THE foundation of all prophecy relative to the Hebrew race is found in Leviticus 26. The corner stone of this foundation, however, is found in Genesis 12:1-9 which passage recalls God's call of Abraham to a life of separation and blessing.

In Leviticus 26, a clear and detailed outline of Israel's history through the centuries is given. The fact that Jewish history is found to correspond exactly to the predictions proves conclusively the divine origin of Moses' message. The predictions found in verses 3-39 have been literally fulfilled. This fact is an absolute guarantee that the prophecy contained in verses 40-45 will be fulfilled literally.

In order that one's faith may be strengthened in the inerrant infallible Word of God, I deem it wise to rush hastily over this section which has already been fulfilled in preparing your mind for the consideration of that portion of the prophecy which awaits its fulfillment.

In verses 1 and 2 appear the first four of the ten commandments in a different form, however, from that given in Exodus 20. In verses 3-13 inclusive, God holds out, as an inducement to obedience and faithfulness to Him, the rewards of material blessings. Peace, plenty, and prosperity would characterize the land which, in contrast with surrounding countries, would be as the garden of Eden in comparison with the desert.

On the other hand, He warned her of the judgments which would come upon her while she was in her land in the event of disloyalty and disobedience to Him. The threatened punishment for disobedience would come in the form of a series of four judgments. The first one, verses 16-20, would consist of "Terror over you even consumption and fever." In connection with these there would be the withholding of the rain, which would produce famine.

In the event Israel would not receive the correction, the second stroke of punishment would come in the form of the invasion of their country by the migration of wild ferocious beasts which would depopulate their land. The third stroke of judgment, in the event of continued disloyalty, would come in the form of an invading army which would reduce the country to a state of desolation and want. Following upon it were to be pestilences and famines.

If, after the three strokes of judgment just described, Israel did not receive correction and turn to the Lord, He threatened her with the extreme punishment of a severe siege and final expulsion from the land (verses 27-33). In connection with this prediction, it is necessary to call attention to a well-recognized principle which obtains throughout the prophetic word. This principle may be illustrated as follows: One from a certain position may look toward the mountains. In the foreground he sees the low lying foot-hills, but towering above these in the far distance, majestic mountain-peaks rear their heads. From the position of the observer, the valley separating these two ranges is not seen. He may speak of both ranges in the same sentence without mentioning the existing valley between. Thus it is with the principle of prophecy which is seen in these verses. In verse 29, Moses speaks of the horrible siege of Jerusalem which we know occurred in the year 70 A.D. In verse 30, however, he speaks of those sieges of Jerusalem which occurred in the years 606-585 B.C., when Nebuchadnezzar warred against the Jews and carried the flower of the Jewish nation into Babylonian captivity.

These two sieges are clearly separated and differentiated in Deuteronomy 28, which is parallel to this prediction. In verses 36-46, appears the definite prediction of the Babylonian siege, whereas in verse 47f appears the prediction of the siege which occurred in A.D. 70, of which Josephus speaks.

In Leviticus 26:34-39 appears a description of Israel during her world-wide dispersion and also the condition of the land during that time. When Jewish history is checked with this passage of Scripture, it is evident to the candid mind that there is an exact correspondence between prediction and actual history. Therefore, as stated above, it is certain that Moses spoke by inspiration.

In the latter part of verse 39, God spoke of the iniquities of the Jewish fathers; but in verse 40, in speaking of a certain generation of Israel, he declares that "They shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers; in their trespass which they trespassed against me, and also that, because they walked contrary unto me, I also walked contrary unto them and brought them into the land of their enemies." There is some iniquitous act which Moses designates as "Their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers." In other words, there is some specific act or sin which Moses characterizes as the national sin of Israel in which the fathers trespassed against God and on account of which the Lord cast them out of their land and scattered them among the nations. The question arising at this point is, what act on the part of the Jewish fathers in the land can be considered as the national sin of which they and all of their descendants are guilty? May I with all due consideration for my Hebrew friends, yet with all firmness, declare that the only sin which can be characterized as the national sin of Israel is that of the rejection of her Messiah?

Let the reader note carefully the fact that there is but one sin which is singled out here, and which some future generation of Israel shall confess. In committing this act of iniquity the fathers trespassed against God. The succeeding generations take the same attitude in this matter as the fathers and are likewise guilty to the same extent as those who had committed the deed. The man who aids and abets in a crime is as guilty as the one who actually does the work. Therefore, it becomes necessary that this future generation of Israel confess "Their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers."

The second part of this confession consists of their penitent acknowledgment "that because they walked contrary unto me, I walked contrary unto them and brought them into the land of their enemies." The connection shows that the iniquity which they confess was the occasion of God's scattering her throughout the world. Let it be noted carefully by the reader that God is the one who scatters her among the nations, although He did use the Roman power to carry out this plan. Therefore her dispersion is the result of this definite sin. Until it is repented of and acknowledged, there will be no such thing as her being reestablished in her own land.

The prediction that Israel shall confess this iniquity unmistakably presupposes that the knowledge of this sin will be brought to her attention and that she will be convinced of her wrong. One can never make a confession of a wrong until he has been thoroughly convinced that he is guilty; therefore in some way or other, the entire nation of Israel will learn of the great mistake and sin of the rejection of the Messiah; but Moses does not inform us what method God will use in bringing the knowledge of this fact to the nation.

As soon as a man is convinced of his mistake or sin, he does not always acknowledge his guilt, neither does he humble himself and accept the God-ordained punishment, which is providentially brought upon him. Thus it is with Israel. As soon as she learns of her wrong she will not acknowledge it. Her uncircumcised heart is still rebellious. Her God will have to humble her by bringing such punishments upon her that "She will accept of the punishment of her iniquity." From other Scripture passages we learn that Israel will not acknowledge her fault and return unto her God from whom she has turned until she is suffering the great distress of the "day of the Lord" when God's judgments are in the world. (See Hosea 5:15.)

When she is really humbled and accepts in her heart and confesses that she has sinned against God in the rejection of her Messiah, God will remember His covenant with the fathers and will remember the land promise. At that time he will regather her and establish her in her own land.

Moses simply made the prediction that Israel will make this confession but did not give any details. Isaiah, however, made a statement of it in 53:1-9. In order to understand this great passage, it is necessary for one to understand the historical situation of the prophet also the point of view from which he uttered this oracle. His ministry, according to 1:1, coincided with the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; kings of Judah. This fact would make his ministry fall within the years 740-713 BC., according to Ussher's Chronology. The prophet who, in chapters 7-12, foretold the glorious day and reign of King Messiah, projected himself by the Spirit of God into the future and identified himself with a certain generation of Hebrew people who will make this great confession. For the purpose of clearness and definiteness, may I say that he in this vision projected himself into the year 1930-plus (The word plus is used to signify the fact that I do not know how many more years before Israel shall make this confession). In the year 1930-plus the entire nation of Israel having learned the facts concerning the execution and death of King Messiah will, in genuine penitence confess in an open and public way, her former misunderstanding relative to Him and then will acknowledge her error and sin. Thus Isaiah 53:1-9 is the penitent confession of the nation as it looks backward to the first advent of King Messiah nineteen centuries prior.

In the first three verses there is a little confusion in the translation because different tenses are used. In verse two the past tense is used in the expression "He grew up"; in the middle of the verse, the present tense is used in the expression, "He hath no form nor comeliness"; in the last of the verse, "And when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him," the tenses are mixed. The expression, "When we see Him," has a future significance; "there is no beauty" is in the present tense; the last expression "we should desire Him" also has a future significance. This confusion disappears when one realizes that the Hebrew verbs do not express the time element, which must be always gathered from the context. The two forms of the verb express, respectively, completed action and incompleted. When this passage is understood, as the context most clearly shows, to be the confession of a future generation of Israel and is read from that point of view, all confusion disappears. This future generation looking back at the weary waste of nineteen centuries confesses for itself and for all its ancestors that He, the Messiah, did not come according to their expectations; therefore they did not accept Him; gave Him no consideration whatsoever.

In verses 4-6 they state their estimate of their Messiah, which is the correct one, because at that time they will see the real facts as they are. Their former conception was that He was smitten for His own sins and transgressions; the truth concerning Him which they shall have learned is that He was pierced for the transgressions and iniquities of the whole nation. In verse 6 they confess that all of them-the entire nation went astray like a flock of sheep. The context shows that the thing concerning which they went astray was their failure to recognize their Messiah when He came the first time and suffered for them.

Verses 7-9 are a detailed graphic statement made by this penitent remnant concerning the arrest, the miscarriage of justice at His trial, His perfect submission in all matters, the failure of the entire nation to recognize the significance of His atoning death, the intention of His enemies to bury Him with the wicked, and His being buried by a rich man since His life was pure innocent and holy.

Such is the confession which the convinced and convicted Remnant of Israel shall make in the future. When it thus confesses and accepts Him, He will return in glory at which time the nations who have rejected Him shall be struck with amazement and wonder. "For that which had not been told them shall see and that which they had not heard shall they understand." A very touching description of the contrition of heart of the penitent remnant of Israel is seen in Zechariah's prophecy 12:10f when the nation is thus genuinely repentant of its sin.

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. In that day shall there he a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Meggidon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; all the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness."

From the quotation given above, it is evident that there is to be a great day of contrition and repentance throughout the entire nation of Israel. This mourning will reach to the very depths of the human heart and on such a scale as has never been witnessed by the world. It will be of a genuine character and manifest itself in such a way as man has never dreamed. When this event occurs, as never before, will the fountain be opened for sin and for uncleanness to the entire nation of Israel. This passage presupposes the learning of the real facts in regard to the rejection of Messiah and the open confession of which Moses wrote in the Torah.

Having seen what the prophets said in regard to the confession of the race, it is now proper to ascertain what Jesus of Nazareth said relative to the same subject. In Matthew 21 appears the record of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem at the Passover when he was condemned and crucified. On Monday morning when He went to the temple the leaders of the Jews came to Him and asked Him by what authority He was teaching the people. These leaders -- members of the Sanhedrin -- felt that they were the custodians of the faith and that they were the ones to teach the people. Furthermore they thought that no one had any right to teach without their authority. In 21:23 appears the record of their approach to Jesus. In the course of the day various groups from the leaders attacked Him in an effort to entrap Him in His speech. Finally, He in the presence of the multitudes exposed the hypocrisy of these leaders as is recorded in chapter 23. He concluded His exposure of them by His sad lament found in verses 37-39. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."

The question at this point is, to whom did He refer by the word, "Jerusalem"? It certainly cannot refer to the entire population of the city for it is well known that the peoples were not the ones who had stoned the prophets and messengers of God sent unto her. Thus this statement designates most clearly to whom he referred, namely, those who had the power to execute the death penalty. It is a well-known fact that it was the Great Sanhedrin, and it alone, who had this authority. But one may object that in the time of Jesus the Romans controlled Palestine and that the Jews could not pronounce the death sentence upon any one. To this objection I wish to reply that it is true that the Romans, though granting to the Jews liberty in all civil matters when they paid their taxes, did deny them the right of the exercise of the death penalty. This restriction did not deny them the right to ask the Romans to exact this punishment. They had their courts which functioned as before the Roman occupation. These courts could hear evidence and could come to a decision of their own; if, however, their findings, in their opinion, justified the death penalty, they could submit the case to the Romans and could ask them to confirm their decision and to execute and to execute the condemned. Such were the conditions as they are set forth in the Gospel Records. In this case the Romans would be merely the agents who acceded to the requests of the Jews and carried out their will. Hence in reality those who brought the accusations and insisted upon the execution of the penalty are the ones responsible for the act.

Another fact must be taken into consideration here. At the time of Jesus the method of stoning was not in vogue. The Romans had introduced the custom of crucifixion. So far as evidence is available, there had been no prophets and messengers of God executed since the Romans had conquered the country. This fact points most clearly to the fact that he was talking to that authoritative body of men--the Sanhedrin--who had, before it had been deprived of the right to exact the death penalty, stoned the prophets and messengers of God.

The conclusion arrived at is confirmed by the context. The occasion of His exposures was the insidious attacks upon Him which were in nowise justified. In chapter 23 He constantly refers to these leaders who were sitting in Moses' seat and whose lives were corrupt. In concluding His denunciations of them He called their attention to the murderous condition of the hearts of the men composing that body throughout the days of the prophets. The implication of these words is that they were of the same character as their predecessors. In fact at other times He had foretold that they would demand His death. He knew that they were ready to condemn Him, just waiting for the opportunity. Hence it is abundantly evident that verses 37-39 were addressed to the Sanhedrin.

The idiom of addressing the authorities in terms of the city in which they meet is no uncommon usage with us. Every day one hears such expressions as "London says so and so," or "Paris says," etc. Every one knows that these expressions when used in connection with governmental matters refer only to the authorities in those capitals. In referring to some communication from the English government, one most appropriately says that London has said thus and thus. When Jesus said, "O Jerusalem," etc., He without doubt had only the rulers in mind.

He prophesied that their house would be left unto them desolate. It seems to me most probable that this language is an echo from the historic account of the departure of the Shekinah of Glory which departed from the Temple as is recorded in the first ten chapters of the prophecy of Ezekiel. God's presence would no more be known nor approached in connection with the temple service.

The prediction is that "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." Since he is addressing the Sanhedrin--the leaders--the language can mean nothing more than that he will never return to the Jewish nation until that body of men in an official capacity comes to the point that it wholeheartedly says, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." When he came the first time, the common people heard and received him most gladly; on the other hand, the leaders not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God rejected Him and demanded His death. The common people looked to the leaders for guidance and acted not upon their own initiative but upon the advice of the leaders. Now Jesus declared, in no uncertain way, that that body will not see Him again until it says that he who comes in the name of the Lord is blessed. This language implies that it will be again in existence and that it will come to the conclusion that it will accept the one coming in the Name of the Lord. Whenever it officially says that the one who comes in the Name of the Lord is blessed, Jesus promises to return to Israel. Then will all of her sorrows and sufferings be ended but not until then.

In Matthew 24:15 Jesus assumes the existence of the Temple in the end of the Dispensation. Paul likewise assumed its existence in 2 Thessalonians 2. Jesus, in the same way, presupposes that the Sanhedrin will be reconvened and functioning in the end time (Matthew 23:37f). When He entered Jerusalem the last time before His death (Matthew 21:1f), He was hailed by the multitudes as the promised Messiah. He came to Jerusalem, according to Zechariah 9:9, in the nature of the Lord as her longed-for Messiah. Members of the Sanhedrin turned the popular tide of sentiment from being in His favor to active hostility against Him. In Matthew 23:37 is a veiled prophecy that they would treat Him as their predecessors in office had done to the former messengers of God. The continuity of the thought of the passage demands the following interpretation of the data given in these verses, when viewed in the light of the entire context: I have come to Jerusalem according to the ancient prediction in the name of the Lord; the people have gladly accepted me as their Messiah; you members of the Sanhedrin have turned the sentiment against me; your house is left unto you desolate, that is, in rejecting me, your rightful Lord and King, your temple worship will be an empty lifeless spiritless ritualism, the temple will be destroyed, and the whole house of Israel shall be, spiritually speaking, like a forsaken deserted house abandoned by its owner and occupant and left to the blighting work of the ravages of time; and you the Sanhedrin, guides of the nation, will never see my face until you reverse your decision, turn the sentiment of the people to me, and say that the one who comes in the name of the Lord, as I have done, is blessed. When you arrive at this decision I will return.

But one may call attention to the fact that all of these predictions concern the national turning of Israel to her Messiah; that at the present time God is not dealing with the nation but with individuals; and that therefore Christians should not be interested in this national awakening. This objection is only superficial. The injunction, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem," is limited neither by time nor by race; it is an injunction for all who know God to observe. All of the children of God should especially be interested in everything that pertains to the Jew. Neither is the language, "I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse," to be monopolized by any group of any given time, but it is applicable to all of all ages. On the other hand, since the Gentile Christians partake of the rich spiritual blessings which have come through Israel, it is especially appropriate that all of them should be interested in this spirit of inquiry that has arisen among the Jews. These people are our benefactors; their debtors we are; we must meet our obligations by assisting in every way to give the truth to them.

But one objects by saying that they are blind, according to Rom. 11:25 and that it is a hopeless task to attempt to give them the truth. But that verse says that "a Hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in," which statement is that the blindness is not total nor permanent. Paul in 2 Cor. 3:16 declared that "Whensoever it (Israel) shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away." These earnest souls want to know what the truth is concerning Jesus. They are turning to the Lord and, according to His promise, the veil will be lifted. The Gentiles have had their day and many of them are now turning from the truth. It seems certain that Israel's time is here now. It furthermore seems that the present inquiry and the great movements among the Jews are preparing the way for the time when a nation shall be born in a day. The Conversion of the Apostle Paul is a most excellent example of how the truth can come to those who have long time rejected the Messiah. Great will be the day of Israel when she has seen her mistake and the whole nation is born in a day.

In this lecture we have studied what three prophets, Jesus and Paul have said concerning the age-long mistake of Israel and of the cessation of all of her sorrows when she makes this genuine penitential confession. The Hebrew people long for the pogroms and the persecutions to cease. Let every one of them know that there can be no such thing as peace for Israel until the Great Sanhedrin is reorganized and most gladly welcomes the ONE coming in the Name of the Lord. (Some have thought that this development will only prepare the Jewish nation for him who is known as the Anti-Christ. Personally, I do not see how it can. The prediction says that the Sanhedrin must say that he who comes in the Name of the Lord is blessed. The Anti-Christ does not come in the Name of the Lord but in his own name.) Since Israel cannot possibly look for a cessation of her persecutions until its official body makes such a pronouncement, it is of the utmost importance that all of the people of Israel investigate this most important matter and call into existence her Ancient Court to investigate the question concerning Jesus of Nazareth.

The world was startled last spring when the report went abroad that some prominent Denver Jews had launched a movement to reorganize the Ancient Court for the express purpose of investigating the life, teachings, Messianic claims, and the condemnation of Jesus of Nazareth. In the following lecture I wish to tell you the startling facts concerning this unprecedented movement.