Why Doesn’t Mark Say Anything About Jesus’ Birth?

By J. Warner Wallace 12/11/2015

     I’ve been examining the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ birth and responding to a number of skeptical objections related to the virgin conception. If the virgin conception was an historical event that was well known to the earliest Christians, why wasn’t it mentioned by Mark? Mark’s gospel is widely accepted as the first account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Why doesn’t it contain anything about the virgin conception? Does the absence of a birth narrative in Mark demonstrate that the entire story is a late fictional creation?

     Silence Doesn’t Mean Denial

     While it is true that Mark does not include a birth narrative, this does not mean that he was either unaware of the truth about Jesus or denied the virgin conception. Eyewitnesses often omit important details because they either (1) have other concerns they want to highlight with greater priority, or (2) presume that the issue under question is already well understood. The gospel of Mark exhibits great influence from the Apostle Peter. In fact, the outline of Mark’s Gospel is very similar to the outline of Peter’s first sermon at Pentecost. According to the Papias, Mark was Peter’s scribe; his gospel is brief and focused. Like Peter’s sermon in Chapter 2 of the Book of Act’s, Mark is focused only on the public life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. But Mark is not alone in omitting the birth narrative. John’s gospel is considered by scholars to be the last Gospel written. The prior three “synoptic Gospels” were already in circulation and the issue of the virgin conception had already been described in two of them. Yet John also omitted the birth narrative. Why? John clearly wanted to cover material that the other Gospel writers did not address; over 90% of the material in the Gospel of John is unique to the text. If John did not agree with the virgin conception as described in the Gospels of Matthew or Luke, he certainly had the opportunity to correct the matter in his own work. But John never does this; his silence serves as a presumption that the “virgin conception” has been accurately described by prior authors.

     Brevity Doesn’t Mean Ignorance

     It really shouldn’t surprise us that the earliest version of the life of Christ would be the shortest and most focused account. Something very similar happens when police officers are dispatched to a crime scene. The first radio broadcast to responding units is always incredibly brief, offering just the bare details needed to get officers rolling in the right direction, aware of the most important issues they may be about to face. The first broadcast is brief, focused on essentials and designed for a purpose. As units are closing in on their arrival at the scene, a second or third broadcast is offered in order to provide more detail, especially if a responding unit has a question that needs clarification. The Gospel of Mark is the first broadcast about the life of Jesus. As such, the Gospel is prioritized around the same public events that concerned Peter; the events that were most important in articulating the salvation that is offered through the cross.

Click here to go to source

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

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     CHAPTER 3.

1. The nature of man, in both parts of his soul--viz. intellect and will--cannot be better ascertained than by attending to the epithets applied to him in Scripture. If he is fully depicted (and it may easily be proved that he is) by the words of our Saviour, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," (John 3:6), he must be a very miserable creature. For, as an apostle declares, "to be carnally minded is death," (Rom. 8:8), "It is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Is it true that the flesh is so perverse, that it is perpetually striving with all its might against God? that it cannot accord with the righteousness of the divine law? that, in short, it can beget nothing but the materials of death? Grant that there is nothing in human nature but flesh, and then extract something good out of it if you can. But it will be said, that the word flesh applies only to the sensual, and not to the higher part of the soul. This, however, is completely refuted by the words both of Christ and his apostle. The statement of our Lord is, that a man must be born again, because he is flesh. He requires not to be born again, with reference to the body. But a mind is not born again merely by having some portion of it reformed. It must be totally renewed. This is confirmed by the antithesis used in both passages. In the contrast between the Spirit and the flesh, there is nothing left of an intermediate nature. In this way, everything in man, which is not spiritual, falls under the denomination of carnal. But we have nothing of the Spirit except through regeneration. Everything, therefore, which we have from nature is flesh. Any possible doubt which might exist on the subject is removed by the words of Paul (Eph. 4:23), where, after a description of the old man, who, he says, "is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts," he bids us "be renewed in the spirit" of our mind. You see that he places unlawful and depraved desires not in the sensual part merely, but in the mind itself, and therefore requires that it should be renewed. Indeed, he had a little before drawn a picture of human nature, which shows that there is no part in which it is not perverted and corrupted. For when he says that the "Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart," (Eph. 4:17, 18), there can be no doubt that his words apply to all whom the Lord has not yet formed anew both to wisdom and righteousness. This is rendered more clear by the comparison which immediately follows, and by which he reminds believers that they "have not so learned Christ" these words implying that the grace of Christ is the only remedy for that blindness and its evil consequences. Thus, too, had Isaiah prophesied of the kingdom of Christ, when the Lord promised to the Church, that though darkness should "cover the earth, and gross darkness the people," yet that he should "arise" upon it, and "his glory" should be seen upon it (Isaiah 40:2). When it is thus declared that divine light is to arise on the Church alone, all without the Church is left in blindness and darkness. I will not enumerate all that occurs throughout Scripture, and particularly in the Psalms and Prophetical writings, as to the vanity of man. There is much in what David says, "Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity," (Ps. 62:10). The human mind receives a humbling blow when all the thoughts which proceed from it are derided as foolish, frivolous, perverse, and insane.

2. In no degree more lenient is the condemnation of the heart, when it is described as "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked," (Jer. 17:9). But as I study brevity, I will be satisfied with a single passage, one, however, in which as in a bright mirror, we may behold a complete image of our nature. The Apostle, when he would humble man's pride, uses these words: "There is none righteous no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes," (Rom. 3:10-18). Thus he thunders not against certain individuals, but against the whole posterity of Adam--not against the depraved manners of any single age, but the perpetual corruption of nature. His object in the passage is not merely to upbraid men in order that they may repent, but to teach that all are overwhelmed with inevitable calamity, and can be delivered from it only by the mercy of God. As this could not be proved without previously proving the overthrow and destruction of nature, he produced those passages to show that its ruin is complete.

Let it be a fixed point, then, that men are such as is here described, not by vicious custom, but by depravity of nature. The reasoning of the Apostle, that there is no salvation for man, save in the mercy of God, because in himself he is desperate and undone, could not otherwise stand. I will not here labour to prove that the passages apply, with the view of removing the doubts of any who might think them quoted out of place. I will take them as if they had been used by Paul for the first time, and not taken from the Prophets. First, then, he strips man of righteousness, that is, integrity and purity; and, secondly, he strips him of sound intelligence. He argues, that defect of intelligence is proved by apostasy from God. To seek Him is the beginning of wisdom, and, therefore, such defect must exist in all who have revolted from Him. He subjoins, that all have gone astray, and become as it were mere corruption; that there is none that does good. He then enumerates the crimes by which those who have once given loose to their wickedness pollute every member of their bodies. Lastly, he declares that they have no fear of God, according to whose rule all our steps should be directed. If these are the hereditary properties of the human race, it is vain to look for anything good in our nature. I confess indeed, that all these iniquities do not break out in every individual. Still it cannot be denied that the hydra lurks in every breast. For as a body, while it contains and fosters the cause and matter of disease, cannot be called healthy, although pain is not actually felt; so a soul, while teeming with such seeds of vice, cannot be called sound. This similitude, however, does not apply throughout. In a body however morbid the functions of life are performed; but the soul, when plunged into that deadly abyss, not only labours under vice, but is altogether devoid of good.

3. Here, again we are met with a question very much the same as that which was previously solved. In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature. The value which virtues of this kind have in the sight of God will be considered more fully when we treat of the merit of works. Meanwhile however, it will be proper to consider it in this place also, in so far as necessary for the exposition of the subject in hand. Such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honourably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14:3, &c). What? Can you exempt yourself from the number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood; whose hands are foul with rapine and murder; whose throats are like open sepulchres; whose tongues are deceitful; whose lips are venomous; whose actions are useless, unjust, rotten, deadly; whose soul is without God; whose inward parts are full of wickedness; whose eyes are on the watch for deception; whose minds are prepared for insult; whose every part, in short, is framed for endless deeds of wickedness? If every soul is capable of such abominations (and the Apostle declares this boldly), it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent. No ravenous beast would rush so furiously, no stream, however rapid and violent, so impetuously burst its banks. In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things. Hence, how much soever men may disguise their impurity, some are restrained only by shame, others by a fear of the laws, from breaking out into many kinds of wickedness. Some aspire to an honest life, as deeming it most conducive to their interest, while others are raised above the vulgar lot, that, by the dignity of their station, they may keep inferiors to their duty. Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure.

Why Naturalism is Simply Unbelievable

By Lenny Esposito 12/16/2014

     Naturalism is simply unbelievable. I don't mean unbelievable in the fantastical sense, although I do think there's a lot of hand-waving that goes on to try and excise any supernatural explanation as to why we exist. I mean, the viewpoint is unbelievable in that its own assumptions destroy itself. It is illogical to hold to naturalism.

     The naturalist wants us to believe that the natural world is all that exists; we came about through evolutionary processes and our minds are one of the products of that process. Given the survival of the fittest paradigm that rives evolution, the naturalist must also assert "What your beliefs are don't matter nearly as much as what the survival value of your actions are." In fact, they do this when discussing religion all the time. Religion isn't true, they would assert, but it served an evolutionary purpose.

     To use an example, picture an overweight man who is running. Now, the man may believe he has a better chance at survival if he runs because he puts his body in better shape, reduces the chances of heart attacks, and is generally more fit for the tasks of survival. However, the man may equally believe that running is an act of worship to the life-god and it drives out the fat demons that plague much of his tribe. Either belief produces the same result: the man runs and the man has an increased chance of longevity. Either belief helps him survive equally well. It doesn't matter which is true on an evolutionary worldview because evolution is all about survivability.

     Reason Offers No Evolutionary Advantage

     Because all evolution cares about is the survival of the individual, reason alone offers no evolutionary advantage. In fact, evolutionary theory proves this. According to all New-Darwinian models, there was a time on the earth where there existed no rational thought whatsoever! Animals were primitive and they had no capacity to reason, yet they survived just fine. They mere responded to external stimuli and adjusted their behavior. They don't know why the water is here and not somewhere else; they simply desire water.

Click here to go to source

Extrabiblical Historians

By Gleason Archer Jr.

     An objection is raised in modern scholarly circles in regard to the faithfulness of the transmission of the original text of scripture which seems to be quite specious and illogical. In view of the unquestioning acceptance of so many of the earliest surviving copies of Greek and Latin classical authors, very seldom is any objection raised on the ground of their unreliability because they are late or because there are so few of them. (6)  But, in the case of the Bible there are hundreds of witnesses to the text of the Old Testament and over 20,000 witnesses to the text of the New Testament in their original languages and therefore it is safe to say that no documents of ancient times have ever had such a full and impressive witness to the text as is found for the 66 books of the Bible. It is highly significant that these non-biblical texts are so cheerfully accepted even though, for example works of Tacitus, Lucretius, Catullus, and Aristotle have fewer than five extant copies each, and largely bear much later datings than many biblical texts. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the objection as to the trustworthiness of the text is hardly sincere, but rather it appears as special pleading on the basis of a hostile bias that is scarcely worthy of responsible scholarship. It should be added that this kind of concern for flawless accuracy has a certain bearing on related matters such as the standard of weights and measures which should prevail throughout a society. One can hardly purchase an absolutely perfect pound or an absolutely perfect foot measure in any store in America. But, we all understand that in the Bureau of Weights and Measures in Washington D.C. there is a perfect standard. Those measures and weights that can be purchased can be judged by reference to those in the Bureau of Weights and Measures for objective verification.

 (6)  For a fuller comparison note the early authors, dates, and number of extant documents which rarely receive the same criticism as the far better attested biblical MSS.

     This brings up the question of the faithfulness of the transmission of the Bible text. There are numerous types of manuscript error which the textual critic may discover in the early manuscripts of the Old Testament. (These will be discussed in chap. 4). Are these of so serious a nature as to corrupt the message itself, or make it impossible to convey the true meaning? If they are, then God’s purpose has been frustrated; He could not convey His revelation so that those of later generations could understand it aright. If He did not exercise a restraining influence over the scribes who wrote out the standard and authoritative copies of the Scriptures, then they corrupted and falsified the message. If the message was falsified, the whole purpose of bestowing a written revelation has come to naught; for such a corrupted Scripture would be a mere mixture of truth and error, necessarily subject to human judgment (rather than sitting in judgment upon man).

     Do we have any objective evidence that errors of transmission have not been permitted by God to corrupt and pervert His revelation? Yes, we have, for a careful study of the variants (different readings) of the various earliest manuscripts reveals that none of them affects a single doctrine of Scripture. The system of spiritual truth contained in the standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament is not in the slightest altered or compromised by any of the variant readings found in the Hebrew manuscripts of earlier date found in the Dead Sea caves or anywhere else. All that is needed to verify this is to check the register of well-attested variants in Rudolf Kittel’s edition of the Hebrew Bible or else the more recent Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. It is very evident that the vast majority of them are so inconsequential as to leave the meaning of each clause doctrinally unaffected.

     It should be clearly understood that in this respect, the Old Testament differs from all other pre-Christian works of literature of which we have any knowledge. To be sure, we do not possess ordinarily so many different manuscripts of pagan productions, coming from such widely separated eras, as we do in the case of the Old Testament. Strong confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan records that have been preserved to us for the purposes of comparison. For example, in the Behistun Rock inscription set up by Darius I, around 510 B.C., we find that line 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners—according to the Babylonian column. In a duplicate copy of this inscription found at Babylon itself, the number of prisoners was 6,973. But in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972—precisely the same discrepancy as we have noted in the comparison of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 (cf. E. W. König, Relief und Inschrift des Königs Dareios I am Felsen von Bagistan [Leiden: Brill, 1938], p. 48). Similarly in line 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count (ibid., p. 45). (For greater detail on the discrepancies between the three-language inscription of Darius I on the above mentioned Behistun Rock inscription [i.e., the Persian, Babylonian, and Elamite], and the Aramaic papyrus copy found in the Elephantine, p 29 consult E. W. König: ibid, pp. 36–57.) But where we do, for example in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the variations are of a far more extensive and serious nature. Quite startling differences appear, for example, between chapter 15 contained in the Papyrus of Ani (written in the Eighteenth Dynasty) and the Turin Papyrus (from the Twenty-sixth Dynasty or later). Whole clauses are inserted or left out, and the sense in corresponding columns of text is in some cases altogether different. Apart from divine superintendence of the transmission of the Hebrew text, there is no particular reason why the same phenomenon of discrepancy and change would not appear between Hebrew manuscripts produced centuries apart. Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text, but in 1QIsb, (ca. 75 B.C.) the preserved text is almost letter for letter identical with the Leningrad Manuscript. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. Even those Dead Sea fragments of Deuteronomy and Samuel which point to a different manuscript family from that which underlies our received Hebrew text do not indicate any differences in doctrine or teaching. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

Chapter 1 | The Problem Stated

“I have been obliged to bestow the greatest amount of labour on a hitherto entirely unworked field, the investigation of the inner constitution of the separate books of the Old Testament by the aid of the Higher Criticism (a new name to no Humanist).”—EICHHORN.

“It is true that the present destructive proceedings in the department of Old Testament criticism, which demand the construction of a new edifice, are quite fitted to confuse consciences and to entangle a weak faith in all kinds of temptation. If, however, we keep fast hold in this labyrinth of the one truth, Christus vere resurrexit, we have in our hands Ariadne’s thread to lead us out of it.”—DELITZSCH.

Wellhausen “has identified himself with that ‘so-called criticism’ (Ewald’s phraseology) which has ‘given up Moses and so much that is excellent besides,’ and which leads on directly to the contemptuous rejection of the Old Testament, if not also of the New (again, Ewald’s phraseology).”—CHEYNE.

“Erroneous criticism cannot be corrected by dogmatic theology, but only by a better, more searching, and less prejudiced criticism.”—OTTLEY.

WHEN we speak of a problem of the Old Testament, what do we mean? What is the problem, and how does it arise? A consideration of these questions will form a suitable introduction to the subsequent discussions.

It can hardly be necessary for us, in opening our inquiry, to define what is meant by the Old Testament, though on this point also, as between Protestants and Roman Catholics, a few questions might arise. By the term is here understood, in brief, that collection of Scriptures which now forms the first part of our ordinary Bibles,

1—which the Jews technically divided into “the law, the prophets, and the (holy) writings,”
2—which our Lord and His apostles spoke of as “the Scriptures,”
3 “the Holy Scriptures,”
4 “the oracles of God,”
5 “the sacred writings,”
6 and uniformly treated as the “God-inspired”
7 and authoritative record of God’s revelations to, and dealings with, His ancient people.
8 This yields a first regulative position in our study. It may be laid down as axiomatic that, whatever they may be for others, these ancient Scriptures can never have less value for the Christian Church than they had for the Church’s Master—Christ Himself. Believing scholars of all standpoints may be trusted to agree in this. (1)

But what is meant by the problem of the Old Testament? Naturally there are many problems, but our title indicates that the problem we have now in view is that which arises peculiarly from the course of recent criticism. That problem will be found large and complex enough to occupy us in this volume, and, as going to the root of a believing attitude to the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, will probably be allowed to be, for the present moment, the fundamental and essential one. In this chapter we shall seek to convey as clear an idea as we can of where we conceive the crux of this Old Testament problem to lie, and shall indicate generally the lines to be followed in the handling of it.

I. THE PROBLEM TWOFOLD: RELIGIOUS AND LITERARY

The problem of the Old Testament, then, as it presses on the Church from various sides at the present hour, may be said to be twofold. First, and most fundamentally, the question raised by it is—How are we to conceive of the religion which the Old Testament embodies, and presents to us in its successive stages, as respects its nature and origin? Is it a natural product of the development of the human spirit, as scholars of the distinctively “modern” way of thinking—Kuenen, Wellhausen, Stade, and the like—allege; or is it something more—a result of special, supernatural revelation to Israel, such as other nations did not possess? Then second, How are we to conceive of the literature itself, or of the books which make up the Old Testament, as respects their age, origin, mode of composition, trustworthiness, and, generally, their connection with the religion of which they are the monuments?

At first sight it might seem as if the second of these questions had no necessary relation to the first. Nothing, it may be plausibly argued, depends, for the decision of the supernatural origin of the religion, on whether the Pentateuch, as we have it, is from the pen of Moses, or is made up of three or four documents, put together at a late date; or at what period the Levitical law was finally codified; or whether the Book of Isaiah is the work of one, or two, or of ten authors; or whether the Psalms are pre-exilic, or post-exilic, in origin. Yet, as will be seen more fully later, the dependence of the literary criticism on the religious theory is really very close. For, if it be true, as every fair mind must admit, that there are many scholars who succeed, to their own satisfaction, in combining the acceptance of the main results of the critical hypothesis of the Old Testament, even in its advanced form, with firm belief in the reality of supernatural revelation in Israel, and in the culmination of that revelation in Christ; it is equally true that, in the case of others, and these pre-eminently, in Dr. Cheyne’s phrase, “The Founders of Criticism,” the decisions arrived at on purely literary questions,—the date of a psalm, e.g., the genuineness of a passage, or the integrity of a book,—are largely controlled by the view taken of the origin and course of development of the religion; and, with a different theory on these subjects, the judgments passed on the age, relations, and historical value, of particular writings, would be different also. This dependence of many of the conclusions of criticism—by no means, of course, all—on the religious and historical standpoint is practically admitted by Wellhausen, when he declares that “it is only within the region of religious antiquities and dominant religious ideas—the region which Vatke in his Biblische Theologie had occupied in its full breadth, and where the real battle first kindled—that the controversy can be brought to a definite issue.” (2)

It is the perception of this fact and of its results which affords the explanation of the very genuine disquiet and perplexity which undeniably exist in large sections of the Church as to the tendency and outcome of recent developments in Old Testament criticism. From the popular point of view—the light in which the matter presents itself to the average Christian mind—the problem of the Old Testament is simply one of how we are to regard the Bible. It is not merely, as the instinct of the humblest is quick enough to perceive, the dates and authorship of books that are in dispute in these critical theories: it is the whole question of the value of the Bible as an inspired and authoritative record of God’s historical revelation to mankind. Has God spoken, and does this book convey to us His sure word for our salvation and guidance? Have the Scriptures of the Old Testament any longer the value for us which they had for Christ and His disciples? Or are we to concede to the writers of the school above mentioned, that, as the result of the critical discussions of the past century, the historical foundations of Old Testament revelation have in the main been subverted? Must man’s changing and erring thoughts about God henceforth take the place of God’s words to man? Are the erewhile “lively oracles” of God simply the fragmentary remains of a literature to which no special quality of divineness attaches, and is the supposed history of revelation largely a piecing together of the myths, legends, and free inventions of an age whose circle of ideas the modern spirit has outgrown? These and like questions, that extensive body of opinion which arrogates to itself the title “modern” would answer with an unhesitating “Yes”; it need not occasion surprise if the great mass of believing opinion in the Church, on the other hand, meets such a challenge with an emphatic “No.”

It is to be admitted that the position of those who, at the present time, occupy a believing standpoint, yet are strongly repelled by the rationalism which seems to them to inhere in much of the prevailing criticism, is one of peculiar difficulty. On the one hand, they feel keenly the seriousness of the issues by which they are confronted. They seem to themselves to be called to give up, not only those ideas of the Bible in which they have been nurtured, and with which their tenderest associations are entwined, but the view of the Bible that appears to them to arise from an impartial study of its contents and claims. They see the disintegrating processes which have wrought such havoc, as they regard it, with the Old Testament, extended to the New, and with like results. (3)  On the other hand, they are met by the assertion that practically all competent scholarship—believing and unbelieving alike—is agreed in the acceptance of those critical conclusions about the Old Testament which so greatly disturb them. What, in the “storm and stress” of this conflict and confusion of opinion, are those who hold fast by the Bible as the Word of Life for their souls to do? General assurances, such as are sometimes given, that, when they have parted with the greater part of what they have been accustomed to regard as the historical substance of revelation, they will find the Bible a diviner book to them than ever, do not yield the desired comfort. Is it to be wondered at if, in their perplexity and resentment, many who feel thus should round on “Higher Criticism” itself, and uncompromisingly denounce it as the prolific parent of all the mischief—an invention of the Evil One for the destruction of the unwary?

Nevertheless, this attitude of unreasoning denunciation of what is called “Higher Criticism” is also manifestly an extreme; and the problem we have to deal with, if it is to be profitably discussed, requires a clearer discrimination of issues. In particular, it cannot too early be recognised that this is not, at bottom, a question simply, as is too commonly assumed, between “Higher Critics” and “Non-Higher Critics.” Questions of criticism, indeed, enter deeply—far more deeply, to our thinking, than many are disposed to allow—into the dispute; but it is only to confuse the issue, and is a gratuitous weakening of the believing case, not to recognise that the real cleft goes much deeper—viz., into a radical contrariety of view as to the natural or supernatural origin of the religion of Israel, and that on this fundamental issue those whom we call “critics” are themselves sharply divided, and found ranged in opposing camps. There are, one must own, few outstanding scholars at the present day on the Continent or in Britain—in America it is somewhat different—who do not in greater or less degree accept conclusions regarding the Old Testament of the kind ordinarily denominated critical; (4)  yet among the foremost are many whom no one who understands their work would dream of classing as other than believing, and defenders of revealed religion. Such, among Continental scholars, recent or living, are Delitzsch, Riehm, Dillmann, König, Kittel, Köhler, Strack, Oettli, Westphal, Orelli; in Britain, Dr. Driver, the late Dr. A. B. Davidson, Professor G. A. Smith, and many others: all more or less “critics,” but all convinced upholders of supernatural revelation. This is not a reason for unquestioning acceptance of their opinions; as critics it will be found that they are far enough from agreeing among themselves. But the attitude to criticism of so large a body of believing scholars may at least suggest to those disposed to form hasty judgments that there is here a very real problem to be solved; that the case is more complex than perhaps they had imagined; that there are real phenomena in the literary structure of the Old Testament, for the explanation of which, in the judgment of many able minds, the traditional view is not adequate, and for which they seem to themselves to find a more satisfactory solution in some form or other of the critical hypothesis. (5)

The truth is, and the fact has to be faced, that no one who studies the Old Testament in the light of modern knowledge can help being, to some extent, a “Higher Critic,” nor is it desirable he should. The name has unfortunately come to be associated all but exclusively with a method yielding a certain class of results; but it has no necessary connection with these results. “Higher Criticism,” rightly understood, is simply the careful scrutiny, on the principles which it is customary to apply to all literature, of the actual phenomena of the Bible, with a view to deduce from these such conclusions as may be warranted regarding the age, authorship, mode of composition, sources, etc., of the different books; and everyone who engages in such inquiries, with whatever aim, is a “Higher Critic,” and cannot help himself. The peculiar distribution of the names of God in Genesis, e.g., is a fact to be recognised, whatever account may be given of it, and the collation and sifting of evidence, with a view to the obtaining of a satisfactory explanation, is, so far, a critical process. There is nothing in such scholarly examination of the Bible, even though the result be to present some things in a new light, which need alarm anyone. As the world of nature presents a different aspect to the man of science, still more to the metaphysician, from that which it does to the common view of sense, yet is the same world; so the Bible may present a somewhat different aspect to the eye of the trained critical scholar, yet is the same Bible, for edification, devotion, and instruction in the way of righteousness.

That we may discharge our debt to criticism, even of the rationalistic sort, once for all, let us acknowledge that, with all its attendant evils, its course has been productive, under the providence of God, of many benefits, which in large measure counterbalance, if they do not outweigh, these evils. Some of the positive advances in its course it will be our business to notice hereafter. It is assuredly not for nothing that, for more than a century, the light of the best European scholarship has been keenly directed on every page, verse, line, and even word, of the sacred record. Many of the leaders of criticism, however defective in their apprehension of the full truth of revelation, have been men of fine literary gifts, wide culture, acute critical faculty, and genuine appreciation of the nobler elements in the religious and ethical teaching of the prophets; and the result of their labours, as everyone must own, has been, in modern times, a wonderful freshening of interest in the historical, poetical, and prophetical parts of the Old Testament, and an immensely better understanding of its textual meaning and historical setting. What student of Old Testament history or prophecy, e.g., would willingly part with the aid afforded by the works of Ewald? (6)  What most rabid opponent of criticism is not ready to own his indebtedness, on the linguistic side, to that dry old rationalist, Gesenius? There is a yet greater gain. It is not too much to say that one direct result of the application of the strictest historical and critical methods to the Old Testament has been to bring out, as never before, the absolutely unique and marvellous character of the religion of Israel. With the best will in the world to explain the religious development of Israel out of natural factors, the efforts of the critics have resulted, in the view of many of themselves, in a magnificent demonstration of the immense, and, on natural principles, inexplicable difference between the religion of this obscure people and every other. (7)  Some may regard this as a small result; to us it presents itself as something for which to be devoutly grateful.

The Problem of the Old Testament

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 2

7 I will tell of the decree:
The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

What Did God Say?

By Sinclair Ferguson

     The root of legalism is almost as old as Eden, which explains why it is a primary, if not the ultimate, pastoral problem. In seeking to bring freedom from legalism, we are engaged in undoing the ancient work of Satan.

     In Eden the Serpent persuaded Eve and Adam that God was possessed of a narrow and restrictive spirit bordering on the malign. After all, the Serpent whispered, “Isn’t it true that he placed you in this garden full of delights and has now denied them all to you?”

     The implication was twofold.

     It was intended to dislodge Eve from the clarity of God’s word (“Did God actually say . . . ?”). Later the attack focused on the authority of God’s word (“You will not surely die”). But it was more. It was an attack on God’s character. For the Serpent’s question carried a deeply sinister innuendo: “What kind of God would deny you pleasure and joy if he really loved you? He allows you nothing, and yet he demands that you obey him.”

     Despite an initial struggle, Eve’s ears were soon closed off to God’s word. The Serpent’s tactic was to lead her into seeing and interpreting the world through her eyes (what she saw when she looked at the tree) rather than through her ears (what God had said about it). So her gaze was diverted from the superabundant plenty God had commanded our first parents to enjoy. The use of the verb9 is surely significant in this context: the enjoyment of plenty is the first element in the command; the prohibition of one tree is the second. The Serpent’s tactic was to cause a fixation on the one negative command: “Do not eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, lest you die.”

     Now all Eve saw was a negative command. One small object near the eye can make all larger objects invisible. Now it was the sight of the forbidden tree blocking her vision of a garden abounding in trees. Now she could not see the forest for the tree. Now her eyes were on God the negative lawgiver and judge. In both mind and affections God’s law was now divorced from God’s gracious person. Now she thought God wanted nothing for her. Everything was a myopic, distorted “now.”

     The entail of that theology is that if you are to receive anything from this misanthrope deity, then it must now be paid for and earned. By contrast the Father had actually said:

     I am giving you everything in this garden. Go and enjoy yourselves. But just before you head off, I have given you all of this because I love you. I want you to grow and develop in your understanding and in your love for me. So this is the plan:

     There is a tree here, “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Don’t eat its fruit.

     I know—you want to know why, don’t you?

     Well, I have made you as my image. I have given you instincts to enjoy what I enjoy. So in one sense you naturally do what pleases me and simultaneously gives you pleasure too.

     But I want you to grow in trusting and loving me just for myself, because I am who I am.

     You can only really do that if you are willing to obey me, not because you are wired to, but because you want to show me that you trust and love me.

     If you do that you will find that you grow stronger and that your love for me deepens.

     Trust me, I know.

     That’s why I have put that tree there. I so want you to be blessed that I am commanding you to eat and enjoy the fruit of all these trees. That’s a command! But I have another command. What I want you to do is one simple thing: don’t eat the fruit of that one tree.

     I am not asking you to do that because the tree is ugly—actually it is just as attractive as the other trees. I don’t create ugly, ever!11 You won’t be able to look at the fruit and think, That must taste horrible. It is a fine-looking tree. So it’s simple. Trust me, obey me, and love me because of who I am and because you are enjoying what I have given to you. Trust me, obey me, and you will grow.

How to Pray for Your Pastor

By Melton L. Duncan 7/01/2017

     When Roman legions invaded Caledonia (modern-day Scotland) in the late first century AD, it was said by the historian Tacitus that the powerful Celtic chieftain Calgacus emerged and rallied his tribes against the might of Rome, famously declaring, “They make a desert, and they call it peace.”

     Today’s Christian pastor is likewise making similar stands for biblical Christianity in the midst of a secular desert created by an anti-Christian culture. The Bible describes a faithful pastor as an elder who oversees the flock and the household of God. According to Paul, pastor/elders rule the church (Titus 1:5) and guard the treasures of Christ (v. 9). Additionally, they minister to the people by teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

     If ever there was an era in Christian history that believers should be committed to praying for their pastors, it is now. James rebukes our prayerlessness when he says, “You do not have, because you do not ask” (James 4:2). And what prayers are we offering up to God on behalf of our pastors? Let me suggest several.

THAT HE WOULD DELIGHT IN PREACHING

THAT HE WOULD ENJOY THE LORD’S DAY

THAT HE WOULD LEAD HIS FAMILY WELL

THAT HE WOULD HAVE A HEART FOR THE LOST

THAT THE LORD WOULD PROTECT HIM

THAT HE WOULD PREACH THE GOSPEL

Click here to go to source

The Inspired Order of the Bible 3

By Dr. Judd W. Patton

     The Second Division of the Old Testament is the Prophets. It consists of only six books, though there may seem to be many more than that! The first book is Joshua - Judges. It is counted as two separate books by Traditional reckoning but only as one in the Hebrew Inspired Order. The second book consists of 1 and 2 Samuel -1 and 2 Kings. It is one book or scroll known historically as the Book of Kingdoms. Together these two books are known as the Former Prophets because they are the upfront or first books in the Division.

     The next three books, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, are called the Major Prophets because they are larger in size or contain more pages than the books of the Minor Prophets, not because of importance. Lastly, the Minor Prophets are one book in Hebrew but consist of twelve prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Together, and in that historical, chronological order, they contain roughly the same number of pages as any one of the Major Prophets.

     It’s also important to distinguish the Latter Prophets, which refer to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve books of the Minor Prophets, from the Former Prophets, Joshua-Judges and the Book of Kingdoms.

     Finally, the Third Division, according to Christ as recorded in Luke 24:44 and in Hebrew tradition, is the Psalms, the first book of the division and undoubtedly the reason Christ used it rather than the “Writings” appellation. All books within this division were composed by kings and leaders like David, Solomon, Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra and Hezekiah and written for kings and priestly rulers. Again, these books contains leadership principles.

     The Hagiographa consists, then, of eleven books in three sub-categories. These categories include three Poetic or Wisdom books ( Psalms, Proverbs and Job ); five Festival Books also called the Megillot ( Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther ); and three Restoration Books ( Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chronicles ).

     Count them, please! There are a total of eleven books in the Writings Division with Ezra Nehemiah counted as one book and 1 and 2 Chronicles counted as one book.

     The five Megillot (meaning scroll) books, as they were called in Hebrew, were designated by Ezra to be read on specific Festival or commemorative days. That is, the Song of Solomon was to be read on the Passover. Ruth was to be read on the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost. Lamentations was to be read on the tenth day of the month Ab (in August) commemorating the destruction of Solomon’s Temple. Ecclesiastes was to be read on the Feast of Tabernacles, and Esther was to be read on the Feast of Purim. 6 Understanding Ezra’s directive adds context for the meaning of these annual Festivals or Feast days (see Leviticus 23 ), these commemorative days (Temple destruction and Purim), and for the books themselves!

     There is also a distinct feminine aspect of note to the Megillot books that is significant and readily apparent 7. The Song of Solomon is about a woman who wishes to court King Solomon or be courted by him. Ruth is the grandmother of King David and the events surrounding her experience relate to the meaning of the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost. Lamentations is written in a style of a mother weeping for her children who have been destroyed. Ecclesiastes deals with wisdom and understanding which are feminine attributes, and Esther is about Queen Esther and her role in saving her nation of Judah from destruction.

     All of the Holy Day and feminine aspects to these five books are lost when the books are scattered and dispersed in our Traditional arrangement of the Old Testament. If God indeed placed these five Megillot books together and inspired Ezra to have them read on specific Festival occasions, which the author is convinced He did, then clearly knowledge and insights are lost by dispersing them throughout the Old Testament.

Quick Comparison

     Let’s notice some of the similarities and differences between the Traditional 39 books and the Inspired Order of 22 books. First, the similarities: the Law is the same in both orders – Genesis through Deuteronomy, or perhaps more correctly stated as, In the Beginning through These Are the Words. Joshua-Judges is the same in both orders positioned after Deuteronomy, though split into two books by the Traditional Order. Likewise, each book within the Minor Prophets are in the same order from Hosea to Malachi, but they are positioned or pulled as a group to the end of the Old Testament and counted as eleven separate books instead of reckoned as one book in the Inspired Order.

     Beyond those similarities, Jerome’s Septuagint-inspired order really scatters the remainder of the books. The Restoration books are pulled forward and split up with 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah positioned after 2 Kings, while Daniel is positioned just before the Minor Prophets. The Megillot books are widely dispersed, with Ruth and Esther placed in the Traditional Historical division, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are grouped together after Proverbs in the Traditional Poetic division while Lamentations, authored by Jeremiah, is placed within the Major Prophets after the book of Jeremiah. Finally, the Inspired Order poetic books are rearranged so that Job precedes Psalms and Proverbs.

     Such are some of the differences caused by replacing the Law, Prophets and Psalms divisions in the original Inspired Order of the Bible with three new groupings of the Traditional order: Historical, Poetic and Prophetic books.

     With these changes came a loss of spiritual understanding. That’s our point! Asking why Malachi, for example, is the last book of the Bible is a nonsense question. Obtaining an answer is really nonsense! Failure to grasp the Festival nature of the five Megillot books, for example, really limits and hides knowledge contained within these books. These examples just indicate the “tip of the iceberg” of the loss of meaning and confusion caused by the Septuagint-inspired order adopted by Jerome. Stayed tuned!

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

January 3

Who walks with God must take His way,
Across far distances and gray,
To goals that others do not see,
Where others do not care to be.

Who walks with God must have no fear
When danger and defeat appear,
Nor stop when every hope seems gone,
For God, our God, moves ever on.

Who walks with God must press ahead
When sun or cloud is overhead,
When all the waiting thousands cheer,
Or when they only stop to sneer;

When all the challenge leaves the hours
And naught is left but jaded powers;
But he will some day reach the dawn,
For God, our God, moves ever on.
--- Selected

First Prophecy of Judgment

      Genesis 2:16–17. When the divine work of creation was completed and Adam was created, God gave him the first command that is in the form of a conditional prophecy. According to verses 16–17, “The LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’”

     Genesis 3:1–3. After Eve was created, Satan approached her in the form of a serpent (cf. Rev. 20:2 ). The serpent said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1 ) The question implies the restriction necessarily deprived her of something that is rightfully hers. In reply, Eve said, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die’” (v. 2 ).

     In her reply, Eve added the restriction that she was not to touch the fruit, and omitted the word surely. The Devil immediately attacked the statement of the certainty of death by denying that Eve would surely die. He found fault with the restriction by affirming that when the fruit was eaten they would be like God and would know good and evil. What he did not say was that they would know the good without being able to do it, and know the evil without being able to avoid it.

     Genesis records, “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (v. 6 ).

     The temptation that Adam and Eve faced followed the pattern described in 1 John 2:16: “For everything in the world — the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does — comes not from the Father but from the world.” The temptation that Eve faced was her belief that the fruit was good and appealed to actual desires of man described in 1 John as “the cravings of sinful man.” That it was “pleasing to the eye” corresponds to “the lust of his eyes.” That it was “desirable for gaining wisdom” appealed to pride, which relates to “the boasting of what he has and does.”

     In approaching Christ in His temptation, Satan tempted Christ along these same lines: appeal to the desires of the natural man, appeal to hunger, and appeal to pride in tempting Christ to cast Himself down from the temple as the Son of God. In the revelation of the glory of the kingdoms of the world, Satan appealed to the desire of the eyes for beauty (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13 ). The same avenues of temptation are illustrated in Saul, who was tempted by pride (1 Sam. 13:1–14 ); David, who was tempted by the desires of the human nature (2 Sam. 11:2–27 ); and Solomon, who was tempted by the desire for beautiful things (1 Kings 10:14–29; 2 Chron. 9:13–28 ).