There’s No Good Reason to Deny the Early Dating of the Gospels

By J. Warner Wallace 2/3/2017

     Not long ago, Daniel Wallace (no relationship to me, except that all us Wallace’s claim to descend from William) posted some great news about an early fragment of the Book of Romans that was recently discovered. This fragment dates to the early third century which puts it in rare company. It contains Romans 9:18–21 and small portions of Romans 10. Wallace made news a few years back when he mentioned an early fragment of the Gospel of Mark that has yet to be published. The fragment of Mark is said to be as early as the first century.

     I had the great pleasure of visiting with Dan Wallace at an event where we got the chance to examine a number of very ancient manuscript fragments. Some of these were Biblical fragments; some of these were non-Biblical ancient documents. We were the first people to examine the documents in nearly two thousand years. By the end of the day it was clear to me that there are literally thousands of fragments of ancient texts still out there to be discovered and examined. We have only touched the tip of the iceberg and as our ability to find and examine these fragments continues to improve, we’ll surely discover much more evidence that the New Testament was written very early and transmitted faithfully.

     In fact, this is the focus of my book, Cold Case Christianity. I’ve been studying this issue from the perspective of a detective for some time now and I’ve written about the evidence for early dating and about the reliable transmission of the documents at ColdCaseChristianity.com.  If the New Testament eyewitness accounts were written as early as the evidence infers, many of the objections of skeptics are impotent. Early manuscripts mean that the original witnesses to the life of Jesus were (1) available to write the documents we now have, and (2) early observers of Jesus’ life would have been available to deny the testimony of the gospel authors. The continuing discovery of early fragments of New Testament documents corroborates this early dating.

     When visiting with Dan Wallace, Greg Koukl and I asked him about the skepticism on the part of people like Bart Ehrman related to early dating. We asked Wallace if there was some specific manuscript evidence that inclined people to deny the early dating of the Gospel accounts. Wallace said there was no such evidence. We then asked why people continued to deny the early dating if, in fact, we were continuing to find early fragments and there was no contrary manuscript evidence. It turns out that the late dating of the gospels is due primarily to a denial of supernaturalism.

     One of the primary reasons why skeptics date the gospels later than 70AD is the fact that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in the gospel accounts (i.e. Matthew 23). Secular history records that the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, fulfilling this alleged prediction by Jesus. In order to avoid the accurate prophesy from Jesus, skeptics argue that the gospel must have been written after the temple was destroyed. After all, how could Jesus possess the supernatural power of prophecy if nothing supernatural exists? The philosophical naturalism of the secular historian prevents him from accepting the possibility of accurate prophecy.

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• 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

Weakness and Fallacies of the Wellhausian Theory

By Gleason Archer Jr.

     6. Whenever by ingenious manipulation of the text a “discrepancy” can be made out by interpreting a passage out of context, no reconciling explanation is to be accepted, but the supposed discrepancy must be exploited to “prove” diversity of sources. (Cf. Pfeiffer’s imagined discrepancy [IOT, p. 328] between the “two accounts” of the slaying of Sisera.  Judges 5:25–27 is alleged to represent Jael as having slain him with her hammer and tent peg while he was drinking milk;  Judg. 4:21 says she did it while he was asleep. Actually,  5:25–27 does not state that he was drinking at the moment of impact; but it would be useless to point this out to Pfeiffer, for he has already divided up the “discrepant accounts” between J and E.)

     7. Although other ancient Semitic literatures show multiplied instances of repetition and duplication by the same author in their narrative technique, Hebrew literature alone cannot show any such repetitions or duplications without betraying diverse authorship. It is instructive to study the sectarian literature from the Qumran caves and see how long the Israelites continued to employ repetition for purposes of emphasis. For example, compare Plate I and Plate IV of the Manual of Disciplines6 where the requirements for entering the monastic community are set forth in such a way as to invite the attention of the Documentarian source divider. The same would be true for Ugaritic epics such as Keret and Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey. Compare the extensive use of repetition in the chancery style of  Daniel who wrote as a lawyer or civil servant who employed the style of precise repetition found in statutory law today.

     8. With highly questionable self-confidence, the Wellhausen school has assumed that modern European critics, who have no other ancient Hebrew literature with which to compare (for the biblical period, at least), can with scientific reliability fix the date of composition of each document. They also assume that they can freely amend the text by substituting more common words for the rare or unusual words preserved in the MT but which they do not understand or do not expect in the given context. As foreigners living in an entirely different age and culture, they have felt themselves competent to discard or reshuffle phrases or even entire verses whenever their Occidental concepts of consistency or style have been offended.

     9. They have also assumed that scholars living more than 3,400 years after the event can (largely on the basis of philosophical theories) more reliably reconstruct the way things really happened than could the ancient authors themselves (who were removed from the events in question by no more than 600 or 1000 years, even by the critics’ own dating).

     To sum up, it is very doubtful whether the Wellhausen hypothesis is entitled to the status of scientific respectability. There is so much of special pleading, circular reasoning, questionable deductions from unsubstantiated premises, that it is absolutely certain that its methodology would never stand up in a court of law. Scarcely any of the laws of evidence respected in legal proceedings are honored by the architects of this Documentary Theory. Any attorney who attempted to interpret a will or statute or deed of conveyance in the bizarre and irresponsible fashion of the Source Critics of the Pentateuch would find his case thrown out of court without delay. Compare for example this statement by Judge William Dixon of Pasadena, California, relative to a proposed constitution for a new church merger in the United Church of Christ: “It is elementary that in the interpretation of a written contract all of the writing must be read together and every part interpreted with reference to the whole, so that each provision therein will be effective for its general purpose.” Surely this principle has a relevance even for the non-legal portions of the works of Moses. Had it been followed in Pentateuchal analysis, the JEDP hypothesis would have been an impossibility.

Positive Evidences of Mosaic Authorship

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

Priests, Levites, Bread

By Peter J. Leithart 2/2/17

     Chronicles 23 begins the concluding section of 1 Chronicles (chs. 23–29), which is mainly concerned with David’s arrangements for personnel and material of the temple. Chapter 23 consists of two chiastically arranged sections. The first is framed by references to David (vv. 1, 2, 6; 25–27).

     A. David old, organizes, 23:1–6
     B. Levites: Gershonites, 23:7–11
     C. Levites: Kohathites, 23:12
     D. Sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, 23:13–17
     C’. Levites: Remainder of Kohathites, 23:18–20
     B’. Levites: Merarites, 23:21–24
     A’. David’s instructions, 23:25–27

     The second describes the work of the Levites:

Does Faith Have to be Blind, Irrational and Opposed to Reason?

By  ??  1/27/16

     One of the things that every young person should understand before they reach the age of twenty is that there is a war on the word ‘faith’. It is because of this war that faith is often viewed as the opposite of reason, intelligence, and the ‘scientific mind’.

     Consider how ‘faith’ is defined in the dictionary.

     For example, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘faith’ in the following way [1]:

1. allegiance to duty or a person:  loyalty:  fidelity to one’s promises:  sincerity of intentions;
2. belief and trust in and loyalty to God:  belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion:  firm belief in something for which there is no proof [emphasis added]:  complete trust;
3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially:  a system of religious beliefs.

Notice that faith holds the connotation of believing in something for which there is no proof. Based on this definition of ‘faith’, it is perfectly reasonable for an atheist or skeptic to conclude that religion (‘faith’) is opposed to science (which is more interested in ‘facts’). And this is just what they have done.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 18

6 In my distress I called upon the LORD;
to my God I cried for help.
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry to him reached his ears.

7 Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations also of the mountains trembled
and quaked, because he was angry.
8 Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
9 He bowed the heavens and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.
10 He rode on a cherub and flew;
he came swiftly on the wings of the wind.
11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him,
thick clouds dark with water.
12 Out of the brightness before him
hailstones and coals of fire broke through his clouds.

Leviticus 11-12

By Don Carson 4/8/2018

     In this meditation I want to bring two passages together: “I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. Do not make yourselves unclean by any creature that moves about on the ground. I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44-45); “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1).

     What does holy mean? When the angels cry “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty” (Isa. 6:3; cf. Rev. 4:8), do they mean “Moral, moral, moral is the LORD Almighty”? Or “Separate, separate, separate is the LORD Almighty”? Just to ask such questions demonstrates how inadequate such common definitions of holy really are.

     At its core, holy is almost an adjective corresponding to the noun God. God is God; God is holy. He is unique; there is no other. Then, derivatively, that which belongs exclusively to him is designated holy. These may be things as easily as people: certain censers are holy; certain priestly garments are holy; certain accouterments are holy, not because they are moral, and certainly not because they are themselves divine, but because in this derivative sense they are restricted in their use to God and his purposes, and thus are separate from other use. When people are holy, they are holy for the same reason: they belong to God, serve him and function with respect to his purposes. (Occasionally in the Old Testament there is a further extension of the term to refer to the realm of the sacred, such that even pagan priests can in this sense be called holy. But this further extension does not concern us here.)

     If people conduct themselves in a certain way because they belong to God, we may say that their conduct is moral. When Peter quotes these words, “Be holy, because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16), the entailment, in his context, is a turning away from “evil desires” (1:14) and living life “in reverent fear” (1:17). But it is no accident that these words in Leviticus 11 are found not in a context of moral commands and prohibitions but of ceremonial restrictions dealing with clean and unclean foods. For belonging to God, living on his terms, reserving ourselves for him, delighting in him, obeying him, honoring him — these are more fundamental than the specifics of obedience that we label moral or ceremonial.

     Indeed, this stance is so basic in God’s universe that only the fool says, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). This is the precise opposite of holiness, the most conspicuous and fundamental demonstration, “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile” (14:1).

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     21. One example will suffice. When the Israelites were carried away to Babylon, their dispersion seemed to be the next thing to death, and they could scarcely be dissuaded from thinking that Ezekiel's prophecy of their restoration (Ezek. 37:4) was a mere fable, because it seemed to them the same thing as if he had prophesied that putrid caresses would be raised to life. The Lord, in order to show that, even in that case, there was nothing to prevent him from making room for his kindness, set before the prophet in vision a field covered with dry bones, to which, by the mere power of his word, he in one moment restored life and strength. The vision served, indeed, to correct the unbelief of the Jews at the time, but it also reminded them how much farther the power of the Lord extended than to the bringing back of the people, since by a single nod it could so easily give life to dry scattered bones. Wherefore, the passage may be fitly compared with one in Isaiah, "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain," (Isa. 26:19-21).

22. It were absurd however to interpret all the passages on a similar principle; for there are several which point without any veil to the future immortality which awaits believers in the kingdom of heaven. Some of them we have already quoted, and there are many others, but especially the following two. The one is in Isaiah, "As the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the caresses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh," (Isa. 66:22-24). The other passage is in Daniel. "At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as there never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt," (Dan. 12:1, 2).

23. In proving the two remaining points--viz. that the Patriarchs had Christ as the pledge of their covenant, and placed all their hope of blessing in him, as they are clearer, and not so much controverted, I will be less particular. Let us then lay it down confidently as a truth which no engines of the devil can destroy--that the Old Testament or covenant which the Lord made with the people of Israel was not confined to earthly objects, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life, the expectation of which behaved to be impressed on the minds of all who truly consented to the covenant. Let us put far from us the senseless and pernicious notion, that the Lord proposed nothing to the Jews, or that they sought nothing but full supplies of food, carnal delights, abundance of wealth, external influence, a numerous offspring, and all those things which our animal nature deems valuable. For, even now, the only kingdom of heaven which our Lord Jesus Christ promises to his followers, is one in which they may sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob (Mt. 8:11); and Peter declared of the Jews of his day, that they were heirs of gospel grace because they were the sons of the prophets, and comprehended in the covenant which the Lord of old made with his people (Acts 3:25). And that this might not be attested by words merely, our Lord also approved it by act (Mt. 27:52). At the moment when he rose again, he deigned to make many of the saints partakers of his resurrection, and allowed them to be seen in the city; thus giving a sure earnest, that every thing which he did and suffered in the purchase of eternal salvation belonged to believers under the Old Testament, just as much as to us. Indeed, as Peter testifies, they were endued with the same spirit of faith by which we are regenerated to life (Acts 15:8). When we hear that that spirit, which is, as it were, a kind of spark of immortality in us (whence it is called the "earnest" of our inheritance, Eph. 1:14), dwelt in like manner in them, how can we presume to deny them the inheritance? Hence, it is the more wonderful how the Sadducees of old fell into such a degree of sottishness as to deny both the resurrection and the substantive existence [234] of spirits, both of which where attested to them by so many striking passages of Scripture. Nor would the stupidity of the whole nation in the present day, in expecting an earthly reign of the Messiah, be less wonderful, had not the Scriptures foretold this long before as the punishment which they were to suffer for rejecting the Gospel, God, by a just judgment, blinding minds which voluntarily invite darkness, by rejecting the offered light of heaven. They read, and are constantly turning over the pages of Moses, but a veil prevents them from seeing the light which beams forth in his countenance (2 Cor. 3:14); and thus to them he will remain covered and veiled until they are converted to Christ, between whom and Moses they now study, as much as in them lies, to maintain a separation.

__________________________________________________________________

[225] As to the agreement of both dispensations, see August. Lib. de Moribus Eccles. Lat., especially cap. 28.

[226] The French is, "Veu qu'ils pensent qu notre Seigneur l'ait voulu seulement engraisser enterre comme en une auge, sans seperance aucune de l'immortalité celeste;"--seeing they think that our Lord only wished to fatten them on the earth as in a sty, without any hope of heavenly immortality.

[227] Acts 13:26; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18; Mt. 3:2, 4, 17, &c., especially 13.

[228] "Novo populo." French, "au peuple du Nouveau Testament"--the people of the New Dispensation;

[229] "Beata Virgo." French, "la Vierge Marie;"--the Virgin Mary.

[230] "Ejus finis." French, "la fin du Vieil Testament;"--the end of the Old Testament.

[231] Calv. in Genes. cap. 12:11--15.

[232] The French is, "Et encore ne peut il pas ainsi eviter l'iniquité de son beau père, qu'il ne soit de lui persecuté, et atteint au milieu du chemin; et pourceque Dieu ne permettoit point qu'il lui advint pis, il est vexé de beaucoup d'opprobres et contumelies, par eclui du quel il avoit bonne matiere de se plaindre."--Even thus he cannot escape the injustice of his father-in-law, but is persecuted by him, and attacked in the midst of his journey; and because God did not allow worse to happen, he is assailed with much contumely and reproach by one of whom he had good cause to complain.

[233] Ps. 97:10, 11; 112:9, 10; 140:13; 112:6; 34:22.

[234] "Animarum substantiam." French, "immortalité des ames;"--immortality of souls.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

(2) It does not surprise us, then, to find in  Deuteronomy the functions of the priestly ministry — even to the “Urim and Thummim,” which was the peculiar prerogative of the high priest — ascribed to the tribe of Levi as a whole. The question of real importance is — Does the book contain any indication of such a distinction as we have nevertheless assumed to exist between the different orders in this tribe, or does it exclude such distinction? We believe there is evidence of such distinction; the newer critics deny it. The question belongs more properly to the discussion of  Deuteronomy, but, in the interest of the history, we may be permitted thus far to anticipate. We would draw attention first, then, to the fact, that in  Deuteronomy the terms “priest” and “Levite” are, after all, not quite synonymous. There are “the priests the Levites,” but there are also “Levites” who are not priests. Even allowing them to be “possible” priests, though we do not believe this to be the meaning of the book, they have still to be distinguished from those who, in the sense of the writer, are actual priests. It is a perfectly unwarranted assumption that, wherever the term Levite is used we have a synonym for priest. A distinction is already indicated, and the fact of at least certain gradations within the tribe established, by the statement in  Deuteronomy 10:6 that “Aaron died, and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest’s office in his stead.” The clearest indication, however, is in  Deuteronomy 18:1–8, where an obvious distinction is made between the “priest” serving at the sanctuary (vers.  3–5), and the “Levite” not thus serving (vers.  6–8); the only intelligible reason for the more general designation being, either that ordinary non-priestly Levites are meant, or at least that they are intended to be included. It is a reading into the text what is not there to assert that every “Levite” going up to the sanctuary is a “possible” priest in the stricter sense. This rules the meaning to be attached to the opening sentence: “The priests the Levites, all the tribe of Levi.” The second designation includes the first: in apposition it cannot be, since, in the writer’s sense, all Levites are not actual priests. To us it seems most evident that when he speaks of “the priests the Levites,” he has a definite class in view, and by no means the whole body of the tribe. This view of the passage, we are aware, the critical school meets with a direct negative, assigning as a reason that the terms used in ver. to describe the Levites’ services (“to minister in the name of Jehovah,” “to stand before Jehovah”) are those regularly used of priestly duties. We believe this is far from being really the case; but the question is a little intricate, and had better be discuss ed apart.

(3) A word may be said before leaving the subject on the difficulty arising from the representations in  Deuteronomy of the dispersed and needy condition of the Levites. The objection is urged that, instead of being furnished with cities and pasturages, and enjoying an independent income from tithes, as the Priestly Code provides, the Levites appear in this book as homeless and dependent, wandering from place to place, and glad to be invited, with the stranger, the widow, and the fatherless, to share in charitable feasts. Here, in the first place, it must be remarked that the legal provision is not ignored, but is, on the other hand, expressly alluded to in chap.  18:1, 2 (cf. chap.  10:9), “And they shall have no inheritance among their brethren; Jehovah is their inheritance, as He hath spoken to them,” where the reference seems unmistakable to the law in  Num. 18:20, 23, 24. Dillmann says: “The corresponding law stands in  Num. 18.” But, waiving this, may we not suggest that, if a time is sought when these exhortations to care for the Levite would be suitable, no time is so fit as that when they are supposed to have been delivered, before the tithe - laws had come into regular operation, — when in truth there was little or nothing to tithe, — and when the Levites would be largely dependent on the hospitality of individuals. The Levites were dependent then, and might from very obvious causes come to be dependent again. Their state would not be greatly bettered in the unsettled times of the conquest. Nothing could be more appropriate in itself, better adapted to create kindly sympathies between Levites and people, or more likely to avert neglect of the tribe by the withholding of their just dues, than the perpetuation of these primitive hospitalities. It is to be remembered that no tribunal existed to enforce payment of the tithes: all depended on the conscientiousness of the individual payer. It is easy to see that an income of this kind was in the highest degree precarious, and that, in times of religious declension, the body of the Levites would be reduced to great straits. The Levites no doubt suffered severely in the days of the  Judges, and under bad kings; under good kings, like David, and Solomon, and Hezekiah, the order, we may believe, experienced considerable revivals. At other times it sank in the general corruption, and Levites were content to earn a doubtful livelihood by irregular ministrations at the “high places.” There is no evidence we know of that their condition in the later days of the kingdom was so deplorably destitute as the critics represent.

(4) It will be seen later how little can be inferred from the general silence of the history about the Levites; yet that silence, as has already been hinted, is not altogether unbroken. Two instances, at least, of mention occur in  1 Sam. 6:15, and  2 Sam. 15:24; perhaps also the presence of Levites may be inferred where Hophni and Phinehas are spoken of as “with the ark of Jehovah.” A case of special interest is that of the youthful Samuel, who is described as “ministering unto,” or “before” Jehovah at Shiloh, though his duties were the subordinate ones of the Levite. The words “ministered before Eli” also show that this was his position. The attempt, on the other hand, sometimes made to prove Samuel to be a priest (in contradiction of the law) from the mention of his “linen ephod” and “little robe,” must be regarded as another instance of forcing the text. It is inexcusable exaggeration when Professor W. R. Smith writes: “As a child he ministers before Jehovah, wearing the ephod which the law confines to the high priest, and not only this, but the high priestly mantle (meʿil).” The high priestly ephod, as every reference to it shows, was something distinctive, and different from “the linen ephod,” which was worn by ordinary priests, but not by them exclusively. The meʿil, or robe, again, was a long sleeveless tunic, “worn,” says Gesenius, “by women of rank ( 2 Sam. 13:18), by men of rank and birth ( Job 1:20; 2:12), by kings ( 1 Sam. 15:27; 18:4; 24:4, 11)” — therefore no peculiar property of the high priest. The usurpation of high priestly or even of ordinary priestly functions by  Samuel is on a par with his sleeping in the inner temple beside the sacred ark.

NOTE.—The Ark: In connection with the discussions, pp. 137–38 and 161–65, the author would draw attention to the searching Essay by Professor Lotz, of Erlangen, Die Bundeslade (1901), which did not fall into his hands till this chapter was printed. It lends valuable support to the contentions in the text. See especially the discusssion of the names of the ark (pp. 28 ff.).

The Problem of the Old Testament

Leviticus 11

By Jon Courson

Chapter 11

     As seen in the sacrifices, chapters 1 through 10 dealt with worshiping the Lord. Here in chapter 11, and on through chapter 17, the subject matter is walking with the Lord.

  See   Leviticus 11:1-2   above The first topic God addresses in how He wanted His people to walk concerns dietary issues. And in so doing, He provided protection for the Israelites from the diseases that ravaged the cultures surrounding them.

     When the Bubonic Plague killed one out of four Europeans, the Jewish community was remarkably immune. Because they followed the sanitary regulations of the Old Testament, not knowing the reason for them but simply being obedient to them, the Jews were protected to a remarkable degree.

     Secondly, the dietary laws in this section would provide distinction or separation to God’s people, setting them apart for His purposes.

     Finally, in addition to providing protection and distinction to the Israelites, the dietary regulations of Leviticus 11–17 provide illustration to us as believers…

  See   Leviticus 11:3   above The Jews were allowed to eat those animals that had a divided hoof and chewed its cud. In other words, cleanliness was determined by how an animal walked and how it ate.

     The principle for us is obvious. Is there a “dividedness” in our walk? Are we separated from the world or do we walk like everyone around us? We are new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). Is there a difference in our walk? There needs to be.

     Secondly, do we chew the spiritual “cud”? Just as a cow constantly chews and rechews its food, we are to be those who chew and rechew the Word, who think it through, pray it in, extract from it every nutrient to feed their inner man. No wonder the Hebrew word for chewing the cud is essentially the same word translated “meditation.”

     This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Joshua 1:8

     We get to meditate on the Word. We get to look in the book. We get to think it through once more. And as we do, we’ll have good success; we’ll be healthy; we’ll be clean.

  See   Leviticus 11:4   above History makes note of the intestinal diseases that afflicted the ethnic groups which ate the meat of camels. Jesus would later indict the Pharisees for spiritually doing just that — for straining out gnats that would have done them no harm, yet swallowing camels that were forbidden, for analyzing minute details yet missing the big picture.

  See   Leviticus 11:5-6   above A coney is like a rabbit without ears. He chews the cud, but his hoof is not divided. Before we point a finger at the Pharisees for swallowing camels, we need to consider whether we deceive ourselves by acting like coneys or hares. You see, Joshua was instructed to meditate on God’s Word in order to do all that was commanded therein. The cud must be chewed and the hoof divided, for we are to both chew on the Word and walk in it.

  See   Leviticus 11:7-8   above The swine represents those who live moral lives, but who don’t open the Word.

  See   Leviticus 11:9–12   above Fins and scales being necessary for movement in the water, fish are determined to be clean or unclean based on how they move. In other words, the Jews were not to eat bottom feeders. So, too, water being emblematic of Scripture, we are clean or unclean based on how we move through the water of the Word. Do we seek to justify sin? Do we try to rationalize carnality? Is there a bottom feeding mentality? The scales speak of a sense of purity, the fins of the ability to navigate successfully. It’s a wonderful analogy.

  See   Leviticus 11:13–20   above Ravens are an unclean bird and a symbol of evil in the Bible. Why, then, did God use them to miraculously deliver food to Elijah in the wilderness (1 Kings 17:6)? I suggest it was to show us that He can use anyone or anything to minister to us. Sometimes, we have a tendency to think we can’t be instructed by him, or corrected by her because they’re “unclean birds.” In reality, however, we can learn from anyone God sends our way even if he or she might appear to be “unclean.”

“I’m not going to listen to my parents because they’re not as spiritual as I am,” some might say. Big mistake. God can use all sorts of interesting creatures and situations to bring food to us, to minister to us, to admonish, nourish, and correct us.

Therefore, wise is the man who will say, “Lord give me eyes to see and ears to hear whatever You want to tell me, through whatever messenger You choose.”

  See   Leviticus 11:21–23   above Certain kinds of beetles, locusts, and grasshoppers met the criterion for cleanness. And, no doubt, John the Baptist, for one, was glad they did (Matthew 3:4).

  See   Leviticus 11:24–28   above The principle here is one the prophet Haggai will develop more fully (2:12). That is, while that which is clean cannot make holy that which is unholy, that which is unclean can make unholy that which is holy. Think of it this way: If I put a drop of clean water into a mud puddle, the drop of clean water becomes muddy. But if I put a drop of muddy water into a jar of clean water, the clean water is no longer clean. You might think you can enter an unclean situation and make it clean because you’re holy — but more often than not, the situation will remain unclean and you’ll be tainted in the process.

  See   Leviticus 11:29 (a)   above The carcass of a mouse is as unclean as the carcass of an elephant because neither part the hoof. This deals a death-blow to the concept of venial and mortal sin. This is no ranking of sin. Sin is sin, whether it be a mouse or an elephant. “It’s just a white lie,” we say, “a slight compromise,” a “quirk.” No, it’s a mouse. It’s sin.

  See   Leviticus 11:29 (b)–33   above Because we are earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:7), God in His love must break us when there is uncleanness found in us — not to punish us, for Christ bore all of our punishment on the Cross, but to purify us. Therefore, when I come into contact with uncleanness, I can expect breaking in my life.

  See   Leviticus 11:34–36   above If an unclean animal fell into an earthen vessel, the vessel had to be broken—but if an unclean animal fell into a fountain or pit that had an abundance of water, the water would not be affected. Jesus Christ is the Living Water (John 4; 7). You might feel like a mole, a chameleon, a lizard — but when you come to the fountain of Living Water, the Living Water can handle your uncleanness. That is why Jesus could call Judas “friend” even at the moment of betrayal (Matthew 26:50) — and why He is not ashamed to call unclean sinners like us brethren (Hebrews 2:11).

  See   Leviticus 11:37–40   above If a bat or lizard falls in a bag of seed, if the seed is still in its shell, it’s okay. But if the shell of the seed is no longer there because water has softened it, that seed is to be thrown out because the seed itself will have become polluted. The seed being a picture of the Word (1 Peter 1:23), if the seed is not encased by the armor of faith, rats of unbelief will gnaw at it, causing us to question if it truly is infallible, immutable, applicable. Can the Word become unclean? Yes — to people who no longer read it in faith, but find fault with it rather than allowing it to find and change the faults within them.

  See   Leviticus 11:41–47   above “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.” This is an exhortation — but it is also an expectation, as if God is saying, “If you choose to walk with Me and to walk in My ways, because I am holy, you will be holy, too.”

The Pilgrim's Progress From This World To That Which Is To Come;
Delivered Under The Similitude Of A Dream

By John Bunyan 1678

THE FIFTH STAGE

FAITH. But I am ready to think you do but jest, because you smiled.

     CHR. God forbid that I should jest (though I smiled) in this matter, or that I should accuse any falsely. I will give you a further discovery of him. This man is for any company, and for any talk; as he talketh now with you, so will he talk when he is on the ale-bench; and the more drink he hath in his crown, the more of these things he hath in his mouth. Religion hath no place in his heart, or house, or conversation; all he hath lieth in his tongue, and his religion is to make a noise therewith.

     FAITH. Say you so? Then am I in this man greatly deceived.

     CHR. Deceived! you may be sure of it. Remember the proverb, “They say, and do not;” but the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

Matt. 23:3 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.   ESV

1 Cor. 4:20 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. 21 What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?   ESV

He talketh of prayer, of repentance, of faith, and of the new birth; but he knows but only to talk of them. I have been in his family, and have observed him both at home and abroad; and I know what I say of him is the truth. His house is as empty of religion as the white of an egg is of savor. There is there neither prayer, nor sign of repentance for sin; yea, the brute, in his kind, serves God far better than he. He is the very stain, reproach, and shame of religion to all that know him,

Rom. 2:24-25 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.   ESV

it can hardly have a good word in all that end of the town where he dwells, through him. Thus say the common people that know him, “A saint abroad, and a devil at home.” His poor family finds it so; he is such a churl, such a railer at, and so unreasonable with his servants, that they neither know how to do for or speak to him. Men that have any dealings with him say, It is better to deal with a Turk than with him, for fairer dealings they shall have at their hands. This Talkative (if it be possible) will go beyond them, defraud, beguile, and overreach them. Besides, he brings up his sons to follow his steps; and if he finds in any of them a foolish timorousness, (for so he calls the first appearance of a tender conscience,) he calls them fools and blockheads, and by no means will employ them in much, or speak to their commendation before others. For my part, I am of opinion that he has, by his wicked life, caused many to stumble and fall; and will be, if God prevents not, the ruin of many more.

     FAITH. Well, my brother, I am bound to believe you, not only because you say you know him, but also because, like a Christian, you make your reports of men. For I cannot think that you speak these things of ill-will, but because it is even so as you say.

     CHR. Had I known him no more than you, I might, perhaps, have thought of him as at the first you did; yea, had I received this report at their hands only that are enemies to religion, I should have thought it had been a slander-a lot that often falls from bad men’s mouths upon good men’s names and professions. But all these things, yea, and a great many more as bad, of my own knowledge, I can prove him guilty of. Besides, good men are ashamed of him; they can neither call him brother nor friend; the very naming of him among them makes them blush, if they know him.

     FAITH. Well, I see that saying and doing are two things, and hereafter I shall better observe this distinction.

     CHR. They are two things indeed, and are as diverse as are the soul and the body; for, as the body without the soul is but a dead carcass, so saying, if it be alone, is but a dead carcass also. The soul of religion is the practical part. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

James 1:22-27 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.   ESV

This, Talkative is not aware of; he thinks that hearing and saying will make a good Christian; and thus he deceiveth his own soul. Hearing is but as the sowing of the seed; talking is not sufficient to prove that fruit is indeed in the heart and life. And let us assure ourselves, that at the day of doom men shall be judged according to their fruits.

Matt. 13:23 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”   ESV

It will not be said then, Did you believe? but, Were you doers, or talkers only? and accordingly shall they be judged. The end of the world is compared to our harvest,

Matt. 13:30 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”   ESV

and you know men at harvest regard nothing but fruit. Not that any thing can be accepted that is not of faith; but I speak this to show you how insignificant the profession of Talkative will be at that day.

     FAITH. This brings to my mind that of Moses, by which he describeth the beast that is clean.

Lev. 11   See Leviticus 11 above.

Deut. 14 He is such an one that parteth the hoof, and cheweth the cud; not that parteth the hoof only, or that cheweth the cud only. The hare cheweth the cud, but yet is unclean, because he parteth not the hoof. And this truly resembleth Talkative: he cheweth the cud, he seeketh knowledge; he cheweth upon the word, but he divideth not the hoof. He parteth not with the way of sinners; but, as the hare, he retaineth the foot of the dog or bear, and therefore he is unclean.

     CHR. You have spoken, for aught I know, the true gospel sense of these texts. And I will add another thing: Paul calleth some men, yea, and those great talkers too, sounding brass, and tinkling cymbals,

1 Cor. 13:1-3 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.   ESV

that is, as he expounds them in another place, things without life giving sound.

1 Cor. 14:7 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played?   ESV

Things without life; that is, without the true faith and grace of the gospel; and consequently, things that shall never be placed in the kingdom of heaven among those that are the children of life; though their sound, by their talk, be as if it were the tongue or voice of an angel.

     FAITH. Well, I was not so fond of his company at first, but I am as sick of it now. What shall we do to be rid of him?

     CHR. Take my advice, and do as I bid you, and you shall find that he will soon be sick of your company too, except God shall touch his heart, and turn it.

     FAITH. What would you have me to do?

     CHR. Why, go to him, and enter into some serious discourse about the power of religion; and ask him plainly, (when he has approved of it, for that he will,) whether this thing be set up in his heart, house, or conversation.

     FAITH. Then Faithful stepped forward again, and said to Talkative, Come, what cheer? How is it now?

     TALK. Thank you, well: I thought we should have had a great deal of talk by this time.

     FAITH. Well, if you will, we will fall to it now; and since you left it with me to state the question, let it be this: How doth the saving grace of God discover itself when it is in the heart of man?

     TALK. I perceive, then, that our talk must be about the power of things. Well, it is a very good question, and I shall be willing to answer you. And take my answer in brief, thus: First, where the grace of God is in the heart, it causeth there a great outcry against sin. Secondly-

     FAITH. Nay, hold; let us consider of one at once. I think you should rather say, it shows itself by inclining the soul to abhor its sin.

     TALK. Why, what difference is there between crying out against, and abhorring of sin?

     FAITH. Oh! a great deal. A man may cry out against sin, of policy; but he cannot abhor it but by virtue of a godly antipathy against it. I have heard many cry out against sin in the pulpit, who yet can abide it well enough in the heart, house, and conversation.

Gen. 39:15 And as soon as he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, he left his garment beside me and fled and got out of the house.”   ESV

Joseph’s mistress cried out with a loud voice, as if she had been very holy; but she would willingly, notwithstanding that, have committed uncleanness with him. Some cry out against sin, even as the mother cries out against her child in her lap, when she calleth it slut and naughty girl, and then falls to hugging and kissing it.

     TALK. You lie at the catch, I perceive.

     FAITH. No, not I; I am only for setting things right. But what is the second thing whereby you would prove a discovery of a work of grace in the heart?

     TALK. Great knowledge of gospel mysteries.

     FAITH. This sign should have been first: but, first or last, it is also false; for knowledge, great knowledge, may be obtained in the mysteries of the Gospel, and yet no work of grace in the soul. Yea, if a man have all knowledge, he may yet be nothing, and so, consequently, be no child of God.

1 Cor. 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   ESV

When Christ said, “Do you know all these things?” and the disciples answered, Yes, he added, “Blessed are ye if ye do them.” He doth not lay the blessing in the knowing of them, but in the doing of them. For there is a knowledge that is not attended with doing: “He that knoweth his Master’s will, and doeth it not.”  A man may know like an angel, and yet be no Christian:  therefore your sign of it is not true. Indeed, to know is a thing that pleaseth talkers and boasters; but to do is that which pleaseth God. Not that the heart can be good without knowledge, for without that the heart is naught. There are, therefore, two sorts of knowledge, knowledge that resteth in the bare speculation of things, and knowledge that is accompanied with the grace of faith and love, which puts a man upon doing even the will of God from the heart: the first of these will serve the talker; but without the other, the true Christian is not content. “Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.”

Psa. 119:34  Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and observe it with my whole heart.   ESV

     TALK. You lie at the catch again: this is not for edification.

     FAITH. Well, if you please, propound another sign how this work of grace discovereth itself where it is.

     TALK. Not I, for I see we shall not agree.

     FAITH. Well, if you will not, will you give me leave to do it?

     TALK. You may use your liberty.

     FAITH. A work of grace in the soul discovereth itself, either to him that hath it, or to standers-by.

     To him that hath it, thus: It gives him conviction of sin, especially the defilement of his nature, and the sin of unbelief, for the sake of which he is sure to be damned, if he findeth not mercy at God’s hand, by faith in Jesus Christ. This sight and sense of things worketh in him sorrow and shame for sin.

Psa. 38: 18  I confess my iniquity;
I am sorry for my sin.   ESV

Jer. 31:19  For after I had turned away, I relented,
and after I was instructed, I struck my thigh;
I was ashamed, and I was confounded,
because I bore the disgrace of my youth.’   ESV

John 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:   ESV

Rom. 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?   ESV

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.   ESV

Gal. 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.   ESV

Rev. 1:6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.   ESV

He findeth, moreover, revealed in him the Saviour of the world, and the absolute necessity of closing with him for life; at the which he findeth hungerings and thirstings after him; to which hungerings, etc., the promise is made. Now, according to the strength or weakness of his faith in his Saviour, so is his joy and peace, so is his love to holiness, so are his desires to know him more, and also to serve him in this world. But though, I say, it discovereth itself thus unto him, yet it is but seldom that he is able to conclude that this is a work of grace; because his corruptions now, and his abused reason, make his mind to misjudge in this matter: therefore in him that hath this work there is required a very sound judgment, before he can with steadiness conclude that this is a work of grace.

John 16: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;   ESV

Gal. 2:15-16 15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.   ESV

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”   ESV

Matt. 5:6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.   ESV

Rev. 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.   ESV

     To others it is thus discovered:

     1. By an experimental confession of his faith in Christ. 2. By a life answerable to that confession; to wit, a life of holiness-heart-holiness, family-holiness, (if he hath a family,) and by conversation-holiness in the world; which in the general teacheth him inwardly to abhor his sin, and himself for that, in secret; to suppress it in his family, and to promote holiness in the world: not by talk only, as a hypocrite or talkative person may do, but by a practical subjection in faith and love to the power of the word.

Job 42:5-6 5  I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6  therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”   ESV

Psa. 50: 23  The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me;
to one who orders his way rightly
I will show the salvation of God!”   ESV

Ezek. 20:43 And there you shall remember your ways and all your deeds with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves for all the evils that you have committed.   ESV

Matt. 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.   ESV

John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.   ESV

Rom. 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.   ESV

Ezek. 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.   ESV

Phil. 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,   ESV

Phil. 3:17–20 17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. 18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,   ESV

And now, sir, as to this brief description of the work of grace, and also the discovery of it, if you have aught to object, object; if not, then give me leave to propound to you a second question.

     Pilgrim's Progress (Illustrated): Updated, Modern English. More than 100 Illustrations.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 4

Numbers 23:19  God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

God, the Lord, shall never fail thee,
He thy cause will undertake;
All the way His hand shall hold thee,
Faithful love can ne’er forsake.

Rest then on His own sure promise,
For His word He cannot break;
To green pastures, by still waters,
He will lead for His name’s sake.

Everlasting joy awaits thee,
When the earthly journey’s o’er;
Waiting for thee in the glory
There are pleasures evermore.
--- F. Buckley