the nations with a sharp sword, or treading the winepress of the fierceness

and wrath of Almighty God.  These form the `context' of the rod of iron.

Revelation 2:27 employs a different word reading, `and He shall rule

them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to

shivers' (which is another New Testament rendering of the passage in Psalm

2).  Suntribo means `to bruise' a reed, or a person, and `to break' as

fetters, or an alabaster box.  If the reader has any compunction about the

translation offered in the A.V. of Revelation 2:27, let him try `bruising'

iron fetters, he will soon discover that facts are like mules, `stubborn

things'.  Psalm 2 is closely related to Psalm 1.  They cover the same ground

and period, but look at the state of affairs from two points of view.  In

Psalm 1, blessedness is predicated of the man who does not walk in the

Counsel of the ungodly, in Psalm 2, though a different word is used, the

counsel of the ungodly is seen where `the rulers take Counsel together

against the Lord'.  Two types of mankind are set before us in Psalm 1.  The

one is likened to a tree planted by rivers of water, the other, the ungodly,

are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.  The

references to chaff which is driven away takes us straight over to Daniel 2.

`Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to

pieces together, and became like the Chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and

the Wind Carried  them away' (Dan. 2:35).

Psalm 1 ends with the words, `the way of the ungodly shall Perish', and

Psalm 2 ends with warning, `and ye Perish from the Way'.  We are asked to

believe that the words of Psalm 2:7, `Thou art My Son, this day have I

begotten Thee', do not refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, but to David in spite

of the fact that Acts 13:33 applies this prophecy to the resurrection of

Jesus Christ, coupling it with `another Psalm' which says  `Thou shalt not

suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption' and immediately goes on to deny that

this can apply to David.  How is it that an inspired apostle can say one

thing and an uninspired teacher, however godly and however earnest, can say

another? We are at liberty to ask, but it is God alone who will give the

answer.  Moreover, and more wonderful still, how is it that anyone, with an

eye to the integrity of the Word can let such exposition go by without

protest!  We cannot.

Peter goes out of his way to assure us that David spoke of Christ, and

knew that God `would raise up Christ to sit on his throne' (Acts 2:30).  A

system of teaching that denies that the Lord's Anointed is the Christ (Psa.

2:2), that denies that the begotten Son of Psalm 2:7 is the Christ, that

denies that `the Messiah' of Daniel 9:25,26 is the Christ, is surely suspect,

and if the Lord's own people do not make some protest, then truth is dying

and its defenders asleep.

For the moment we do not say that Isaiah 11 when `the lion shall eat

straw like an ox' is or is not a prophecy of the Millennium, that can wait,

but one verse in that chapter demands attention.

`He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the

breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked' Isa. 11:4).

First, some codices read ariz `the oppressor' for erez `the earth', and

The Companion Bible throws the passage into an introversion thus:

g

He shall smite the oppressor.

h

With the rod of His mouth.