REPLY TO FIRST LETTER
for Reply to Second Letter click here.
Greetings in the name of Christ, the only Saviour.
Thank you for your letter or note.
The short answer to your question about Cyrus being a 'double meaning' prophecy, is that it is not so conceived. What it provides is however twofold:
1) it specifies a king to perform a predicted task for Israel and
2) it does so in a manner which enables a rapid comparison and contrast with Christ, so stimulating concentration on the exceedingly wonderful thing Christ did, since it so surpasses the Cyrus provision for the nation. If the latter was great, yet the former, Jesus the Christ Himself in His work, was infinitely greater. How great then was Christ's work when it makes by contrast the great work of Cyrus look so small.
Thus Cyrus is depicted with some superficial features which remind one of Christ, just as was the case with Joseph in being persecuting and forgiving to those who persecuted him. He is a type of Christ. He is far removed from Christ, and his mission has only a certain type of resemblance to it. It is neither salvatory in a spiritual sense, nor even godly in the internal sense, since Cyrus is personally and statedly without the knowledge of God. For all that, the use of this, his ancient mission to bring a parallel, through the divinely chosen terminology used of Cyrus in Isaiah 45, makes useful and stimulating reading. It is profitable concerning Christ, since it helps to focus on what Christ did, not in material, but spiritual architecture, not in restoration to a city, but to Himself. The comparisons in typing are valuable and provocative of thought.
The persons of Cyrus and Christ are infinitely different in power and purity; the procedures of both nevertheless have points of resemblance which Isaiah is used to exhibit in the pointed use of terminology we find there in Chs. 44-45.
Well then, you have said very little indeed concerning your concerns, and the main reason I am replying is perhaps this, that you seem to want to present many scriptures, concerning the Messiah, which is good.
It is difficult to know just what you have in mind, but seems possible you may be wondering this: if David can be used as a type of Christ, and his name used as a signal for the great descendant through Mary to come, who was the incarnate God, then cannot in parallel, the name of Cyrus be used to indicate something else as well ? or you may even be questioning this.
The term 'double sense' however, as noted above, is readily answered. Let us pursue this. There is not any double sense relative to the person of Cyrus who is Cyrus ONLY; but there is a sense in which his work has resemblance in FORM to some of the works of Christ, who is also anointed (though for a far greater work), who is the Shepherd, though in an infinitely more important field, who also has gates which cannot be closed, open before Him, though these include for the Saviour, the very gate of death! These parallels are pointed and the contrast then enters in, since by so much more did Christ perform in His mission than Cyrus in his.
This is not what one would call a 'double' meaning, for it is most clear and simple. Cyrus is predicted by name as a coming king whose work would show in type externally, some form of resemblance to the spiritual work of Christ; but the point is most emphatic: Cyrus' work is not in itself spiritual, but an exhibition of the power of that SPIRIT who is GOD, who can use EVEN such things as unconverted kings to perform such marvels of deliverance of the nation, as Cyrus did. God can so use that king that he can even be called a 'shepherd' and 'anointed' in Isaiah; for God's power is not limited by man.
You have not made it quite clear just what points you have in mind, but this will do for a start. Perhaps there is even something else, and you are thinking of other points than this. Your use of many of the references to the Messiah of God, to be slain, resurrected, to the One who would justify by His knowledge because He will bear iniquity (Isaiah 53) does seem to suggest some aspect of anointing to be in your mind. This is the difficulty, when things are not precisely spelled out, for one to answer. But it seems best to cover the issues so that we may be talking of the same thing, in terms of the Bible.
About that, then, there is no difficulty. Cyrus is simply Cyrus, and there is much to learn from what He did about what Christ would do. Cyrus is simply an unsaved sinner, and such is the power of God that He can use even such a one in dimensions which even give savour in form, in language, of what Christ would do. Of course, in fact, this is merely a type, a stirring of the mind, a challenge to the understanding. Double vision is certainly not called for; and it is by all means to be avoided. It is like star pointers: they POINT to something, but for that very reason, should never be confused with it!!
Anointing can be of many types: it is a setting apart by divine decision and action. In the case of the Messiah, HIS works, deity and commission are entirely clear and distinct and shown in Joyful Jottings Chs. 22-25, for example, or in SMR Ch. 9. Cyrus is commissioned and anointed for something categorically different; but there are points of similarity useful for teaching and the divine language employed concerning Him is clearly provocative of thought, to make people use this as a lesson to see a type of what is to come, of infinitely greater importance. The use of terms such as 'anointed', 'shepherd', 'subdue nations' stir such thought, and force one to differentiate, thus digging deeper into the divine message.
Types are very common in the Bible. David, as a term, can indeed be used, meaning the house of David, the line of David, and so leading on to the famous and covenanted Redeemer to come through that particular background on earth, and from deity in heaven. In Isaiah 11, more literally, it is the 'house of David'. This was the promise of II Samuel 7, rejoiced in at Psalm 89. In some aspect, and here its fulfilment in the majesty of His coming rule is depicted.
Someone may exhibit a feature of Christ which becomes a useful mode of introduction to the thought of the same, who is then the antitype. You see this in Isaiah 22 for example. You see it EXPLICITLY in Zechariah 6, where Joshua is the type, used to symbolise Christ, though Joshua himself was dark with sin, a fact there stressed as the point is being made. The transformation however suggests a better priest with better credentials and a better work, in Zech. 6, when you read it.
In the above case in Isaiah 11, it is however more than this, with Joshua; the reference is to the 'son of David' who is also the Messiah. Not only is it showing something of godly relationship in David, but it is referring to a rod out of the stem of Jesse, the promised descendant.
There is no possibility of confusion, as the PROMISE is there, and it is apparent that it is to be fulfilled in the 'seed' granted also in promise to Abraham, with more specifications provided later, to David. It is the seed by this stage, of David through Mary, who then becomes the human base for incarnation. This seed, indeed, can even have the name 'David' as metonymy as in Jeremiah 30:9, simply a condensed way of saying 'the one specified by, through and to David, to come through David, and according to promise, that representative of the House of David to whom such power has been predicted uniquely.'
When it comes therefore to Cyrus, certainly he can be a type as David could, though he had no such promise or position relative to Christ according to the flesh. Assuredly, there is no evidence that he would be most blessed forever (Psalm 2), and what would suggest such a thing! for this is neither in the text nor in the context, but applies to the antitype, infinitely beyond sinful man, Jesus Christ, who being resurrected, is to rule all the world.
Indeed, as not even knowing God, Cyrus is excluded from any 'name' type reference, nominal tag for Christ as could be used of 'David'. The concourse of currents is not then there, and it would be alien in essence, hence preventing such a degree of nominal intimacy. Yet for all that, when it is merely a matter of a type, which means that has some, or several conspicuous features which are startlingly indicative of some aspect of Christ's great person and work: Cyrus can assuredly be used in this way, typically. That is the term used for this.
Thus God calls Cyrus his 'shepherd', specifying in what respect (Isaiah 44:28): that he will order the reconstruction of Jerusalem. With Cyrus, it is an architectural shepherding relative to a city, not a spiritual shepherding relative to souls. Yet it has in one aspect, some resemblance, hence the typing.
Further, just as Jerusalem can be used as a type of the people of God or their congregation (as in Galatians 3:25-26), so the very fact of Cyrus ordering the restoration of that particular city has a rich symbolism; for this is in stone what Christ does, is in heart. In fact, what Christ did (Matthew 24) involved the dismantling of the Temple stones! Indeed, it was not a temple of symbolism but of spirit which His divine and compassionate command would bring to pass!
Cyrus is 'anointed' (Isaiah 45:1), for a task, as specified. For this task, God will open doors, remove obstructions and secure fulfilment, thus showing His amazing power, as He Himself declares in Isaiah; since the SERVANT Cyrus, so far from being God, is not even one who KNOWS Him! That is part of what is being proclaimed in Isaiah.
The contrast is made specifically by God (cf. Isaiah 42:1, 49:6), between the Shepherd who KNOWS God and in whom HE DELIGHTS, and the one who does not have so much as personal relationship with Him!
In this setting, there is a great savouring of the typical aspect on the one hand, just as there is of the complete disjunction on the other. It is a wonderful teaching method, forcing one to think, and thus to focus on the Lord and the grandeur of the way in which the Messiah not only did far more than Cyrus, but far differently; for what Cyrus did fulfilled in this respect, a symbol; what Christ did fulfilled the program itself (as in Hebrews 8-10).
The emphasis concerning this predicted liberating by Cyrus, is that "My counsel shall stand" (Isaiah 46:10), as He calls this 'ravenous bird from the East', and that those who think that history will direct things differently will be utterly ashamed as God restores the nation and the city by THIS VERY means, indeed by a king NAMED Cyrus, centuries before he was even born (Isaiah 44:28,45:4). Yes, He has even NAMED him by his own historical name.
Such is the use of Cyrus to show how God frustrates foolish talk that does not follow His word, but exactly fulfils what does (Isaiah 44:45-46); and it is a lead to the Isaiah 61:1-3 coming of the One who delivers prisoners and proclaims the opening of the prison to those who are bound, preaching good tidings, binding up the broken hearted, comforting all who mourn, giving beauty for ashes, so that they might be called 'trees of righteousness'. In this, then, the architecture is SPIRITUAL. With Cyrus, there was a preliminary expression of a type to show something of the nature of the thing, so that what was in this respect, symbolic there, in Christ became spiritually direct, personal and providing salvation.
From the writing of Isaiah, then, two future events are in mind, among others. One is the coming depth with Christ the Messiah, to restore the lost to the fold; and this is accentuated by comparison, through the prior, relative shallowness in Cyrus, the 'shepherd' to restore the nation to its land. Nevertheless, the language chosen in Isaiah, in bringing to mind things for comparison, stirs the heart to appreciate the more the work of Christ by contrast of its eminence. The task is far greater, requiring deity to do it; the love is far larger; the power required is vastly more massive; and the former work of Cyrus points out by having some partial parallels, the magnificence of the later work of Christ. Unequalled by an infinite margin, this yet has this trailer beforehand, as a preparation for the heart, and a focus for the mind.
Thus is the type (Cyrus) relative to the antitype (Christ).
As shown in the chapter at http://webwitness.org.au/christandcyrus.html this is indeed the case. Have you read that chapter in which COMPARISON and CONTRAST is noted and explained ? Cyrus is Cyrus, the predicted deliverer of Isaiah 44-45, who DOES NOT KNOW God, but for all that, he is a TYPE of Christ, the Son of God, for a number of reasons.
In Isaiah 45:1-4, the Lord shows many amazing features of Cyrus, which relate to those of Christ: Cyrus in mere temporal mode, Christ in eternal mode. These comparisons and contrasts are striking; but then God then tells us that though Cyrus is called in such TERMS as those in Isaiah 45, to a task so described, yet it was predicted that that former king would not so much as know God. In this the sovereign power of God is shown, as He Himself goes on to exhibit. It exhibits, God indicates there, that it is He who can even use in some preliminary way, a king without God, to perform a work of God, albeit only at the terrestrial and preliminary level.
Let us ponder this for a moment. What are some of the superficial and even terminological similarities ?
These include the following: Cyrus, the named 'shepherd' was in a position of power relative to Israel; he saw them as a captive people in Babylon and its empire, to which they had been taken in exile; he desired to liberate them with mercy and kindness, and did so, even restoring what was precious, in a monetary and artisan sense, that is, temple vessels. He did it without price: it is NOT FOR REWARD. He needed no financial inducement (Isaiah 45:13), for his earthly task, just as Christ makes the gift of eternal life FREE also, just as Isaiah 55 predicts of Him. Each does the thing freely in this carefully developed comparison; but WHAT each does freely has infinitely different value. The one, nevertheless, in FORM, is a pointer to the other.
Now we come further to the parallel in Christ, showing something of its being so supremely superior.
Christ when He came, saw His people in exile from the land of love and mercy and truth, and desired to liberate them. Being in a position of power, He did so, out of mercy, grace and love (Titus 2-3). With Cyrus, only those who preferred the 'narrow' way of returning to rebuild Jerusalem found any application for this mercy. As for them, they went and rebuilt on the highway of mercy, in that earlier day. As for those who found the narrow way when Christ came, they seek and find stones for the temple of Christ, conceived as living stones (II Peter 2). The way is free, in both cases, it is narrow in both, it is for rebuilding (in one sense) in both, it is bringing back to where they belong (in one sense, in each case) and it is done by a 'shepherd' offering the way to all the nation.
This bears in detail comparison with what Christ did, not in value, but in form; and as such it is used as a teaching device, in the standard nature of typology. What then do we find ?
Then, in Cyrus' day, it was land and temple; now it is life and truth.
Yes there is certainly a type-antitype relationship between Cyrus and Christ and I suggest that if you have not done so, you might read the above file on Christ and Cyrus.
DAVID and CHRIST are related as type and antitype in some things, but in the human side of it, in lineage as well. Cyrus on the other hand, provides a stark contrast with David, in this dramatic and divine declaration, that he did not so much as even KNOW God! God makes this point in Isaiah in the very midst of using terms that have a relationship to the Messiah. So far from removing the teaching points in the divinely provided terminological parallels, this stirs them into sight.
That in turn helps the mind and heart to savour and realise the grandeur of Christ, or in the case of those in the day of Isaiah, it helped prepare their hearts, and those of their children, the better. For what are they being prepared ? it is for the sheer wonder of the magnitude of mercy to come in Christ, who not only had power, but the power of God, who not only was a shepherd, but the Good Shepherd of Ezekiel 34, who was God Himself coming to save as there foretold, who not only had mercy, but paid for it in blood, who not only used his life, but gave it in vicarious death. There is then one Cyrus, one meaning for Cyrus, one thing for Cyrus to do, with its various facets; and there is one use of Cyrus as a type of Christ to come. That is an APPLICATION, and is the phenomenon of a TYPE. It uses an historical fact as a teaching method through the use of the comparison methodology called type-antitype.
If there are other points in mind which you wish to discuss, please send me a letter, telling me more about the nature of your interest, and the exact matters in hand. If not, so be it, and thank you for writing.
I hope this is of interest to you, and in the Lord's grace, brings blessing. Could I request you, then, to save time, should you wish to speak further on this topic, to read the Christ and Cyrus file given in hyperlink above, before replying.
May the Lord bless you as you seek to follow Him and His word.
In the name of Christ, the Good Shepherd, the Messiah of eternal accomplishment, who purchased eternal redemption, whose unsearchable riches are forever (Revelation 5, Ephesians 3:8).
Robert Donaldson
for World Wide Web Witness
Greetings Jack.
I am resending my reply to your letters, sent this morning, firstly because I have now checked the hyperlinks to ensure they work, and secondly, to prevent some duplication which crept into that reply.
Hi Jack.
In my reply to your first letter, which had very little in the way of explanation of what you wanted, but one point, to which I gave a reply, and one short line, which I related to context, I was at pains to present the simple facts such as that of the reference to David, as a progenitor, through Mary, of Christ, and that it was thus that we gained by metonymy, the possible use of that term for Christ. It was also made fitting, in terms of the covenant, so that in such cases, there came to be a possible use of the term 'David', for what, being centuries after him, obviously meant the famous 'son' whom he called LORD! (Psalm 110, Matthew 22:44-45). You do not predict someone who is a few centuries back; but there might well be a prediction of the famous seed and Son, for centuries before predicted for the House of David, to come in His time (as in Galatians 4:4, the time shown in Daniel 9, for which see below). For that 'David' can be read, or 'Son of David' and so on.
You get that use of 'David' for 'Christ', for example in Ezekiel 37:34, where the qualities of the Messiah are seen in someone predicted about half a millenium after David, to come as Daniel showed (cf. Highway of Holiness Ch. 4), another half a millennium later again. Although my house be not so with God, said David (II Samuel 23:5), yet the LORD had made with him an EVERLASTING COVENANT, focussed on this coming seed (Psalm 2). Since his own fleshly contribution had people like Absolam, and no sign of a supernatural Saviour, there was no immediate prospect.
Yet it was eventually to be so for the covenant was everlasting (cf. Ephesians 1:10, where ALL things are to be gathered up in Jesus the Christ). It focussed on the Saviour to come with the outline as in Isaiah 52-53. As Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), this Saviour in Isaiah 53 was indeed Jesus, and that is the One whom he preached in explanation of the question: Of whom does the prophet speak, of himself or another?
Peter in the same way made it clear that David was dead and buried, his flesh rotted, but not so was it with the Christ, who as the Messiah promised through David, was very much alive, and His flesh did not rot (Acts 2).
So there is the scriptural position, DAVID, a sinner, received a covenant. DAVID was not the Messiah. David’s body rotted; but the Messiah is the Saviour whom Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 53, and His body did not rot. It was the famous ‘Son of David’ accordingly whom the children celebrated on Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:14ff., cf. Luke 19:37ff.), in accord with the Messianic Psalm 118, 2 and so on. If such as these were stilled, Christ indicated, the STONES would cry out.
The use of 'David' as in Ezekiel 37:23, for the sinless, sacrificial Messiah refers of course to the House of David to whom the promises of II Samuel 7 were made, and for the fulfilment of which centuries had to pass as Daniel provided in divinely inspired computation.
This is the only Saviour, God as man, Jesus Christ, without sin (I Peter 2:22ff., Hebrews 7:26, John 8:46, 8:29, Isaiah 43:10-11, 52-53). The distinction between God and not God, a sinner and the Saviour who bears sin vicariously, being Himself holy, harmless and higher than the heavens, is of course infinite. The GRACE however of giving this very Saviour through flesh (as in Isaiah 7,9, Luke 1:35), to this world, as not merely to raise up the elect in Israel, but as a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6,49:6), is for that very reason, the more marked.
Let us then look more broadly at the phenomenon of parallels.
You see the sort of thing, by which someone LESS is used to SHOW how great the SOMEONE MORE is, by contrast, quite explicitly, in Hebrews 3, where the comparison and contrast drawn out in many words, is that between Moses and Christ. The Christ has the glory which excels, for, as Hebrews declares in making this comparison,
“For this Christ has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house.”
You see the same idea of comparison in order to pinpoint the greater, in II Corinthians 3 in the relationship of the Old Covenant to the New. It leads to a focus on HOW VERY GREAT the New is since it EVEN surpasses the Old!
Thus we find these words in those of the Lord here:
“For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. Therefore since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech.”
In emphasising, as Isaiah did, the comparison of the anointed Cyrus, for a relatively small task, with the Messiah anointed for the unique purpose of BEING God’s salvation to the end of the earth (as in Isaiah 49:6, Luke 2:29ff.), he provided divinely directed data; and what do we find ? We find there is just the same sort of emphatic and contrasting parallel, as just noted; and this time, it is for the exhibition of the surpassing greatness of that One anointed as the Saviour. One person and action may seem great; but how much greater is the one with which it is compared!
Thus Isaiah in 44-45 uses various terms, as noted last time, which COULD be applicable to Christ, but clearly are in context, not so: for their application is temporal, not eternal, national, not spiritual, and involves someone who did not even know the Lord, as distinct from the One who as Saviour (Isaiah 53), even to the point of bearing sin vicariously, IS GOD (Isaiah 43:10-11). One does not KNOW God; the other is God Himself! The contrast is monumental, arresting, didactic, awakening the heart to the vastness of the divine enterprise in Jesus the Christ.
This in fact makes the contrast infinite, except in certain matters of form. THAT is briefly, the difference between the two 'shepherds', Cyrus the national one and Christ the international one, Cyrus the temporal one, Christ the eternal one, Cyrus, God using a mere man, Christ, God appearing as man. On this, it is good to study Ezekiel 34 where another series of contrasts is given between, in that case, bad and evil 'shepherds' on the one hand, and God who Himself the Good Shepherd, on the other. Indeed, there the divine disgust with the self-seeking and unspiritual shepherds is vast, and is prelude to the coming of God AS Shepherd, to do the job Himself, as reflected in Zechariah 12:10.
He Himself would come and do the work Himself, even taking a way to bear sin on Himself (Hosea 13:14), in order to do so.
Thus, it is like saying that Cyrus will deliver a whole generation of the people of Israel, in allowing them to return to their physical home (relatively soon to be done); but in vast contrast, the anointed SAVIOUR (as seen in different ways, in Isaiah 2,7, 9, 11, 22, 32, 35,40, 48:16, 49-55, 60-61, 63, for example) is to bring out the captives from the spiritual prison, and bring the oil of joy for mourning and acquit through faith those who receive Him as He is, by His sacrificial coming from heaven to endure the separation which sin brings (Isaiah 59:1-2, 53:5-12, 61:1ff.).
It is He who will bring, Isaiah predicts (and He did bring) an everlasting salvation to Israel, who however, instead of receiving it as a nation, as the scripture predicts (now long ago fulfilled) would AS A NATION ABHOR that very same, utterly divine, Saviour the Christ! (Isaiah 49:7).
Indeed, WHO has believed the report! asks Isaiah.
Nevertheless, as Paul points out in Romans 11, in accord with Ezekiel 36, Isaiah 42,49 and other scriptures, the time will come when there will be a vast return to this SAME CHRIST, to this SAME GOSPEL which they, Israel as a nation, rejected. They will REPENT as they look upon "Me whom they pierced", God inspires Zechariah to write of the last times, before the actual, personal return of Jesus Christ (Zechariah 14:5).
It was, says the apostle, on account of this rejection by Israel (for whom he could almost wish himself accursed - Romans 9:1ff), that Gentiles were brought into the ‘olive tree’ instead of Israel the nation, which was pruned off (Romans 11:11-12,20).
The Gentiles however are there warned not to get proud (Romans 11:18), uplifted or heady about this fact, since Israel lost its place through UNBELIEF, which could apply equally well to Gentiles. However says Paul, if the fall of Israel did so much good to the Gentiles (indirectly of course), just think how marvellous it will be when Israel comes back to this same Lord, same Gospel (Romans 11:12 - unchangeable, as in Galatians 1:6-9). Indeed consider the case when blindness will at last depart (Romans 11:25 - as also in Isaiah 42:18ff.), and the rejected light of the Light of the nations, Jesus Christ is received, yes with marked repentance (Zech. 12:10ff.). Then they will return to their natural inheritance so unnaturally rejected, then they will be grafted back into their own tree, from which rejection of the Messiah brought severance.
Then from blindness, will come light, more to the eyes of so many in Israel (as also predicted in Zechariah 12:10). That is the message of Romans 11. You see something of the continuity of it all in Barbs, Arrows and Balms 17, and the sheer marvel of it in TMR Ch. 3.
On Israel you could look up some chapters, if you wish, such as It Bubbles, It Howls, He Calls Chs. 1, 2, 10, Israel Ch. 1. These deal with various issues including their land and their predicted return to it. On this also is the already quoted SMR Ch. 9, with which goes SMR Appendix A.
It is, unfortunately, not possible to find the point for which you are sending all these verses. If the Messiah has these verses, so be it. If Cyrus has those, so be it. The comparison in terminology is very striking in Isaiah: so be it. The comparison traced out through these terminological similarities is very rewarding, as one applies one’s mind to the word of God, to search out all its content in context.
So there is the scriptural position, DAVID received a covenant, DAVID was not the Messiah. David’s body rotted; but the Messiah is the Saviour whom Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 53, and His body did not rot. It was the famous ‘Son of David’ accordingly whom the children celebrated on Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:14ff.), in accord with the Messianic Psalm 118, 2 and so on.
It refers of course to the House of David to whom the promises of II Samuel 7 were made.
This is the only Saviour, God as man, Jesus Christ, without sin (I Peter 2:22ff., Hebrews 7:26, John 8:46, 8:29).
Well, then, having shown you the biblical method in this sort of parallelism, given you various examples of it, with words which relate the less with the infinitely more, as in Zechariah 6 and Hebrews 3 and II Corinthians 3, and shown enough for our purpose here, of the meaning inherent in the various relevant promises, and how these things come true to the point of our discussion, there is really nothing more to say. Whatever you have appeared to raise, has biblically bee considered.
You see, Jack, in my response to your letter or note, I asked you, after giving you what seemed to be relevant to your presentation (which amounted to hardly any actual words of your own), to give me an outline of what you were trying to find or do, and to tell me these things with some care. However as you have not done so, one is left merely trying to educate in reply, someone who does not state his need. Had you done as I asked, after investing some hours on your behalf in the Lord, and had you stated it all exactly and precisely, what you wanted, as requested, this would have been far better : in the beginning, and vitally better in the end. It is no good my imagining what you might have in mind; but I have spent the time in case I could fill you in on certain points, and so help.
Since then you simply present what is largely a whole array of scriptures, and do not explain the point of the exercise, and do not respond when I ask you to explain clearly and adequately for profitable discourse, your point, your purpose, what you are about: I must simply thank you for writing, and leave with the Lord the due fruit from my labours.
I regret that because you have not explained your purpose, after this time, it will not now be fitting for me to continue this correspondence, so please do not send more, as it will unfortunately become necessary for me to disregard it.
For all that, I hope the Lord will yet bless you, and the words I have sent.
In His Service,
Robert E. Donaldson
For World Wide Web Witness Inc.
PS It is just possible that Galloping Events Ch. 4 may interest you, re Israel.
Yahoo! Photos