Unbelievable? Is There Enough Evidence Beyond the Gospels to Make Their Testimony Reliable?

By J. Warner Wallace 2 Years Ago

     During an interview on Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley, a caller asked about corroboration and wanted to know if there was enough evidence beyond the Gospels to verify the reliability of their testimony. I began by helping him understand the nature of evidential corroboration and the limited information typically offered by such evidence. Every piece of corroborative evidence typically addresses (and verifies) only a “touchpoint”, a small aspect of the testimony from which we infer the “reasonability” of the larger account. Corroborative evidence is always limited; it only addresses a small aspect of the event under consideration. Even with these limits, however, the Gospels are still well corroborated. I’ve written a chapter about this in my book, Cold-Case Christianity, but here is a brief summary of the evidence “beyond the Gospels”:

     Ancient “Reluctant Admissions” | Non-Christian authors and historians from antiquity mentioned Jesus or His followers repeatedly, even as they denied His Deity or the claims of His supporters. While these ancient sources were hostile to the claims of the New Testament, they reluctantly confirmed key elements of the Gospel narrative.

     Josephus (37-101AD) | Even when examining the a modest, redacted version of Josephus’ ancient account, it’s clear that this Jewish historian reluctantly affirmed the following: Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused by the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians.

     Thallus (52AD) | While Thallus appeared to deny the supernatural aspect of the gospel narratives, he did reluctantly repeat and affirm the following: Jesus lived, was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.

     Tacitus (56-120AD) | Cornelius Tacitus (known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and among the most trusted of ancient historians) described Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and reluctantly affirmed the following: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

Click here to go to source

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of:

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

Descartes: Not the Father Of Modernity

By Derrick 6/17/17

     With Etienne Gilson’s Theology and the Cartesian Doctrine of Freedom being translated into English for the first time ever at the end of this year, it seemed appropriate to briefly touch on a matter near and dear to it: Descartes was not the father of modernity (feel free to read that in your best Maury Povich voice).

     The standard tale that one often hears typically opens with a flourish, by uttering his famous phrase: cogito, ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am). From there, a story emerges about how Descartes invented a new philosophy in desperate search for new foundational certainties that broke radically with a benighted past. This philosophy, in turn, centered around a shift to the subject, a modernity characterized by epistemology, the search for certainty, a radical mind-body dualism, and the disenchantment of nature now seen as nothing but “extension” or “brute matter,” among other things.

     Typical in this regard then, is the summary offered by Stanley Grenz and John Franke in their book Beyond Foundationalism: “Historians routinely look to the French philosopher René Descartes as the progenitor of modern foundationalism.”[1]

     It turns out, though, that’s not quite right. Lets take the claims of the standard story in order.

     1.) Break From the Past?

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 91

9 Because you have made the LORD your dwelling place—
the Most High, who is my refuge—
10 no evil shall be allowed to befall you,
no plague come near your tent.

11 For he will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways.
12 On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.
13 You will tread on the lion and the adder;
the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot.

14 “Because he holds fast to me in love, I will deliver him;
I will protect him, because he knows my name.
15 When he calls to me, I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue him and honor him.
16 With long life I will satisfy him
and show him my salvation.”

A Rose Is a Rose

By R.C. Sproul 4/1/1998

     A rose is a rose is a rose. This dictum reinforces the adage that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The idea is that the essence of the rose is not conditioned by what name is attached to it. It is its res, not its nomina, that determines what it is. In different languages, the same flower is known by different names, but it is still the same flower.

     When we apply this idea to theology things get a bit more complicated. Indeed the rose adage has been transferred indiscriminately to religion in order to create a theological concept. The concept is: “God by any other name is still God.” Now certainly, it is true that the immutable essence of God is not changed by the alteration of His name. In English, we may say “God,” in German “Gott,” in Greek “Theos,” yet all these names or words are used to point to the same Deity.

     Beyond this, however, things get murky. It is a quantum leap to go from saying that God by any other name is still God, to saying that all the great religions in the world believe in the same Being though they call Him different names.

     This irrational leap is prodded by the popular analogy of the mountain. This analogy notes that their are many roads up the mountain. Some progress on a more direct route, while others wind about on more circuitous roads, but sooner or later they all arrive at the same place, at the top of the mountain.

     So, it is argued, there are many roads that lead to God. They may be different routes but they all end up in the same place—with God Himself. That is, the differing roads indicate no difference in the God who is found. God’s being, then, becomes the lowest (or highest) common denominator of all religions.

     The road analogy is buttressed by the democratic truism that all religions are equal under the law. The fallacy in this axiom is thinking that just because all religions enjoy equal tolerance under the civil law, they therefore are all equally valid. That might be true if there were no God, but then it would be better to say that with respect to their ultimate affirmation they are all equally invalid.

     To argue that all religions ultimately believe in the same God is the quintessential nonsense statement. Even a cursory examination of the content of different religions reveals this. The nature of the Canaanite deity Baal differs sharply from the nature of the biblical God. They are not remotely the same. This sharp distinction is also seen when comparing the God of Israel with the gods and goddesses of Roman, Greek, or Norse mythology.

     The problem becomes even more complex when we consider that sometimes different religions use the same name for God while their views of the nature of God differ radically. Consider, for example, the religion of Mormonism. It claims to embrace the Bible (as well as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine of Covenants) and professes belief in the God of the Bible as well as the biblical Christ. Mormons call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yet historic Christianity does not accept the Mormon religion as a branch or denomination of Christianity. Why? Because the Mormon view of the nature of God and of Christ differs sharply at essential points of faith. For example, Mormonism categorically rejects the full deity of Christ. Christ is said to be pre-existent, but not eternal. He is highly exalted—indeed revered—but He remains a creature, not Creator, in Mormon theology.

     What about Islam? Islam is one of the largest religions in the world. In the city of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock is displayed as one of the most beautiful sacred shrines on the planet. Islam claims to embrace the God of the Old Testament. It holds the biblical patriarchs in high esteem and even accords a certain respect to Jesus as a great prophet, but He pales in significance to Mohammed, who is the supreme prophet in the credo: “Allah is God and Mohammed is His Prophet.”

     This forces the question, “Is Allah the same God as Yahweh, only under a different name?” Or we could pose the question in a different way: “Is Allah the God of the Bible?”

     The answer to these questions depends first of all on the answer to the question: “Is the God of Christianity the God in the Old Testament, that is, Yahweh?” If the Being who is called “God” in the New Testament is the God called “Yahweh” in the Old Testament, then, manifestly, the God of Islam is not the God of the Bible. As Yahweh continues to reveal Himself through the ministry of Christ and the apostles, it is clear Yahweh is very different from Allah. We cannot legitimately harmonize the theology of Christianity with the theology of Islam. They differ sharply at essential points.

     The most obvious difference is with respect to the Trinity. Christians confess the triune nature of God. The language “nature” here may be confusing inasmuch as the Christian doctrine of God affirms that God is one in essence (or nature) and three in person. This means that the distinction of persons in the Godhead is not a distinction of essence, which would leave us with three gods. For precision, we must walk the razor’s edge and say that the distinctions of persons in the Godhead is an essential distinction, yet not a distinction of essence. God is one in being (or essence), but it is important to note the personal distinctions of God, because the Bible goes to great lengths to do so.

     Here is a crucial difference between the Muslim understanding of God and the Christian concept: The term “god” does not refer to the same being in each religion because Allah is clearly not triune. For Islam, there is no second person of the Trinity who becomes incarnate and effects our salvation and no third person of the Trinity who applies that redemption to us. So we are left with radically different views of God via the person and work of Christ and the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

     There are two other vital differences between Christianity and Islam. Islam has no Cross and no resurrection, articles of the faith that are of the essence of Christianity and of ultimate importance to the plan of the God of the Bible. Mohammed made no atonement for our sins when he died. And when he died, he stayed dead.

     There are other crucial differences we could explore of how God is understood in orthodox Christianity and how He is understood in orthodox Islam. It is enough for now to say that Allah and Yahweh are not the same. One is the living God; the other is an idol.

Robert Charles Sproul, 2/13/1939 – 12/14/2017 was an American theologian, author, and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. Dr. R.C. Sproul was founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian education and discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was also copastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., chancellor of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine. Dr. Sproul has contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, has spoken at conferences, churches, and schools around the world, and has written more than one hundred books. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible.

Equipped for Jihad

By Carl Ellis 4/1/1998

     When sharing my faith with a Muslim, I’ve found it helpful to evaluate why he is devoted to Islam. Three considerations are important.

     First, he could be moved by the standards of Islam—the doctrine, theology or teaching. Most Christians seem to assume that the “standards” alone are the reason a person embraces any belief system. In my experience, the other two considerations have greater weight.

     Second, he could be devoted to Islam because of his situation—a need for cultural identity, feelings of alienation, etc. The Muslim community projects itself as a brotherhood with affirmation and solidarity.

     Third, he could practice Islam because of his own motivations and goals—e.g., the desire for godliness. Often, a person realizes that he has been alienated from God and consequently seeks to achieve God’s favor. Perhaps he wants to purge himself of false values such as materialism or self-centeredness. Therefore, he might see Islam, with its disciplined, rigorous approach to life as the means to satisfy his desire for righteousness.

     Instead of simply confronting a Muslim, pitting my doctrine against his, I seek to draw him out through conversation. I’ve met many Muslims whose personal goals and motivations were essentially biblical. In such cases, I’ve learned to be sympathetic and supportive. As a result, I’ve seen barriers come down. Only after establishing such camaraderie will a discussion concerning the means of achieving their goals become meaningful. This is when the Gospel really becomes “good news.”

     I find American converts to Islam particularly interesting. Often, they were raised in the church and have devout Christian mothers who pray for them constantly. While they have a rational Islamic veneer, they tend to have an intuitive Christian outlook. If we learn to relate to such Muslim converts wisely on a rational basis, God’s Word will resonate with that intuitive core. Often this will affect an American Muslim convert in more ways than he is willing to admit.

     The Islamic community is roughly equivalent to the Jewish community in the first century. Our approach to Muslims, therefore, must be similar to the apostle Paul’s approach to his Jewish brothers. In acknowledging that non-believing Jews “have a zeal of God but not based on knowledge” (Rom. 10:2), Paul is saying, “Though they outwardly have the right goals and motivations, they have adopted the wrong means for achieving those goals and satisfying those motivations.”

     I have talked to dozens of Muslims who have, in the final analysis, admitted they can do nothing to earn God’s favor—their only hope of salvation is in God alone. Is not this the basis of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

     God promises His Word will not return void (Isa. 55:11). If we simply plant the seed and water it, God will “give the increase.” We often find ourselves oriented toward instant salvations and instant decisions. However, it doesn’t work that way with Muslims. It takes time, patience, and most of all, love. Meanwhile, God is faithful.

     If you sense God’s calling to minister to Muslims, here are some practical suggestions:

     Be yourself

     Try to understand Islamic doctrine from the perspective of Islam. Study the history of Islam’s development, especially in America.

     Be a good listener. Don’t evaluate a Muslim only on the basis of his doctrine. Examine the other factors which fire his devotion to Islam.

     When his motivations and goals are biblical, affirm them. When they are not, lovingly challenge them. Try to use words according to his definitions, not yours.

     When dealing with a Muslim’s doctrine, do not use the occasion to show how much you know about his faith. Instead, deal with him on the basis of what he expresses to you about his beliefs. You’ll find he cannot be consistent with the doctrines he holds.

     It’s always important to draw him out by asking questions in the genuine spirit of wanting to be informed. Give him a chance to express himself, and make sure he knows you understand what he’s saying. Ask him, “Is this what you mean?” Then try to summarize his point.

     Do not be bowled over by his arguments. Stand firm, with poise and confidence. If you are familiar with his theology, you can tell when he begins to feel the pinch.

     Usually, he will begin to repeat himself or make up his theology on the spot. Don’t take advantage of his vulnerability by lording it over him. Rather, seek to communicate subtly but clearly that you are aware of his tenuous position. The very fact that you do not pulverize him will communicate more about the validity of the Christian faith than if you had devastated him with your rational arguments.

     Do not use a King James Bible. According to the teachings of some Muslim sects, King James himself translated this version and corrupted it.

     Never use a Bible in which you have made any marks. To a Muslim, this indicates a disrespect for the Word of God.

     Avoid all pictures of God, Jesus or any biblical characters. This looks like idolatry to a Muslim.

     Never use the word “Trinity.” Because of the Muslim’s teaching, this word often connotes the worship of three gods and will bog you down with issues of polytheism. From Scripture, we know that God’s oneness of being is never diminished by His tri-personhood. There are many ways to express the Trinity concept, for example “Godhead.”

     In dealing with Muslims, remove all offenses you can—except the Cross.

     Most of all, never forget the power of love. For against love, there is no defense, Islamic or otherwise.

Hope for the Unhappily Single

By Marshall Segal 8/11/2015

     There is a new and widespread epidemic in our nation and even in our churches. It’s called the not-yet-married life.

     Sure, there have always been unmarried people longing for marriage, but the statistics suggest that this group is growing at an unprecedented rate in American history. In 1956, according to the United States Census Bureau, the average age at which a man was married for the first time was 22.5. For women, it was 20.1. Those numbers climbed steadily for years, then more dramatically beginning in the 1970s. Recently, they reached the ages of 29.0 for men and 26.6 for women.

     Now, singleness itself, for the Christian, is not necessarily something to be lamented. After all, Paul sings the praise of singleness when he lists the spiritual benefits of being spouse-free in 1 Corinthians 7. The single life can be (relatively) free from relational anxieties (1 Corinthians 7:32), worldly distractions (1 Corinthians 7:33), and wide open for worship, devotion, and ministry (1 Corinthians 7:35). If we have the gift, Paul says to skip the ceremony, literally, and enjoy “your undivided devotion to the Lord.”

     So this relatively new demographic of not-yet-married men and women in their mid-to-late twenties has the real potential to be a potent vehicle for the worship of God and the spread of his gospel. This potential means we don’t necessarily need to sound an alarm as our young people get married later and later. Without a doubt, within this trend there will be complacencies to confront and immaturities to manage and even evils to fight. But ultimately it might merely be God’s means of freeing up a generation to take their devotion to Christ deeper and further into the broken world in which we live.

     Will I Be Single Forever? | The hope for a freshly mobilized unmarried demographic is real, and singleness really can and should be celebrated when God uses it to win worship and joy and life in himself. But one of the implications of these recent statistics is that a growing number of people in the church desire marriage — even feel called to marriage — and yet they have to wait longer to experience it. As Christians, we believe the vast majority of people are wired by God to receive and express love in the context of a covenant, so we shouldn’t be surprised that this growing phenomenon is hard on lots of our young men and women.

Marshall Segal is a writer and managing editor at desiringGod.org. He’s the author of Not Yet Married: The Pursuit of Joy in Singleness and Dating. He graduated from Bethlehem College & Seminary. He and his wife Faye have a son and live in Minneapolis.

Living in the Shallows: The Decline of Thought

By John Horvat 8/12/2017

     As I look upon the desolate landscape of sound bites, tweets and other social media, I cannot help but lament what has happened to our culture.

     Almost all Americans have a high school education. And today more people than ever have college degrees. One would expect reading levels to be increasing. Real culture should be flourishing. Yet it’s no secret that people are connecting in ever more primitive ways. Everything must be quick and impulsive. It must be short and abbreviated. We prefer many short bursts back and forth. The message is: Let nothing be profound. Let everything be forgettable.

     I blame this trend on the decline of thought.There’s plenty to blame for the downward trend. We’ve dumbed down education. The media have sped up. The culture suffers from the frenetic intemperance of promising everything instantly and easily. It all ends up creating a childish society that tries to avoid effort and depth.

     Thought involves the calm observation of reality. A person ponders the surroundings and comes to conclusions that reflect a truth about the nature of things. Thought is profound. It requires an ability to look deeply at things and synthesize what one has seen with clarity and precision. Thought is logically built upon an edifice of premises and conclusions that allow us to take things to their final consequences.

     Childish Behavior | Thought has declined because our habits have declined. We rarely ponder things in our fast-paced world. Everyone wants things now, without thought. The motto of so many virtual platforms today is: Don’t make me think. There’s no time to read, no time to write, no time to organize thoughts.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker and author of the book Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society--Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go. His writings have appeared worldwide including in The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Post, American Thinker, TheBlaze, Crisis, FOX News and The Washington Times, as well as other publications and websites. He gives more than 150 radio and TV interviews annually.

     For more than two decades he has been researching and writing about what’s gone wrong with America’s culture and economy, an effort that culminated in the ground-breaking release of his award-winning book Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society--Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go.

     Mr. Horvat is vice president and a member of the board of directors for the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), head of the TFP Commission for American studies, a TFP Sedes Sapientiae Institute instructor, and webmaster of the American TFP website (www.tfp.org). Additionally, Mr. Horvat is a member of the Association of Christian Economists, The Philadelphia Society, the National Association of Scholars and the Catholic Writers Guild, as well as an Acton University participant.

     His research began in 1986 when he was invited by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the Brazilian TFP, to study the crisis of modern economy and to prepare a conservative response. Mr. Horvat continues studying and writing and is now one of the most sought after experts on the subject.

     When he’s not writing, Mr. Horvat enjoys jogging and fencing. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania.

Empirical Evidence Finds Prayer Improves Intimate Relationships

By Joe Carter 8/9/2017

     The Story: New research finds that petitionary prayer can improve intimate relationships with a spouse or friend. Should Christians consider such empirical evidence useful?

     The Background: Several researchers led by Frank Fincham at Florida State University’s Family Institute wanted to learn whether petitionary prayer (i.e., a prayer where you request something) for someone’s romantic partner or close friend has “any objectively measurable effects on couples.” According to a summary of the evidence by Thomas Burnett, an assistant director of public engagement for the John Templeton Foundation, “Praying daily for one’s partner has been linked to numerous positive outcomes: increased relationship satisfaction, greater trust, cooperation, forgiveness and marital commitment. Many of these benefits apply both to the prayer as well as the one being prayed for.”

     “The power of petitionary prayer applies not only to romantic partners but to close friends as well,” Burnett adds. “For instance, in experiments with undergraduates, researchers found that those who had been assigned to pray regularly with a close friend showed greater levels of trust, compared to control groups. Multiple studies suggest a causal relationship, not just correlational. Partner-focused prayer apparently causes people to become more satisfied with their marriages.”

     Why It Matters: There will be many people who read only the headline of this article or a description of it and claim, “We don’t need scientific research to tell us that.” (Think I’m kidding? Look at the comments on Facebook and Twitter when this article is posted on social media.) Are they right?

     Yes and no.

Joe Carter is an editor for The Gospel Coalition, the editor of the NIV, Lifehacks Bible, Hardcover: Practical Tools for Successful Spiritual Habits, and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. He serves as an elder at Grace Hill Church in Herndon, Virginia. You can follow him on Twitter.

By John Walvoord

The Prophecy Of The Ultimate Victory in the Kingdom

     The book of  Micah 7:1–20. Micah called attention to the departure of Israel from the laws of God. He declared, “The godly have been swept from the land; not one upright man remains. All men lie in wait to shed blood; each hunts his brother with a net” (v.  2 ).

     He described Israel’s hands as being “skilled in doing evil” (v.  3 ): “The ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes, the powerful dictate what they desire — they all conspire together” (v.  3 ). Because of this, God was going to bring a time of confusion (v.  4 ). He declared, “For a son dishonors his father, a daughter rises up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies are the members of his own household” (v.  6; cf.  Matt. 10:34–36 ).

     By contrast, Micah, instead of seeking evil, looked for hope and waited for his Savior with confidence that God would hear him: “But as for me, I watch in hope for the LORD, I wait for God my Savior; my God will hear me” ( Mic. 7:7 ).

     Micah pleaded with the enemy not to gloat over them (v.  8 ). Though it is true that Israel has sinned and will bear the wrath of God (vv.  9–10 ), the day will come when Israel will continue to build her walls and extend her boundaries (v.  11 ). God’s judgment on that day will be on the nations instead of on Israel (vv.  12–13 ).

     In Israel’s future God will once again show her His miraculous wonders (v.  15 ), and the world will see and be ashamed (v.  16 ). The world will turn in fear to God (v.  17 ). Micah asked rhetorically, “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance?” (v.  18 ) Micah stated of God, “You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea” (vv.  18–19 ). In concluding his prophecy, Micah said to God, “You will be true to Jacob, and show mercy to Abraham, as you pledged on oath to our fathers in days long ago” (v.  20 ). The future restoration of Israel will be based on the doctrine of grace rather than on the doctrine of judgment and will fulfill the covenant with Abraham, which God has pledged Himself to fulfill regardless of Israel’s sins and shortcomings.

     The mingled picture of prophecy, including Israel’s condemnation and then glorification, is in keeping with the other Scriptures describing this process in which Israel will ultimately be regathered and blessed by God in the millennial kingdom.

The Prophecy In  Nahum

     All that is known about the book of  Nahum is that Nahum the prophet was its author and that he lived in Elkosh, whose location is unknown. Several people have made suggestions as to the probable location of Elkosh, including Jerome (AD 340–420), who said it was in Galilee. This and other possible locations do not contain any convincing evidence as the book was looking at Nineveh from the standpoint of Judah. Elkosh was probably located in southern Galilee.

     Nahum recorded the downfall of Thebes, a common city of Egypt, conquered by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (663 BC). Nahum must have lived in the seventh century BC, prior to the destruction of Nineveh, which he predicted and which was fulfilled in 612 BC.

     Mentioned in Scripture as early as  Genesis 10:11–12, Nineveh was a frequent subject of prophecy. There Jonah delivered his message of warning, which was heeded by the generation to whom he spoke, and the destruction of Nineveh was postponed. If Jonah’s warning to Nineveh occurred during the reign of Jeroboam II (793–753 BC), Nineveh was protected from destruction for almost 150 years before it finally fell in 612 BC.

     During the time of Nineveh’s power Azariah, king of Judah (790–739 BC), and Menahen, king of Israel (752–742 BC), paid tribute and recognized Nineveh’s dominance. Nineveh had conquered the ten tribes in 722 BC but was prevented by God from conquering Jerusalem when 185,000 of Sennacherib’s army were supernaturally killed while attempting to conquer Jerusalem. When the ten tribes went into captivity, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin escaped. Nineveh fell to the combined armies of the Medes and Scythians in the month of August in 612 BC. Nineveh was so thoroughly ruined that it was lost to history until its ruins were discovered by archeologists in 1845.

     Nahum 1:1–11. God was angry with Nineveh because of His own character. Nahum wrote, “The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies” (v.  2 ).

     On the other hand, God had allowed Nineveh to go on relatively unchecked because “the LORD is slow to anger and great in power” (v.  3 ). He causes the mountains to quake and the rivers to run dry (vv.  4–5 ).

     When God chose to bring judgment on the wicked city of Nineveh, no one would be able to stand against Him (v.  6 ). Even though “The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble” (v.  7 ), the time had come when Nineveh should bear God’s wrath for her sins (vv.  8–11 ). This was fulfilled in 612 BC.

     Nahum 1:12–15. Nahum predicted that Nineveh would be cut down and lose her political power; her temples and idols would be destroyed, and her people would go down to the grave (vv.  12–14 ). This was fulfilled in 612 BC.

     In contrast to His wrath and judgment on Nineveh, God will one day bless Judah: “Look, there on the mountains, the feet of one who brings good news, who proclaims peace! Celebrate your festivals, O Judah, and fulfill your vows. No more will the wicked invade you; they will be completely destroyed” (v.  15 ). This will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom.

Nineveh to Be Destroyed

     Nahum 2:1–13. Nineveh’s downfall had been predicted much earlier by other prophets. Isaiah, who lived in the eight century BC, a hundred years before Nineveh was destroyed, predicted that Nineveh would come to its end ( 10:12–19; 14:24–25; 30:31–33; 31:8–9 ).  Ezekiel also predicted Nineveh’s fall ( Ezekiel 32:22–23 ), and it was mentioned in  Zephaniah 2:13–15 and  Zechariah 10:11.

     As the armies of Babylon and the Medes approached, Nahum taunted Nineveh to put up protection, which would prove to be futile: “Guard the fortress, watch the road, brace yourselves, marshal all your strength!” ( Nahum 2:1 ). God referred to His restoration of Jacob in contrast to the downfall of Nineveh (v.  2 ).

     Nahum described the invading army as having red uniforms and shields of red; they stormed through the streets in their conquering of Nineveh (vv.  3–4 ). The fall of Nineveh was complete and sudden (vv.  5–7 ). The invaders were invited to “plunder the silver! Plunder the gold! The supply is endless, the wealth from all its treasures” (v.  9 ). The result was stated in verse  10: “She is pillaged, plundered, stripped! Hearts melt, knees give way, bodies tremble, every face grows pale” (v.  10 ).

     Nineveh was likened to a lions’ den where formerly the lions killed enough for food with plenty to spare. But now there was nothing left. Nineveh no longer could be likened to the king of beasts (vv.  11–12 ).

     God declared, “‘I am against you.... I will burn up your chariots in smoke, and the sword will devour your young lions. I will leave you no prey on the earth. The voices of your messengers will no longer be heard’” (v.  13 ).

Nineveh’s Complete Destruction

     Nahum 3:1–19. Nineveh, who once was irresistibly victorious over her enemies, now was going to experience the destruction that she brought on others. The many dead would pile up their carcasses without number. Her judgment was just because she had enslaved the nations (vv.  1–5 ). “I will pelt you with filth, I will treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle. All who see you will flee from you and say, ‘Nineveh is in ruins — who will mourn for her? Where can I find anyone to comfort you?’” (vv.  6–7 )

     Nineveh’s protecting walls would be of no avail. Just as Thebes was taken captive and went into exile, so Nineveh’s infants would be killed and her great men put in chains (v.  10 ).

     Nineveh’s fortresses were compared to a fig tree with ripe fruit that falls when shaken (v.  12 ). Nineveh’s troops were compared to women, their gates were open to their enemies (v.  13 ).

     Nineveh was taunted to prepare for the siege, draw her water, strengthen her defenses, and repair the brickwork; but, nevertheless, she would be devoured by fire and sword. Like grasshoppers, though they multiply, she would be of no avail (vv.  14–17 ).

     The king of Assyria was informed that his people would be scattered like sheep with no one to gather them (v.  18 ). Nineveh’s wound and injury would be fatal (v.  19 ). Those who heard of the fall of Nineveh would clap their hands with joy because of God’s retribution on Nineveh for her endless acts of cruelty (v.  19 ).

     In 612 BC Nineveh was so thoroughly destroyed that it was never rebuilt and soon became a pile of sand. For centuries the location of Nineveh was unknown, so completely had it been destroyed, but in 1845 it was located by archeologists. The lesson to be learned is that God’s prophecies of judgment may be delayed in fulfillment, but in God’s time they will be completely fulfilled.

The Prophecy In  Habakkuk

     The book of  Habakkuk has the unusual feature of the prophet recording a dialogue between himself and God rather than acting as an instrument of God’s communication to man.

     Not much is known about Habakkuk personally, and even the meaning of his name is disputed. He described himself as a prophet ( 1:1 ), which was unusual in the prophetic books of the Old Testament; only  Haggai and  Zechariah also included the term prophet in their introductions.

     The literary style of the book is similar to that of the Wisdom books and the  Psalms. The book itself demonstrates that Habakkuk was properly recognized as a prophet and that he had both theological and liturgical training. In many ways the book is one of the most incisive approaches to the question of God’s righteousness in dealing with human sin.

     Habakkuk 1:1–4. Though the book itself does not date the time of its writing, it may be concluded from verse  6, which predicted the Babylonian invasion, that Habakkuk ministered in the seventh century BC. Though some date the book as early as the reign of Manasseh (697–642 BC) or in the reign of Josiah (640–609 BC), it is more probable that Habakkuk ministered closer to the date of the Babylonian invasion during the reign of Jehoiakim (609–598 BC). He therefore was not only a prophet of the fall of Jerusalem but also later on was a witness to the fulfillment of the prophecy. The date relating the prophecy to the Babylonian invasion of the kingdom of Judah is supported by the contents of the book, which raised the question of how a righteous God could use an unrighteous nation like Babylon to punish Judah for her sins. The fact that God allowed the Babylonians to be victorious in conquering Judah created theological problems for everyone who believed that the children of Israel were a special people. This question of how God’s justice related to this situation dominates the tone of the book and also leads to the answer.

Why Are the Ungodly Not Judged?

     Habakkuk lived in the time of apostasy just preceding the Babylonian captivity. Though it was the time when Jeremiah was challenging Judah to return to God, there was little response. Habakkuk complained, “How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds” (vv.  2–3 ).

The Lord’s Answer

     Habakkuk 1:5–11. Habakkuk was informed that God was raising up the Babylonians, who would sweep through the land like the wind and conquer every city before them (vv.  5–11 ). God’s answer was that judgment was on the way, but it was not yet time.

Why Is God Going to Use a Wicked Nation Like Babylon to Conquer Judah?

     Habakkuk 1:12–17. Habakkuk renewed his question on why God would use Babylon, a nation that was utterly wicked and less righteous than Israel. How could God tolerate a nation like that, allowing it to conquer Israel despite Babylon’s sinful state?

The Lord’s Answer

     Habakkuk 2:1–8. Habakkuk wrote that he would wait to see what God had to say (v.  1 ). God answered that judgment awaited God’s time: “For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay” (v.  3 ).

     The answer of God was summarized in verse  4: “But the righteous will live by his faith.” This central statement of the book is repeated in  Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11, and  Hebrews 10:38. This statement is not only the central theme of  Habakkuk but of the entire Scripture.

     Though Babylon would be victorious for the time being, the day would come that those who were plundered by Babylon would plunder in return: “Because you have plundered many nations, the peoples who are left will plunder you. For you have shed man’s blood; you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them” ( Hab. 2:8 ). The prophecy was fulfilled in 539 BC when Babylon was conquered by the Medes and the Persians.

     Habakkuk 2:9–20. Four times God declared woe on Babylon (vv.  9, 12, 15, 19 ). God reassured Habakkuk that though the judgment might take time and not be swift from Habakkuk’s point of view, the judgment of Babylon was inevitable and God would deal with her because of her many sins and her wickedness. God denounced not only her moral wickedness but also her idolatry, pointing out that an idol is lifeless wood or stone, and though it was covered with gold and silver, it was not alive (vv.  18–19 ). By contrast, God stated, “But the LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him” (v.  20 ). This was fulfilled in 539 BC but also will be fulfilled at the second coming ( Rev. 18 ).

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Coming of the Kingdom part 3

By Dr. Andrew Woods 4/25/2012

Evangelical Confusion

Because today's evangelical world largely believes that the church is presently experiencing the messianic kingdom, we began a study chronicling what the Bible teaches concerning this important issue of the kingdom. That there will be a future, messianic kingdom on earth has been revealed thus far through the divine intention to restore the office of Theocratic Administrator ( Gen. 1:26-28 ) that was lost in Eden ( Gen. 3 ) as well as through the promise of a future, earthly, messianic reign as prophesied in the Abrahamic Covenant ( Gen. 15 ) and related sub-covenants.

Theocracy's Departure And Return

The next major place in God's Word that speaks to the reality of a future, messianic kingdom is the revelation of the Mosaic Covenant that God gave exclusively to national Israel ( Ps. 147:19-20 ) at Mount Sinai. After the Fall in Eden ( Gen. 3 ), the theocratic kingdom left the earth. This departure left the world without the benefit of the office of Theocratic Administrator until the time of Moses. This reality may explain why the Apostle Paul describes the spiritually dark time period between Adam and Moses as follows:

“for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” ( Rom. 5:13-14 ).

Although the time period between Adam and Moses was indeed spiritually dark, the light of the office of Theocratic Administrator eventually returned to the earth through God’s revelation of the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai. Despite four hundred years of bondage in Egypt ( Gen. 15:13-16 ), God graciously redeemed and liberated His people through the Exodus. He then brought His redeemed people to Sinai and entered into a new covenant with them called the "Mosaic Covenant." Note the occurrence of the term “kingdom” as God entered into this new covenant with Israel.

“Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel” ( Exod. 19:5-6; emphasis mine). [1]

Because this is the first reference to the term “kingdom” in relation to God's kingdom in all of the Bible, it is reasonable to conclude that the office of Theocratic Administrator that was lost in Eden was restored to the earth, at least in a limited sense, at Sinai. Just as God governed indirectly through Adam in Eden, God now began to rule indirectly over Israel through His Theocratic Administrator Moses. This theocratic arrangement covered most of Old Testament history as God, even after the time of Moses, governed Israel indirectly through Joshua, and then various judges, and finally Israel’s kings. [2]

Mosaic Covenant | An Unconditional Covenant With A Conditional Blessing

The Mosaic Covenant also introduced a new component to God’s covenantal dealings with Israel. This new element must be understood in order to comprehend the divine blueprint concerning a future, earthly kingdom. As argued previously in this series, the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are unconditional. In other words, they rest completely upon God rather than Israel’s performance for their eventual fulfillment. By contrast, the Mosaic Covenant ( Exod. 19‒24 ) is conditional. Notice the terms “if” and “then” in  Exodus 19:5-6:

“Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (emphasis mine).

In other words, if Israel obeys the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, then God will bless the nation physically, materially, and spiritually.

The technical covenantal structure in the ancient Near East for this type of agreement is known as a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty. Here, the suzerain, or a superior, enters into an agreement with an inferior, or a vassal. The vassal promises to come under the protective custody of the suzerain. The suzerain, in turn, promises to bless or curse the vassal depending upon whether the vassal demonstrates loyalty or disloyalty to the suzerain by either obeying or disobeying the specific terms of the covenant text. In the case of the Mosaic Covenant, the suzerain is God, Israel is the vassal, the covenant text is the Ten Commandments and all of their applications as spelled out in the Mosaic Law ( Exod. 19‒24; Lev.; Deut. ), and the blessings and curses for covenant obedience are found in  Leviticus 26 and  Deuteronomy 28. In contrast to this suzerain-vassal arrangement, the afore-mentioned unconditional, Abrahamic Covenant represents an ancient Near East covenant known as a "Royal Grant Treaty" where a king promises to unconditionally reward a subject.

If the Abrahamic Covenant and its related sub-covenants are unconditional and the Mosaic Covenant is conditional, then how does God deal with Israel under both of these covenants? The answer lies in understanding the difference between ownership and possession. Suppose that someone owns a vacation home and yet they are too busy working to visit this home. At this point, this person owns the home but does not possess or enjoy it. In the same way, the Abrahamic covenant gives Israel unconditional ownership of its various promises. Due to the Abrahamic Covenant’s unconditional nature, no amount of disobedience on Israel’s part can remove her ownership of these blessings. While Israel can be severely disciplined by God for disobeying the terms of the Mosaic Covenant ( Lev. 26:14-46; Deut. 28:15-68), even resulting in the nation’s conquest by foreign powers ( Deut. 28:49-50 ), she can never forfeit ownership of the promises spoken of in the Abrahamic Covenant.

However, before Israel can possess or enjoy what she owns, she must obey the terms of the Mosaic Covenant. Thus, any given generation within Israel must meet the conditions of the Mosaic Covenant in order to experience the blessings promised in the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. [3] An important provision of the Mosaic Covenant is that Israel must enthrone the king of God’s own choosing ( Deut. 17:15 ). Such an enthronement will thereby satisfy the condition of obedience found in the Mosaic Covenant thus allowing Israel to possess rather than merely own the Abrahamic Covenant’s blessings. The Mosaic Covenant ultimately points toward Christ. In  John 5:45-47, Jesus explained to the Jews of His day,

"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Here is what the whole picture looks like: While Israel owns the covenantal blessings found in the Abrahamic Covenant and related sub-covenants, she cannot possess or enter into these blessings until she complies with the condition found in the Mosaic Covenant. However, this condition can be satisfied through the nation’s enthronement of the king of God’s own choosing ( Deut. 17:15 ), who is Christ ( John 5:45-47 ).

How does all of this relate to the subject of a future earthly kingdom? Although the Abrahamic Covenantal promises and blessings are unconditionally guaranteed to come directly to Israel and indirectly to the entire world, these kingdom conditions will not manifest themselves until national Israel trusts Jesus Christ, her long-awaited King. Because, there has never existed a Jewish generation who has complied with this condition, the messianic kingdom remains in a state of postponement or abeyance up until the present hour. However, one day, a future generation of Jews will comply with this condition resulting in the establishment of the messianic kingdom of God on earth. It will take the events of the future Tribulation period to bring such a generation to faith in Christ thereby leading to the manifestation of the earthly, theocratic, messianic kingdom ( Jer. 30:7; Dan. 9:24-27; Zech. 12:10; Matt. 23:37-39; 24:31; 25:31 ).

From Divided Kingdom To Termination Of Earthly Theocracy

The theocratic kingdom over Israel that God began through Moses at Sinai continued unabated through the reigns of the nation’s first three kings, Saul, David, and Solomon. Unfortunately, the prosperity that characterized Solomon’s forty year reign ended with covenant disobedience as Israel’s third king amassed wealth and multiple wives ( 1 Kgs. 11:1-8 ) in violation of the Mosaic Covenant ( Deut. 17:16-17 ). Thus, God brought covenant discipline to the nation through the division of the kingdom ( 1 Kgs. 12 ). This division resulted in ten tribes forming the northern kingdom, or Israel, and the remaining two tribes forming the southern kingdom, or Judah. Two reasons made Judah in the south the focus of God’s kingdom program. First, ancient messianic prophecy indicated that the nation’s true king would one day be born into the tribe of Judah ( Gen. 49:10 ). Second, the kings from David’s line reigned over Judah only. These Davidic kings are significant regarding tracing God’s kingdom program through Scripture since the previously described Davidic Covenant promised that through David’s lineage would ultimately come an eternal dynasty and throne ( 2 Sam. 7:13-16 ). The kings over the northern kingdom continued in covenant rebellion. Such failure eventually led to maximum divine discipline ( Deut. 28:49-50 ), in the form of the scattering of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. ( 2 Kgs. 17 ).

Thus, from 722 B.C. until the Babylonian Captivity in 586 B.C., only the southern kingdom, Judah, remained as the earthly theocratic kingdom. Sadly, the southern kingdom imitated the covenant rebellion of the previously dispersed northern tribes, incurring more divine discipline ( Deut. 28:49-50 ), by means of the Babylonian Captivity. When Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed Jerusalem and the Solomonic temple and took Judah away into captivity ( 2 Kgs. 25; Ezek. 33:21 ), the earthly theocracy terminated. In other words, God governed the nation indirectly through various Davidic kings until the deposing of Zedekiah, who was the last of the Davidic dynasty to reign from David's Throne. This termination of the earthly theocracy was signified through the departure of God’s Shekinah glory from the temple ( Ezek. 10:4, 18-19; 11:23 ). [4]

ENDNOTES

The Continual Burnt Offering (John 21:15)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

August 24

My great, my wise, my never-failing Friend,
Whose love no change can know, nor turn, nor end!
My Saviour-God! who gavest Thy life for me
Let nothing come between my heart and Thee!