Excerpts from Leo's Books

The general public may never read Leo's book-length works so included are some of the excerpts that would be a shame to miss.

Excerpts from The Cup of His Indignation

The Pentateuch of John

Did John Write the five books accredited to him? Here is internal evidence.

DID THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITE the Revelation, the fourth gospel, and the three epistles that bear his name?  Probably few Christians who accept the divine inspiration of the Bible doubt that he did.  They wonder, I suppose, why anyone would even raise the question.  It is a fact, how­ever, that many of the “liberal” school of theologians express grave doubts as to the Johannine authorship of the five books in the New Testament tradi­tionally ascribed to him, especially the Reve­lation.  Though I cannot agree with them, I de­cided to search for evidence to de­termine the fact one way or the other.

In endeavoring to prove to my own satisfaction that John did in fact write the Revela­tion, I have made an enlightening discov­ery, one that has great implications for this book.  But first, we must take a quick look at some of the theories concern­ing the origin and date of the New Testament.

For eighteen centuries, the church has believed that the New Testa­ment was written by, or at the instigation of, the apostles.  Today, a large majority of semi­nary graduates, the “professional clergy,” deny apostolic authority for much of the New Testament.  Contem­porary schol­arship has become especially clamorous in its denunciation of John’s author­ship of the five books traditionally attributed to him.  There are varying degrees of skepti­cism—on the one hand are the extreme radicals who admit only the first epistle bearing John’s name to be gen­uinely his, while on the other hand are a few who generously ad­mit perhaps three of the five books to be Johannine.  But practically all contempo­rary liberal scholars, and many of the conservatives, claim that the Apostle John wrote neither the fourth gospel nor the Apocalypse.  Even the least critical insist that though one of them may be John’s, he could not have written both.  (The Apocalypse, for example, is usually as­cribed to some vague and shadowy “John the Elder.”)

Another problem intimately intertwined with that of authorship is the date of composi­tion.  Contemporary students generally “late date” the New Testament to a time when most or all of the eyewitnesses to its events were dead.  Thus, if we are to believe this school of thought, our New Testament is a mere collection of oral traditions, su­perstitions, garbled stories, myths and legends written by unknown scribes a gen­eration or two after the events it relates.  One of the “principles” on which liberals base their deductions is called prophecy ex eventu.  This means that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy (except by pure coincidence); the claim of any text to be the fulfillment of a prophecy is a sure sign that it was written after the event.

As a conservative and a fundamentalist, I simply could not accept without ques­tion the speculations of modern critics; I could not rest until I had examined what­ever evidence they could produce. I firmly be­lieve it is our duty—and privilege—to answer the critics.  For one thing, controversial issues provide an excellent oppor­tunity to gain a richer and deeper understanding of the Scriptures, which indeed proved true for me in this case.  More im­portant, however, is the ques­tion of faith:  if these assertions of the contemporary theologi­cal com­munity are allowed to stand, they are bound to weaken or destroy one’s faith in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.[1]  Why would one want to study and obey the words of those who pos­sibly never saw the Lord Jesus Christ but who merely recorded hand-me-down stories and oral tradi­tions?  Would one offer his life for a legend, if it came to that?

[1]      I was such a person.  There was a time when I partly succumbed to the inducements of the mod­ern critics and began believing many of their theories.  My faith, as a consequence, was nearly de­stroyed.  Only through the prayers of my loved ones and the grace of God was I extricated from the evils of unbelief.

Read more . . .

 

Tongues Are for A Sign

A Sign to Whom and for What?

WE RETURN TO ISAIAH, chapter 28:1-13, where Ephraim’s     (Israel’s) rulers are ac­cused of drunkenness.  We are interested in the  passage con­cerning “stammering lips and another tongue.”

The NIV punctuates the text as a dialogue between the prophet and Israel’s rul­ers.  The dialogue is broken up as follows:  verses 1-8 (which are not listed, but immediately precede the quoted portion below) are Isaiah’s reproof of the rulers of Israel, including their priests and prophets, for their drunkenness, a drunkenness so acute they stagger and stumble and are virtually blind.  (The Septuagint gives covetous­ness as the reason for this drunkenness.)  Verses 9-10 are their scornful reaction to the prophet’s reproof.  Verses 11-13 are Isaiah’s reply to their sneers.  We note also that some of what the KJV prints as a statement (v. 9) is printed as a question in the NIV.  Here, then, are two versions of Isaiah 28:9-13:This is a difficult passage.  Part of the difficulty is caused by the lack of punctuation in the original Hebrew text as well as some words of un­known mean­ing.  Without punctua­tion, it is sometimes difficult to distin­guish statements from questions, and, in dialogue, to determine just who said what.  It will help consider­ably if we use a modern translation.  I have consulted several, including the new Jewish transla­tion, Tanakh, but the one that ap­pears to be easiest to understand is the New International Version (NIV).   To make it even easier to discuss, I have listed the pertinent verses from the KJV and the NIV in parallel columns, embed­ding the verse numbers in the text for reference.

 

    King James Version          NIV

   9  Whom shall he teach knowledge?  and whom shall he make to under­stand doctrine?  them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.  9   Who is he trying to teach?  To whom is he explaining his message?  To children weaned from the milk, to those just taken from the breast?
10   For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little. 10   For it is:  Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule:  a little here, a little there.
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 11   Very well, then, with foreign lips and with strange tongues God will speak to this people.
12  To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest: and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 12  To whom he said, “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”: and, “This is the place of re­pose”—but they would not listen.
13   But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. 13   So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:  Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there—so that they will go and fall backward, be injured and snared and captured.

 

Let me paraphrase.  The drunkards reply mockingly to Isaiah’s ac­cusation:  if he wishes to instruct someone who is sober, why not a freshly weaned infant who crawls about bab­bling nonsense?  (A footnote explains that the Hebrew words which the KJV renders “precept upon precept” and “line upon line,” are of un­known meaning and are proba­bly nonsense syllables, perhaps a mimicking of Isaiah’s words.)

Isaiah responds by telling them, since that is the way they under­stand it and since they have refused the Lord’s offer of rest and re­freshing, the Lord will speak to them with for­eign lips and a strange tongue.  This will result in the word of God becoming to them even as they have said in mockery:  like the meaningless babble of babies.

Let me repeat, for here is the nub of our discussion:  the Lord has offered them rest from their labors.  But they refuse to hear and make fun of his prophet.  There­fore, the Lord will cause it to happen even as they sarcastically suggest:  he will speak to them in an unknown lan­guage and the Scriptures will seem to them like the murmurings and mutter­ings of adult speech to an infant newly weaned.

Their willful ignorance will become an enforced ignorance.

Read more . . .

Excerpts from The Cup of His Indignation (cont.)

The Law of Jealousy

How it applies to God and his "Wife"

ISAIAH ALSO RECORDED certain prophecies concerning Babylon, found principally in chapters 13, 14, and 47.  Much of his language, especially that of chapter 47, is echoed in the Revelation.  As in the case of Jeremiah’s great curse, we must answer the question as to whether they may be applied to Jerusalem or are strictly limited to the ancient city of Babylon.

For myself, I am certain the oracle of chapter 47 is really about Jerusalem, alias Babylon the Great, at least at the second level of mean­ing, but to justify my con­tention requires an investigation of a singular law of Moses recorded in Numbers 5:11-31.  It is called The Law of Jeal­ousies (Num. 5:29).  A law of this type is usually called an “ordeal,” quite common among primitive societies, where guilt or innocence is de­termined by subjecting the accused to painful or dangerous tests be­lieved to be under supernatural control.

The test in this case was to determine whether a man’s wife had se­cretly com­mitted adultery or not.  If the man became suspicious, that is, “the spirit of jealousy came upon him” but there were no witnesses to the act, he was to bring her to the priest with an offering of barley meal.  The priest performed the following proce­dure:

  • He obtained a vessel of “holy water” in which a pinch of dust from the floor of the tabernacle was added.
  • The woman’s head was uncovered which probably meant her locks were loosed from any covering or restraining bands.
  • He placed her offering of barley meal in her hand.
  • With the “bitter water that causeth the curse” in his hand, he charged the woman with an oath, pronouncing her free from the curse of the bitter water if she be innocent, or cursed by it if she be guilty.
  • To all of these words, the woman responded, “Amen, amen.”
  • The priest wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the holy water.
  • The priest took the offering of barley meal out of the woman’s hand and of­fered it to the Lord.
  • Finally, she was made to drink the bitter water.

The result of this ordeal is written in verses 27-28:

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell and her thigh shall rot:  and the woman shall be a curse among her people.  And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

From the wording of the last verse, we deduce that the ultimate effect of the curse on a guilty party was to render her barren.

I have not found in the Bible any instances where an individual was tested by it, but I have found it to have been applied to Israel as a whole.  Israel was the es­poused wife of the Lord who committed adultery with strange gods.  The Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob called himself a “jealous God” (Ex. 20:5) and often spoke of his consuming jeal­ousy for Israel and Judah.  He would have reason to invoke “the law of jealousies” against his espoused wife.  The first instance I found in­volved the nation when it crossed River Jordan into Canaan.  The back­ground is this:

read more . . .

666: What is it?

A branding on the forehead? Or on the Soul?

UP TO THIS POINT we have been mostly concerned with the implications of the mark of the beast as it concerned ancient Israel.  We have en­deavored to interpret the Apoca­lypse against the backdrop of the He­brew Scriptures and God’s dealing with that nation.  This is absolutely necessary before the significance of John’s visions for the church can be ascertained.

Though the previous chapters have amassed overwhelming evidence that Babylon is apostate Judaism, it would be a mistake to suppose that the church is not involved.  The church is spiritual Israel and subject to all the same temptations and failures that character­ized ancient Is­rael.  In particular, the church has the problem of false prophets in her midst and apostasy of her members.

Apostasy

But there were false prophets also among the people of Is­rael, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even de­nying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift de­struction.  And many shall follow their pernicious ways . . . . (2 Pet. 2:1-2).

In a parallel passage, Jude also writes of false teachers and exhorts all believers to re­member the apostates of past ages.  He mentions three groups:  the Israelites of the exodus, the angels who sinned, and the Sodomites.  If the traditional understanding be correct that demons are the spirits of apostate angels, we have here a conjunction of the three compo­nents of apostasy already discussed:  breaking of the covenant, fellowship with apostate angels—that is, devils—and the spiritual arro­gance and shameless guilt of a sodomite or a whore.

Many New Testament texts testify to the apostasy that shall overtake the church in the last days.  For example, Jesus said,

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one an­other, and shall hate one another.  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.  And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold (Matt. 24:10-12)

Those words were spoken just before Jesus mentioned the appearance of the abomination of desolation, which, as we pointed out, agrees with Paul when he says there would come a great apostasy and the man of sin would be revealed out of their midst (see second paragraph and forward below).

Paul also said:

. . . in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils . . . . (1 Tim. 4:1).

For a description of the reprobate clergy to arise in the last days when “perilous times shall come,” see 2 Timothy 4:1-8 where Paul uses nineteen graphic phrases to denounce their shameless character.  Then, in 2 Thessalonians, Paul foretells of the apostasy (the only time he actu­ally uses the word) to arise just prior to the second advent of Christ.  He then proceeds to describe a man to be revealed in the midst of the apostates which many believe is the personal Antichrist.1

Apostasy is nothing new.  It actually began, as far as the church is concerned, in the days of the apostles.  However, though the seeds of apostasy were sown very early, it will not reach its fruition until shortly before the second Advent.  The mystery of iniquity was already at work in Paul’s day—but something or someone was restraining it so that “he,” the Wicked one, might be revealed in his time.  Jesus said iniquity would abound; the very next thing on his agenda was the “abomination of desolation” which I believe is the same person that Paul called the “son of perdition.”

read more . . .

 

Excerpts from The Voice of Melody

Flesh of His Flesh

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" (1 Cor. 15:35)

But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" (1 Cor. 15:35).

Precisely this question arose once in a Bible study class which I was conducting.  I gave the man Paul's answer: it is not the body that dies which will arise, but a new body.  Paul compared it to the sowing of a kernel of wheat: the grain that is harvested is not the grain that was sown, for that kernel has decayed back into the earth.

But the man replied that Jesus was raised from the dead with exactly the same body that was crucified--he still had the scars to prove it (and besides, his body had vanished from the tomb).  Since he is our Great Example, so the man argued, then we will likewise have our present body restored in the resurrection.

At the time, I could find no  suitable answer. Indeed, the man had a valid argument; but to accept it implied a denial of Paul's explanation.  It was several years before I found a resolution of the dilemma.

The key is to understand that in this one respect, at least,  Jesus is not our Great Example.  A difference needs to be considered, a difference that will resolve the apparent contradiction.  Let us begin at the beginning:

Because of  sin, Adam was cursed to die. The Lord said, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:19).  Ever since, the sons of Adam have died and returned to the dust, for all have sinned (Pelagius notwithstanding). 2Now here is the crucial difference: Jesus came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, yet without sin.  Though he had a human mother, he was not the son of Adam, but was the Son of God.  Hence, the curse did not apply to him:  he was under no sentence to return to the dust.  In fact, it was specifically prophesied of him that his flesh should not see corruption (Psa. 16:10, cited Acts 2:27, 31). The same body in which he suffered was raised from the dead, glorified, and taken up to heaven.

On the other hand, we shall not keep this body.3 We will be given a new body like Christ's own glorious body (Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2).  This promise is stated by Paul as: "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (2 Cor. 5:1).

Recorded in the Pentateuch is a miraculous event that typifies the distinction between us and Christ in this respect.  While the Israelites were wandering through the wilderness, God sent them "manna" to eat.  It fell like dew every night (except on the sabbath) and the people gathered it every morning, just as much as they needed for the day.  They were expressly forbidden to hoard any from day to day.

Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank. . . . (Ex. 16:20).

There was one exception to this: a bit of manna was miraculously preserved.  Moses commanded Aaron, the high priest, to place an omer of manna in a pot (about a quart) and store it in the holiest place of the tabernacle with the ten commandments, the two carved cherubim, the golden censer, and the rod of Aaron that budded. There the manna was preserved from generation to generation for a witness to God's faithfulness in providing for the needs of his people (Ex. 16-33-36).

read more . . .

 

The Third Temple

"Despise not the day of small things"

Jerusalem was easily the most splendid and opulent city of its time.  Solomon's 40 year reign is nostalgically remembered by the Jews as the golden kingdom.  Based on Isaiah 60 and similar texts, the orthodox Jews (and many Christians) look forward to a time when, under the Messiah yet to come, Israel shall again enjoy such a kingdom when she will be exalted above all nations of the earth, and her onetime Gentile oppressors shall be her servants to build her cities and walls, plough her fields, nurse her children, and pay her tribute.  One text reads as follows:

And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee....Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought (Isa. 60:10-11).

It was to explain the first statement, "the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls," that induced me to write this book. At first glance, orthodox Jewry does indeed appear to be correct in believing the Gentiles shall ultimately be vassals of Israel.  But I for one cannot accept this literally, for it violates the spirit and teachings of the entire New Testament—and, besides, I am a Gentile.  Hence, I began searching for an interpretation that not only gives meaning to Isaiah's words but does no violence to the doctrines of the apostles.

Let us now turn our attention to some of the prophecies of the kingdom.  First, the natural.  There was indeed a historical basis for Isaiah's prophecy that the sons of strangers would build up Zion's walls.  David conceived the noble idea of constructing a magnificent temple for the Lord to replace the tabernacle, and, though forbidden by the Lord to build it, a task to be left for his son, he accumulated great quantities of materials for its construction.  Since Israel lacked good timber, David prevailed upon his friend Hiram, king of Tyre, to send him cedars and firs from the slopes of Mount Lebanon.  He also asked for skilled workmen to hew the timbers and saw the great stones, for Israel had no craftsmen so skilled as the Phoenicians.  In addition, David "commanded to gather together the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God" (1 Chron. 22:2).  His son Solomon carried on the alliance between the two nations who had formerly been the bitterest of enemies.  Hiram agreed, for a fee, to supply not only timber but skilled hewers of both timber and stone.  "And Solomon's builders and Hiram's builders did hew them, and the stonesquarers: so they prepared timber and stones to build the house" (1 Kings. 5:18).

Thus it was that the sons of strangers built up the walls of the temple, bringing into Israel their "forces" (Heb., "chayil"), that is, their wealth of skills, timber, and other natural resources.  What is important to remember here is the friendly cooperation that existed between the Israelites and Gentiles, formerly enemies, as they worked together on the Lord's building.

Solomon's magnificent temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar around 586 B.C.  It was rebuilt under Zerubbabel's leadership about a century later.  This "second" temple was completely remodeled by King Herod, who began work on it about 20 B.C. and was yet incomplete during the days of Jesus' ministry.  It was completed 64 A.D., just six years before its destruction by the Romans.

It hardly needs saying that the temple, its furnishings, its priests, and its rituals were only patterns of good things to come and of the true tabernacle pitched by the Lord and not man (Heb. 8:2,5: 10:1).  At Calvary the veil that hung at the entrance to the holy of holies was torn asunder signifying that its heavenly antitype had been ushered in.  This is the great theme of the epistle to the Hebrews where a few of the types are explained: for example, the veil represents the fleshly body of Christ, the holy of holies represents heaven, and the high priest represents Jesus, our heavenly intercessor.

read more . . .

 

 

 

  1. Though I agree, the reader should be aware there is another plausible interpretation placed upon this passage that would make it a description not of a single individual but of a class of atheis­tic and self-exalting people such as our present materialistic scientists and world leaders appear to be.
  2. Pelagius, a fourth century Irish monk, denied original sin inherited from Adam, and affirmed that all men now have the power not to sin (Walker, A History of the Christian Church [Charles Scribner's Sons, 1918], p. 185.)  I once corresponded with a small sect in England who espouse Pelagianism.
  3.  There is a veiled reference to the total destruction of all flesh in Isaiah:  "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever..." (51:6).  We must abandon this fleshly tabernacle if we are to be saved