David Forbes gives some historical background to the Book of Revelation, as we start a new series on the messages given to the churches in Asia.

In 81 AD, Domitian became Emperor of Rome and its dominions. During his reign he launched a particularly savage persecution of both Christians and Jews, the main reason for which was Caesar worship. Domitian was the first Roman Emperor, apart from the insane Caligula, to take his 'divinity' seriously, and demand Caesar worship. He insisted on always being addressed as Lord and God and carried out a campaign of bitter persecution against all those who would not worship him - the atheists, as he called them.

This is the historical background to the Book of Revelation. All over the Roman Empire men and women were required to acknowledge that the Emperor was Lord, or die - especially on the Lord's (or Lordy) Day (Rev 1:10), a special day in the year when every citizen was required to cast some incense on the altar fire in a local temple and repeat the words 'Caesar is Lord'.

What were Christians, for whom only Jesus is Lord, to do? They were relatively few in number and they had no influence or power to fight against the might of an Empire which no nation or people had been able to withstand. The choice was simple, Caesar or Christ, and as a result there were many Christian martyrs. Why were they under such tyranny? Why were they being left to suffer and die so cruelly? Where was God? Where was their promised salvation through Jesus the Messiah? How long, Sovereign Lord? they cried.

Emperor Domitian, who insisted upon Caesar worship. See Photo Credits.It was to bring hope and encouragement in these times of great trial and terror that the Book of the Revelation was written to the believers in the churches of the great Roman province of Asia.

Apocalyptic Writing

In order to understand further the message of the letters to the churches we need to appreciate their literary form. The Book of the Revelation is unique in the New Testament, in that it belongs to a type of Jewish literature called the apocalyptic writings. Indeed, the very first word of the letter is the Greek apokalupsis – 'the revelation' in English. Apocalyptic literature was one of the most common types of Jewish writing during the period between the Old and New Testaments.

After the return from exile in Babylon, the Jewish people soon became the subjects of Alexander the Great and his successors, during which time they were put under great pressure from Hellenism. Hellenism was the adopting of all things Greek - language, education, philosophy and culture – by the peoples who came under the rule of Alexander and his generals.

This was especially so when, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), every attempt was made to force Greek political and cultural institutions upon them and the observance of the Jewish religion became punishable by death. Many Jews at this time chose death rather than be false to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Mass martyrdom became the order of the day.

It was to bring hope and encouragement in times of great trial and terror that the Book of the Revelation was written to the believers.

At that time, and then again during the period of Roman domination when the various revolts by the Jewish Zealots brought about the death of many, people began to question where God was and why he was not bringing about salvation for them. Had not God chosen them as his people? Had the prophets not promised that one day, God himself would come with a mighty intervention to deliver them from all their enemies and raise up his Messiah, who would inaugurate an everlasting kingdom of righteousness and peace? Where was the Day of the Lord?

It was to deal with these questions and to bring a ray of encouragement and hope into a difficult situation of pressure and confusion that apocalyptic writing came into being. It dealt with the sin of the present time, with the evils of tyranny, oppression and persecution, and with the great intervention of God when he would descend on to the stage of history and put everything right. He would bring to an end the world that they knew and bring in his golden age of blessing. The message of apocalyptic literature was that though things maybe bad and will probably get worse, don't weaken and give up - hang on, because everything will be all right in the end. God will vindicate his people and be victorious!

Differences Between Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature

There are many examples of apocalyptic literature from the period between the two Testaments. Writings such as Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, The Ascension of Isaiah, The Apocalypse of Baruch and Fourth Ezra are just some. The Book of Daniel is considered by Jewish people to be an apocalyptic book, rather than a prophetic one. It is the only such kind of writing to be included in the canon of the Hebrew Bible, where it appears in the section called ketuvim, 'the writings', rather than in the section called nevi'im, 'the prophets'. There was considerable difference between what the Jewish people understood as prophecy, such as the messages given through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Zechariah for example, and what they understood as apocalyptic writing.

Dominated by successive cruel empires, the Jewish people were questioning where God was. Apocalyptic writing came into being to answer their questions.

The Hebrew prophets thought mainly in terms of this present world. Their message was often put in terms of the need for social, economic and political justice. They were concerned that men should hear the word of God and turn back to him in repentance. The prophets were concerned that people should learn to obey and serve him in this present world. It was here and now that God's will needed to be done and his purposes of peace and blessing be fulfilled.

The message of the apocalyptist was that the world was beyond saving and that it was dominated by evil. The only remedy was for God to destroy it and set up a new golden age in a new world. It was a written, rather than a spoken message; whereas the prophet spoke forth the word of God clearly and boldly so that all could understand, the apocalyptist always wrote his message down. It was usually in the language of dream and vision, and the actual words used were usually in coded form. The reason for this was doubtless that if the writings ever fell into the hands of the oppressing power, they would not be able to learn the message of the visions and therefore would be unprepared for what was coming.

Whereas everybody knew the identity of Israel's prophets, Jewish apocalyptic writing is pseudonymous - that is to say that it was written not under the author's name, but under the name of someone else. The Jewish writers opted to attribute their writings to the great and well-known men of the past, such as Moses or Isaiah, Enoch, Ezra or Baruch. It may be that they did this because they believed that they were not worthy to be read and thought that by attributing their writings to the great men of the past they were investing them with an authority that they themselves could never give.

Revelation: Provenance and Authorship

The Book of the Revelation is very much an apocalyptic writing. It has most of the hallmarks of apocalyptic literature. It is different, however, in that it is not pseudonymous and that it has a strong Messianic perspective. The Day of the Lord is none other than the great and glorious appearing of Jesus the Messiah, who has already once appeared as the Paschal lamb to take away the sin of the world and is now appearing for the second time to set up his earthly kingdom.

Revelation is very Hebraic, full of Old Testament allusion, pointing to many Jewish traditions and even quoting ideas from other Jewish apocalyptic writings. It includes around 500 allusions to the text of the Old Testament, particularly the books of Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Daniel. So without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament, and these books in particular, the original readers of John's Apocalypse would have struggled to understand the message.

The Hebrew prophets spoke and wrote mainly in terms of the present world - apocalyptic writers looked forward to the world to come.

Similarly, many of God's people today are confused and puzzled by this letter simply because of their lack of understanding of its Hebraic nature in biblical background and culture, as well as language. Although it was written in the common Greek language of the day, it is a kind of translation – Greek, full of Hebraic language idiom.

lndeed, because of the bad grammar and syntax (which probably makes it the worst Greek in the New Testament), many scholars have had difficulty accepting that it was written by the same man who penned a Gospel and three Epistles.

The author, John, tells us that he was given what he calls a prophecy by the Lord Jesus himself, on the island of Patmos, most probably in exile as a result of the Domitian persecution. Here is a further difference between this book and other Jewish apocalyptic literature, in that it is reflecting the fact that God has restored prophecy to his people, as a result of the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus knows what his people are suffering and he wants to tell them what must soon take place.

To the Churches in Asia...

The Revelation is presented overall in the form of a letter to seven churches in the province of Asia, who themselves are each given an individual message in letter form from the Lord. When we speak of Asia we are not, of course, referring to the continent of Asia that we know today, but the Roman province which we now know as Turkey. It comprised the western (Mediterranean) sea-coast of Asia Minor with Phrygia, Mysia, Caria and Lycia. Its administrative capitol and seat of the Roman governor was the great city of Pergamos (also called Pergamon or Pergamum, close to modern-day Bergama, Turkey).

The seven churches that are named; Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, are by no means the only churches that we know of in the Roman province of Asia. The Bible also tells us of churches in Colossae, Hierapolis, Troas and Miletus. From the letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, we learn that there were also churches at Magnesia and Tralles. Why then should only seven be selected and why this particular selection?

Many scholars doubt that Revelation was penned by the same 'John' who penned a Gospel and three Epistles.

One reason may be that the particular churches chosen were situated on a kind of ring-road around the centre of the province. William Barclay says that they could be regarded as the centres of seven postal districts and that letters sent to these cities could easily then be circulated around the whole province. Undoubtedly the purpose of the letter was that it should be read in all the churches so that all believers might know the Lord's message. Even the individual letters to the seven churches were intended to be read by all.

The churches of Asia Minor, and indeed all the churches of the Roman world, were going through great trauma as a result of the Domitian persecution. However, it must have been of comfort to them to know that the Lord himself knew precisely what their problems were as well as the solution to them.

Next week, we will look at the message given to the church in Ephesus.

This article was first published in Prophecy Today, Vol 12 No 6, Nov/Dec 1996. Revised December 2016.

Click here for the other articles in this series.

Clifford Denton discusses the first Jewish revolt against the Roman Empire and the resulting fall of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple in 70 AD.

In the last study, we considered how the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD contributed to the early separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots. This week we continue to look briefly at the background history that preceded and followed this fall, bringing into focus what have come to be called the First and Second Jewish Revolts. We do this both to focus on this important aspect of Israel's history, and also to establish a sense of the context into which Jesus and his followers came.

Background: the Road to Separation

In the last few studies we have been assessing the reasons for the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots, focusing especially on the early years. We have been seeking to establish a balanced understanding, noting that it was not so simple as an exclusion from the Synagogue associated with a curse against Christians. There was initially a more gradual assessment of the new movement within Judaism.

Nevertheless there was also a distinct theological difference caused by the proclamation that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Misunderstandings, as well as theological differences, led to the early Christian Church being kept at arm's length. Elements of separatism from within the Christian Church also began to develop.

Misunderstandings, as well as theological differences, led to the early Church being kept at arm's length by the Jews.

The background to this was Israel's national oppression by Greece and then Rome, and the reactions against this by various Jewish leaders and factions who sought to bring about deliverance by physical force (these attempts then magnified themselves later, when Israel was in the Diaspora and the Christian Church had found new roots within the Gentile world).

In particular, the First and Second Jewish Revolts against Rome help us to understand the response of the nation of Israel to the colonial domination of foreign powers. Despite Israel as a whole rejecting Jesus as Messiah, these revolts continued to express the Jewish Messianic hope. They expected that the Messiah would bring physical deliverance for the nation. This mindset contrasted greatly with the message of Jesus and the apparent 'otherworldliness' of his movement, and further contributed to the separation of the Christian Church from its Jewish roots.

The Messianic hope of the Jews, especially in the face of Roman colonial domination, contrasted Jesus' otherworldly message and forced Christians and Jews further apart.

The First Jewish RevoltHalf Shekel from the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (see Photo Credits)

The First Jewish Revolt was from 66-74 AD. This was the revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. One of the main historical sources for this event is the historian Josephus who was an eye witness and participant (see quotes from Josephus included in last week's study). Modern historians warn us that there may be some bias in Josephus's description of the revolt because of his own need to protect his status in the eyes of Rome. Nevertheless, we have detailed accounts of the years when Israel rose up against Rome and of the catastrophes that followed.

Among the reasons for the revolt was hatred toward the corruption and bad government of various Roman procurators, as well as a general resentment towards the occupying forces. Add to this the social, economic, national and religious restraints that Rome put on this covenant nation and here was a fermenting situation ready for eruption at any time.

The First Jewish Revolt, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, was born of resentment towards the occupying power.

Discontent eventually led to a dispute between Greeks and Jews in Caesarea when some of the Greek population chose to build too close to a Synagogue. This was in the year 61 AD, and Nero ruled in favour of the Greeks, but discontent continued and flared up into street fighting in 66 AD. Coincident with this, the procurator Florus ordered that seventeen talents be taken from the Temple treasury, causing an aggressive response from some of the Jews and resulting in his ordering Roman soldiers to punish the population. The resistance grew, however, causing Florus to make a temporary retreat to Caesarea.

The remaining cohort of troops in Jerusalem failed to enforce law and order and this also became the spark for groups of revolutionaries including the Sicari and Zealots to begin more open fighting with the Romans. Fervour that had been pent up for years erupted, and soon the majority of the population of Judaea and Galilee joined these revolutionary groups. By the year 67, the Idumeaeans and Samaritans had also joined the growing revolt.

Roman Intervention

Agrippa II came from Alexandria to Jerusalem to try to quell the revolt but failed to get the support of Florus for mediation. In the early days of the revolt, the High Priest and leaders of the parties of the Sadducees and Pharisees were concerned to maintain peace and the Temple rituals, so were keen to bring a peaceful end to the uprising. However, the Zealots conquered a number of fortresses including Masada. They occupied the Temple and put an end to the daily sacrifice to the Emperor of Rome.

Agrippa summoned three thousand troops but failed to eliminate the Zealots. This led to an escalation of the conflict with Rome. The Zealots set fire to the palaces of Agrippa, Berenice and the High Priest. This was by way of a statement against the disparity between the wealthy in Jerusalem and the poverty of other members of the nation. The Antonia Fortress was captured and then the whole city was liberated from the Romans. This was accompanied by bloodshed in other parts of the land.

The conflict escalated and even the intervention of 3,000 Roman troops failed.

Cestius Valus, the Roman Governor of Syria, brought an expedition to Jerusalem in the autumn of 66 but was caused to retreat and suffered major defeat near Beth-Horon, where most of his army was massacred. This resulted in a growing support for the revolt, including from the priests in Jerusalem who needed to preserve their popularity.

The Arrival of Vespasian

The Romans re-grouped in Galilee. Meanwhile, Nero sent orders from Greece to his general, Vespasian. He arrived in 67 and took the city of Sephoris, then advancing with three legions into Galilee, putting many of the Jews to flight. The prominent fortress of Jotapata was taken, followed by Tarichaea, Gamla (see left) and Mount Tabor. At the end of 67, and after great bloodshed, Galilee was under the control of the Romans.

The loss of Galilee was dispiriting to the occupants of Jerusalem. Some would have negotiated with the Romans at this point. There was inner conflict among the Jewish factions and the Zealots eventually took full control of the city. In 69 AD, however, further disputes arose and three factions emerged in Jerusalem. The Roman troops marched on Jerusalem, by which time the three factions had divided the city into three fortresses.

When the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem in 70 AD, inner conflict had led to the city being divided into three fortresses.

The death of Nero in 68 called Vespasian back to Rome in the summer of 69, where he was proclaimed Emperor. Titus, his son, took command of the Roman troops in the land of Israel (as an important aside, within the time-frame of this conflict: it is likely that Johanan Ben Zakkai fled from Jerusalem and was given permission by Vespasian to settle in Jabneh, which later became a school for the study of Torah and the centre for the development of Rabbinic Judaism). Nevertheless the siege of Jerusalem was begun early in the year 70 by Titus and the horrific consequences of the fall of this great city and of the Temple followed, as we outlined in the last section.

One can read Josephus and come to the conclusion that divided factions among the Jews contributed to an almost self-destruction at the end of this conflict. The glory had indeed departed from the Temple.

For Reflection and Comment

Read Matthew 24:2 and Deuteronomy 28. Does this help us understand the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Read Luke 19:41-44 and refer to the Book of Lamentations. What should a Christian's attitude be to the fall of Jerusalem?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts (Part 2)

Clifford Denton examines the historical conquest of Israel by Rome and its creation of the Israeli diaspora.

Every Bible student needs a grasp of history and to set this alongside the purposes of God as revealed in Scripture. What was happening on the world stage when Jesus was alive, and in the first years of the Church's existence?

Roman Occupation

This is the background to the Roman domination of Israel preceding the biblical account of Jesus and the Apostles.

In the years before Rome, the Greek Empire dominated Israel. There was resistance from the Maccabees, a group of Jewish rebels, during this time. The years that followed saw the rise of the Hasmoneans as a priest-king dynasty in Israel, but which did not restore Israel as a truly Torah-based society.

Rome grew as the new world power and it was in the year 63 BC that the legions under Pompey entered Israel. Jagersma's account of Pompey's arrival (History of Israel to Bar Kochba, SCM Press 1985, p98) reads:

Bust of General Pompey[While] the Roman general Pompey was busy with his successful campaign in Asia (66-62 BC); one of his generals, Scaurus, had captured Damascus for him in 65 BC. Soon after that he turned his attention to Judaea. At about that time delegations came from both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus [two rival Hasmonean princes] to ask for his help. Both offered him gifts. On this occasion the Romans opted for Aristobulus.

In 63 BC Pompey himself arrived in Damascus. There not only delegations from Aristobulus and Hyrcanus but also representatives of the people of Judaea came to him. These last asked Pompey to abolish the Hasmonaean dynasty because they wanted to be ruled by priests.

At the time of this meeting Pompey did not make any decision...Arisobulus was least happy with the delay. He...established himself in the fortress of Alexandrium to make his position secure. This action aroused the wrath of Pompey, who immediately invaded Judaea. Aristobulus quickly surrendered, but most of his supporters refused.

Pompey then went back to Jerusalem and besieged the city. Hyrcanus and his followers opened the gates to the Romans, who were then able to occupy the city and the royal palace. However, a group of the supporters of Aristobulus, who had already been taken prisoner, occupied the temple. Only after a siege of three months did the temple fall into the hands of the Romans. To the dismay of the pious, on this occasion Pompey entered the Holy of Holies.

Pompey led Aristobulus and numerous Judaean prisoners through Rome in triumphal procession by which he celebrated his return. When they were later freed, the latter formed the beginning of a great Jewish community there.

The weak Hyrcanus II was eventually made the High Priest, and political rule was given to his powerful advisor, Antipater. Antipater's sons Phaesel and Herod (later Herod the Great) were given the task of governing Jerusalem and Galilee respectively, and the Romans gathered tax from Judaea. In 43 AD, Herod showed his allegiance to Rome by opposing an insurrection in Galilee and then opposing and undermining the Sanhedrin.

The Fall of the Temple

Jesus had made it clear that the Temple would fall:

...the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down. (Luke 21:6)

This prophecy came to pass in 70 AD, during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD. This was the first of three major revolts by Judean Jews against the Roman Empire, brought on by religious and political tensions. It will be discussed in more detail next week). Josephus gives a graphic account of the Temple's fall:

And now two of the legions had completed their banks on the eighth day of Lous. Whereupon Titus gave orders that the battering-rams should be brought and set over against the western edifice of the inner temple; for before these were brought, the firmest of all the other engines had battered the wall for six days together without ceasing, without making any impression upon it; but the vast largeness and strong connexion of the stones was superior to that engine, and to the other battering rams also...

...and now the soldiers had already put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all on the sudden, and caught hold of the cloisters. Upon the Jews seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk, together with their bodies, and they were under such astonishment that not one of them made any haste either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood mute spectators of it only...

While the holy house was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity ; but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests, were all slain in the same manner..." (Quoted from The Wars of the Jews)

Model of the Second Temple, destroyed in 70 AD.Temple Mount today.Jagersma summarises this sad event in Israel's history too (p144):

In early 70 Titus began the siege of Jerusalem...Titus had in all four legions and auxiliaries for this siege. The beginning of the siege fell some weeks before Passover.

The Romans began by attacking the northernmost wall. In military terms this side was always the most vulnerable part of the city to defend...three weeks later the Romans had the whole of the inner city in their hands. Meanwhile a pressing lack of food in the city made itself felt. That of course was disastrous to the morale of the defenders.

The focal point of the dispute now shifted to the temple mount with the citadel of Antonia and the upper city. When the defenders succeeded in destroying the entrenchments which the Romans threw up against the wall Titus had a stone wall put round the whole city. This was done in three days. Shortly after that the Romans were able to capture the citadel of Antonia in a night attack; it was then completely destroyed.

A great blow to the morale of the besieged was the day when the offering of the daily morning and evening sacrifice had to be stopped. From that day on the temple was only a fortress. At the cost of very severe losses Titus succeeded in gradually getting it into his hands. According to Josephus, Titus wanted to spare the temple. This does not sound very plausible, since such an action would go against the usual military practices of his time. Be this as it may, the temple went up in flames. This event is still recalled in the synagogue on 9 Av (about August). [emphases added]

After the fall of the Temple the upper city of Jerusalem was taken, the whole battle lasting five months and wreaking terrible destruction, evidence of which can still be found today. 700 young Jews were paraded in Rome. Others were put to work in mines in Egypt or sold as slaves. The triumphal march of Titus in Rome is depicted on the Arch of Titus in the city and can be seen today. He took with him the Menorah and the Table of Shewbread from the temple.

Some Jewish families fled to the fortress at Masada near the southern shores of the Dead Sea, where they were surrounded by the Roman army who gradually ascended the mountain. In the year 73 or 74 the families took a suicide pact as their capture and humiliation became certain. So ended the devastation of Israel. The Temple, and hence Israel's religious and national centre, was lost, sacrifices ceased and a new Jewish Diaspora began.Stone outline of Roman encampment, viewable from Masada.The location of the Masada fortress.

Impact on Early Christianity

The fall of the City of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 70 AD coincided with the early days of the community of disciples in Jerusalem and the spread of the Gospel to the Gentile world. The Council of Jerusalem had taken place 20 years earlier. Paul's three missionary journeys had already taken place and both he and Peter had suffered martyrdom in Rome.

The majority of the New Testament Scriptures had been written. The Christian Church was a visible body within the world of Judaism. Theological issues had arisen and the separation from the Synagogue had begun.

The destruction of the Temple contributed to this separation. In the final chapter of his book A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways between Synagogue and Church (Paulist Press, 1995), Vincent Martin writes:

The reaction to the catastrophe of 70 C.E. among Jews and Christians proved to be diametrically opposite. The Jews rejected the NEW and the Christians rejected the OLD. The Jews affirmed that salvation for Israel could be found only by upholding in its pure form the Sinaitic Covenant; the Christians proclaimed that salvation for Israel, and the Gentiles, could be found only in the eternal covenant established through the risen Jesus.

Judaism...was unique, clearly distinct from all other religious systems. Totally God-centered, it had a deeply humanistic quality emphasizing ethical and social values. It was a "classical" religion, moderate, measurable, seeking harmony with nature, bursting with love of life and joy – when not punished by the Lord.

Suddenly, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth with its more radical aspects, the proclamation by the Twelve that the same Jesus was truly risen inaugurated the heavenly Jerusalem, and the reaching out of Saul of Tarsus toward the Gentiles, all seemed to destroy the delicate equilibrium God had built through centuries of patience and inspiration. Not only did these novelties not correspond to the actual messianic expectations of the common people, but they were changing the focus of traditional Jewish life from covenantal justice toward gratuitous love, from concern with this world toward concern with the world to come, and from nationalism toward universalism. Such new perspectives were not essentially anti-Jewish, or completely foreign to Judaism, but they were stretching Temple Judaism to its limits and even beyond its limits.

Martin goes on to distinguish out various reactions to Jesus and the early Church from within the Jewish community, and shows how the political situation at the time framed these different responses:

To understand the reaction of the Jewish people to this new teaching, we must carefully separate the reaction of the Sadducean party in control of the Temple, and indirectly of the nation, from the general reaction of the people. The colonial situation, the fear of the Romans, and the will to maintain a grip on political power, led to an unavoidable conflict at first between the religious establishment and Jesus of Nazareth, and later his Galilean disciples. As the Sadducees lost all power after the burning of the Temple, the general reaction of the Pharisees and the common people remained the most significant response. Originally it was not negative. It was rather a feeling of uncertainty concerning the imminent coming of a hoped for messianic event mixed with a deep uneasiness at experiencing cherished traditions stretched beyond acceptable limits.

It is principally Pauline evangelism which started to transform an attitude of respect, curiosity and distance into a negative reaction. The sense of self-identity and the struggle for national survival in difficult political circumstances brought forth a great fear that the dissolution of Torah Judaism into an a-temporal and universal Judaism would strike down the dividing wall carefully constructed by Ezra and would finally destroy the integrity of the nation. The leaders of the Diaspora dreaded that Paul would attract many Jews to this strange and easier kind of Judaism; they were deeply offended at the manipulation of Jewish sanctities by uncircumcised Gentiles. This time it was not a matter of systematic doubt or suspended judgment but of a religious injury that needed an antagonistic answer. (ibid, p178-179, emphases added)

For Study and Prayer:

What should a Christian's attitude be to the dispersion of the Jews over nearly 2,000 years - and to the restoration of Israel today?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts

The following is a prophetic word for Great Britain given through Lance Lambert, who had a great love for the UK as his adopted country after he escaped here from the Nazis as a child. Please read and weigh this prayerfully.

Lance Lambert, Saturday 6 August 2011

Hear the voice of the Lord, O Isles that I have so greatly loved and favoured. I the Lord the Almighty, I took you when you were nothing, clothed with skins and woad, and through My saving power, I made you great. When you were nothing, through My Word and your faith in Me, l lifted you and made you Great Britain. Through many awakenings and many revivals, stage by stage, I took you until you became a great power with the greatest Empire in the history of the nations. From you My Gospel and My Word went throughout the world, and tens of thousands came into an experience of saving faith! That Empire with all its many failings and weaknesses was still one of the most just and righteous Empires of history.

Those Isles of yours were soaked with the blood of My faithful martyrs and its soil received the burnt ashes of those who would not renounce My Name, My Truth, and My Word. I, the Lord have not forgotten those who gave their all for Me!

But now the whole nation that l created and sustained has turned from Me. They paganise their land, state and institutions; there is no voice heard to warn the nation. False religion, the work of world rulers of darkness, cover your Isles; a Laodicean church, neither hot nor cold, rumbles on like machinery. It is a church where I am outside of its routine; its organisation and its methodology. It is Christianity without Me: Religion without Me!

My being is seared with pain, for judgement is determined against your land. I can do no other. I will destroy the vestiges of her greatness; l will return her to her first estate. I will wreck her economy, destabilise her in every way. I will change her climate, even her weather. I will prove to her that the way of the transgressor is hard and terrible. I will allow demonic forces held in check erstwhile by My Word and Gospel, and the living faith of so many, to become rampant in her social life, to the destruction of her society.
Will you who know Me and love Me go blind and dumb and deaf into this judgement?

It is time for you who love Me, who are faithful to Me, to take action! Stand before Me and plead The Finished Work of My Son. At least cry out to Me, that there will be those who turn from darkness, from sin, and be saved for whosoever shall call upon My Name in the midst of these judgements, l will save!

lt will cost you everything to stand in the gap, but you will enter into My heart, and know deep fellowship with Me. Such travail conceived in your heart by My Spirit will cost you deeply, but it will end in My Throne and Glory.