’ (Rom. x. 21). However low Israel may have fallen during this period, the answer of God to Elijah was a parallel ‘I have reserved unto Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal’ (Rom. xi. 4). Yet such is the grace of God, the very ‘diminishing of them’ led to the enriching of the Gentiles, and leads the Apostle to ask ‘How much more their fullness’? The figure of the olive tree, with its broken branches but emphasizes the ‘gap’ that is in view, and the fullness of the Gentiles occupies the interval occasioned by Israel’s blindness (Rom. xi. 25). Israel’s failure in the days of Nebuchadnezzar led to the times of the Gentiles speaking nationally, but Israel’s spiritual failure registered in Acts xxviii. led to the present dispensation of Gentile blessing, the church which is called by the wondrous title “The fullness of Him that filleth all in all”. This, however, is so great a theme that it must be considered in a separate study.
------------------------
(From The Berean Expositor vol. 42, page 256).
------------------------
