The crowds murmured while the critics lurked in the shadows. Complaints, compliments, and confusion over the Man from Galilee spread among the Jews at the Feast of Tabernacles like political opinions circulate today on social media during election time.

• “Some said, ‘He is good’; others said, ‘No, on the contrary, He deceives the people’” (John 7:12).
• In response to Jesus’ question, “Why do you seek to kill Me?” The people answered and said, “You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?” (7:19-20). Yet others said, “Is this not He whom they seek to kill?” (7:25).
• “[S]ome of them from Jerusalem said… ‘Do the rulers know indeed that this is truly the Christ?’” (7:26).
• The officers (whom the Pharisees and chief priests sent to arrest Jesus) came back empty-handed, saying, “No man ever spoke like this Man.” Yet, the Pharisees arrogantly responded, “Are you also deceived? Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed in Him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed” (7:46-48). “Search and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52, NASB).
• “Some of the people therefore, after they heard these words [of Jesus], were saying, ‘This truly is the Prophet.’ Others were saying, ‘This is the Christ.’ But others were saying, ‘Surely the Christ is not coming from Galilee, is He? Has the Scripture not said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ So a dissension occurred in the crowd because of Him” (7:40-43, NASB).

The hard-hearted, egocentric Pharisees and chief priests did not know the Old Testament as well as they professed. They chided the common people for their ignorance of the Law (7:48) and then contemptibly challenged Nicodemus to “[s]earch and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (7:52, NASB). Yet, the prophet Jonah was from Gath Hepher of Zebulon (2 Kings 14:25; Joshua 19:10-13), which is in Galilee. Furthermore, in the desperate, dark days of Assyrian dominance in Galilee in the late eighth century B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 15:29), the prophet Isaiah foretold of the everlasting Prince of Peace coming as a “great light” in “the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali…in Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1-7). Who was this “great light”? Jesus of Nazareth, Who “came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet” (Matthew 4:13-14). Indeed, in one sense, the greatest Prophet of them all, the Messiah, came “out of Galilee.”¹

Bethlehem of Judea—“The City of David”

In another real sense, the “commoners”² were right, too. “Scripture said…that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (John 7:42). David may have dwelt in Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem once he became king and conquered the Jebusite city (2 Samuel 5:6-7), but it seems most any Jew knew that David’s heritage was in Bethlehem.

This Bethlehem was not the Bethlehem of Zebulon (Joshua 19:15; in Galilee), but the Bethlehem of Judah, also known as Ephrath or Ephrathah.³ People of Bethlehem were known as “Ephrahthites” (Ruth 1:1-2; 1 Samuel 17:12). David’s great grandfather, Boaz, “came from Bethlehem” (Ruth 2:4; 4:11). David’s father, Jesse, was an “Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah” (1 Samuel 17:12,15; 16:1,4). Prior to his 33-year reign in Jerusalem, which became known as “the city of David” (2 Samuel 5:7-9), David himself referred to Bethlehem as “his city” (1 Samuel 20:6). In this sense, even Luke referred to Bethlehem of Judah as “the city of David” (Luke 2:4).

Why did Joseph and Mary travel all the way from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem of Judea? To be registered in the Roman census (Luke 2:1-2). But why Bethlehem? Because “all went to be registered, everyone to his own city” (Luke 2:3), and Joseph “was of the house and lineage of David,” and Bethlehem was “the city of David” (Luke 2:4,11,15).

The Star of Bethlehem

In about 1,400 B.C. God used a non-Jewish, Mesopotamian soothsayer named Balaam to prophesy to the Moabites about, among other things, how “a Star shall come out of Jacob; a Scepter shall rise out of Israel” (Numbers 24:17). Some 400 years later, this prophecy had an “immediate” application in Israel’s great King David. But 1,400 years later, Balaam’s prophecy would have its remote application and ultimate fulfillment in “the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16; cf. Isaiah 11:1,10; Revelation 5:5). [And He has the greatest of all scepters—having “all authority…in heaven and on Earth” (Matthew 28:18).]

Amazingly, one of the first signs of the coming of the long-awaited Messiah was the appearance of “His star” (Matthew 2:2,9), which “wise men [or “magi,” NASB] from the East” followed all the way to Judea (Matthew 2:1).⁴ The wise men stopped in Jerusalem, asking, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him” (Matthew 2:2). But Herod, the ruthless king of Judea, knew nothing about these things and inquired of “all the chief priests and scribes…where the Christ was to be born” (Matthew 2:4). What these men knew was the same thing the crowd knew 30-plus years later in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7): The Messiah was to be born “[i]n Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet, ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel” (Matthew 2:5-6).

The Dark days of Micah

What “Scripture” is this that says “the Christ comes from the town of Bethlehem, where David was” (John 7:42)? Who was this prophet who wrote that “a Ruler” will come from “Bethlehem, in the land of Judah” (Matthew 2:5-6)?

His name was Micah and he was from the country town of Moresheth (about 20-25 miles southwest of Jerusalem). Micah himself refers to the town as “Moresheth Gath” (1:14), likely implying that for a time, it “had fallen under the power of the neighboring Philistines of Gath.”⁵ Micah lived during the same period as other eighth-century prophets, including Amos (1:1) and Hosea (1:1), who prophesied to the Northern Kingdom, and Isaiah (1:1), who prophesied along with Micah in the Southern Kingdom. It was “in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” that Micah received “the word of the Lord” (Micah 1:1). These three kings reigned a combined 56 years (from about 742-687 B.C.). “Jotham…reigned sixteen years…and did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chronicles 27:1-2). Hezekiah, though not perfect, was also a great king, one of the greatest in Judah’s long history, serving for 29 years (2 Kings 18:1-20:21; 2 Chronicles 29:1-32:33). Sandwiched between these two rulers was the cowardly, repulsive King Ahaz, one of the worst, most wicked kings in Judah’s history, reigning for 16 dark years. Among other things, he “sacrificed to the gods of Damascus,” “burned his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel,” “shut up the doors of the house of the Lord,” and overall, “encouraged moral decline in Judah” (28:23,3,24,20).

Sadly, whether during the reigns of wicked or righteous kings, the people of Judah, like their northern counterparts (Micah 1:5-13), mostly “still…acted corruptly” (2 Chronicles 27:2). Repugnantly sinful behavior was especially characteristic of those in positions of authority. But the mighty prophet Micah did not hold back. He was given “[t]he Word of the Lord” (Micah 1:1), and as a good steward of the Divine revelation, he let the “high and mighty” have it.

I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord, and of justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. Now hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build up Zion with bloodshed and Jerusalem with iniquity. Her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money (Micah 3:8-11).

“[H]er rich men are full of violence” (6:12). Speaking hyperbolically, Micah professed, “The faithful man has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; every man hunts his brother with a net. That they may successfully do evil with both hands—the prince asks for gifts, the judge seeks a bribe, and the great man utters his evil desire; so they scheme together” (7:2-3). In short, they “hate good and love evil” (3:2).

Tragically, Jerusalem was a repugnant center of spiritual disease (as was Samaria in the North). The courageous prophet Micah boldly confronted all manner of abusive leaders and prophesied of their eventual demise. “For behold, the Lord is coming…. The mountains will melt under Him…. I will make Samaria a heap of ruins” (Micah 1:3,4,6). And “Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins” (3:12). Indeed, the brutal Assyrians conquered Samaria in 722 B.C. And though Jerusalem was spared for a time following the fearless prophesying of Micah and Isaiah and the righteous reforms of King Hezekiah (cf. Jeremiah 26:18), the capital city of the Jews would fall calamitously at the hands of the Babylonians in 587 B.C., approximately 100 years after Micah pronounced the Lord’s judgments.

Hope…and Homing in on the Hero

But not all is lost. There is Hope from Heaven. A Hero is on the horizon. Yes, God and His faithful prophets have condemned sin from the beginning,⁶ but the story never ended there. Even as Adam and Eve were lurking in the midst of sinfully-minded blame games (Genesis 3:11-13), God boldly announced to the devil His gracious plans to save humanity through “the Seed” of woman, Who would deal a crushing blow to the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15). “Since the world began,” God “spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets” about the Hope, the “horn of salvation,” Who would save His people from sin and its fatal consequences (Luke 1:67-70).

Remarkably, the Bible writers did not speak in mere broad generalities about the coming Christ. Throughout the Old Testament, God announced that the Deliverer of humankind (and the sinful mess that humanity made) would be a male descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Jesse, and David.⁷ Notice the spectacular specificity of the prophets! The Messiah, Who would bless “all the families of the earth” (Genesis 12:3), would come from Abraham (not his brothers Nahor or Haran). The Savior would come from Isaac (not Ishmael, and not Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, or Shuah, the other sons of Abraham—Genesis 25:2). He would come from Jacob (not Esau, the father of the Edomites). He would come from Judah (and not one of the other 11 sons of Jacob, not even Levi, the father of the Levitical priesthood). The ultimate “anointed One” (i.e., Christ) would come from the anointed King David (and not the other seven sons of Jesse—1 Samuel 16:1-13; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5-6). And from where did the greatest king in Israel’s history hail? Not Hebron, Jerusalem, or Jericho. Not Dan, Bethel, or Beersheba. And not Bethlehem of Zebulon (Joshua 19:15). Not anywhere in all of Palestine except from “the little among the thousands of Judah” (Micah 5:2)—the town of Bethlehem of Ephrathah.

Micah’s Messianic Prophecy

Micah chapter 5 begins with a doom-and-gloom statement seemingly about the siege that Sennacherib’s ruthless Assyrian army would lay against Jerusalem and King Hezekiah.⁸ Hezekiah (the most powerful “judge of Israel”) would be openly insulted by Sennacherib’s spokesman, the Rabshakeh, who would come to the door of Jerusalem, shouting taunting words of mockery in the Hebrew language for all to hear.⁹ In the words of Micah, Assyria would “strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek” (Micah 5:1).

Though the household of David in Hezekiah’s day would face humiliation,¹⁰ “the true Israel will come forth triumphant.”¹¹ How? Because “the One to be Ruler in Israel…shall come forth” (Micah 5:2). The One long-awaited descendant of Abraham and David was coming (Matthew 1:1). And though His presence on Earth would still lie in the future, the Messiah, Micah testified, already had a past!His goings forth are “from of old;” “from long ago” (NASB).¹² How long? Micah said, “From the days of eternity” (5:2, NASB).¹³ But that must mean that the Messiah is…God. Indeed, as Isaiah, Micah’s fellow 8^th-century prophet in Judah, said, “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

According to Micah and Isaiah, God Himself would step out of the splendors of heaven to be the Prince of Peace, the Ruler in Israel.¹⁴ And where would He first make His appearance? Centuries before the Messiah’s birth, the prophet Micah gave us one more piece of the puzzle. Micah (and only Micah) precisely revealed the place from which the Messiah would come forth: the little town of Bethlehem in the region of Judea.

The scribes and chief priests in King Herod’s day (Matthew 2:4-6) knew of the Messianic nature of Micah 5:2. The elitist Pharisees, as well as the “commoners,” knew it some 32 years later (in John 7). And yet, though the Messiah stood in their midst, most missed, ignored, or refused to accept the amazing, fulfilled fact that Jesus was born just five miles down the road in Bethlehem of Judea—just as Micah, the proven inspired prophet (cf. Jeremiah 28:9), promised He would 700 years earlier.

Endnotes

¹ Jesus grew up in Galilee and remained in this region during much of His ministry.

² The “crowd” whom the Pharisees claimed did “not know the law” (John 7:49).

³ Which is “the name either of Bethlehem itself or of a district in which Bethlehem was situated” [Ernest Masterman (1996), “Ephrath; Ephrathah,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Electronic Database: Biblesoft)]. Moses wrote that after Jacob’s wife Rachel died, she was “buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)”—Genesis 35:19; cf. 48:7.

⁴ From where did these men receive such knowledge? How did they know that one particular “star in the East” indicated the Messiah’s entrance into the world? No one can know for sure, but it seems they had Divine direction, perhaps similar to what they later received in Matthew 2:12.

⁵ “Moresheth Gath” (1996), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

⁶ Genesis 2:17; 3:8-19; 4:5-15; 6:3-8; Luke 11:49-51; 2 Peter 2:5.

⁷ Genesis 3:15; 12:1-4; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10; Isaiah 11:1,10; 2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5-6.

⁸ Cf. 2 Kings 18; 2 Chronicles 32; Isaiah 36-37.

⁹ “[T]he Rabshakeh said… ‘What confidence is this in which you trust? You speak of having plans of power for war; but they are mere words. And in whom do you trust, that you rebel against me? Now Look! You are trusting in the staff of this broken reed, Egypt…. [G]ive a pledge to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses—if you are able on your part to put riders on them!… Have I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, “Go up against this land, and destroy it!”… Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?… Do not listen to Hezekiah’” (2 Kings 18:19-31).

¹⁰ As well as Babylonian captivity roughly 100 years later.

¹¹ Homer Hailey (1993) A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Religious Supply), p. 208.

¹² The Hebrew term qedem literally means “ancient time, aforetime” [Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1906), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/06924.html]. It is used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27 and Habakkuk 1:12 where the term is translated “everlasting” or “eternal.”

¹³ This Hebrew word (olam) often refers to “for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore” (Brown, et al., https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/05769.html). Often it is used in reference to the eternality of God, including in Micah 4:7 where the prophet referenced the Lord’s eternal reign.

¹⁴ Cf. John 1:1; 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11.

The post Micah, the Messiah, and the Little Town of Bethlehem appeared first on Apologetics Press.

While Jesus was on Earth, He performed amazing miracles that verified His claim to be the Son of God. He often used these miracles as legitimate evidence that would lead any reasonable person to conclude that He was Who He declared Himself to be. He presented a challenge to those who disbelieved: “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him” (John 10:37-38). Jesus’ proposal was simple: if He accomplished things that mere mortals could not do, then He must be Who He claimed to be. One such evidence of Jesus’ divinity was the fact that He often predicted the future. Many times those predictions had to do with immediate events that would occur within a brief time after He made the predictions, such as His own capture by the Jews and His death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21), or the establishment of the Church after His ascension (Matthew 16:18; Acts 1:4-8). One of Jesus’ most profound and easily verified predictions, however, had to do with events that would occur years after His time on Earth. With meticulous detail, Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that took place almost four decades after His ascension. Not only does this prophecy verify His deity, it adds another powerful piece of evidence to the case for the inspiration of the Bible.

Jesus’ Prediction

Even the most casual reader of the Gospel accounts in the New Testament quickly discovers that the majority of the Jewish leaders in the first century wanted Jesus dead. In spite of Jesus’ healings, teachings about love, sermons on the coming Kingdom of God, and invitations to enjoy God’s forgiveness, the Jewish nation, in large part, completely rejected Him. We hear His heartbroken cry for the capital city of Jerusalem, and the Jewish nation, when He lamented, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37).

The text of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life transitions from His sorrow over Jerusalem into an episode when Jesus’ disciples wanted to bring their Teacher’s attention to the majestic stones and architecture of the “buildings of the temple” (Matthew 24:1). Jesus responded to their fawning over the physical structures of Jerusalem with a startling pronouncement. “Do you not see these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (24:2). Such a declaration from the Christ would have shocked even His most ardent disciples.

First, in the minds of virtually every first-century Jew, the Messiah was supposed to usher in a glorious new Kingdom. “Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever” (Isaiah 9:7). Furthermore, this Kingdom surely would have for its seat of government the Holy City, Zion, Jerusalem, as Isaiah predicted, “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:2). If the Messiah was to reign on the throne of David “forever,” and if the center of governmental power was to be in Jerusalem, then foretelling the city’s, and especially the Temple’s, destruction approached blasphemy.

Second, the actual, physical destruction of Jerusalem seemed virtually impossible to Jesus’ hearers, and for good reason. First-century Jewish historian, Josephus, writing about the stones of the Temple, stated: “Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes, for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight…. Of its stones, some of them were forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth.”¹ Such massive stones have been estimated to weigh several hundred tons. Furthermore, the towers that adorned and protected the Temple were magnificent in and of themselves. “Now as these towers were so very tall…. The largeness also of the stones was wonderful, for they were not made of common small stones for of such large ones only as men could carry…each stone was twenty cubits in length, and ten in breadth, and five in depth.”² After all, it had taken over 40 years just to build the Temple (John 2:20). The Roman historian Tacitus was struck by the city’s defenses as well. He noted that “the commanding situation of the city had been strengthened by enormous works which would have been a thorough defence even for level ground.” He went on to comment that “two hills of great height were fenced in by walls” and “within were other walls surrounding the palace, and rising to a conspicuous height, the tower of Antonia.”³ In view of Jerusalem’s excellent military defensive position with a high elevation and massive walls, Jesus’ prediction seemed outlandish.

Naturally, such a sweeping statement of destruction piqued the curiosity of the dubious disciples, and they further questioned their Leader, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”⁴ In answer to their questions, Jesus proceeded to explain events that His disciples could identify that would signal the destruction of Jerusalem.⁵

1: False Christs and Prophets

In enumerating the events that would precede the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus stated: “Then if anyone says to you , ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you before hand” (Matthew 24:23-25, also 24:5, 11).⁶ When we scour the pages of history between the years of A.D. 30 and A.D. 70 we find a host of references that verify Jesus’ prophecy.

Josephus wrote: “Theudas persuaded a great part of the people…to follow him…for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command, divide the river and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words.”⁷ When writing of events that happened during the reign of Felix (A.D. 52-60), he stated: “There was also another body of wicked men gotten together…. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration…and these prevailed the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would show them the signals of liberty.”⁸ The historian further recorded: “Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem, one that said he was a prophet…. He said further that…at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall down.”⁹ And “there was an Egyptian false prophet…he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also.”¹⁰ Josephus wrote despairingly of the prevalence of such false prophets when he stated, “Now, as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers.”¹¹

In recording events during these years, Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, stated: “But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was something great, to whom all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, ‘This man is the great power of God’” (Acts 8:9-10). Origen, who lived from A.D. 185-253, wrote in his book Contra Celsum: “And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views.”¹² He further stated that Dositheus proclaimed himself to be “the Son of God.”¹³ It is evident to all who give this period of history the most casual glance that it was rife with people claiming to be prophets, saviors, and divinely inspired christs.

2: Wars and Conflict

Jesus predicted, in no uncertain terms, that prior to the fall of Jerusalem there would be “wars and rumors of wars,” and that nation would “rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:6,7; Luke 21:10). While it is true that wars and talk of wars are fairly common, Jesus’ prediction corresponds precisely to the worldwide increase in hostilities during the years between A.D. 30 and 70.

Tacitus wrote of the months leading up to A.D. 70 and the strife that raged during this time, when he stated: “I am entering on the history of a period rich in disasters, frightful in its wars, torn by civil strife, and even in peace full of horrors. Four emperors perished by the sword. There were three civil wars; there were more with foreign enemies; there were often wars that had both characters at once.”¹⁴ In addition, Josephus wrote an entire book titled The Jewish Wars, because the various wars, conflicts, and battles that the Jews were involved in during this time literally required an entire volume to document. Jesus’ allusion to wars and strife during this time cannot be gainsaid by even the most ardent skeptic of divine prophecy.

3. Famines, Pestilences, and Earthquakes

In answering His disciples’ question about the signs that would precede the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus foretold that there would “be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places” (Matthew 24:7; Luke 21:11). History could not be more abundantly clear that Jesus knew what He was talking about.

When recording events from the year A.D. 51, Tacitus wrote, “This year witnessed many prodigies…. Houses were flattened by repeated earthquakes…. Further portents were seen in shortages of corn, resulting in famine…. In this year war broke out between Armenians and Iberians, and seriously disturbed relations between Rome and Parthia.”¹⁵ Concerning the years A.D. 65-66, Tacitus wrote:

Heaven, too, marked this crime-stained year with tempest and pestilence. Campania was ravaged by a hurricane which destroyed houses, orchards, and crops…. At Rome, a plague devastated the entire population. No miasma was discernible in the air. Yet the houses were full of corpses, and the streets of funerals. Neither sex nor age conferred immunity. Slave or free, all succumbed just as suddenly.¹⁶

Roman historian Suetonius documented that “a series of droughts had caused a scarcity of grain” during the reign of Claudius.¹⁷ Josephus details the story of Helena visiting Jerusalem, stating, “Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem, for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food….”¹⁸ In addition, Acts 11:27-30 records that Agabus, a prophet, foretold of “a great famine throughout all the world,” which severely affected those in Judea.

Seneca the Younger, in writing about a specific earthquake that occurred in the A.D. 60s, stated: “This tremor was on 5 February in the consulship of Regulus and Verginius, and it inflicted devastation on Campania…. For part of the town of Herculaneum too fell down and even the structures that remain are unstable.”¹⁹ Tacitus noted that an “earthquake too demolished a large part of Pompeii.”²⁰

One remarkable aspect to all these historical events is the fact that, in reality, we have very little that is recorded about the first century. Yet, what little we do have includes direct verification of exactly what Jesus predicted.

4. Persecution of the Disciples

In looking into the future at the trials that His followers would face, Jesus predicted: “But before all these things, they will lay hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake” (Luke 21:12). Those of us in the 21^st century, aware of the persecution experienced by the early Christians, hardly find such a prediction remarkable. In truth, however, the idea that Jews who were former fishermen, tax collectors, and zealots who became followers of a carpenter from Nazareth would be so infamous in secular circles that they would stand before the most politically powerful rulers of the age was a rather bold prediction.

The fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy is so well documented it hardly even needs verification. The book of Acts records this persecution thoroughly. Acts 5:18,40 state: “Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him…and laid their hands on the apostles and put them in the common prison…. And when they had called for the apostles and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus.” Stephen was murdered in Acts 7. King Herod killed James the brother of John with a sword (Acts 12:2), and proceeded to capture Peter with the obvious intent of doing him harm (12:4). The Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Sanhedrin (Acts 22:3). He was then sent to the governor Felix (24:10), then to Festus (24:27), and stood before King Agrippa (24:26).

The early church historian Eusebius stated: “It is therefore recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day…. And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans.”²¹ Suetonius wrote that during the reign of Nero, “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.”²² And Tacitus added that Nero “inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians…. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight expired. Nero offered his garden for the spectacle.”²³ Additional testimony could be added to this, but little need there is for it. Mark it down as historical fact: Christ’s followers were subjected to the exact punishments and persecutions predicted by their Lord.

5. Jerusalem Surrounded by Armies

In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ prophecy, he recorded that Jesus said, “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (24:15-16; Mark 13:14-15). Admittedly, the term “abomination of desolation” sounds vague to a 21^st-century reader. To what does this reference apply? Apparently, from Matthew’s parenthetical statement “whoever reads, let him understand,” the author was confident that his readers would recognize the situation when it occurred. Since it is generally recognized that Matthew wrote for an early Jewish audience, he could assume that they had an understanding of the prophet Daniel that would help them identify the “abomination of desolation” (Daniel 9:27).

Luke’s account, on the other hand, does not leave the warning shrouded in any vagueness. In his parallel passage to Matthew 24, he recorded Jesus as stating, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains…” (Luke 21:10). The context places Luke’s statement of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in the exact place that Matthew positioned Jesus’ statement about the “abomination of desolation.” Also notice that Luke’s account connects the ideas by stating that Jerusalem’s “desolation” would be near when the armies surrounded it. Clearly, the “abomination of desolation” and the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies was so closely connected that Jesus’ listeners should take action when they saw the armies around Jerusalem. That being the case, can we historically document the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies? We most certainly can.

Josephus, at length, explains that the Roman General Cestius brought a massive Roman army against Jerusalem. In his explanation of the event, Josephus further stated: “But now Cestius, observing that the disturbances that were begun among the Jews afforded him a proper opportunity to attack them, took his whole army along with him, and put the Jews to flight and pursued them to Jerusalem.”²⁴ The Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem as Jesus predicted.

The attentive reader will note that Jesus warned His listeners that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then they should flee from the city (Luke 21:20-21). How would that be possible with the Roman army surrounding and besieging the city? Cestius’ behavior provides one of the most remarkable instances of historic verification for any prophecy ever recorded. Josephus noted that those in Jerusalem could not withstand the forces of Cestius. In fact, he stated that “had he but at this very time attempted to get within the walls by force, he had won the city presently, and the war had been put an end to at once.”²⁵ But Cestius did not press his advantage. In fact, not only did he refuse to take the walls, he withdrew his entire army. The reader can almost hear Josephus’ disgust as he wrote: “It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, or how courageous the people were for him, and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world.”²⁶

From a military standpoint, Cestius’ behavior was inexplicable. In his struggle to understand why the events occurred as they did, Josephus suggested that Cestius could have ended the war at that point, but the reason he did not, was “owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day.”²⁷ In other words, God was not finished with His judgment of Jerusalem.

It is important to remember that Josephus was not a Christian and showed little, if any, awareness of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel accounts. He never considered these events to be fulfilled prophecy and never seemed to have been aware of Jesus’ prediction warning His followers to flee Jerusalem. The reader is urged to remember this fact. Josephus was not inspired, nor was he attempting to validate the biblical account. Since the events he recorded are so clearly an exact fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy, it is tempting to think that somehow he was “in league” with the Bible writers, but even the most liberal scholars and skeptics recognize that cannot be the case. Josephus saw absolutely no “reason in the world” that Cestius should have withdrawn his army. Those attending to Jesus’ words, however, have an exceedingly good idea as to why this strange event occurred.

6. Flight of Christians from Jerusalem

Cestius’ retreat provided the perfect opportunity for the Christians in Jerusalem to flee the city. Jesus had sternly warned them that when they saw the city surrounded by armies, to take no care about their earthly possessions, but run from the city for their lives. History records that they did precisely that. Church historian Eusebius wrote:

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.²⁸

Epiphanius, a fourth-century church writer, noted: “This sect of the Nazoraeans is to be found in Beroea near Coele-syria, in Decapolis near Pella…. For that was its place of origin, since all the disciples had settled in Pella, after their remove from Jerusalem—Christ having told them to abandon Jerusalem and withdraw from it because of the siege it was about to undergo.”²⁹ Josephus mentioned that after Cestius’ retreat many Jews “swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink.”³⁰ He did not specifically mention Christians, but it is quite probable that many of those who fled at that time were followers of Christ.

7. Great Distress and Death in Jerusalem

Jesus warned His followers to leave Jerusalem because soon after the armies surrounded the city He predicted there would be “days of vengeance” and “great distress in the land and wrath upon this people” (Luke 21:22-23). Matthew recorded Jesus’ foreboding description in these words: “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be” (24:21). Some have questioned how Jerusalem would suffer more destruction, death, and horror than those in the Flood, or those during the time of the Holocaust. While it is possible that Jesus was using hyperbole, a look at the devastation brought upon Jerusalem in A.D. 70 reveals a period of pain, terror, and rapine that easily could be argued to surpass any in human history.

In the year A.D. 70, Roman general Titus besieged the city in an assault that would spell doom for Jerusalem. Not only did the siege begin to choke the food supplies, but the problem was compounded by warring factions within the city. Josephus mentions three “armies” of zealots in the city that fought one another for control. One of their strategies was to burn the supplies of the other factions. The result of this was that the supply of corn that the inhabitants laid up for such a siege that could have sustained them for many years, was destroyed by the Jews themselves.³¹

Thus, famine quickly took hold of the city—a famine so horrific that the details turn the stomach. The militant factions in the city marauded the streets, killing many and confiscating all food. “They also invented terrible methods of torment to discover where any food was, and they were these: to stop up the passages of the privy parts of the miserable wretches, and to drive sharp stakes up their fundamentals.”³² As the famine worsened “upper rooms were full of women and children that were dying by famine; and the lanes of the city were full of the dead bodies of the aged.” The children and the young men “all swelled with famine, and fell down dead wheresoever their misery seized them.”³³ One report before the entire ordeal was finished, said the number of dead from the famine was more than 600,000, with many dead bodies not even able to be counted.³⁴ So much so that “the multitude of carcasses that lay in heaps one upon another, was a horrible sight, and produced a pestilential stench.”³⁵ As the famine continued, those dying ate the dead carcasses of animals, the leather off of their shoes, girdles, and shields, and old wisps of hay. Furthermore, in coming to an end of his description about the famine, Josephus related a story of a woman killing and roasting her son, eating half of it, and offering the other half to the marauders who came when they smelled cooking flesh. They were so appalled by the sight that even they went out trembling.³⁶ The factions that caused the famine inside the city did so much destruction that Josephus said that a list of all the terrible things they did could not even be written, but because of these men “neither did any city ever suffer such miseries, nor did any age ever breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from the beginning of the world.”³⁷

In relating further instances of suffering brought on the Jews in Jerusalem, we read that Romans were also responsible for immense amounts of cruelty. Concerning Jews that attempted to desert to the Romans, the Roman soldiers “out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to crosses, by way of jest.”³⁸ And many were “whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were then crucified.”³⁹ Other Jews that attempted to desert to the Romans met a more gruesome fate. Certain Jews coming out of the city had swallowed their gold in an attempt to hide it. Soldiers in the Roman army heard of this ploy and “cut up those that came as supplicants, and searched their bellies.” In one night, about 2,000 Jews were thus dissected.⁴⁰ Such instances could be multiplied extensively. In Josephus’ summary of the death and destruction of the Jews, he wrote that because the siege happened during the time of the Passover, millions of Jews from all over the world had congregated in the city. A final, estimated number of those killed in the few months of the siege was 1.1 million, with another 97,000 sold as prisoners (as Jesus stated in Luke 21:24, that not only would the inhabitants of Jerusalem be killed, but also “led away captive into all nations”).⁴¹ Josephus lamented, “Accordingly the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world.”⁴² Jesus’ description of great distress aptly expresses what horrors were experienced during the fall of Jerusalem.

8. The Destruction of the Physical Temple

When the disciples sat marveling at the “buildings of the temple,” they could not resist drawing Jesus’ attention to the architecture and magnificence of the structures. Surely they believed that the city and its buildings would continue through history. Imagine their surprise when Jesus declared and prophesied, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matthew 24:2). Is it true that the buildings of the Temple were destroyed as Jesus predicted?

Again, Josephus provides one of the only first-hand accounts of the destruction of the Temple by the Roman armies. He noted how the Roman soldiers “put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all of the sudden, and caught hold of the cloisters.”⁴³ As for what was left of the Temple, he noted a Roman soldier “being lifted up by another soldier, set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side.” Josephus detailed how Titus tried to stop his soldiers from destroying the remainder of the building, but he was unsuccessful. And “flames burst out from within the holy house itself immediately…and thus the holy house burnt down.”⁴⁴

Thus, the Temple itself was destroyed, but what about the stones of the “buildings of the temple”? To discover that information we must turn to archaeology. When we do, we find complete fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction. Archaeologist Harold Mare wrote: “We do not have any remains of the Herodian temple itself because of the devastating Roman destruction in A.D. 70.”⁴⁵ H.T. Frank noted, “Strictly speaking, the Temple proper is not a matter of archaeological consideration since only one stone from it and parts of another can be positively identified.”⁴⁶ Randall Price stated, “In fact, after the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans plowed under the Temple Mount and erected pagan structures upon it (which themselves were later destroyed).”⁴⁷

What about the Wailing Wall?

Not long ago I received an email from a skeptic who claimed that Jesus’ prophecy had been falsified. He stated, “Jesus was flat wrong in saying not one stone will remain on top of another. The Wailing Wall is still there today.” Supposedly, since the Western Wailing Wall existed during the time of Jesus, and since some stones are still intact, then Jesus’ prediction that “not one stone shall be left here upon another” did not come true. Does the Wailing Wall disprove Jesus’ prediction?

To discover the truth on this issue, I asked the skeptic to tell me “where, exactly did Jesus say that every stone in Jerusalem would be knocked down?” He then quoted Matthew 24:2, “And Jesus said to them, ‘Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.’” He said, because of the Wailing Wall, “So, I conclude Jesus was wrong and cannot be God’s representative.”

In response, I asked him, “Did you read the context of the passage? What had the disciples specifically asked Jesus about?” He wrote back and admitted that in Matthew 24 the disciples “wanted to draw Jesus’ attention to the buildings of the temple.”

Again, I responded by saying, “Looking closely at the context, could you tell me which buildings of the temple…the followers of Jesus were showing Him?” He stated, “I don’t know. It doesn’t say. I don’t see what difference it would make as to which buildings, since Jesus says ‘all these things’ will not have one stone left upon another.” When I asked him what he understood “all these things” to mean, he said, “Jesus means the things to occur in the following verse 7.”

I then recapped our conversation by pointing out that he first claimed that Jesus’ statement about the stones in Jerusalem not being left one on another could not be true because there are stones in the Wailing Wall. Then when I asked if he had read the context, he admitted that Jesus was actually talking about the buildings of the Temple, which might not have had anything to do with the Wailing Wall. Then I asked him which buildings Jesus predicted would be destroyed, and he correctly stated that he did not know, since the text does not say.

I then asked about his understanding of “all these things,” and he said it must be everything that follows in verse seven. Yet, a close look at the context shows that cannot be the case. Verse two is immediately connected to verse one and Jesus is specifically talking about the stones of the buildings of the Temple (whatever buildings His disciples were showing Him). Verse three starts a different discussion in a different location. Now, if we knew which buildings were under discussion in verse one, and we knew that some stones of those buildings were left, there might be a case against this prophecy (barring the frequent use of hyperbole, which does not seem to be used here, but is a possibility). But, of course, we do not know that. Furthermore, it is a historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and that destruction included vast numbers of buildings that were connected to the Temple that were completely demolished. Thus, the existence of some intact stones in the structures around Jerusalem cannot be used to logically argue against Jesus’ prediction.

Jesus never predicted that every single stone in Jerusalem would be displaced. He was specifically addressing those “buildings of the temple” that His disciples pointed out. Archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer wrote: “If you read the text in Matthew, the site [the disciples] pointed out were the buildings of the Temple. Read the exact text—‘the buildings of the Temple.’ The only buildings I know that belonged to the Temple were [those] built around it and the porticos. And all these buildings that stood on the Temple Mount were indeed left without one stone upon another.”⁴⁸ Randall Price concluded, “Obviously Jesus was referring to those buildings (including the Temple itself) which were on the huge supporting platform…. Archaeology has confirmed that no trace of these Temple buildings exists today, although some of their stones may have been put to secondary use in the walls and homes in Old City Jerusalem. Nevertheless, none remain in their original setting.”⁴⁹ Indeed, the attempt to discredit Jesus by pointing to the Wailing Wall falls down as flat as the buildings surrounding the Temple during the destruction of Jerusalem.

Conclusion

Jesus’ disciples boldly declared that they saw His miracles and were eyewitnesses to His marvelous works (1 John 1:1-3; 2 Peter 1:16-18). They recorded His prediction that He would be arrested, killed, and rise again (Matthew 16:21)—events about which they had first-hand knowledge. Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, however, was set for a time in the future after Jesus ascended to heaven, but during the lifetime of many of His hearers. His primary purposes for the predictions were to warn His followers when to flee Jerusalem, as well as to add further proof for His divinity by providing yet another example of His ability to foresee the future. The historical record verifies that Jesus’ prophecy was so detailed and accurate that, after all the signs He predicted occurred, and His followers saw “Jerusalem surrounded by armies” (Luke 21:20), they knew exactly what to do in order to avoid the fate of the wicked Jews who refused to recognize Jesus as God. Even so, Jesus has predicted another future event, His Second Coming, which will be Universal in its scope. Concerning this event, there will be no signs that enable anyone to predict when it will occur.⁵⁰ Indeed, it will come with no warning or announcements, like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:43). As surely and as accurately as Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem, He has foretold His Second Coming and the Judgment of all humanity. Let us all heed His words: “And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!” (Mark 13:37).

Endnotes

The post The Fall of Jerusalem appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How can we know the Bible is from a supernatural source? Consider the fact that the historical evidence demonstrates that the canon of the Old Testament was completed long before the first century A.D. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, was executed over two centuries before Christ came to Earth. Hence, when the New Testament, which arose in the 1^st-century A.D., possesses specificity with regard to fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the unbiased person will inevitably “sit up and pay attention.” Unlike the productions of mere men unguided by Deity, the Bible contains scores of prophetic utterances—separated from their fulfillment by hundreds of years—that verify its divine origin.

Hebrew Prophecy and The Messianic Age

Hebrew prophecy is a multi-faceted, fascinating form of divine communication. Each of the Hebrew prophets possessed as central to their purpose the necessity of delivering to their contemporaries hard-hitting, penetrating messages from God Who was displeased with His people’s behavior. Yet, frequently embedded in these powerful proclamations were the anticipations and eventualities that emanated from the Mind of an infinite, eternal God Who exists above and beyond time itself. As the “Ancient of Days” (Daniel 7:9,13,22), God’s omniscience, eternality, and timeless infinitude enable Him to transcend time; His self-existence spans the ages. Consequently, His revelations to the prophets are riddled with messianic era anticipations and “types and shadows”¹ of the things that were to come in the working out of God’s scheme of redemption. One example of this divine methodology is seen in the prophecy uttered by God in 2 Samuel 7:12-16—

When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever.

This prophecy has been widely considered to be messianic in nature in that it anticipates the coming of Jesus, the Son of God, whose physical body would descend genetically from David, and Who would establish His kingdom, i.e., the church/house of God (Matthew 1:1; 4:17; 16:18; Acts 2:30; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 1:8; 10:5; et al.). However, observe that additional details are fused among the messianic foreshadowing that do not refer to Christ. For example, Solomon also came from David’s body. Jesus committed no iniquity (2 Corinthians 5:21), while Solomon did. While Jesus established a spiritual kingdom/house, Solomon replaced his father over the physical kingdom of Israel, not being rejected as was Saul. Such intertwining and intermixing is typical of Hebrew prophecy in the way it juxtaposes the immediate conditions within ancient Israel with future events and expectations.²

Isaiah 62

One such remarkable prediction was offered by the 8^th-century B.C. prophet Isaiah.³ Often referred to as the “messianic prophet,” due to his prolific allusion to the coming Messiah, Isaiah also anticipated many other features pertaining to the establishment of Christianity and the arrival of the kingdom of Christ. One particularly eye-opening prophecy mentioned by Isaiah is his⁴ reference to the name that would characterize the citizens of the kingdom of Christ. It reads:

For Zion’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest,

Until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns.

The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory.

You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name.

You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God.

You shall no longer be termed Forsaken, nor shall your land any more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married.

For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you (62:1-5).

More than any other Old Testament prophet, Isaiah’s prophetic oracles are saturated with anticipations of the coming of Christ and the Christian era. Hence, we would particularly expect his writing to be characterized by an intertwining of events and occurrences, some of which pertained to his own day and some of which referred to events several centuries removed from his day. We would expect him to direct the attention of his contemporaries to the return from Babylonian Captivity, while simultaneously foreshadowing the coming of the Christ centuries later. This circumstance is precisely what we find in Isaiah 62. God had forsaken the Israelites due to their iniquity—graphically realized in the foreign invasions and subsequent captivities inflicted by the Assyrians and Babylonians (2 Kings 17:23; 24:1-25:1ff.; 2 Chronicles 6).⁵ In His providential orchestrations, God arranged for their return from captivity, which enabled them no longer to be “forsaken.” Yet such reassurance is pregnant with meaning pertaining to the Christian era. The Church which Jesus established is His bride.⁶ The ingathering of souls into Christ’s Church enables them no longer to be “forsaken,” having been “sought out” for redemption. British scholar, historian, and Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford, George Rawlinson, well said: “Israel’s ‘salvation’ would be made manifest; primarily by her triumphant return from Babylon, and more completely by her position in the final kingdom of the Redeemer.”⁷ F. Delitzsch made the same point in his discussion of Isaiah 62: “The whole history of salvation is the history of the taking of the kingdom, and the perfecting of the kingdom by Jehovah.”⁸ As the Hebrews writer explained to his Christianized Jewish audience: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (12:22).

The chapters leading up to chapter 62 are laced with messianic overtones. For example, when Jesus visited the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:16), He quoted Isaiah 61:1-2 (Luke 4:18-19) and declared in no uncertain terms: “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:12). The prophecy of the “name” in Isaiah 62 commences only nine verses later. Commentators generally identify the surrounding chapters as depictions of Christian era events.⁹

Intimate acquaintance with the events and circumstances under which Christianity commenced its existence on Earth facilitates a proper interpretation of Isaiah’s remarks. This fascinating prophecy contains four features that merit close consideration: (1) righteousness/salvation would go forth from Jerusalem; (2) the Gentiles would see this righteousness/salvation; (3) a new name would be given; and (4) the Lord Himself would bestow that new name. As is often the case with Old Testament prediction, one must go to the New Testament to find fulfillment and clarification of such marvelous assertions.

Salvation Goes Forth From Jerusalem

In accordance with the inner workings of Hebrew parallelism—so prominent and characteristic of Hebrew poetry—“Zion” and “Jerusalem” refer to the same location.¹⁰ The city had a spiritually and morally checkered history throughout the Old Testament. However, the New Testament’s clarification of the scheme of redemption—formulated in the mind of God from eternity (Ephesians 3:11; Revelation 13:8)—pinpoints the moment in time when Isaiah’s graphic depiction was fulfilled. After some 4,000 years of human history, the Gospel was announced in its fullness as a bright, burning light¹¹ for the entire world to see. This momentous event transpired in Jerusalem in A.D. 30 as reported by Luke in Acts 2.

Jesus had specifically instructed the apostles “not to depart from Jerusalem” (Acts 1:4), since “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). From that very location, they would be Christ’s witnesses “to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8; cf. Luke 24:48). Indeed, Isaiah earlier predicted that it would be “out of Zion” and “from Jerusalem” that “the law,” the “word of the Lord,” would “go forth” (2:3). Many royal decrees went forth from Jerusalem through the centuries of kingly occupation of the throne of Israel. Likewise, many decrees of God via His prophets sprang forth from this city as well as a host of other geographical locations of the world throughout biblical history. But this prophecy pinpoints a monumental event in redemptive history in which God’s ultimate, eternal intentions commenced to climax. In fact, the events on the day of Pentecost described in Acts 2 have caused perceptive students of the Word to describe the chapter and the occasion as “the hub of the Bible.”¹²

The term “righteousness,” given in parallel position with “salvation,” refers to the means by which humans could finally and ultimately be made righteous in order to stand redeemed before God.¹³ Indeed, for the first time in human history, the Gospel in its fullness and climactic culmination was announced.¹⁴ The long concealed “mystery” was now being revealed.¹⁵ No one, this side of the cross, can be approved by God who does not embrace the religion of Jesus Christ.¹⁶ Hence, for the first time in human history, the terms of entrance into the kingdom of Christ were publicly proclaimed and, thereafter, it was from that location that the proclamation of the Gospel emanated (Acts 8:4; 11:19). The first feature of Isaiah’s prophecy received spectacular fulfillment.

Gentiles Included

Interestingly, only Jews were assembled on the day of Pentecost when the Gospel went forth—though “from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). But no Gentiles were present. Indeed, Luke goes out of his way to clarify the fact that the initial proclaimers of the Gospel of Christ, stimulated by the persecution that arose surrounding Stephen’s death, went forth “preaching the word to no one but the Jews only” (Acts 11:19). Peter explained the background and divine rationale for this circumstance to Jerusalem Jews:

You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, “And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities (Acts 3:25-26).

By divine design, only Jews were recipients of the Gospel message at the beginning.¹⁷

But Isaiah proceeds to state that the Gentiles would likewise “see,” i.e., experience and receive the salvation.¹⁸ He had already declared: “The Gentiles shall come to your light” (60:3). In the unfathomable plan of God, a time lag occurred between the initial presentation of the Gospel to the Jews and its presentation to Gentiles. The Jews were given the privilege to encounter the message of salvation first—not due to their superiority over non-Jews—but due to their ongoing, long-standing involvement in the grand scheme of redemption that brought Jesus into the world.¹⁹ However, within a few short years,²⁰ the Gentiles were likewise treated to contact with the Gospel. The encounter was precipitated by a Roman centurion’s reception of an angelic vision urging him to get into contact with Simon Peter. In the meantime, Peter experienced his own vision which left him perplexed, even as the representatives of the military commander arrived at the gate of the house where Peter was lodging. He accompanied the men to Caesarea where he met Cornelius and many others who had gathered to hear God’s instructions. The resistance by Jews to Gentile inclusion could only be overcome by direct intervention by God by means of Holy Spirit baptism—a powerful demonstration of God’s redemptive intentions (Acts 10:44). After hearing the Gospel, the Gentiles were obedient to the message and became Christians (Acts 10:48). Paul later explained this earthshaking event in the following words: “it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Ephesians 3:5-6). The second feature of Isaiah’s prophecy had been dramatically fulfilled.²¹

A New Name

The Gospel having gone forth from Jerusalem, and the Gentiles having been incorporated into the same body of Christ as the Jews, Isaiah asserts that the Lord Himself would instigate the use of a new name. It is notable that God’s people throughout Bible history were designated by several names that characterized their relationship with God and with one another. For example, both Old and New Testament devotees of God were known among themselves as “believers” (pistoi) or those who “believed” (episteusin; e.g., Exodus 4:31 [LXX]; Acts 5:14), “brethren/brothers” (adelphoi; Psalm 133:1; Acts 15:23), “disciples” (mathetai; e.g., Isaiah 8:16 [Hebrew]; John 9:28), “saints” (hagioi; e.g., Psalm 34:9 [LXX]; Romans 1:7), “servants” (Isaiah 56:6 [LXX]; Acts 4:29; 16:17), “the elect” (eklektoi; Isaiah 45:4 [LXX]; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10), and simply “the Church” (e.g., Acts 14:27). They were also identified as those of “the Way” (Acts 19:9,23; 24:14,22). Those more hostile to Christianity labeled them a “sect” (Acts 28:22; cf. 24:14) and “the sect of the Nazarenes (Nazoraion)” (Acts 24:5), and even “Galileans” (Acts 2:7). Yet in this prophecy Isaiah seems to anticipate a new name that had not been characteristic of God’s people in either testament.²²

Despite the fact that Isaiah’s allusion is to a single name,²³ some have suggested that the “new name” is to be equated with one or more of the names delineated in the context of Isaiah, i.e., “Hephzibah” (“My delight is in her”) and “Beulah” (“married”) in verse 4, or “The Holy People,” “The Redeemed of the Lord,” and “Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken” in verse 12. Apart from the fact that verse 2 specifies “name” in the singular, Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord challenges these suggestions, in light of Isaiah 62’s clear application, contextually, to the time of the establishment of Christ’s Church:

That the “new name, which the mouth of Jehovah shall name” (Isaiah 62:2) was the name Hephzibah (Isaiah 62:4) is erroneous. Hephzibah was a girl’s name in use long before the establishment of the New Testament church. Manasseh’s mother was named Hephzibah (II Kings 21:1). That the “new name”…was the name Beulah (Isaiah 62:4) is likewise erroneous. The word Beulah was already in use when Isaiah made his prediction (cf. Isaiah 54:1 in the Hebrew: the English word Married translates Beulah).²⁴

These appellations certainly fit the circumstances of Israel’s restoration following the cataclysmic national upheaval she experienced, but they are not the “new name” to which Isaiah referred. There is more to consider.

Given by the Lord

Isaiah was insistent: the new name that would arise would, in fact, be given by God Himself. The terminology that the Holy Spirit selected to inform us of the arrival of the name Christian is significant: “And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). The words “were called” are a rendering of the Greek verbchrematidzo.

Chrematidzo

An examination of this term in the original sources reveals that the lexical evidence is fairly uniform. However, keep in mind that lexicographers, like those who compile dictionaries that describe how words in that particular language are currently being used, must rely on an accurate grasp of contextual usage to establish the meaning of a word, thereby risking misunderstanding of the meaning of a word due to bias or misapprehension. Once the usual meaning of a word is ascertained, one must seek to recognize that primary meaning in all of its occurrences—unless forced to do otherwise due to a figurative use or a clearly established secondary meaning that arose in that linguistic climate. One must most certainly take into consideration the Bible’s own inspired use of a term—even if that use does not fully conform to secular usage at the time (cf. agape).²⁵ The fact of the matter is that the term chrematidzo manifests a uniform, consistent use throughout the New Testament. No existing textual factor necessitates imposing multiple separate or unrelated meanings onto the word.

This term had as its original and primary meaning the notion of transacting business (from chrema).²⁶ From this primitive meaning came the later variations of the term—what Reicke identifies as “two Hellenistic developments.”²⁷ Current Greek authorities typically specify two central meanings: (1) a divine communication and (2) to be called or named. For example, the most popular lexicon today gives the two meanings first as “impart a divine message, make known a divine injunction/warning,” and second as “to take/bear a name/title, to go under the name of.”²⁸ Similarly, in his Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Gingrich gives the same two meanings, i.e., “of God impart a revelation or injunction or warning” and “bear a name, be called or named.”²⁹ Reicke describes the first meaning in the words, “God instructs someone by revelations… the recipient of revelation being an instrument of divine rule,” which includes “the decree of a sovereign,” and the second sense as “appearing as something,” with Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3 the “two cases” in the New Testament in which the latter meaning applies.³⁰ A host of additional Greek authorities, with little variation, affirm these same two basic usages.³¹ These lexicographers and linguistic experts cite Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3 as the only two instances in the New Testament of the second meaning of the term. But why single out these two from among the others and assign an alternative meaning? And why insist on the simple meaning of “call” when the Greek has several other words that are more suited to conveying the idea of “calling” or “naming”?³²

New Testament Occurrences of Chrematidzo

The term chrematidzo occurs nine times in the New Testament.³³ Consider the Holy Spirit’s own use of this unique term (from the NKJV):

Matthew 2:12—“Then, being divinely warned in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed for their own country another way.”³⁴

Matthew 2:22—“But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee.”

Luke 2:26—“And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”³⁵

Acts 10:22—“And they said, ‘Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.’”³⁶

Acts 11:26—“And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”

Romans 7:3—“So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.”

Hebrews 8:5—“…who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.’”

Hebrews 11:7—“By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”

Hebrews 12:25—“See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven.”

If the reader will take the time to examine each verse, paying close attention to the bold words, it becomes readily apparent that in each verse, with the possible exception of Acts 11:26 and Romans 7:3, the speaking, calling, or warning that is described entails divine activity. In fact, English translators are so confident of this fact that they literally insert words to make certain the English reader recognizes the intended import of chrematidzo. Specifically, the following terms are introduced by translators into five of the above nine verses:

Matthew 2:12—“divinely”

Matthew 2:22—“by God”

Acts 10:22—“divinely”

Hebrews 8:5—“divinely”

Hebrews 11:7—“divinely”

These six words are not in the Greek text; they were added by the NKJV translators in order to aid the English reader in grasping the import of chrematidzo in each instance. Translators did not need to insert a qualifier into Luke 2:26 since the verse already contains its own qualifier (i.e., by the Holy Spirit). Likewise, Hebrews 12:25 has “Him” preceding “who spoke.”³⁷ Hence, seven out of the nine verses in the New Testament, in which the term chrematidzo occurs, clearly and unmistakably use the term to refer to divine communication.

[to be continued]

The post The Name "Christian" and Bible Inspiration (Part I) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Dear Digger Doug,

Do you think it would have been possible to prophesy in medieval times? In the book Joan of Arc, Joan prophesies that the French were losing the battle to England. Then a week later the news came that it was true.

Dear reader,

During Bible times, God spoke directly to His prophets and told them what would happen in the future. However, God said there would be a time when no one would be able to prophesy anymore. In the book of Zechariah, He said there would be a time when the prophets would “depart from the land” (13:2). In the New Testament, in 1 Corinthians 13:8, the apostle Paul mentioned a time when prophecies “would fail” (meaning that no one would be able to prophesy). When would the prophets depart from the land and prophecies fail? The apostle Paul said it would happen “when that which is perfect has come” (1 Corinthians 13:10). When we turn to the book of James, we read that the Law of liberty is perfect (1:25). The Law of liberty about which James spoke is the New Testament. Once the New Testament was completed (by A.D. 100), prophecy would soon come to an end. Thus, there would be no way for Joan of Arc to prophesy in Medieval times.

So, how do we explain Joan’s correct prediction about the French? First, she had a fifty-fifty chance—only the French or English could be winning. If I said flipping a coin will land on heads, and it does, would that make me a prophet? No. Second, maybe Joan knew that the French were weaker than the English. If I predict that the Los Angeles Lakers will win the NBA championship, and they do, am I a prophet? Or could it be that I just knew they had a stronger team? For whatever reason, Joan guessed correctly; but it was not because she was
a prophet.

The post Could there have been Prophecy During Medieval Times? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

With the widespread deterioration of interest in and respect for the Bible in the last half century in America, outspoken ridicule of the inspiration of the Bible has become commonplace in universities, the entertainment industry, and beyond. One such dismissal of the credibility of the Bible is seen in the smug exclamation: “The Bible is simply a book of Jewish fables and fairy tales.” Apart from the heartbreaking sadness in the heart of any Christian who hears such a brazen statement, the level of ignorance possessed by the speaker is appalling. After all, the United States of America was founded in the bosom of the Bible and it exerted a profound influence on American culture for nearly two centuries before it came under relentless attack by sinister forces in education, politics, entertainment, and organizations formed to undermine its influence. Nevertheless, the Bible deserves a fair consideration before being subjected to such a cavalier, unstudied dismissal.

Consider the dictionary definition of a “fable”:

• Merriam-Webster: “a fictitious narrative or statement: such as (a) a legendary story of supernatural happenings, (b) a narration intended to enforce a useful truth especially one in which animals speak and act like human beings”
• Cambridge Dictionary: “a short story that tells a moral truth, often using animals as characters.”
• Webster’s New World College Dictionary: “1. a fictitious story meant to teach a moral lesson: the characters are usually talking animals; 2. a myth or legend; 3. a story that is not true; falsehood.”
• Collins Dictionary defines “fairy tale” as “a story for children involving magical events and imaginary creatures.”

One cannot help but be reminded of the famed Aesop’s fables or the folktales of Uncle Remus and the Brothers Grimm. However, to suggest that the Bible as a literary entity may be largely characterized as fable betrays either a deep commitment to bias or an abject unacquaintance with the contents of the Bible.¹

Overwhelming Evidence

An incredible array of evidences exists to demonstrate the supernatural origin of the Bible. For example, unlike fable, biblical literature is saturated with references to specific people and places that have been historically authenticated. Time and time again, when skeptics have challenged its historical claims, the Bible has been consistently vindicated. This brief article will provide the reader with a few examples (out of many) of amazing accuracy in each of six categories: history, geography, topography, science, medicine, and prophecy.

Historical Accuracy

At one time, skeptics insisted that the nation of the Hittites, mentioned so frequently in the Old Testament (nearly 60 occurrences of the term, e.g., Genesis 23:10; 26:34; Joshua 1:4), never existed. No known evidence was available to verify their historicity. This circumstance provided fodder for those who dismissed the divine authenticity of the Bible. As Wright explained in his 1884 volume The Empire of the Hittites:

Now, although the Bible is not a mere compendium of history, its veracity is deeply involved in the historic accuracy of its statements; but the Hittites had no place in classic history, and therefore it was supposed by some that the Bible references to them could not be true. There was a strong presumption that an important people could scarcely have dropped completely out of history, but the strong presumption did not warrant the unscientific conclusion that the Bible narrative was untrue. It was just possible that classic history might be defective regarding a people of whom sacred history had much to say…. The arguments against the historic accuracy of the Bible, based on its references to the Hittites, are never likely to appear again in English literature. The increasing light from Egypt and Assyria reveals to us, in broad outline and in incidental detail, a series of facts, with reference to the Hittites, in perfect harmony with the narratives of the Bible.²

It was Hugo Winckler who in 1906 excavated Bogazkale—the ancient capital of the Hittite Empire—an expansive site of over 400 acres.³ Since that time, studies of the ancient Hittites have proliferated. A veritable host of comparable discoveries could be cited that reinforce the same conclusion, including the fact that at least 63 people mentioned in the Old and New Testaments have been verified by actual inscriptional evidence.⁴ The New Testament writer Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands, most of which have been historically verified. He even alludes to 95 people, 62 of whom are not mentioned elsewhere in Scripture, and 27 of whom were civil or military leaders.⁵ The Bible has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be historically accurate.

Geographically

The man who has gone down in history as the “Father of Biblical Geography” is Edward Robinson. He is credited with instigating the first serious and extensive explorations of Palestine in order to verify the Bible’s geographical accuracy.⁶ He succeeded in identifying nearly 200 biblical sites. Since that time, literally thousands more have been verified. For example, some scholars once considered the account of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon to be a bit of fictitious romance. However, not only has Sheba been located in southern Arabia, the Sabaean people were known for their trade exploits as reflected in the Queen’s camel caravan of spices, gold, and precious stones (1 Kings 10:2). As a book from antiquity, the Bible stands alone in the extent to which its geographical accuracy has been substantiated.

Topographically

Topography refers to the layout of land, i.e., the three-dimensional surface configuration of its physical features, including mountains, valleys, plains, elevations, etc. Incredibly, the Bible has shown itself to be topographically accurate. For example, we are informed in Genesis 12:8 that when Abraham moved from Moreh to the mountain east of Bethel, “he pitched his tent with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east.” Any map of Bible lands will confirm this configuration. In Joshua 7:2, “Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Beth Aven, on the east side of Bethel.” This topographical arrangement is also easily verified. In Acts 8:26, Phillip was commanded to “go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” Not only is Gaza southwesterly from Jerusalem, the elevation literally descends from Jerusalem to Gaza, from approximately 700 meters (2,300 feet) to 35 meters (115 feet). Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. The Bible is topographically accurate.

Scientifically

The Bible is also scientifically accurate—though it was never intended to function as a science book. While not written in modern scientific jargon, its passing allusions to scientific realities are represented accurately. Note the following listing of but a few scientific facts:

• The Laws of Thermodynamics: Genesis 2:1; 2:2; Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:26; Hebrews 1:11
• The water cycle (condensation-precipitation-evaporation): Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:3; Amos 9:6
• Innumerable stars: Genesis 15:5; Jeremiah 33:22
• The parting of light: Job 38:24
• Trenches on the ocean floor: Job 38:16

These are but a small sampling of the Bible’s uncanny accuracy in matters of science.

Medically

The Bible manifests supernatural acquaintance with modern medical procedures that were far ahead of their time. Ancient civilizations certainly had their notions of medical thinking. But for the most part, their ideas are associated with superstition and ignorance. Not so with the Author of the Law of Moses. Consider just five:

• Avoiding communicable disease from dead bodies: Numbers 19:12
• The principle of quarantine: Leviticus 13:45-46
• Necessity of human waste disposal: Deuteronomy 23:12
• Optimum time for circumcision surgery: Leviticus 12:3
• Blood as the key to life: Leviticus 17:11-14

Prophetically

The Bible’s divine origin is particularly on display when one examines its predictive prophetic utterances. The general timeframe of the creation of the books of the Bible has been well established. A host of prophecies in the Old Testament can be demonstrated to have been spoken hundreds of years before their fulfillment. Again, here is a listing of only a few:

• The fall of Tyre: Ezekiel 26
• Zedekiah would not see Babylon: Ezekiel 12:8-13
• The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: Daniel 9:26
• The fall of Babylon: Isaiah 13-14; Jeremiah 50-51; et al.
• Babylon would be conquered by a man named Cyrus: Isaiah 44:28; 45:1-7
• The rise and fall of Alexander the Great: Daniel 8:5-8

Again, these are only a handful of the incredible number of inspired predictions that riddle the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. The Bible, in fact, contains hundreds of prophecies. Over 300 pertain to the life of Christ on Earth.

Summary

A “book of Jewish fables” or “fairy tales”? Such characterizations cannot—and never will be—sustained. No archaeologist’s spade will ever uncover the home of the seven dwarves or the palace of the wicked queen. But King Ahab’s ivory palace has been discovered and excavated (1 Kings 22:39).⁷ The location of the briar patch into which Brer Bear tossed Brer Rabbit never existed. But Hezekiah’s water tunnel really exists (2 Kings 20:20).⁸ Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel, and Gretel were not actual historical personages. But the Assyrian King Sargon II, whose historicity was initially questioned since his name occurred nowhere else in ancient literature, was found to have actually lived (Isaiah 20:1).⁹ Indeed, the Bible surpasses all other books in human history—which is precisely what one would expect if its Author is God. The great tragedy is that so many have dismissed the Bible on the flimsy ground of popular hearsay, depriving themselves of the marvelous self-authentication provided within its pages. Here, indeed, is the Word of God—a message from Deity Himself—announcing His desire that all people be saved in order to be with Him in heaven for all eternity, thereby avoiding the only possible alternative of endless suffering in hell.

Endnotes

The post "A Book of Jewish Fables"? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, “This month shall be your beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying: ‘On the tenth day of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for a household. And if the household is too small for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take it according to the number of the persons; according to each man’s need you shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats. Now you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month. Then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses where they eat it. Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it…. And thus you shall eat it: with a belt on your waist, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. So you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations’” (Exodus 12:1-14).

The average Jew no doubt connected the symbolic significance of being fully clothed for travel with their imminent hasty exodus from the land. The smearing of animal blood on their doorposts might have seemed odd, but it was specifically explained as the means by which God would “pass over” them when executing the plague against the firstborn of Egypt:

And it shall be, when your children say to you, “What do you mean by this service?” that you shall say, “It is the Passover sacrifice of the LORD, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when He struck the Egyptians and delivered our households” (Exodus 12:26-27).

However, two additional directives were given, one of which must have raised eyebrows:

In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones (Exodus 12:46).

Later generations of Israelites would have understood the significance of remaining in their homes while eating—since the blood on their doors kept their firstborn from being slain:

[N]one of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning. For the LORD will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you (Exodus 12:22-23).

But the second directive pertaining to the breaking of the bones of the lamb must have perplexed even that first generation of Israelites. The stipulation was repeated to the Israelites after their departure from Egypt:

On the fourteenth day of the second month, at twilight, they may keep it. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. They shall leave none of it until morning, nor break one of its bones. According to all the ordinances of the Passover they shall keep it (Numbers 9:11-12).

Successive generations of Jews, no doubt, would have been very careful in butchering, carving, and eating the Passover lamb to avoid breaking bones. But why? Undoubtedly, Israelite children would have asked their parents, “Why does God not want us to break any of the lamb’s bones?” The parents would have had no definitive answer—since God had not explained Himself. No clue was given to the Jews through the centuries that might explain the significance of refraining from breaking the bones of the Passover lamb.

Over five centuries later, King David wrote an inspired psalm in which he expressed his gratitude for the protection and care of God in dealing with his enemies.¹ In that Psalm, David extols the goodness of God in providing him with protection from his enemies—even to the point of preserving the bones of his body from being broken by those who wished him bodily harm:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the LORD delivers him out of them all. He guards all his bones; not one of them is broken. Evil shall slay the wicked, and those who hate the righteous shall be condemned. The LORD redeems the soul of His servants, and none of those who trust in Him shall be condemned (Psalm 34:19-22).

No Jew in David’s day would have had any reason to extract more meaning from the psalm than that which appears at face value, i.e., God cares for His people (in this case, David) and guards them amid the onslaught of the wicked.

Over 1,000 years later, Jesus assumed bodily form on Earth (Hebrews 10:5). At the end of His 33 years, He was taken by the Romans at the behest of the Jews and crucified in keeping with Roman execution protocol. Here is John’s inspired report of the final details:

Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you may believe. For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, “Not one of His bones shall be broken” (John 19:31-36).²

Why did the Jews request that Jesus’ legs be broken? Archaeologist Vassilios Tzaferis³ explains:

Normally, the Romans left the crucified person undisturbed to die slowly of sheer physical exhaustion leading to asphyxia. However, Jewish tradition required burial on the day of execution. Therefore, in Palestine the executioner would break the legs of the crucified person in order to hasten his death and thus permit burial before nightfall. This practice, described in the Gospels in reference to the two thieves who were crucified with Jesus (John 19:18), has now been archaeologically confirmed. Since the victim we excavated was a Jew, we may conclude that the executioners broke his legs on purpose in order to accelerate his death and allow his family to bury him before nightfall in accordance with Jewish custom.⁴

This explanation squares with the biblical text: the reason given for the Jews’ request was their concern that the body of Jesus not remain on the cross once the Sabbath ensued. So the breaking of the leg bones of a crucifixion victim was directly connected to the hastening of the victim’s death. Further, the inspired writer juxtapositions the criminals’ status with Jesus’ status on the point of whether they were still alive. The soldiers broke the legs of the criminals, but the reason given for not breaking Jesus’ legs was that they “saw that He was already dead” (vs. 33).

Observe that both David’s words in Psalm 34 as well as John’s late first century quotation of those words in John 19 constitute ambiguous prophecies. Granted, John connected the Davidic messianic prophecy with the condition of Christ on the cross. But more than likely, neither he, nor David, nor any other Jew from 1,500 B.C. to A.D. 30 was able to fathom any further significance and “put it all together.” It was not until the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the church of Christ at Corinth (Cir. A.D. 55-57) that the wonder of Bible inspiration on this point achieved clarity.

In a context in which Paul urged the congregation to take public action against an immoral member, he added a remark that had relevance to their predicament, but which had a marvelous, broader significance for all Christians for all time: “For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). Just as Jesus predicted, the Passover found its fulfillment in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:16).⁵ After more than a millennium and a half of obscurity and virtual silence, suddenly the mysterious Mosaic prohibition was solved. The rationale for refraining from breaking any of the bones of the Passover lamb under the Law of Moses was that one day in the distant future, the Lord of Heaven and Earth would assume human form and take upon Himself the sins of the world by being executed on a Roman cross. And as that unjust sentence was being carried out, when Roman soldiers would ordinarily bring their sadistic torture to the culmination and climax of death by breaking the leg bones of the victim, they found that “He was already dead.” This incredible bit of minutia—this miniscule detail that went virtually unnoticed by those gathered on that occasion outside Jerusalem at the far flung outer extremities of the mighty Roman Empire—was of monumental significance and earth-shaking import. How could Moses or David have known that centuries far beyond their own day, unknown, unnamed Roman soldiers in first century A.D. Palestine would refrain from breaking the bones of the Messiah because “he was already dead”? They could not have known—not without supernatural assistance.

Three incredible details—the bones of the Passover Lamb of Mosaic religion were not to be broken, Jesus’ bones were not broken by the Romans, and His sacrifice on the cross enabling Him to be our Passover—intertwined to bring to fruition marvelous meaning from the mind of God for all mankind. In revealing the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit had in mind the coming of Christ and anticipated minute details about Him that neither the Old Testament prophets nor the New Testament apostles grasped:

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into (1 Peter 1:10-12).

Four human writers, each engaging his own mind to report inspired minutia, were nevertheless overseen by a single divine Mind (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit did just what Jesus said He would do: teach and explain things to them they could not grasp at the time (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13). Indeed, who could have ever sorted out these profound mysteries? No mere human. What Moses wrote (Exodus 12:43-46; Numbers 9:11-12), followed by what David wrote (Psalm 34:19-20), supplemented by what John reported (John 19:31-36), and brought to climactic fulfillment with what Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 5:7), could only have been orchestrated by the infinite, eternal mind of Deity Who transcends time and place.

“Who has declared this from ancient time?

Who has told it from that time?

Have not I, the LORD?

And there is no other God besides Me,

A just God and a Savior;

There is none besides me” (Isaiah 45:21).

Endnotes

The post Proof of Bible Inspiration: The Passover appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers is the Director of the Graduate school of Theology and Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

The personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible is יהוה (YHWH). Occurring over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, this name is by far the most common way of referring to God. Translations and traditions have developed a number of ways to represent this name respectfully without crudely spelling out “Yahweh.” English translations have typically chosen “Lord,” following the custom intitated by the Septuagint, and perpetuated in the Latin Vulgate. Normally, the small caps typeset (“lord”) is used in mass-produced English translations to mark YHWH as the underlying Hebrew, as opposed to “Lord,” which normally renders the Hebrew ’ādôn. Some Jewish traditions, however, choose to render YHWH as “HaShem” (literally, “the name”). The ASV (1901) is unique among mainstream translations in opting for “Jehovah” as the preferred translation for YHWH. To be clear, none of these renderings is a translation per se. They are merely reflections of respect for the personal name of God.

Respect for the Name of God

Respect for the personal name of God was an established custom already in the earliest history of Israel. Proper esteem for the Name is one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11), and cursing the Name is a sin punishable by death (Leviticus 24:10-16). After all, one’s name stands in for his or her essence (which is why changes of names are important). With the Bible placing such importance on the name of God, it is no surprise to find Jewish people in the post-biblical period going to great lengths to reverence the name YHWH.

Some Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts have the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew, a more archaic form of the Hebrew language. Instead of יהוה in the traditional block characters, the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew appears as . The name of God is the only word in those manuscripts written in this fashion—indicating respect. Likewise, when the translators of the Old Testament into Greek rendered the personal name of God, they chose the Greek word κύριος (kyrios), meaning “lord.” This may indicate that Jews as early as the third century B.C. were already pronouncing the Hebrew term אדון (’ādôn), meaning “Lord,” when they encountered YHWH in the text. Fear of mispronouncing the holy, personal name of God perhaps led them to develop the custom of not pronouncing it at all. Consequently, we have no sure idea how the name ought to be pronounced at any stage of the language.

Where Did “Jehovah” Come From?

The word “Jehovah” is a Medieval mistranscription from the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. It takes the consonants of the divine name YHWH and combines them with the vowels of another Hebrew word, ’^adōnāy (“my lord”). How such a combination occurred might be worth explaining a little more, so we begin by discussing briefly the consonantal nature of the Hebrew language and the Masoretic vowel additions.

Hebrew is a language of consonants. Vowel sounds are spoken of course, but are not traditionally written. This custom dates to ancient times. As a result, we are unable to determine exactly how the Hebrew language in the Old Testament era was pronounced. Concern, however, to preserve the precise pronunciation of the text led a group of Jewish scribes in the Middle Ages, known as the Masoretes, to invent and apply vowel symbols to the traditional consonantal text. The two oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible—the Aleppo and Leningrad codices—feature these vowel markings.

Jewish scribes were very traditional, and thus scrupulously copied the text exactly as they received it, even if they were certain they were passing along an erroneous reading. When the Masoretes encountered a text they believed to be corrupt, or one that made no sense when read publicly, they marked the word or phrase with a marginal correction known as the q^erî, literally meaning “it is read.” What was copied in the body of the text came to be known as the k^etîv (“it is written”). When one read the Hebrew text publicly, he was supposed to replace the k^etîv with the q^erî for the sake of accuracy, or, in the case of the name of God, respect. The name of God is the most common k^etîv/q^erî combination in the Hebrew Bible. Because the name of God is so common, however, the Masoretes simply placed the vowels of the q^erî around the k^etîv rather than utilizing the marginal system.

The Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible reflect the ancient custom of pronouncing ’^adōnāy (ah-dohn-EYE) as the q^erî in place of YHWH as the k^etîv. The term ’^adōnāy is a fitting choice of q^erî. First, the noun ’ādôn occurs 775 times in the Old Testament, over 400 times in reference to God. Second, the suffix –āy is a marker of the first person singular (in address), making the q^erî appear as a personal claim on the part of the reader. In other words, the public reader of Hebrew Scripture is understood to mean “My Lord said to Moses,” or “Let them praises give my Lord.” This was intended as a symbol of respect, but the need for a more literal rendering of the name of God than the standard “Lord” created the desire to use this made-up Masoretic term in English transliteration.

The word “Jehovah” first appears in A.D. 1381. It is easy to understand where it came from. Someone simply transcribed the Masoretic q^erî into a European language. In other words, someone simply took the vowels of ’^adōnay and placed them around the consonants of YHWH. This yields the name “Jehovah,” more or less. The Aleppo and Leningrad Codices of the Hebrew Bible write the nonsensical יְהוָה (Y^eHVāH), which takes the vowels of ’^adōnay (except for the ō) and places them around the consonants of YHWH. They attempt to preserve in writing a tradition of reading.

English readers are probably wondering exactly how YeHoWaH becomes Jehovah. To explain, the Y in English represents the sound J in certain other languages. The raised ^e is a “half-vowel,” and represents a hurried sound of barely distinguishable vocalic value (this is why ’^adōnāy starts with an ^a, but the Masoretes point YHWH with an ^e). This “shewa,” as it is often called, is transcribed as e in the European languages. H is H. The long ō sound is reinserted (absent in the Masoretic q^erî) from ’^adōnāy. W is pronounced in many languages as the English v. The ā of ’^adōnāy is represented as a. And, again, H is H. Taken together, this yields the word “Jehovah.”

The name Jehovah fell into fashion in early English translations. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and others used the term Jehovah, at least some of the time, to represent the Hebrew YHWH. The term occurs only four times in the King James Version of the Bible (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4). A mixture of “Jehovah” and “Lord” remained consistent in most English translations. The English Revised Version (1885), and its North American counterpart the American Standard Version (1901), choose “Jehovah” as its standard rendering of יהוה (YHWH), a name it uses over 6,800 times. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses also consistently uses the name Jehovah. More recent translations have not followed suit, preferring “lord” to “Jehovah.”

The question arises, then, is “Jehovah” the real name of God? The answer is a clear and firm “no.” First, the Masoretes themselves would not allege “Jehovah” represents the name of God. As we have discussed, the k^etîv is inspired and sacred, whereas the q^erî is a Masoretic protection on the way the text ought to be read. By adding the vowels of ’^adōnāy to YHWH, they never intended to create a new word, but to mark a respectful reading of the personal name of God.

Second, the vowel sounds the Masoretes added to the text represent a reading tradition much later than the biblical text itself. To get a sense of how much pronunciation can change in this length of time, watch online videos of the Canterbury Tales read with contemporary English pronunciation. Does this sound anything like modern English? Even if Hebrew pronunciation remained remarkably static over that period of time (a period of 1,000 years!), the fact that the name was not transmitted with vowels renders certainty in pronunciation simply impossible. The Masoretes preserved a reading tradition passed down in their time, not necessarily one dating to biblical times.

Third, the Masoretes did not actually give the name Jehovah or its Hebrew equivalent. Remember, the Masoretes omit the ō vowel from the q^erî, yielding the nonsensical Hebrew word Y^eHWāH (it is nonsensical since every Hebrew consonant must have an accompanying vowel; the middle “H” does not). So, the builders of the make-believe word “Jehovah” added something the Masoretic Hebrew does not have in the first place.

Conclusion

The term Jehovah is less than 700 years old. Even its Hebrew near-equivalent can date no earlier than the Masoretic application of vowels to the consonantal text in the Middle Ages. The same holds true for the spelling “Yahweh,” although scholars feel confident this form is much closer to the original pronunciation (based partially on ancient transliterations). That said, is it more respectful to use the name Jehovah? Some think so. Those who stringently defend the use of the name Jehovah argue their position on the basis of its being more literal and more original. However, we have observed that the term “Jehovah” is neither original to the Bible nor to the Masoretic tradition. And it is simply inaccurate to use an English transliteration of a Hebrew word that was never intended to be pronounced in the first place. The Jewish tradition is careful not to misuse the personal name of God, distancing itself with epithets such as “the Lord” or “the Name.” A biblical Israelite, if transported to modern times, would not understand what “Jehovah” even meant since it isn’t actually a Hebrew word. The name Jehovah is no more literal, no more respectful, and no more accurate than the more commonly used lord.

The post Where Did “Jehovah” Come From? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as Director of the Graduate School of Theology and Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from F-HU as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

A minority of Christian voices through the centuries have insisted on stressing the Jewishness of Jesus.¹ Already in the New Testament, we learn that some Christians were retaining Jewish customs and doctrines in an attempt to create a hybrid religion. These attempts met stern apostolic criticism (e.g., Galatians 5:2; Colossians 2:16). Generally, as Christianity transitioned from a majority-Jewish to a majority-Gentile religion, these voices were steadily muted. However, a resurgence of the Jewish Jesus movement has led a number of people to allege ecclesiastical conspiracies to “cover up” the Jewishness of Jesus. Among the sensational claims is the alleged “change” of the name of God’s Son from Yeshua to Jesus.

Before we analyze the rationale and legitimacy behind the question of the name, let us affirm two incontrovertible truths. First, Jesus was a Jew. Scripture is clear that the New Covenant was not inaugurated until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:16-17). Therefore, Jesus (or Yeshua, if you like) lived His entire life as a Jew under the Law of Moses. The name has nothing to do with His Jewishness. Second, His name in Hebrew was indeed Y^ehōshūa‘, or more likely in Aramaic Yēshūa‘. Growing up in the Galilee region, Jesus would have almost certainly spoken Aramaic, and He would not have heard His name as “Jesus.” Indeed, the Syriac translations of the New Testament spell the name Yēshūa‘.² The New Testament, however, is not written in Aramaic or in Syriac, but in Greek. And the English name “Jesus” is a transliteration based on the Latin, which is based on the Greek, which is in turn based on the original Aramaic.

Alleged Reasons for the Name “Change”

“Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.” This maxim is taught to third-graders and college students alike. Still, it doesn’t seem to sink in. People continue to read websites that propagate fictional conspiracy theories to allege the name of God’s Son was changed from its pure Hebrew form to its current corruption. And here are a few of the most common reasons why.

First, it is alleged that early Christians—even the authors of the New Testament!—were racists. They wished to erase the Jewishness of Jesus from the record in an effort to make Him seem “Christian” and “Gentile.” This simply isn’t true. First, every author of the New Testament seems to possess a Jewish background of some kind, and most were born Jewish (cf. Galatians 2:15). Second, Paul can boast not only of his Jewish lineage (Philippians 3:5), but also claim, “I am a Pharisee” (present tense!) long after his conversion (Acts 23:6). Third, where there is racism in the New Testament, it is usually against Gentiles rather than Jews (Galatians 2:12-16; cf. Romans 2:14).

Second, some would never lay such an allegation as racism at the feet of the Apostles, but they have no qualms about hurling this insult at the Catholic Church. They believe the early church falsified manuscripts of the New Testament in order to erase “Yeshua” and insert the more Western-sounding “Jesus.” There is no evidence for such a claim. We have nearly 6,000 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and approximately 19,000 New Testament manuscripts in other early languages, such as Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. In addition to these direct copies, we have tens of thousands of pages of early Christian writings, some of which are from Jewish-Christian groups. The name of Jesus occurs hundreds of thousands of times collectively in these ancient documents, and none of them speaks to a conspiratorial name change. If the “change” from Yeshua to Jesus was an early Catholic conspiracy, it is the best-executed cover-up in world history.

Third, it is occasionally alleged that the name Jesus is an attempt to insert paganism into Christianity. A few (very, very few) argue the name “Jesus” means “hail Zeus.” I suspect someone somewhere noticed the pronunciation of the name, especially in a language such as Spanish, sounds strikingly like “Hey-Zoos.” This must be a furtive nod to the chief god of the Greek pantheon, right? Not in the slightest. The New Testament was not written in English or Spanish, but in Greek. In Greek, “hail Zeus” would be chaire zeu, which bears absolutely no phonetic resemblance to “Jesus.”

How Did We Get from Yeshua to Jesus?

Although Jesus probably grew up in Galilee hearing His name as Yēshūa‘, it is not the case that the Christian world moved from Yeshua to Jesus. This is because Yeshua and Jesus are not different names, but different pronunciations of the same name. Different languages hear sounds differently. The Hebrews of the Old Testament era heard the name of the Persian king as “Ahasuerus” whereas the Greeks heard it as “Xerxes” (compare ESV with NIV in Ezra 4:6). If your name is Peter in the United States or Great Britain, you are Petros in Greece, Pietro in Italy, Pierre in France, and Pedro in Spain. Did each of these languages change your name!? No. These languages simply pronounce the same name in different ways. And so it is with Jesus. The Greek Iēsous represents the Aramaic Yēshūa‘.

But what about the meaning of the name? Those who argue in favor of the superiority of the name Yeshua insist that the Hebrew form means “salvation” whereas the Greek form is meaningless. This is true, and I believe every Christian should know the name of Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic means “salvation.” However, Peter-Petros-Pietro-Pierre-Pedro means “rock” only in the Greek language. It is meaningless in the others; yet none of us seems bothered by this problem, and no one insists on a consistent, universal pronunciation as Petros. Second, Matthew already felt the need to explain the name of Jesus in his Gospel (Matthew 1:21). And it is routine in the New Testament to translate the meaning of certain foreign words (e.g., Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41; John 1:38, 41). If the inspired writers were content to use the medium of the Greek language, while also providing explanations, is it wrong of us to follow their example?

Third, there is more than one “Jesus” in the New Testament. In the genealogy of Christ a certain “Jesus son of Eliezer” is named (Luke 3:29). Then there is the Jesus also known as Justus (Colossians 4:11). Finally, the Old Testament hero Joshua is known in Greek transliteration as Iēsous, his name being indistinguishable in Greek from Jesus the Christ (Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8, KJV).

Conclusion

Technically, if the New Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, Yeshua would have been the form the authors used. But it wasn’t. It was written in Greek. So the authors represented the name as it was known in Greek. The name “Jesus,” in fact, was well-established in Greek transliteration as Iēsous thanks to the Septuagint, where it is found over 250 times. The New Testament authors did not change the name from Yeshua to Jesus, nor did the early Catholic Church.

Whenever modern theorists insist on the name Yeshua, they are contending for a position the New Testament authors themselves never took. The name of Jesus appears over 900 times in the Greek New Testament, every single time as Iēsous. If one travels to Israel, one will find the name of Jesus is still pronounced “Yeshua” today. But not in China, nor in Russia, nor in any European, North, or South American country will he or she find this pronunciation. The spelling and pronunciation of the name of Jesus is not a matter of conspiracy, but of culture.

Endnotes

The post Jesus or Yeshua? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, composed by David in the 10^th century B.C., Psalm 22 is unquestionably a messianic psalm—literally packed with minute details that forecast the death of the Messiah. In verse 18, the psalmist quotes Him as making the simple statement: “They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” All four of the inspired New Testament evangelists of the first century A.D. allude to these incidental details that they report in connection with Jesus hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24).

While commentators typically report that Roman law awarded the victim’s clothes as spoils for the Roman executioners,³ others question the historicity of such a claim.⁴ In any case, the soldiers that attended the cross consisted of a quaternion—four soldiers.⁵ Matthew and Luke state very simply that these soldiers divided His clothes and cast lots for them, with Luke adding “to determine what every man should take.” These “garments” (merei) likely included a head-dress, sandals, girdle, and outer garment.⁶ Apparently, according to John 19:23, the soldiers were able to decide ownership of these four clothing articles without gambling. If they were able to agree on consignment of the four articles—one clothes item for each soldier—why did they also cast lots? It is John who provides the added clarification:

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and also the tunic. Now the tunic was without seam, woven from the top in one piece. They said therefore among themselves, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be,” that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: “They divided My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” Therefore the soldiers did these things (John 19:23-24).

The tunic was indivisible and unique from the other clothes, and very likely more valuable. It stood alone as seamless and would need to be awarded to a single soldier only, rather than being ripped into four pieces. Hence, they agreed to gamble in order to decide ownership of the tunic.

Observe carefully that these four unnamed Roman military men, who just happened to be assigned crucifixion duty that day, and just happened to have charge of the condemned Jesus of Nazareth (who happened that day to wear a seamless tunic), were operating solely out of their own impulses. They were not Jews. They undoubtedly had no familiarity whatsoever with Jewish Scripture. They were not controlled by any external source. No unseen or mysterious force took charge of their minds, no disciple whispered in their ears to cause them to robotically or artificially fulfill a prophecy. Yet, with uncanny precision, words written by King David a millennium earlier came to stunning fruition—words that on the surface might seem to contradict each other: the clothes were to be divided into separate parts, yet lots would be cast over the clothes. Roman soldiers unwittingly fulfilled the predictions of ancient Scripture in what to them were no more than mere casual, insignificant actions associated with the execution of their military duty, in tandem with their covetous desire to profit from their victim by acquiring His material goods.

But that’s not all. The layers of complexity and sophistication of the doctrine of inspiration, like the layers of an onion, can be peeled back to reveal additional marvels. John informs us that the item of clothing, which necessitated the Roman soldiers’ need to resort to gambling to decide ownership, was “without seam, woven from the top in one piece.” Why mention this piece of minutia? What significance could possibly be associated with such a seemingly trivial detail? To gain insight into a possible explanation, one must dig deeper into Bible teaching. Since the Bible was authored by Deity, it naturally possesses a depth uncharacteristic of human writers. It reflects indication that its Author was unhampered by the passing of time or the inability to foresee or orchestrate future events. Such qualities are commensurate with the nature of divinity.

In 1500 B.C., God imparted the Law of Moses to the Israelites as the covenant requirements that would guide the nation of Israel through its national existence. This law included provision for the High Priest, the first being Aaron, the brother of Moses, commissioned by God Himself (Exodus 28). On the Day of Atonement (yom kippur), he alone entered the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle/Temple to make atonement for himself and all the people (Leviticus 16). Bible typology—another bona fide proof of Bible inspiration—portrays Jesus as our High Priest (Hebrews 3:1; 4:14; 9:11; et al.). Very uniquely and critically, Jesus performs for Christians parallel functions to the High Priest that absolutely must be performed if we are to be permitted to be saved to live eternally with Deity in heaven.

Among the articles of clothing stipulated by God for the High Priest was the skillfully woven “tunic of fine linen thread” (Exodus 28:39). According to Josephus, this clothing item was seamless:

Now this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides, but it was one long vestment so woven as to have an aperture for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the breast and the back.⁷

Coincidental? Perhaps. Nevertheless, John went out of his way to flag the point. And the Roman soldiers gambled for the seamless tunic of the Messiah—a tunic that subtly signaled His redemptive role as the one to make atonement for the world in the very act of dying on the cross. The handling of the clothes of Jesus Christ on the occasion of His crucifixion demonstrates the inspiration of the Bible and the divine origin of the Christian religion.

ENDNOTES

¹ H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 8; cf. Gleason Archer (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 440.

² Albert Barnes (1847), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005 reprint), pp. 193ff.

³ E.g., Charles Erdman (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press), p.161; J.W. McGarvey (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard), p. 725.

⁴ E.g., Alfred Edersheim (1915), The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (New York: Longmans, Green, & Co.), 2:591-592.

⁵ William Davis (1870), Dictionary of the Bible, ed. H.B. Hackett (New York: Hurd & Houghton), 3:2651.

⁶ A.T. Robertson (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revel), p. 147.

⁷ Flavius Josephus (1974 reprint), The Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. by William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 3.7.4:203.

The post Bible Inspiration: The Crucifixion Clothes appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One such prophecy uttered by the “Messianic prophet” Isaiah is the one found in chapter 35 of his oracles. Specifically, consider the following:

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Then the lame shall leap like a deer,
and the tongue of the dumb sing.
For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness,
and streams in the desert (35:5-6).

This passage, believed to have been uttered in the 8^th century B.C., predicted that in the Messianic age to come, i.e., the Christian era, as a result of the miraculous empowerment that would accompany the initial introduction of the Gospel, the blind, the deaf, the lame, and the dumb (“mute,” NASB) would experience healing. Interestingly, one would expect as a result of their healing, the blind would be able to see and the deaf would be able to hear. And, comparably, one might expect the prophet to indicate that the lame would walk and the dumb would speak. However, instead, the dumb would not merely talk; they would sing. And the lame would not merely walk; they would “leap like a deer.” This latter detail is intriguing. The prophet might merely have been speaking figuratively, simply highlighting the concept that the lame would no longer be confined to his immobility.

However, when one turns to the New Testament and reads the inspired account of the launching of Christianity in the form of the establishment of Christ’s church after His ascension into heaven—a fact which He fully predicted (Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17; 26:29; Acts 1:3)—one sees the unfolding of the presentation of the Gospel to the Jerusalem Jews. Luke was given the responsibility of reporting for all time the first 30 years of the history of Christianity. Early in his record, he reports an incident that confirms Isaiah’s prophetic prediction:

Now Peter and John went up together to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour. And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms from those who entered the temple; who, seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked for alms. And fixing his eyes on him, with John, Peter said, “Look at us.” So he gave them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. So he, leaping up, stood and walked and entered the temple with them—walking, leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God. Then they knew that it was he who sat begging alms at the Beautiful Gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him (Acts 3:1-10).

Observe that the lame man was told by Peter to “rise up and walk.” The lame man walked alright, but Luke meticulously reports that the man also “leaped.” This minute detail cannot be coincidental. By divine assistance, Isaiah peered across more than seven centuries into the first century A.D. to see an unnamed man, who had been lame from birth, leaping up as a beneficiary of the confirmatory (Mark 16:20)¹ miracles that accompanied the advent of Christianity, “walking, leaping, and praising God.” How in the world could a mere man have predicted such a minute detail so many centuries in advance? He could not have done so on his own ability. Indeed, as Peter stated: “[P]rophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).

Endnotes

¹ Dave Miller (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation—EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1399&topic=293.

The post Leaping and Bible Inspiration appeared first on Apologetics Press.

He labored as a prophet for 22 years, working during the same time as Jeremiah (who stayed in Palestine with the Jews who had not been forced to leave yet) and Daniel (who had only been in Babylon a few years). Habakkuk and Zephaniah were also prophets at the same time as Ezekiel.

Central Theme:

Since some of God’s people were now in captivity, and the rest would be there soon, Ezekiel’s preaching was meant (1) to show the reason for their captivity (which was because of their sin), and (2) to offer God’s future blessing. The first half of the book (chapters 1-24) happens before Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 B.C. and warns about the judgment of God’s people that was coming soon. After telling how the surrounding nations would also be punished (chapters 25-32), the final chapters (33-48) tell of future restoration and forgiveness for those who repent.

The main way in which judgment and restoration are underscored is by emphasizing the greatness of God. His authority and power over the Universe are repeated over and over in the expression (used over 65 times)—“Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

The post The Book of Ezekiel appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In addition to serving as God’s prophet, he also served as a powerful political leader under Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. His personal spirituality and dedication to God are seen in his serious prayer life and in his willingness to serve God regardless of the people or laws that were hostile toward him.

Central Theme:

Like Ezekiel, Daniel focuses on God’s authority and power. (Indeed, “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men”—4:17,25,32; 5:21). God’s will and purposes cannot be thwarted. He will accomplish His intentions no matter what happens in human history. Daniel shows the importance of staying faithful even in tough situations.

God took care of His children (even in captivity), and He promised them the ultimate care of salvation in the future through Christ. In the book of Daniel the Jews are restored to their homeland after 70 years of captivity, but long-term spiritual restoration would come with Christ about 500 years later.

The post The Book of Daniel appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD in the tenth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, which was the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. For then the king of Babylon’s army besieged Jerusalem, and Jeremiah the prophet was shut up in the court of the prison, which was in the king of Judah’s house. For Zedekiah king of Judah had shut him up, saying, “Why do you prophesy and say, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall take it; and Zedekiah king of Judah shall not escape from the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall surely be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon, and shall speak with him face to face, and see him eye to eye; then he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there he shall be until I visit him,” says the LORD; “though you fight with the Chaldeans, you shall not succeed”’?” (Jeremiah 32:1-5).

So, according to Jeremiah, Zedekiah would see Nebuchadnezzar “face to face” and “eye to eye.”

Ezekiel’s prophecy possessed comparable specificity of those future events:

And in the morning the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, has not the house of Israel, the rebellious house, said to you, ‘What are you doing?’ Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “This burden concerns the prince in Jerusalem and all the house of Israel who are among them.”’ “Say, ‘I am a sign to you. As I have done, so shall it be done to them; they shall be carried away into captivity.’ “And the prince who is among them shall bear his belongings on his shoulder at twilight and go out. They shall dig through the wall to carry them out through it. He shall cover his face, so that he cannot see the ground with his eyes. I will also spread My net over him, and he shall be caught in My snare. I will bring him to Babylon, to the land of the Chaldeans; yet he shall not see it, though he shall die there” (Ezekiel 12:8-13).

This remarkable prophecy predicts, in uncanny detail, the events that followed the two year besiegement of Jerusalem. In an effort to elude the Babylonian army that breached the walls and stormed the palace, Zedekiah passed through an escape portal near the royal gardens with his face disguised and fled into the night with a sack of personal effects over his shoulder. Headed through the Jordan Valley with his attendants, his Babylonian pursuers overtook him on the plains of Jericho and transported him to the little village of Riblah on the northern frontier of the land of Canaan where Nebuchadnezzar had set up his headquarters and judgment seat during his campaign against Jerusalem.

These two prophecies were issued by two separate prophets—one living in Jerusalem and the other having been transported to Babylon a decade earlier as a result of Nebuchadnezzar’s second campaign against Jerusalem in 597 B.C. Yet, with amazing precision, they speak of future events as if their certainty cannot be questioned. But how could Zedekiah actually see Nebuchadnezzar and speak to him in person, face to face, and also be brought to Babylon (as per Jeremiah), and yet not see Babylon (as per Ezekiel)? He would see the King of Babylon, but not see Babylon, though he would die there? These prophecies must have evoked puzzlement from those to whom they were uttered.

Yet, as always, the Bible’s remarkable inspiration is demonstrated by the historical facts. When the Babylonians overtook Zedekiah and transported him to Riblah to face Nebuchadnezzar and receive judgment for his rebellion, we are informed what happened: “So they took the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and they pronounced judgment on him. Then they killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon” (2 Kings 25:6-7; cf. Jeremiah 39:7). Mystery solved. Zedekiah actually saw the Babylonian king with his own eyes—before the king gave orders for Zedekiah’s eyes to be gouged out. Bound with bronze fetters, he was then taken to Babylon—where he lived with permanent blindness, never able to see Babylon—until the day of his death while still in exile. The Bible transcends all other books in human history.

The post Bible Inspiration: Zedekiah Would “Not See” Babylon? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as an Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

Predictive prophecy is one of the Bible’s grandest claims. Either the biblical prophets legitimately predicted the future, or they did not. And if they did not predict the future, then the prophets were either intentionally misrepresenting the future or were hopelessly delusional in thinking they could predict it. With so much at stake, then, it is no surprise that skeptics often target biblical prophecy. If they can prove just one part of one prediction false, then the inspiration of Scripture topples to the ground (cf. 2 Peter 1:21).

But the Bible itself applies an equally strict standard to prophets. The Mosaic Law advises:

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?” When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:20-22, emp. added).

The Mosaic Law’s litmus test for a legitimate prophet was his (or her) ability to predict the future. Now some predictions are generic enough so as to present little problem for the skeptic. In the context of the passage cited above, for example, Moses predicts a coming “prophet like me” (Deuteronomy 18:15,18). No specific description of this prophet occurs, and no chronological constraints are applied. Thus, we must rely on the New Testament to inform us that Jesus is indeed the prophet in question (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Skeptics would allege the New Testament authors simply re-appropriated these words, which were never intended as a prophecy of Jesus.

Specific predictive prophecies, however, present a far greater problem for the skeptic. This is why the date of Daniel is so hotly contested. The critic alleges that Daniel must fit within the early second century B.C. and not within the time period in which the book places itself: the late sixth century B.C. They argue that this is the case simply because the characters and events represented as belonging to the sixth century are vague and the details allegedly erroneous, while descriptions of the late third and early second century B.C. are specific and accurate. In other words, Daniel claims not merely to assert generic predictions which could find “fulfillment” in any creative rereading. Rather, with the highest degree of accuracy, Daniel wrote about imperial successions (Daniel 2,7) and complicated dynastic intermarriages (Daniel 10-11), growing increasingly specific the further he moved from his own day. And he was correct about details that confuse even modern historians. The skeptic alleges: “This just cannot be!”

For this reason, virtually all liberal scholars (and even a few “conservative” ones) place the book of Daniel in the second century B.C. and denigrate every apparent prediction. Ernest Lucas, for example, a conservative, maintains that either a late date (denying predictive prophecy) or an early date (affirming predictive prophecy) “are consonant with belief in the divine inspiration and authority of the book.”¹ Lucas seems to draw inspiration from John Goldingay, an evangelical scholar who asserts a theological rationale for the second century date: “Dating Daniel in the sixth century, indeed, brings not more glory to God but less. It makes it a less impressive and helpful document. It makes it seem more alien to me in my life of faith, for God does not treat me this way.”² Goldingay presupposes that predictive prophecy would be theologically deficient to Daniel’s original audience, because it would not help them “today.” By this logic, all New Testament references to heaven and hell would be theologically deficient to Christians in the first century A.D., or even today.

Although Lucas and Goldingay claim to affirm biblical inspiration, notice what they allow: the author represents himself as being someone other than who he was, as belonging to an age in which he did not live, as claiming revelations that he never received, and predicting events that had already occurred! It is with good reason that E.B. Pusey long ago opened one of his famed lectures by laying out the stakes:

The book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battlefield between faith and unbelief. It admits no half-measures. It is either divine or an imposture. To write any book under the name of another, and to give it out to be his, is, in any case, a forgery, dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthiness. But the case as to the book of Daniel, if it were not his, would go far beyond even this. The writer, were he not Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were never uttered, and miracles which are assumed never to have been wrought. In a word, the whole book would be one lie in the Name of God.³

So the date of Daniel most certainly matters to people of faith. Did Daniel know the future, or did he merely author history in the guise of a prophet? In this article, we shall sketch the major objections to an early date of Daniel, and offer some possible alternatives, establishing that a position of faith tolerates only a date for Daniel in the sixth century B.C.

HISTORICAL OBJECTIONS

One of the most famous prophecies in Scripture is Daniel’s scheme of empires, interpreted from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2), and repeated in greater detail in the prophet’s own vision (Daniel 7). Since most liberal scholars presuppose the impossibility of accurate prediction, they are forced to squeeze Daniel’s four empires into a tighter window. The traditional view, attested from early Christian times, is that Daniel, living in the late sixth century B.C., prophesied the coming of the Roman Empire during whose time the Church was established (Daniel 2:44; cf. Luke 20:18). Even those who accept a late date, however, cannot allow the Roman Empire to be the fulfillment of Daniel’s vision. [See the resulting scheme in the chart]⁴

Now it is clear from the book of Daniel itself that the liberal scheme does not work. First, Daniel always combines the Medes and the Persians (5:28; 6:8,12,15). There is no recognition of separate empires within the book. Second, the context makes clear that the third empire (and not the fourth) is Greece: “And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power” (Daniel 8:21-22). The large horn would be none other than Alexander the Great, and the four kingdoms the subsequent divisions of his empire among his four generals (the “Diadochoi”).⁵

Beyond the scheme of empires, according to the skeptics a greater problem confronts the sixth-century interpretation: the closer the narrative gets to the material covering 167-164 B.C., it is alleged, the more reliable it becomes. If the author really lived in the sixth century B.C., he ought to have known the history of his own time better than events 350 years later. Three cases of sixth century Babylonian and Persian history are considered especially problematic. First, Daniel 1:1-2 presupposes a Babylonian siege and deportation the Bible nowhere else describes. Second, it is alleged that Daniel confuses the succession of Babylonian kings. Third, and considered most problematic, Daniel either confuses or invents Darius the Mede.

First, it is true that no other source confirms a Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, followed by a deportation, in the year 605 B.C. (this date corresponds to Jeremiah 25:1, although Daniel and Jeremiah use different dating schemes).⁶ But the Babylonian historian Berossus is quoted by Josephus as reporting that during his reign Nebuchadnezzar commanded prisoners of war be taken from “among the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians and people of Egypt.”⁷ The book of Daniel makes clear that “some” of the young nobles were indeed carried away (Daniel 1:3). So some Babylonians had to be among the Jews at some point to carry away Jewish prisoners of war.

Nevertheless, we cannot corroborate from secular history a “siege” of Jerusalem in the year 605 B.C. But such an event is certainly possible. We know Nebuchadnezzar defeated an Egyptian-Assyrian alliance at Carchemish in the year 605 B.C. (Jeremiah 46:2). This most decisive battle took place in Northern Syria, and established Babylonian control over the entire Near East. Since we understand the Levant,⁸ including Judah, to be pro-Egyptian during this period (cf. Jeremiah 2:18; Ezekiel 17:15), it makes sense that Nebuchadnezzar would force these “western” territories to capitulate to his command. This would require laying siege to the major capital cities, including Jerusalem. Later in the year 605 B.C., possibly in the midst of his siege of Jerusalem, Nabopolassar, the reigning monarch and father of Nebuchadnezzar, died, forcing him to return to Babylon, leaving the western territories to claim the throne.⁹ There is certainly time for a brief Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 605 B.C., especially when we consider Nebuchadnezzar was in the vicinity.

Second, Daniel allegedly confuses the order of the Babylonian kings. Daniel in fact mentions only two Babylonian kings: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, making the latter the son of the former (Daniel 5:2,11,18). The problem is that, first, Belshazzar was never actually a “king” of Babylon, and second, he was not even related to Nebuchadnezzar. Neither of these problems, however, creates difficulty for the Bible believer. When one reads the text carefully, he will notice that Belshazzar offers the honor of “third ruler” in his kingdom, indicating that he is himself second (Daniel 5:7,16, 29). Indeed, we know that Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, spent the last 10 years of his reign in the wilderness of Teima, placing his own son, Belshazzar, on the throne in his absence.¹⁰ Daniel simply reflects historical reality.

As for Belshazzar being the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar, the term “father” in the Bible can mean “predecessor,” and does not necessarily imply a genetic relationship (e.g., Genesis 4:20-21). Further, Archer suggests the possibility that Nabonidus married one of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughters, thereby making the genetic grandfather of his son Nebuchadnezzar (for this use of the term father, see Genesis 28:13; 32:10).¹¹ We cannot be certain of such an arrangement. In any case, the skeptical position is not as strong as it might at first appear, and perfectly reasonable alternatives can be offered.

Third, Daniel has Darius the Mede as the first Persian king after the Babylonians (6:1), with Cyrus (the actual first Persian king) as his successor (6:28). Further, Darius is called the son of Xerxes (9:1) when in fact Xerxes was the son of Darius I.¹² Liberal scholars have generally abandoned the quest for the historical Darius, and have reached the conclusion that he never existed. H.H. Rowley writes in his widely influential treatment, “The claim of the book of Daniel to be a work of history, written by a well-informed contemporary, is shattered beyond repair by this fiction of Darius the Mede.”¹³

While no clear solution to Daniel’s Darius has presented itself, there are some plausible alternatives to the liberal position. It is possible that Darius is an alternative name for a figure we already know. We know that rulers of diverse ethnic groups commonly took “throne names” to appeal to their citizens (e.g., 1 Chronicles 5:26). The title of “king” was not necessarily reserved for the supreme monarch in the ancient Near East, and a number of lesser rulers could have been allowed to hold the title.¹⁴ So the general who actually overtook Babylon, Gubaru (or Ugbaru), may well be Daniel’s Darius.¹⁵

A different opinion is bolstered by the fact that Cyrus, the first king of the Persian empire, was age 62 when he began to reign, exactly as Daniel’s Darius (Daniel 5:31). Thus some wish to argue Cyrus “the Great” and Darius were one and the same. If we read the Aramaic waw in Daniel 6:28 adverbially, then it is possible to equate the two figures: “And this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” If this suggestion is correct, then these two names could be gentilic tags—Darius “the Mede” indicating his presentation of himself to the Medes, and Cyrus “the Persian,” his presentation to the Persians. Since Cyrus is known to have been from the Median territories himself, Daniel generally presents him in the early days of his reign from the region of his origins.

As for the assertion that the father of Darius was Xerxes (Daniel 9:1), if Daniel’s Darius is a lesser ruler of the Persians, such as Gubaru, then Daniel preserves a name otherwise unknown. If, however, Darius and Cyrus are the same person, the Hebrew Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1) may well represent the name of Cyrus’ grandfather, Astyages, from whom the former seized power (this reasoning may lie behind Josephus’ confused account in Antiquities 10.248). He just so happens to have been “a Mede by descent,” and the last king of the Median Empire. Whatever possible solution, the identity of Darius the Mede is most difficult. While we believe a plausible solution can be offered, it is essential to recognize humbly the lack of evidence supplied from comparative history.¹⁶

LINGUISTIC OBJECTIONS

Over 100 years ago, S.R. Driver wrote in his widely-circulated Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, “The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports and the Aramaic permits a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332).”¹⁷ Virtually no scholar would offer an unqualified endorsement of Driver’s “verdict” today. Still, the linguistic objections remain strongly asserted among the critics.

First, the book is written in two languages. It begins in Hebrew, and then switches in the middle of 2:4 to Aramaic, which continues uninterrupted through the end of chapter 7. Then with 8:1 the Hebrew resumes to the end of the book. Scholars once assumed that the book needed to be written partially in Aramaic because it belonged to a time when Hebrew was no longer understood among the common people. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, such a position is no longer tenable.

While the book utilizes an admittedly strange literary feature, the Hebrew-Aramaic-Hebrew structure does not require a late date. More recent discoveries of so-called “Imperial” Aramaic texts prove that the Aramaic of Daniel actually fits more closely the Aramaic of the fifth century B.C. than the much later Aramaic texts preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.¹⁸ The Dead Sea Scrolls have also assisted us in determining that the Hebrew sections of Daniel are far closer to the Hebrew of the biblical prophets than that of the later Hebrew compositions preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.¹⁹ The Hebrew and Aramaic sections of Daniel are certainly at home in the late sixth century.

More critical attention has been given to the Persian and Greek loanwords used in the book. Driver believed the Persian words “presuppose” a later date, but in fact this is not true. Kenneth Kitchen found that “the Persian words in Daniel are specifically, Old Persian words.”²⁰ Since the transition to the Middle Persian dialect occurs around 300 B.C., we would expect an author in the second century to use a much different form of the Persian language. In addition, about half of the 20 or so Persian terms Driver isolated in Daniel are administrative, exactly the kind of language we would expect from an officer of the Persian court! The Persian terms actually serve to support a sixth century date for Daniel.

The Greek words are more problematic, at least on the surface. If Daniel were written in the sixth century, it is alleged, then he should not have known any Greek words at all, since he would have had no occasion to learn Greek. An early second century author, by contrast, would be well-acquainted with Greek. But again, this argument is based on faulty reasoning. First, it has been conclusively demonstrated that the Levant had contact with the Greek peoples well before the late sixth century B.C.²¹

Second, there are only three Greek words in question, and all three refer to musical instruments (3:5,7,10,15: qathrōs, קַתְרוֹס =kithara, κιθάρα; p^esanthērîn, פְּסַנְתֵּרִין= psaltērion,ψαλτήριον; sūmpōnyāh,  סוּמְפּוֹנְיָה=sumphōnia, συμφωνία). As Archer points out, the names of musical instruments generally remain fixed in the source language for centuries (e.g., piano, viola).²² Even though these terms are not attested until Plato (429-347 B.C.), it is likely the instruments were in existence long before. Even Collins, who is a major proponent of a second century date, acknowledges that “the evidence for Greek influence on Daniel is too slight to prove anything,” and “The date of the tales in Daniel must be established on other grounds.”²³

Other than foreign loanwords in Daniel, the use of the term “Chaldean” has received a great deal of attention. The term in the Old Testament is generally used as a rough equivalent to “Babylonian” (e.g., Isaiah 43:14; Habakkuk 1:6). But Daniel uses the term in reference to a class of “wise men” (Daniel 2:2,4,5,10; 4:7; 5:7,11). It is alleged that Daniel, writing long after Greek culture and language had taken hold in Palestine, has been influenced by the Greek use of the term “astrologer.”

First, let us note that Daniel is not ignorant of the gentilic use of the term in the Old Testament (Daniel 1:4; 5:30; 9:1). Second, as Robert Dick Wilson argued long ago, Daniel’s “Chaldean” combines the Aramaic terms Kasdi (the people of Chaldea) and Kaldi (astrologers), an understandable phonetic shift for a sixth century author living in Babylon, but a puzzling mistake for a second century author living in Palestine.²⁴ In fact, Daniel’s usage may well be closer to the original Babylonian Galdu than the rest of the Hebrew Bible.²⁵ This objection, when properly understood from its linguistic environment, actually helps to support a date in the late sixth century B.C.

CANONICAL OBJECTIONS

The final objection to the reliability of Daniel is its placement in the Hebrew Bible. The English Old Testament, following the Latin Vulgate, places Daniel fourth in the order of Major Prophets. But in the Hebrew Bible, Daniel is not included in the Prophets, but rather in the Writings. The critics allege this to be proof of a late date. Daniel was composed, it is suggested, after the canon of Hebrew Prophets had been closed.²⁶

It is true that from an early time, the Jews divided the Hebrew Bible into three parts: the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im) and the Writings (Kethuvim), although not always using these exact terms.²⁷ But we have no clear statement on exactly which books were included in the latter two divisions until late in the first century A.D. Josephus, our earliest author to comment on the individual books in the Hebrew canon, seems to include Daniel among the Prophets.

Josephus states that the Jews accept only 22 sacred books (which are equivalent to our 39 Old Testament books). He writes, “Five of these are the books of Moses,” and “the prophets after Moses wrote the history of what took place in their own times in thirteen books; the remaining four books contain hymns to God and instructions for people on life” (Against Apion, 1.38-40).²⁸ John M.G. Barclay suggests in his notes on the passage cited above, “it is most likely that Josephus means: Joshua, Judges + Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah + Lamentations, Ezekiel, the 12 [Minor Prophets], Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah (= Esdras), Daniel, Job, and Esther.”²⁹ It is virtually certain that Josephus includes Daniel among the 13 Prophets, and not among the four books of the “Writings.” The canonical order of the Christian Bible actually appears in the case of Daniel to preserve an older tradition than the (now) traditional Hebrew Bible.

In addition to the evidence Josephus provides as to the canonical placement of Daniel, there can be no question that both the Dead Sea sectarians and Josephus regard Daniel to be a legitimate prophet (e.g., 4Q174; Antiquities 10.188,249,268). Daniel is in fact Josephus’ primary source of history in book 10 of his Antiquities, and indeed many Jewish authors at the time believed Daniel to have predicted the rise of the Roman empire (e.g., 2 Baruch 39; 4 Ezra 11-12; and Josephus himself, Antiquities 10.276). Jesus’ own prediction of the fall of Jerusalem is explicitly described as the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophetic announcement from Daniel 9 (Matthew 24:15). Were all these ancient Jewish figures hopelessly deceived by Daniel’s phony claims of prophetic power? Could Jesus have been wrong about Daniel’s ability to predict the future?

The critic might object that we have yet to explain how Daniel was transferred from the Prophets to the Writings in the Jewish canon. The answer is really quite simple: Daniel was not a prophet in the traditional sense. First, he is not called a prophet in the book. In fact, the only time the word “prophet” is used in Daniel, it describes the biblical prophet Jeremiah (9:2,24). Second, Daniel issues no prophetic sermons, nor does he work among the Jewish people. He is an inspired seer who receives visions of the future, and assists foreign monarchs. He shares more in common with Joseph than with any of the Scriptural Prophets. Daniel’s unique qualities apparently led the ultra-conservative Jewish rabbis to exclude him from the Prophets since he did not, like the other Prophets, serve the people of God.

THE POSITIVE EVIDENCE

Those who presuppose Daniel’s inability to predict the future assume a second century date without grasping the considerable objections to their view. First, even the most ardent critic must acknowledge the author’s tremendous command of sixth-century historical detail. Even though some questions, such as the identity of Darius the Mede, remain difficult, other matters of sixth century history could not have been easily understood by an author living 350 years later. The critic Robert Pfeiffer, for example, remarks:

We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30), as the excavations have proved…and that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel, and in Bar[uch] 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 (chap. 5).³⁰

The answer to Pfeiffer’s conundrum is simple: Daniel was there! He lived through the events he described, just as the book claims.

Second, although the critics make much of Daniel’s absence from the list of Jewish heroes in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirah 44-50, this objection does not hold up. Ben Sirah is no more attempting a comprehensive list of faithful Israelites than is Hebrews 11. Daniel is excluded to be sure, but so are Job, Ezra, and several other faithful Israelites. In any case, this is an argument from silence, which simply cannot be sustained without positive evidence to substantiate it.

The fact is that other Intertestamental Period authors do mention Daniel as an honorable hero. The book of 1 Maccabees features Mattathias encouraging his sons to emulate the example of Daniel (2:59-60). Daniel is a popular character also at Qumran, with fragments of two manuscripts of the book dating to the second century B.C.³¹ In total, eight manuscripts of Daniel have turned up among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, some Pseudo-Daniel compositions have emerged from authors who wished to imitate Daniel,³² along with imaginary compositions partially based on Daniel.³³ All of this evidence, combined with the New Testament references to Daniel, points to the conclusion that Daniel was accepted as a legitimate prophet of God among the Jewish people.

CONCLUSION

So violent are the critical attacks on the book of Daniel that Josh McDowell chose to devote the third volume of his Evidence that Demands a Verdict series exclusively to the defense of Daniel.³⁴ Indeed, the level of specificity with which Daniel predicts the future is troubling for the critic. This is why the ardent opponent of Christianity, the Greek philosopher Porphyry, already alleged in the third century A.D. that the book of Daniel was a forgery of the Maccabean Age (reported in Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel).³⁵ The skeptical position has advanced little past Porphyry’s original pronouncement.

The Bible believer can appreciate the skeptic’s predicament. If the skeptic allows just one predictive prophecy to stand, then the Bible must be divine. So unbelievers must work feverishly to demolish the Bible’s reliability. They scratch and claw away at the data, insisting that everything in the Bible requires proof outside the Bible. They build mountainous theories on historical silence and critical presupposition. And they force believers to feel inadequate if they cannot discredit every skeptical assertion.

Yet the evidence forces the critic to a frightening conclusion: Daniel knows too much about the sixth century B.C. to be writing 350 years after the event, but he knows too much about late third and early second century B.C. to be writing 350 years before the event. So either the author was one of the most industrious historians who has ever lived, researching Babylonian and Persian records written in languages he most likely could not have read, and located in places almost certainly inaccessible, or he was a prophet of God, borne along by the Holy Spirit as Scripture indicates. There can be no compromise. “Daniel” was either a brilliantly researched, pseudonymous liar, or he was the great prophet Jewish and Christian tradition for over two millennia have claimed him to be. Let the reader decide.

ENDNOTES

¹ Ernest C. Lucas (2002), Daniel, ed. David Baker and Gordon Wenham (Leicester/Downers Grove, IL: Apollos/IVP), p. 312.

² John E. Goldingay (1977), “The Book of Daniel: Three Issues,” Themelios, 2:49.

³ E.B. Pusey (1885), Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford (New York: Oxford), p. 75.

⁴ John H. Walton (1994), Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), revised edition, p. 105.

⁵ The word means “successors” and refers to the rival generals of Alexander the Great who fought for control over his empire after his death in 323 B.C.

⁶ See Robert Dick Wilson (1917), Studies in the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972 reprint), 1:43-59.

⁷ Antiquities 10.219-224; Against Apion 1.133-139.

⁸ The term “Levant” conventionally refers to the region of Syria-Palestine.

⁹ See the so-called “Jerusalem Chronicle,” http://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-5-jerusalem-chronicle/?.

¹⁰ Nabonidus Chronicle, 2.5ff., http://www.livius.org/cgcm/chronicles/abc7/abc7_nabonidus3.html.

¹¹ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (1994), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), p. 426.

¹² See the chronology of  Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein (1942), Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 45: Oriental Institute Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), p. 1956.

¹³ H.H. Rowley (1935), Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel: A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1964 reprint), p. 59.

¹⁴ See Archer, 1994, pp. 425-430.

¹⁵ John C. Whitcomb Jr. (1959), Darius the Mede (Grand Rapids: Baker); Klaus Koch (1995), Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn: Studien zum Danielbuch, ed. Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag), pp. 125-139.

¹⁶ NOTE: A legitimate distinction exists between a contradiction on the one hand, and simply a lack of evidence to decide a question on the other. Cf. Kyle Butt (2010), “Responding to the Skeptic’s Attack Against Nazareth,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3579&topic=82.

¹⁷ S.R. Driver (1897), An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), p. 508, italics in orig.

¹⁸ Edwin M. Yamauchi (1967), Greece and Babylon: Early Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker); Zdravko Stefanovic (1992), The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic (Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 129).

¹⁹ Cf. R.K. Harrison (1979), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 1125; Gleason L. Archer Jr. (1985), Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), pp. 23-24.

²⁰ Kenneth A. Kitchen (1970), “The Aramaic of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel (London: Tyndale), p. 43, italics in orig.

²¹ Edwin M. Yamauchi (1981), “Daniel and Contacts Between the Aegean and the Near East Before Alexander,” Evangelical Quarterly, 53:37-47.

²² Archer, 1994, p. 431.

²³ John J. Collins (1993), Daniel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress), p. 20.

²⁴ 1:338-339.

²⁵ Ibid., 1:326-366.

²⁶ Driver, pp. 497-98.

²⁷ E.g., 4Q397 [MMT] frgs 14-21; Prologue to the Greek translation of Ben Sirah; Luke 24:44.

²⁸ John M.G. Barclay, trans. (2007), Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Volume 10: Against Apion (Leiden: Brill), pp. 29-30.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 30.

³⁰ Robert H. Pfeiffer (1952), Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Black), pp. 758-759.

³¹ 4QDan^c [4Q114] 4QDan^e [4Q116].

³² Ps-Dan^a–b [4Q243–44]; Ps-Dan^c [4Q245].

³³ The “Prayer of Nabonidus” [4Q242]; “Four Kingdoms” [4Q552–53].

³⁴ Josh McDowell (1979), Daniel in the Critics’ Den: Historical Evidence for the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel (San Bernandino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ).

³⁵ Gleason Archer, Jr., trans. (1958), Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Baker), www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm.

The post The Date of Daniel: Does it Matter? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: A.P. auxiliary writer Robert Veil, Jr. formerly served as a district attorney for the Washington County State’s Attorney’s Office (Maryland), and previously maintained an active private law practice. He currently preaches in Martinsburg, West Virginia.]

The Bible is the most unusual and remarkable book we have ever encountered. It is unusual in that it claims to be the product of divine inspiration. And this book has had a remarkable influence, felt around the world for centuries. The book is morally good and pure, but upon examination we see that it is much more than a good book. Surviving countless attacks and criticisms, continuing as the world’s best seller, the Bible has been examined and cross-examined far more than any other book ever written.

As a prosecutor, I was required to examine cases with a critical eye, preparing them for presentation to a jury. All cases had their strengths and weaknesses. They had to be examined carefully and a decision had to be made concerning their prosecution. It had to be decided whether each case had merit, and whether there was a reasonable likelihood of success in proving it to a jury if necessary. If the case lacked merit, it was not proper to proceed. And this decision had to be made based upon the strength of the evidence, not upon personal preferences, political considerations, or even the level of certainty or commitment of the police officer who initiated the charges.

When I look at the Bible, I see a strong case for its inspiration. The evidence is not only compelling, it is overwhelming. The fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as opposed to merely a work of man, can be established in several ways. It can be established from a philosophical standpoint inasmuch as the derivation of truth and knowledge from God Himself is consistent with an inspired revelation of His will. It can be established from a logical or rational series of arguments, or an historical study, or a survey of nature itself—which reveals God as well. But as a prosecutor, I am also impressed with the evidence of inspiration within the Bible itself. When I look at the Bible carefully, I notice several things which strongly argue for its inspiration by God:

1. When I examine the Bible, I see that the Bible claims to be inspired by God. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The literal meaning of the Greek word translated “inspiration of God” is breathed out by God or God-breathed. This claim is unique and sets the Bible apart from the vast body of world literature. Except for a few later imitations, other books basically account for their own origin through purely natural means. But throughout the Bible, it claims to be from God.

I recognize that critics will object that the Bible’s own claim of inspiration cannot be considered on the ground that “you can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible.” But such an objection would be overruled, for it ignores standard and accepted practice in other proceedings. We routinely allow the accused in criminal cases to speak for himself, although in this country he is not required to do so. Even in civil cases, where the burden of proof is much lower, we allow the defendant to speak in his own behalf when his character is called into question. If the Bible is to be accorded a fair trial, its own claims of inspiration must be carefully considered along with all other evidence.

The Bible claims its own inspiration forthrightly. It makes no apology, and shows no hesitation in stating that it and its central figure, Jesus Christ, are from God. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death…. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:22-23,32). So as a starting point, we note that the Bible claims to be of divine origin.

Sometimes people will deny that the Bible is from God, arguing that it is merely a “good book.” I recall one of my early school teachers telling the class that the Bible was written by “a good man” long ago. On the contrary, if the Bible is not truly the product of divine inspiration, it is not good, and it was not written by good people, because they steadfastly contended that it is. They would be more accurately described as deceivers or liars, because their amazing claims were false. It is also noteworthy that even the most radical Bible scholars do not argue that the book was composed by a single author.  Although there is considerable debate about specifically when and by whom some of the various books of the Bible were written, it is universally admitted to be the product of a number of writers over many years, a point to be developed further below.

2. When I examine the Bible, I observe that, the critics’ claims notwithstanding, the Bible is amazingly consistent with itself. There is a grand procession throughout. This fact is actually very compelling when it is recognized that the Bible consists of 66 separate books written by approximately 40 different writers with varying and diverse backgrounds. These writers included fishermen, a tent maker, a tax collector, a shepherd, kings, prophets, historians, social activists, statesmen, etc. Most of these writers never knew each other personally, making collusion in the composition of the Bible impossible.  They could not “get their story straight” before writing. Further, each of the books were originally written in one of three different languages, from three different continents around the world. It was written over a period of approximately 1,600 years, yet consistently develops one main story—a central theme, without contradiction or inconsistency.

The development of a grand theme, with contributions made thereto in the earliest books of the Bible, gradually unfolded, and completed throughout the latter books, is an amazing accomplishment, and unexplainable without divine intervention. For example, in the earliest books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, the writer introduces the concept of the Passover lamb, with its many similarities to Jesus Christ. The male lamb was to be spotless and without blemish, a perfect specimen. It was to be killed by the shedding of blood, and the blood was to be applied to the dwelling houses of those to be saved from the final plague (Exodus 11ff.). The Passover feast itself contained remarkable similarities to the Lord’s Supper, though instituted hundreds of years earlier. These attributes are interwoven with the manner in which the lamb was to be killed, the actual shedding of blood, and the application of it to the houses of a selected people. How could these characteristics have been devised without a knowledge of what was to come? That is, how could the invention and detailed description of the Passover appurtenanceshave been accomplished by someone completely unaware of how these details would later align with the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world?

Bible students call this phenomenon “typology.” It involves the pre-figuring of places, things, and events by Old Testament “shadows,” which look forward to and foretell future fulfillment. The Old Testament “types” are sometimes extremely detailed, and they have astonishingly appropriate applications in the New Testament “antitypes.”  From an evidentiary standpoint, they are unexplainable without divine guidance of the Bible writers. No human author, without assistance, could have foreseen the application and fulfillment of the detailed types they described. The operation of random chance can no more explain this occurrence than the dropping of the pieces of a complex jigsaw puzzle from its box onto a table could yield the completed result. The finished picture becomes visible upon examination of the various New Testament writings. Added to this is the fact that these New Testament writers had no control over the work of the Old Testament writers who foretold these matters. How is this explainable absent divine intervention?

3. When I examine the Bible I see objectivity. Although perhaps not totally inconceivable, this is surprising if the writing of the book was not superintended by God.  The Bible relates both the good and the bad concerning its heroes. That is not typical of human works, although it can sometimes be accomplished with concerted, strained effort. But given the multiplicity of Bible writers, it would be difficult to explain how all of them succeeded in such objectivity.

The Bible often includes information which seems, at first, to argue against its point. It includes “challenging” passages, which might have been easily omitted. For example, in Job 2:3 the Bible quotes God as saying to Satan, “And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” It is not surprising that Bible critics have seized upon this passage in an effort to disparage the God of the Bible, and to deny its inspiration. They claim the verse teaches that God personally set Job up for failure. Indeed, the verse on the surface seems to say this, and it is only upon deeper study of the verse with its immediate and more remote context that the true meaning appears. But why was the verse included in the first place? It would have been easy, had the work been of mere human origin, to avoid this and other difficult statements. Had we, in our limited wisdom, been composing the Bible in an effort to palm it off as the work of God, would we have included such statements? The fact that these difficult passages appear in the text is strong evidence that it was not written by humans unconstrained by a higher influence. There is an over-arching hand which gives to the text a higher meaning, understandable only upon a reading of the work as a whole. The ancient Bible writers, who were not always privy to these other, clarifying passages, would not have written this way, but for the control of inspiration. In other words, since most of the Bible writers did not have access to the other portions of the Bible as they wrote, it is not likely that they would have inserted statements understandable only upon comparison with those other portions. If they were writing with only their own uninspired wisdom, they would have omitted such passages altogether.

Further, it is a mark of authenticity to include negative or undesirable traits about the people held out as heroes. It is not typical for human witnesses to volunteer weaknesses or undesirable concessions about themselves in their own case. If the Bible writers were liars trying to convince us to follow them, it is inconceivable that they would contradict that aim by making themselves look bad. Most people want to bolster their position, and we generally tend to minimize or omit information which detracts from our message or makes us look bad. But the Bible does not do this. It delivers both the positive and the negative, the good and the bad about the characters used to tell its story. Peter, for example, is presented as the strong right hand of the Lord Himself, a pillar in the early church. Yet, in other passages he is presented with the most embarrassing of human foibles. We are given his impetuous nature, his lack of faith or conviction, his racial bias, and even his denial of Jesus Christ. David, an undisputed hero of God and his people throughout the history of Israel, and a forefather to Jesus Himself, is described as indulging in the most humiliating of sins, including sexual perversity and murder. Would these salacious facts be included had the writing of the book not been superintended by God?

4. Upon examination of the Bible, I notice what J.W. McGarvey called the “restraint” of inspiration.[1] There are many examples; it is a fascinating characteristic of the Bible and unexplainable if it is the work of mere man. Essentially, we have people and momentous events, of great interest to our human curiosity, disposed of in brief sentences leaving us longing for more. This, too, is unlike the work of uninspired men, who tend to run on and on about matters in which they have a great interest. One would think, for example, that the biblical character of Samson, whose exploits have been of keen and thrilling interest to millions, would have been accorded more than three chapters (Judges 14-16). Or, to use McGarvey’s example, the death of James, one of the apostles, would have been described in great detail, instead of only 11 words (Acts 12:2).

How are we to account for this circumstance? The matters which seem less interesting, and yet in the grand scheme of the book as a whole have greater significance, are given more attention. Whereas the matters which appeal to our human curiosity, but in reality have minor import in the overall story, are passed over quickly. Does this not show the guiding force of a superior wisdom in the composition of the entire Bible?

Those new to Bible study are often confounded by the insertion of genealogical records. The names are sometimes difficult to pronounce, and one at first wonders why they are included at all. The Bible contains about 24 genealogical lists, strategically distributed throughout its pages. Many of them include supplemental historical information in addition to the names themselves. Taken together, they amount to a progression of generations leading to the Messiah. Further, they place Him into a human history or framework. Surely, the original writers could not have foreseen the significance of these records. It is only upon closure of the final pages of the New Testament that their significance begins to dawn upon us. Their evidentiary value in connecting the Messiah to human events is meticulously established. No other person in all of human history is so carefully documented from a genealogical perspective. And while the individual writers of the Bible may not have seen the importance of including such laborious and tedious details, the God who inspired the overall work obviously did.

5. Upon examination of the Bible, I see that it is uncanny in its accuracy. Like the old anvil which withstands the blows of countless hammers, it proves to be correct time and time again. I recently watched as a nationally known atheist and Bible critic debated the existence of God. Although referring to the many embarrassing errors within the Bible, he produced none. I suspect he knew that such alleged “errors” have been put forth time and time again, only to be capably answered upon closer examination. No other book has been subjected to such treatment and withstood such attacks.

6. I see in the Bible the most enduring of books. It has long outsold all others, and has been treasured and preserved through the centuries as a priceless work of wisdom and guidance. Countless generations have largely ordered their lives from its principles. It has been translated and proclaimed at great personal risk. Men have given their lives in its proclamation. Even in our own country, the Bible provides support for our founding principles, continues to be revered by many, and is made readily available upon demand.  In our transient and disposable culture, this is no small feat.

What do I see when I examine the Bible? I see a book that I would not hesitate to take before any reasonable trier of fact. I would be willing to submit it in a fair comparison against all others. I would not shrink from relying upon it. I am confident in its power and dependability. I see the marks of inspiration upon it and the hand of God within it. I see consistency, objectivity, restraint, accuracy, and endurance. In short, I see the inspired Word of God.

REFERENCE

The post A Prosecutor Looks at the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Because of His influence, the life and teachings of Jesus have been more closely scrutinized than any life in human history. This scrutiny has resulted in a number of different reactions. Some have concluded that Jesus was a liar who deceived countless thousands of people in the time in which He lived, and billions since. Some have approached a study of His life with an attitude of skepticism, only to arrive on the other side of their spiritual and intellectual journey as firm believers in the deity of Christ. A number of people have chosen the middle ground, in which they acknowledge that Jesus was an amazing teacher and a good man, but they deny that He was the Son of God.

Though Jesus has been the most analyzed Person ever to walk the Earth, still the most common response to the life of Jesus is simply apathy. It seems the majority of the billions of people who have lived since the early first century have approached the Person of Jesus neither intently nor earnestly. They have given little attention to the details of His life. Sadly, if most people who have lived since the death of Jesus Christ were asked what they thought about Him, they would have to respond, “I don’t know. I’ve never really given Him much thought.”

What about you? Have you given the Person of Jesus serious thought? If not, we humbly ask you to look carefully at the evidence for Jesus’ divine nature. If you are a follower of Jesus and call yourself a Christian, do you know why? What do you say to others when they ask you why you call yourself after Jesus Christ and live according to His will? What proof can you offer that demonstrates Jesus was God incarnate?

Two Primary Reasons for unbelief in Jesus

People have rejected Jesus as the Heaven-sent, virgin-born, prophesied Messiah ever since He walked the Earth. Recall, for example, at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry how He entered the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth and read publicly from the Old Testament book of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; Hehas sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (Luke 4:18-19, emp. added).

Following this reading, Jesus closed the book, sat down, and “began to say to them, ‘Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing’” (4:21). Though the Jews initially marveled and questioned how the promised Messiah could actually be the son of a carpenter in Nazareth, upon further hearing, they “rose up and thrust Him out of the city…that they might throw Him down over the cliff” (4:29). This encounter was only the beginning of instances in which countless individuals rejected Jesus. Though some would come to believe in Him, most did not.

The majority of people in the world today reject Jesus as Lord and God for two primary reasons. First, millions refuse to accept Jesus as God-incarnate because they reject the notion of God altogether. If God does not exist then Jesus never existed as “the Word…God” Who stepped out of eternity and “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14). It makes no sense to contend that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16, emp. added), if God is dead. If a supernatural, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, living spirit Being is merely a figment of the imagination of man, the first-century Jesus of Nazareth was delusional at best and a liar at worst. In considering this fundamental reason for the rejection of Jesus, Christians must prepare themselves to defend the primary proposition that “We believe Jesus is God-Incarnate, which is possible because we know God exists.” We are not suggesting using circular reasoning to defend the deity of Christ; rather we are acknowledging the basic fact that Christ could not be God, if God does not exist. Therefore, a person can ultimately come to the conclusion that Jesus is “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28) only if he first knows that God, indeed, exists. [NOTE: See our article titled “7 Reasons to Believe in God” (2014) for a discussion of why mankind can (and should) come to the logical conclusion that God exists. See also the “Existence of God” category at apologeticspress.org.]

Second, it would be futile to defend the supernatural nature of Jesus as depicted in the Bible without first recognizing the fact that many reject the Bible altogether as a supernatural revelation from God to man. Billions of non-Christians around the world may believe in some sort of god, but they still discount the Bible as being inspired by the Creator. Most unbelievers admit that Jesus of Nazareth lived, but they reject Jesus, the Christ, as He is revealed in both the Old and New Testaments. The fact is, however, if an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists (and there is ample proof that He does; cf. Romans 1:20), then such a God could easily inspire a book that would help mankind come to know “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31), “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). So what is the proof that the Bible is of supernatural origin? Why should an honest truth-seeker come to the conclusion that the Bible is the special revelation from the God of the Universe? In short, the main, overarching reason that the Bible can be demonstrated to be of divine origin is because the Bible writers were correct in everything they wrote—about the past, the present, and even the future—which is humanly impossible. [For more information on the inspiration of the Bible, see our article titled “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God” (2015). See also the “Inspiration of the Bible” category at apologeticspress.org.]

The two primary reasons for the rejection of Jesus as the Son of God are thus shown to be false. By taking these criticisms and turning them on their heads, they actually provide the first two foundational pillars for belief in Christ—(1) God exists and (2) the Bible is His Word. The next sensible question to ask is, “What evidence does the Bible give for the deity of Jesus?”

Jesus Fulfilled the Old Testament Messianic Prophecies

While it is true that most people’s lives can only be chronicled after they have lived them, the life of Jesus was miraculously chronicled (by divine inspiration) long before He arrived on Earth. Such Messianic prophecies are proof of both the divine inspiration of the Bible as well as the divine nature of Jesus. The reason that Jesus, the apostles, and the New Testament prophets spent so much of their time teaching and preaching from the Old Testament Messianic prophecies is because Jesus was proven to be the Christ by His fulfillment of these prophecies (cf. Luke 24:25-27,44; Acts 8:30-39).

Jesus fulfilled in minute detail over 300 prophecies that relate to the coming of the Messiah. Space prohibits a listing of all of these prophecies, but a representative sampling is appropriate. The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem in Judea (Micah 5:2) of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; cf. Genesis 3:15—“her Seed”). He would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah (Genesis 22:18; 26:4; 49:10; Numbers 24:17). He was to be a regal monarch (Psalm 89:3-4; Isaiah 9:6-7; Psalm 110:1) and at the same time a suffering servant (Isaiah 53). He was to be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9) for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:13). The Lord’s Ruler would come into Jerusalem riding on the foal of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9). He would be buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9). During His suffering, His clothes would be distributed to those who cast lots for them (Psalm 22:18). His attackers would pierce Him (Zechariah 12:10). Even though His physical suffering would be severe, His bones would not be broken (Psalm 34:20). And in spite of His death, His physical body would not experience decay (Psalm 16:10). This small sampling of precise prophetic details is only a fraction of the many Old Testament prophecies that exist. The prophecies were specifically designed to be an efficient mechanism by which the Jewish community could recognize the Messiah when He arrived.

When all of the pieces of the Messianic puzzle are put together, one individual stands out as the only person who fulfilled every single prophecy in minute detail—Jesus Christ. The life and activities of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament documents brilliantly blend the theme of a regal monarch and a suffering servant into one magnificent portrait of the triumphant Jesus Who was the sacrificial Lamb at His death on the cross, and Who became the triumphant Lion of Judah in His resurrection from the grave. The lineage of Jesus Christ is meticulously traced in order to show that He qualified as the Seed of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Judah, and of David (Matthew 1; Luke 3:23-38). The narrative detailing His birth verifies that He was indeed born in Bethlehem of Judea, from which city the Messiah would arise (Luke 2:1-7). The birth narrative also intricately portrays the pre-existence of Jesus before time began, fulfilling the prophecy that the Messiah existed before King David (Matthew 1:18-25; cf. 22:41-46; John 1:1-5,14). Furthermore, Jesus did, in fact, enter Jerusalem riding on the foal of a donkey (Matthew 21:1-11).

The New Testament narratives depicting the death of Jesus Christ verify that Jesus was betrayed by His friend and sold for exactly 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 26:14-16). At His death His bones were not broken, soldiers cast lots for His garments, and His side was pierced with a spear (John 19:33-37; Matthew 27:35). During His suffering, He was numbered with the transgressors as Isaiah 53 predicted by being crucified between two thieves, and at His death He was buried in the tomb of a wealthy man as was also foretold (Matthew 27:57). This type of verification could continue for many pages. The life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, as depicted in the New Testament documents, was designed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

Due to this overwhelming congruence of the life of Jesus Christ with the predictive Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament, some have suggested that Jesus was an imposter who was able, by masterful manipulation, to so artificially organize His life as to make it look like He was the Messiah. Such a contention cannot be reasonably maintained in light of the fact that many of the prophecies were far beyond His control. Obviously, it would be impossible for a person to arrange who his ancestors were or where he would be born. Furthermore, it would be near impossible to coordinate events so that He could make sure that He was crucified among thieves, while also buried in the tomb of a rich man. How could the betrayal price of Judas be manipulated by Jesus? And how, pray tell, would Jesus have managed to arrange it so that soldiers cast lots for His clothing? The idea that Jesus manipulated all of these events to make it appear as if He was the Messiah not only is indefensible, but it also speaks to the fact that Jesus obviously was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, Messianic prophecies.

Others have objected to Jesus as the Messiah based on the idea that the New Testament documents are not reliable, and were artificially concocted to describe things that Jesus never really did. This objection also falls flat in light of the actual evidence. It cannot be denied that the New Testament has proven itself to be the most reliable book in ancient history (along with the books of the Old Testament). When it records people, places, and events that are checkable using archaeological means, those people, places, and events invariably prove to be factual and historic. Again, the abundant evidence verifies that the New Testament is accurate and factual. Many of the Messianic prophecies documented in the New Testament do not describe anything inherently miraculous. There was nothing miraculous about Jesus being buried in a rich man’s tomb. Nor was there anything miraculous about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey, or being betrayed by His friend for 30 pieces of silver. These events are, if not ordinary, at least very plausible, everyday events that theoretically could have happened to anybody. And yet, due to the fact that such everyday events had been predicted about the Messiah hundreds of years before the arrivalof Jesus, the fulfillment of the events becomes one of the most amazing miracles recorded in the Bible. It is no wonder that Jesus, the apostles, and the early church used fulfilled Messianic prophecy as one of their foundational pillars of proof for the deity of Christ.

Jesus Worked Miracles

In view of the fact that miracles have served as a confirmation of God’s revelation since time began (Exodus 4:1-9; 1 Kings 18:36-39; Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:3-4), it should be no surprise that “when the fullness of the time had come” (Galatians 4:4), and the promised Messiah, the Son of God, came to Earth for the purpose of saving the world from sin (Luke 19:10), that He would confirm His identity and message by performing miracles. Centuries before the birth of Christ, the prophet Isaiah foretold of a time when “the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped…. [T]he lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing” (35:5-6). Although this language has a figurative element to it, it literally is true of the coming of the Messiah. When John the Baptizer heard about the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples to Jesus asking if He was “the Coming One” of Whom the prophets spoke. Jesus responded to John’s disciples by pointing to the people whom He had miraculously healed (thus fulfilling Isaiah’s Messianic prophecy), saying, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: the blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matthew 11:4-5; cf. Mark 7:37). Jesus wanted them to know that He was doing exactly what “the Coming One” was supposed to do (cf. Isaiah 53:4; Matthew 8:17), and what the Jews expected Him to do—perform miracles (John 7:31; cf. John 4:48; 1 Corinthians 1:22).

In a sense, Jesus’ miracles served a different purpose than those wrought by Moses, Elijah, or one of the New Testament apostles or prophets. Unlike all other miracle workers recorded in Scripture, Jesus actually claimed to be the prophesied Messiah, the Son of God, and His miracles were performed to prove both the truthfulness of His message and His divine nature. Whereas the apostles and prophets of the New Testament worked miracles to confirm their message that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus performed miracles to bear witness that He was, in fact, the Son of God. In response to a group of Jews who inquired about whether or not He was the Christ, Jesus replied,

I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me…. I and My Father are one.… If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him (John 10:25,30,37-38).

Similarly, on another occasion Jesus defended His deity, saying, “[T]he works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me” (John 5:36). While on Earth, Jesus was “attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him” (Acts 2:22, NASB). And, according to the apostle John, “Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31, emp. added). As would be expected from the One Who claimed to be God incarnate (cf. John 1:1-3,14; 10:30), Scripture records that Jesus performed miracles throughout His ministry in an effort to provide sufficient proof of His divine message andnature.

Jesus’ Signs Were Many and Varied

Mankind is expected to believe that Jesus is the Son of God not because He performed one or two marvelous deeds during His lifetime. To the contrary, the Gospel accounts are saturated with a variety of miracles that Christ performed, not for wealth or political power, but that the world may be convinced that He was sent by the Father to bring salvation to mankind. As Isaiah prophesied, Jesus performed miracles of healing (Matthew 8:16-17). He cleansed a leper with the touch of His hand (Matthew 8:1-4) and healed all manner of sickness and disease with the word of His mouth (cf. John 4:46-54). One woman who had a hemorrhage for 12 years was healed immediately simply by touching the fringe of His garment (Luke 8:43-48). Similarly, on one occasion after Jesus came into the land of Gennesaret, all who were sick in all of the surrounding region came to Him, “and begged Him that they might only touch the hem of His garment. And as many as touched it were made perfectly well” (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 3:10). Generally speaking, “great multitudes came to Him, having with them the lame, blind, mute, maimed, and many others; and they laid them down at Jesus’ feet, and He healed them” (Matthew 15:30, emp. added). “He cured many of infirmities, afflictions…and to many blind He gave sight” (Luke 7:21, emp. added). Even Jesus’ enemies confessed to His “many signs” (John 11:47).

Jesus not only exhibited power over the sick and afflicted, He also showed His superiority over nature more than once. Whereas God’s prophet Moses turned water into blood by striking water with his rod (Exodus 7:20), Jesus simply willed water into wine/grape juice (oinos) at a wedding feast (John 2:1-11). He further exercised His power over the natural world by calming the Sea of Galilee during a turbulent storm (Matthew 8:23-27), by walking on water for a considerable distance to reach His disciples (Matthew 14:25-33), and by causing a fig tree to wither away at His command (Matthew 21:18-22). Jesus’ supernatural superiority over the physical world (which He created—Colossians 1:16) is exactly what we would expect from One Who claimed to be the Son of God.

Jesus performed miracles that demonstrated His power even over death. Recall that when John the Baptizer’s disciples came to Jesus inquiring about His identity, Jesus instructed them to tell John that “the dead are raised” (Matthew 11:5). The widow of Nain’s son had already been declared dead and placed in a casket when Jesus touched the open coffin and told him to “arise.” Immediately, “he who was dead sat up and began to speak” (Luke 7:14-15). Lazarus had already been dead and buried for four days by the time Jesus raised him from the dead (John 11:1-44). Such a great demonstration of power over death caused “many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did” to believe in Him (John 11:45).

Jesus Rose from the Dead!

Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead was the climax of all of His miracles, and serves as perhaps the most convincing miracle of all. Indeed,Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power…by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4, emp. added). The New Testament book of Acts stresses the fact of Jesus’ resurrection almost to the point of redundancy. Acts 1:22, as one example, finds Peter and the other apostles choosing an apostle who was to “become a witness” of the resurrection of Christ. Then, on the Day of Pentecost, Peter insisted in his sermon to the multitude that had assembled to hear him that “God raised up” Jesus and thus loosed Him from the pangs of death (Acts 2:24). And to make sure that his audience understood that it was a physical resurrection, Peter stated specifically that Jesus’ flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:31). His point was clear: Jesus had been physically raised from the dead and the apostles had witnessed the resurrected Christ. [Other passages in Acts which document that the central theme of the apostles’ preaching was the bodily resurrection of Christ include Acts 3:15; 3:26; 4:2,10,33; 5:30; 10:40-43; 13:30-37; 17:3,31-32.] Furthermore, the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 (especially verse 14) verifies that the preaching of the apostle Paul centered on the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus Worked Wonders that are Not Being Duplicated Today

What’s more, neither the modern alleged “faith healer” nor the 21^st-century scientist is duplicating the miracles that Jesus worked while on Earth 2,000 years ago. Pseudo-wonder workers today stage seemingly endless events where willing participants with supposed sicknesses appear and act as if they are being healed of their diseases by the laying on of hands. Nebulous aches and pains and dubious illnesses that defy medical substantiation are supposedly cured by prominent “faith healers” who simultaneously are building financial empires with the funds they receive from gullible followers. Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, and a host of others have made many millions of dollars off of viewers who naively send them money without stopping to consider the real differences between the miracles that Jesus worked and what they observe these men do today.

Jesus went about “healing every sickness and every disease” (Matthew 9:35). His miraculous wonders knew no limitations. He could cure anything. Luke, the learned physician (Colossians 4:14), recorded how He could restore a shriveled hand in the midst of His enemies (Luke 6:6-10) and heal a severed ear with the touch of His hand (Luke 22:51). He healed “many” of their blindness (Luke 7:21), including one man who had been born blind (John 9:1-7). He even raised the dead simply by calling out to them (John 11:43). What modern-day “spiritualist,” magician, or scientist has come close to doing these sorts of things that defy natural explanations? Who is going into schools for the blind and giving children their sight? Who is going to funerals or graveyards to raise the dead? These are the kinds of miracles that Jesus worked—supernatural feats that testify to His identity as the Heaven-sent Savior of the world.

Other Proofs of Jesus’ Deity

Jesus Never Sinned

When God instructed the Israelites to sacrifice the Passover Lamb, He explained that the animal must be without spot or blemish. The lamb could not be lame, have a disease, or be too old. Only a “perfect” sacrifice would be acceptable. As our Passover Lamb, Jesus provided the perfect sacrifice (1 Corinthians 5:7). His perfection was not outward in His flesh, but was the inward perfection of a sinless life. Peter, one of Jesus’ closest followers, wrote that Christians have not been redeemed “with corruptible things, like silver or gold…but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Peter 1:18-19). The Hebrews writer explains that Jesus was tempted in every point just as we are, yet Jesus remained “without sin” (4:15).

Though many of Jesus’ enemies who attacked Him while He was on Earth, and many who attack Him still today, have accused Jesus of sinning, they have failed miserably to give a single instance of wrong doing. Jesus’ bold and unanswered challenge continues to ring across the centuries: “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46). The answer to that question for almost 2,000 years has been a resounding, “No one!” Every honest-hearted person who looks at the personality of Jesus, and compares it to his or her own, must admit that the Christ possesses a confidence in His own sinlessness that is beyond that of any mere human. While it may be true that cult leaders or other arrogant humans claim to be sinless, having never made a moral misstep, it is rather easy to show actions in their lives that prove them to be wrong. In fact, is it not the moral leaders who admit their own weaknesses who are the most admired? Yet, Jesus could not admit any moral failings, because He had none. He explained to His enemies, “Yet you have not known Him [God], but I know Him. And if I say ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word” (John 8:55). Jesus’ moral perfection speaks volumes about His divinity.

Jesus Forgave Sins

Suppose a man who murdered his neighbor had lived a guilt-ridden life for years. Finally, he decided to tell one of his friends what he had done so many years before. The friend listened carefully and said, “You are a murderer, but I forgive you, don’t worry any more about it.” What good would it do for the man’s friend to forgive him? For a person who was unrelated to the crime, and has no official authority to forgive the crime, means nothing. We understand that forgiveness can only be offered by a person who has been wronged, or who has the official authority to forgive others. That is why the fact that Jesus presumed to forgive sins is so amazing.

In Mark 2, we find the story of a paralyzed man who was lowered into a room in front of Jesus. Jesus looked at the man and said, “Son, your sins are forgiven you” (Mark 2:5). Many of those within earshot of Jesus’ statement were appalled at His pronouncement. They demanded (byway of rhetorical question): “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7, emp. added). And they were right: no one but God can forgive sins, which was Jesus’ point. If He had the power to cause the paralyzed man to walk, He also had the power to forgive his sins. And if He had the power to forgive his sins, and no one can forgive sins but God, then Jesus must be God. The fact that Jesus demanded (and demonstrated) that He had the power personally to forgive any person of all sins, sets Him apart from any other character in human history.

Jesus Accepted Worship

The Bible reveals time and again that God alone is to be worshiped (Exodus 20:3-5; 2 Kings 17:34-36; Acts 14:8-18). The Bible also reveals that man must refrain from worshipping angels. When the apostle John fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who had revealed to him the message of Revelation, the angel responded, saying, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God” (Revelation 22:9, emp. added; cf. Revelation 19:10). Angels, idols, and humans are all unworthy of the reverent worship that is due only to God. As Jesus reminded Satan: “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve’” (Matthew 4:10, emp. added).

Unlike good men and good angels who have always rejected worship from humanity, Jesus accepted worship. If worship is to be reserved only for God, and Jesus, the One “who knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21), accepted worship, then the logical conclusion is that Jesus believed that He was Deity. Numerous times the Bible mentions that Jesus accepted worship from mankind. Matthew 14:33 indicates that those who saw Jesus walk on water “worshiped Him.” John 9:38 reveals that the blind man whom Jesus had healed, later confessed his belief in Jesus as the Son of God and “worshiped him.” After Mary Magdalene and the other women visited the empty tomb of Jesus, and the risen Christ appeared to them, “they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him” (Matthew 28:9). When Thomas first witnessed the resurrected Christ, he exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Later, when Jesus appeared to the apostles in Galilee, “they worshiped Him” on a mountain (Matthew 28:17). A few days after that, his disciples “worshiped Him” in Bethany (Luke 24:52). Time and again Jesus accepted the kind of praise from men that is due only to God. He never sought to correct His followers and redirect the worship away from Himself, as did the angel in Revelation or the apostle Paul in Acts 14. Nor did God strike Jesus with deadly worms for not redirecting the praise He received from men as He did Herod, who, when being hailed as a god, “did not give glory to God” (Acts 12:23).

Jesus once stated during His earthly ministry, “[A]ll should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23; cf. 5:18; 10:19-39). While on Earth, Jesus was honored on several occasions. His followers worshiped Him. They even worshiped Him after His ascension into heaven (Luke 24:52). Unlike good men and angels in Bible times who rejected worship, Jesus unhesitatingly received glory, honor, and praise from His creation. Truly, such worship is one of the powerful proofs of Jesus’ deity (cf. Revelation 5).

Did Jesus Deny He Was God?

In spite of all the evidence presented thus far, some have suggested that Jesus did not claim to be divine. They contend that He simply believed He was a prophet, but not the Messiah who was the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6). They rest their case on passages that, simply put, they have misinterpreted. Briefly notice the following two examples.

On one occasion, a wealthy young man ran to see Jesus and asked Him, “Good teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” Jesus responded by saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:17-18). According to the skeptical view, Jesus is denying that He is God. But a closer look at Jesus’ comment reveals just the opposite to be the case. Notice that Jesus never denies that He is the “good teacher.” He simply makes the comment that there is only one Who is truly good, and that is God. Thus, if the young man’s statement is true that Jesus is the “good teacher,” and there is only one Who is “good” and that is God, then Jesus must be God.

On another occasion, Jesus prayed to the Father: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). Supposedly, by calling the Father, “the only true God,” Jesus excluded Himself from being Deity. There are at least two main problems with this interpretation of Jesus’ statement. First, it would contradict numerous other passages in the Gospel of John. In fact, the primary point of the book is to testify to Jesus’ deity. Second, the verse can be better understood in light of the fact that Jesus was not contrasting Himself with the Father; He was contrasting the many false, pagan gods with Jehovah, the only true God. Furthermore, if Jesus’ reference to the Father being “the only true God” somehow excludes Jesus from being Deity, then (to be consistent) Jesus also must be disqualified from being man’s Savior. Jehovah said: “Besides me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:11; cf. Hosea 13:4; Jude 25). Yet, Paul and Peter referred to Jesus as our “Savior” several times in their inspired writings (Ephesians 5:23; Philippians 3:20; 2 Timothy 1:10; 2 Peter 1:1,11; 2:20; etc.). Also, if Jesus is excluded from Godhood (based on a misinterpretation of John 17:3), then, pray tell, must God the Father be excluded from being man’s Lord? To the church at Ephesus, Paul wrote that there is “one Lord” (4:5), and, according to Jude 4 “our only Owner and Lord” is “Jesus Christ.” Yet, in addition to Jesus being called Lord throughout the New Testament, so is God the Father (Matthew 11:25; Luke 1:32) and the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). Obviously, when the Bible reveals that there is only one God, one Savior, one Lord, one Creator (Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3), etc., reason and revelation demand that we understand the inspired writers to be excluding everyone and everything—other than the members of the Godhead.

Conclusion

Almost 2,000 years ago, a zealous Jew by the name of Saul fought against Christianity with all his might. He believed Jesus Christ to be a fraud and His followers to be deluded. He chased them from city to city, imprisoning them, and participating in their deaths. Then Saul saw “the light.” Jesus appeared to Him and Saul realized the horrible mistake He had made. Saul’s honest heart was so impressed by the evidence available to him that he converted to Christianity and became a powerful force in spreading the Gospel.

And so today, those who come to the person of Jesus Christ with open and honest hearts find powerful evidence to believe He is God. He fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. He performed many different kinds of miracles to validate His message. He predicted His own death and resurrection. He accepted worship. He lived a morally perfect, sinless life. And he boldly demanded that He had the power on Earth to forgive sins. When a person follows all of this evidence to its correct conclusion, he or she will bow before Jesus the Christ and proclaim, just as the apostle Thomas did, “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28).

[NOTE: For more information about the nature of Christ, see our book Behold! The Lamb of God or visit the “Deity of Christ” section of our Web site www.apologeticspress.org. Also, to learn what the Bible teaches regarding how to receive the free, gracious gift of salvation that Jesus made possible, see our free e-book Receiving the Gift of Salvation at apologeticspress.org/PDF-books.aspx.]

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2015), “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God,” Reason & Revelation, 35(1):1-5,8-11, January, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5089&topic=102.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Reason & Revelation, 34[10]:110-113,116-119, October, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1175.

The post Reasons to Believe in Jesus appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, “Behold, I have come—in the volume of the book it is written of Me—to do Your will, O God” (Hebrews 10:5-7, emp. added).

The Bible teaches that Deity came to the Earth in human flesh in order to offer Himself as an atonement for the sins of the human race (Galatians 2:20; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14; et al.). The book of Hebrews was written in the first century A.D. But the Psalms were written several hundred years before that, with Psalm 40, written presumably by David, a thousand years earlier. That means that a thousand years separates the prediction from the fulfillment. Even the most liberal treatment of the Psalms places their composition prior to the first century A.D. The Greek Bible is generally believed to have been completed in the third century B.C., which means the Psalms had to have been completed prior to that time.

But how detailed was this prediction? Did it contain vague generalities and ambiguous phrases that can be bent to refer to just about anything? By no means. Among the details of the prediction, observe that the passage represents God (the Father) as being responsible for preparing/providing a body for Jesus (the Son) to inhabit. This body would replace the animal sacrifices and offerings contained in the Old Testament economy for dealing with sin. Such predictions are hardly vague or ambiguous. In fact, they are extremely specific and complex.

One of the great marvels of the Christian religion is the virgin conception in which Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, enabling her to conceive a child (Matthew 1:18-25). That child was Jesus Christ who vacated the heavenly realm temporarily to fulfill the magnificent, incomprehensible purpose of sacrificing Himself for lost humanity (Philippians 2:6-8). A physical, fleshly body was necessary to accomplish this purpose. Hence, the need to be “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4; cf. Genesis 3:15) by which Deity could inhabit a human body. Observe that the physical body was genetically derived from David via his descendent Mary (Luke 3:23,31; Romans 1:3)—in fulfillment of another predictive prophecy (1 Samuel 7:12). But Jesus Himself is not to be confused with His physical body. Jesus Himself preceded the preparation and formation of the physical body that He inhabited in first century Palestine. Jesus Himself has always existed since He is Deity and eternal (Colossians 1:16; 2:9). Jesus Himself participated in the creation of the Universe (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:17).

How in the world could any mere human have predicted, hundreds of years in advance, that a person would be born who, unlike all other humans ever born, was in fact God inhabiting a physical body? No mere human could have predicted such an event. Hence, the Bible bears the attributes of a supernatural origin.

The post Inspired Prediction is Proof of Bible Inspiration appeared first on Apologetics Press.

O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether…. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell [sheol], behold, You are there (139:1-4,6-8).

The Bible declares that God “knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm 44:21), that His eyes “are in every place” (Proverbs 15:3), and that “His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5). Simply put, God “knows all things” (1 John 3:20). He has perfect knowledge of the past, the present, and even the future. Job was right to ask the rhetorical question, “Can anyone teach God knowledge?” (21:22).

God’s Omniscience and the Divine Inspiration of the Bible

God’s omniscience and proof that the Bible is the Word of God are inextricably woven together. The main, overarching reason that the Bible can be demonstrated to be of divine origin is because the writers were correct in everything they wrote—about the past, the present, and the future. Such a feat is humanly impossible. “With God,” however, “all things are possible” (Mark 10:27). An omniscient, omnipotent God could produce written revelation for His human creation that was flawless in its original production. He could guide uneducated men to write about events that occurred thousands of years before their time with complete accuracy. He could “move” (otherwise) ordinary men (2 Peter 1:20-21) to write flawlessly about any number of contemporary people, places, and things. He could even guide men to write about future events with perfect accuracy. He could—and He did.

Mankind can reasonably come to the conclusion that mere human beings did not pen Scripture because human beings are not omniscient. An uninspired person cannot, for example, foretell the future. Yet the inspired Bible writers did just that—time and again (e.g., Ezekiel 26:1-14,19-21; see www.apologeticspress.org for more information). Is it not logical, then, to conclude that the omniscient Ruler of the Universe gave us the Bible? Interestingly, though the atheist does not accept the Bible as “God-breathed,” even he understands that if the Bible writers predicted the future accurately, then a supernatural agent must be responsible for the production of Scripture (see Butt and Barker, 2009, pp. 50-51).

Is There Another Possibility?

Some might surmise that a Bible writer practicing pagan divination could also have accurately recorded what would happen in the distant future (in Tyre, Babylon, Jerusalem, etc.) because Satan or some wicked spirit-being revealed the information to him. Such a conclusion, however, is unjustifiable for a number of reasons:

• First, the prophets condemned all sorts of witchcraft, including divination and soothsaying (Deuteronomy 18:9-14; Jeremiah 27:9-29:9). Thus, they would be condemning themselves if they were actually diviners and soothsayers.
• Second, since God, by His very definition, is the only omniscient, omnipotent Being (cf. 1 John 4:4), neither the created and fallen devil nor any other non-eternal spirit-being (Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 2:4) can choose to know whatever he wants. He may be able to acquire knowledge quickly from other beings or from personal experience, but ultimately, wicked spirit-beings can only have knowledge of what the Creator allows them to know (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:11). If, for example, a wicked spirit-being knew of future events, it would be due to the omniscient Ruler of the heaven and Earth granting him such knowledge for His own purposes. “Who is he who speaks and it comes to pass, when the Lord has not commanded it?” (Lamentations 3:37). Simply put, no one accurately foretells the future unless God informs him of it. [NOTE: Diviners may occasionally and vaguely predict something that comes to pass, but such guesswork or weathermen-like predictions are far from the revealed, supernatural foreknowledge of God, which was revealed during Bible times to His true spokesmen.]
• Third, God revealed throughout Scripture that those who accurately foretell the future are genuine prophets of God. Jeremiah wrote: “When the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent” (28:9). On the other hand, those who prophesy things that do not come to pass, “the Lord has not sent;” “they prophesy falsely” (Jeremiah 28:15; 29:8-9). “‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). If non-God-inspired diviners could actually have foretold the future by the power of some wicked spirit-being, then how could the honest-hearted person ever know for sure what and who to believe and obey? Concluding that pagan diviners have been given power by wicked spirit-beings to flawlessly foretell the future contradicts what the true, inspired prophets of God taught, and prevents truth-seekers from being able to know truth.

Conclusion

God Almighty is the only omniscient, omnipotent Being. Only He knows everything. Ultimately, He alone knows the future—the revelation of such Divine thoughts being one of the chief ways man has logically concluded that a particular message was actually God-inspired. It seems quite dangerous to conclude that fallen spirit-beings know the future and have revealed such miraculous information to wicked diviners. Yes, uninspired fortunetellers have doubtlessly been tempted and influenced throughout the ages by powerful forces of darkness, but such beings are non-omniscient “deceiving spirits” (1 Timothy 4:1), who take after their “father, the devil,” “a liar” in whom “there is no truth” (John 8:44).

*Originally published in Gospel Advocate, March 2015, 157[3]:27-28.

Reference

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post God, Prophecy, and Miraculous Knowledge appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In a way, Eichenwald’s attack on the Bible is reassuring to the Bible believer for the simple reason that Eichenwald uses information that has been refuted literally for centuries. His article consists of warmed-over skepticism that has so often been easily refuted; we at Apologetics Press already have articles on virtually every subject he mentions (www.apologeticspress.org). In another way, however, his article is troubling. Why, if his arguments are so easily answered, does the author feel that they will resonate with his audience or cause others to question the Bible? The most reasonable answer seems to be that he knows his audience is ignorant of the responses to his attacks. The Proverbs writer once stated, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). To those who have not given these matters much thought, Eichenwald’s information may seem legitimate and may cause one to doubt the Bible’s inspiration. However, when one examines this information, it will be seen for what it is—a thinly veiled, inept attack against the inspired Word of God.

The “Contradictions” in the Bible

The Birth of Jesus

One of the clearest examples of Eichenwald’s errant thinking is seen in his repetitious claim that the Bible is “loaded with contradictions.” In his section titled “No Three Kings,” he contends that the accounts of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. He writes: “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. No wise men showed up for the birth…. No angel appearing to Mary…. Not born in a manger….” Then he asks the reader: “Not the version you are familiar with…? You may not recognize this version, but it is a story of Jesus’ birth found in the Gospels. Two Gospels—Matthew and Luke—tell the story of when Jesus was born, but in quite different ways. Contradictions abound.”

Is it true that the versions of Jesus’ “birth” are filled with contradictions? Not at all. Let us see how he proceeds to fabricate contradictions that are not there. First, notice how he begins his section: “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem.” Note that he did not provide a verse reference for that claim—for good reason: there is no Bible passage that claims that Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem. The account in Luke makes it clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (2:4) and, contrary to Eichenwald’s charge, in a manger (2:7,16)—i.e., a barn-animal feeding trough. Did an angel appear to Mary? The Gospels make no such claim, and therefore, cannot be said to contradict one another. An angel appeared to shepherds in the field at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8-13) and to Mary before Jesus was conceived (Luke 1:26-31), but this does not contradict any other passage. Did wise men come to the birth? When we turn to Matthew’s account, the chapter begins its narrative about the wise men: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King…” (2:1). How long after Jesus was born in Bethlehem? The text does not say. In fact, king Herod asked the wise men what time Jesus’ star appeared (vs. 7), and based on that information, the evil king issued a decree to kill the young males in Bethlehem who were from “two years old and under” (vs. 16). Obviously, between the time the star appeared, and the time the wise men arrived, several months had elapsed. In fact, from Herod’s calculations to kill two year olds, it could have been as much as 18 months to two years. So, the story in Matthew 2 is not even a “birth” story. The Bible makes no claim that wise men were at Jesus’ birth. The only contradiction that can be levied concerning the appearance of the wise men is not a contradiction in the Bible, but a contradiction between what the Bible says and what people have erroneously claimed the Bible says—as with the case of the appearance of the angel to Mary.

Eichenwald has committed the very mistake that he accuses so many evangelicals of committing. Early in the article he bemoans the fact that many people who call themselves Christians do not even know what the text says. Sadly, he is right. Many Christians do not study the Bible as they should. He insists that his article is “designed to shine a light on a book that has been abused by people who claim to revere it but don’t read it.” Ironically, Eichenwald’s attack is filled with heat, but very little light. His examples of obvious “contradictions” in the “birth” accounts of Jesus are attacks against information that is not even in the Bible. In an article that purports to straighten out those who are biblically illiterate, to boldly proclaim that the Bible states that “Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem”—when the Bible nowhere makes such a statement—is inexcusable, slipshod scholarship. [For more information, see the A.P. article: “When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?” (Lyons, 2011).]

In addition, Eichenwald claims that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke trace Jesus’ bloodline through Joseph, “Except…Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father…. Mary, the mother of Jesus, can be the only parent with a bloodline to David, but neither Gospel makes mention of that.” This allegation has been decisively answered in the A.P. article titled, “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke.” Here is the short answer to this alleged discrepancy:

Here is the precise purpose of Matthew’s genealogy: it demonstrated Jesus’ legal right to inherit the throne of David—a necessary prerequisite to authenticating His Messianic claim. However, an equally critical credential was His blood/physical descent from David—a point that could not be established through Joseph since “after His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). This feature of Christ’s Messiahship was established through His mother Mary, who was also a blood descendant of David (Luke 1:30-32). Both the blood of David and the throne of David were necessary variables to qualify and authenticate Jesus as the Messiah (Miller, 2003, emp. in orig.).

Isn’t it interesting that Eichenwald left out the fact that Luke’s genealogy mentions Jesus “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:24)? By using the phrase “as was supposed,” Luke demonstrates that Jesus was not the actual son of Joseph, just the perceived one. In addition, the Newsweek author neglected to mention that in Matthew 1:16, when the text says that “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,” the word “whom” (in the Greek) is in the feminine form. It could only be referring to Mary. Thus, neither of the genealogies states that Jesus was born to Joseph.

Alleged Contradictions in the Resurrection Accounts

Eichenwald continues his attack on the Bible, stating that the “stories in the four Gospels of Jesus’ death and resurrection differ as well.” He asserts: “And who went to anoint Jesus in his tomb? In Matthew, it was Mary and another woman named Mary, and an angel met them there. In Mark, it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, and a young man met them. In John, it was Mary alone; no one met her.” Supposedly, these “differing” accounts are so blatantly contradictory that no further examination need be applied to them. When we apply proper reasoning to this allegation, however, we see there are no contradictions.

For instance, what if John mentions one Mary while Matthew mentions Mary and another woman named Mary? This difference is not a contradiction. John would have had to qualify his statement by saying that “only” Mary or Mary “alone” went to the tomb. Did you notice that Eichenwald includes the word “alone” with Mary, but the biblical text never does? Just because one writer gives additional or supplemental information does not make him contradict the other account. [For more information, see the A.P. article titled, “The Resurrection Narratives” (Butt, 2002).] Consider Eichenwald’s own statement that at the Council of Nicaea, “Constantine arrived wearing jewels and gold on his scarlet robe and pearls on his crown.” Suppose that another person were to say that Constantine arrived with numerous courtiers and was wearing boots. Would that statement be a contradiction? Not in any way. Such accusations barely deserve to be answered—if it were not for their prevalence.

Two Accounts of Creation?

Eichenwald further suggests that “biblical scholars have concluded that two Jewish sects wrote many of the books. Each prepared its version of the Old Testament, and the two were joined together without any attempt to reconcile the many contradictions” (2014). Once again, the Newsweek writer conveniently mentions only those “biblical scholars” who happen to agree with him. What about the thousands of scholars that do not agree with this specious position? As an example of these “doublets,” he states: “The next time someone tells you the biblical story of Creation is true, ask that person, ‘Which one?’ Few of the Christian faithful seem to know the Bible contains multiple creation stories…. Careful readers have long known that the two stories contradict each other.” In truth, careful readers have long known just the opposite. As Wayne Jackson concluded: “When the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 have been considered carefully, one thing is clear: an objective evaluation reveals no discrepancies, nor is a dual authorship to be inferred. Devout students of the Bible should not be disturbed by the fanciful, ever-changing theories of the liberal critics” (See the A.P. article, “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” [Jackson, 1991; Cf. McGarvey, 1910, p. 66]). [NOTE: In his section dealing with such doublets, Eichenwald mentions that “biblical scholars” have concluded that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. The evidence, however, reveals that Moses certainly did write these books. See the A.P. article “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True” (Lyons, 2003; cf. McGarvey, 1902).]

The article also uses the Flood story as an example of doublets causing contradictions. Eichenwald says the “water flooded the earth for 40 days (Genesis 7:17), or 150 days (Genesis 7:24).” His careless use of the Scripture is painful to endure. The text does not say in Genesis 7:17 that the Flood stopped after 40 days. It simply details things that occurred at that time, such as the waters lifting the ark off the ground. The text in Genesis 7:24 specifically says that at the end of 150 days the water began to decrease. The previous 7:17 says nothing about the complete duration of the Flood or when the waters stopped rising. [NOTE: For an exhaustive list of answers to these types of alleged contradictions, see A.P.’s Web site category titled “Alleged Discrepancies.”]

Sunday As the Christian Day of Worship

The title of the Newsweek article, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” explains much about the author’s method of bashing. He approaches the subject in light of the idea that many Christians do not read or understand the Bible. One of the author’s grievous faults, however, is that it is apparent that he does not read or understand the Bible either, and he writes in a way that betrays this fact. For instance, when discussing the Christian day of worship, Eichenwald suggests that Constantine was responsible for establishing it as Sunday instead of the Sabbath (or Saturday). He alleges:

Things that are today accepted without much thought were adopted or reinforced at Nicaea. For example, the Old Testament was clear in declaring that God rested on the seventh day, making it the Sabbath. The seventh day of the week is Saturday, the day of Jewish worship and rest. (Jesus himself invoked the holiness of the Jewish Sabbath.) The word Sunday does not appear in the Bible, either as the Sabbath or anything else. But four years before Nicaea, Constantine declared Sunday as a day of rest in honor of the sun God…. Many theologians and Christian historians believe that it was at this moment, to satisfy Constantine and his commitment to his empire’s many sun worshippers, that the Holy Sabbath was moved by one day, contradicting the clear words of what ultimately became the Bible (2014).

Notice the author’s tactic. First, he says that both the Old Testament and Jesus invoked the Sabbath (our Saturday) as holy. Then he states that the Bible never even uses the word Sunday. And, lastly, he implies that Christians were not “officially” worshiping on this day prior to Constantine, but that Constantine changed the day of Christian worship to Sunday.

Eichenwald’s assertions regarding the day of Christian worship contradict both biblical and historical fact—and are easily answered. First, he confuses the issue when he says that the word “Sunday” is not even used in the Bible, since none of our modern names for the days of the week are used in the Bible. The term “Saturday” does not appear. You will not read the terms “Friday” or “Monday” in the original text either. Such is to be expected. The real question is: did the writers of the Bible have their own designation for the day that we call Sunday? Of course they did; it was called “the first day of the week,” Saturday (or Sabbath), being the last or seventh day of their week. We could ask, then, do we read about anything in the New Testament happening on the first day of the week? Absolutely. In fact, Jesus rose early “after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Christians were to come together to give money to support the church’s work every “first day of the week” in the city of Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:2). And the book of Acts explains that the Christians gathered to partake of the Lord’s Supper (referred to as “breaking bread”) on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

Early Christian writers that lived in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries verify this truth. As Eric Lyons wrote in the A.P. article titled “Did Paul Want Christians to Come Together on Saturday or Sunday?”:

Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Magnesians (believed to be penned around A.D. 110) how Christians “have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day” (1:62, emp. added; cf. Revelation 1:5). And, in chapter 67 of his First Apology (written around A.D. 150), Justin Martyr noted how Christians would gather together “on the day called Sunday” to read the writings of the apostles and prophets, instruct, pray, give, and eat of bread and wine (2005; see also the A.P. article, “The First Day of the Week” [Lyons, 2006]).

Biblical scholar Robert Milligan wrote, “That the primitive Christians were wont to celebrate the Lord’s Supper on every first day of the week is evident…. During the first two centuries the practice of weekly communion was universal, and it was continued in the Greek church till the seventh century” (1975, p. 440).

In addition to these facts, Eichenwald seems to be totally unaware of the overwhelming testimony of the New Testament that the Old Testament has been fulfilled and removed. Yes, the Old Testament mandated worship on the Sabbath—for the Jews; but Christ’s death and resurrection changed the law. As the Hebrews writer so concisely observed, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete” (8:13). And again Paul wrote that the Old Law, “was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:25). Christians no longer sacrifice animals as the Israelites did, they no longer celebrate the Passover, and they no longer hallow Saturday as the Holy Day. Those are vestiges of the Old Law that have been removed. For Eichenwald to misunderstand such clear and repetitive New Testament teaching is disappointing to say the least. The testimony of the New Testament and early Christian writers proves that Sunday was the Christian day of worship centuries before Constantine arrived on the scene.

Jesus and Family Values

In the first paragraph of his article, Eichenwald caricatures certain “Christian” fanatics and caustically attacks them, demanding that “they are God’s fraud’s, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch.” As we have seen throughout this review, Eichenwald is often guilty of the very tactics he condemns others for using. As an example, consider his statements concerning Jesus and family values. He wrote:

Some of the contradictions are conflicts between what evangelicals consider absolute and what Jesus actually said. For example, evangelicals are always talking about family values. But to Jesus, family was an impediment to reaching God. In the Gospel of Matthew, he states, “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (2014).

Talk about cafeteria style Bible interpretation! Eichenwald conveniently fails to include the fact that one of Jesus’ dying statements was to ensure that His mother was taken care of after His death (John 19:26-27). He leaves out the fact that Jesus’ apostles insisted that husbands are called to love their wives and give their very lives to protect them (Ephesians 5:25). In addition, children are to honor their parents (Ephesians 6:1), fathers are to train and discipline their children (Ephesians 6:4; Hebrews 12:7-11), families are to financially support their own (1 Timothy 5:8), and wives are to love their husbands and their children (Titus 2:4). In addition, Jesus insisted that God is like a loving Father who longs for the return of His children (Luke 15:11-32). It is only possible to question Jesus’ and the apostles’ family values if a handful of verses are ripped from their context.

What is Jesus really saying when He mentions that His followers are to “forsake” families or homes for His cause? The easy-to-understand message here is that a relationship with Jesus must be the most important relationship in the life of His followers. That means if a spouse were to demand that a Christian participate in pagan idol worship or the spouse was going to leave, then with much sadness but firm resolve, the Christian should let the spouse leave and not join in the pagan idol worship. If Hindu parents insist that if their college son becomes a Christian they will disown him, that son should follow Christ and be disowned by his parents. We can all understand that a person should never commit murder, theft, or adultery to preserve a close relationship with family or friends. Jesus was merely stating that the relationship with Him is the most important. [See the A.P. article “Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?” Butt, 2004).]

Has the Bible Been Corrupted?

One of the longest sections of the Newsweek article deals with the idea that the Bible has been corrupted over time, that we do not really know which books belong in the Bible, and that translation errors are so plentiful that we do not have the original message. Yet these allegations have been confronted and refuted time and time again. [Cf. A.P.’s soon-to-be released video series titled, “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” in which such assertions are debunked.] Many books over the years have masterfully answered the skeptic in this regard, including such volumes as J.W. McGarvey’s Evidences of Christianity, F.F. Bruce’s The Canon of Scripture, Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament, and a host of others. The Newsweek article manifests abysmal, inexcusable ignorance of the long established facts of the matter.

For example, Eichenwald states that we do not have the original message of the Bible because the originals are lost and the translations are filled with errors and variations. He claims that

no television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times (2014).

Supposedly, according to Eichenwald, since we don’t have the originals, and our translations are from copies that were written in other languages, there is no way we have actually read the Bible.

This naïve, uninformed view of message transmission cannot be maintained in light of the evidence. Are we to believe that since we have never seen Eichenwald’s original article that he personally typed or penned, then we cannot have the information he intended to present? Is it true that since some people read the article on-line, but others in printed form, then the original message is hopelessly lost? Is it true that anyone who reads the article in a language other than English has never really read the article, since it would be a translation? What Eichenwald and other skeptics are attempting to do is suggest that it is impossible to pass information accurately from one language to another, or from one printed page to another; but that suggestion is simply not true. If it is possible for a person to copy accurately a message once, it is possible to do so twice, and so on.

When we approach the Bible, we must simply ask, “Do we have the message that the original authors penned?” When we explore that question, we discover that the books of the New Testament are the most extensively verified books of ancient history. If we deny the Bible is verified, then we are saying that it is impossible for any information to be conveyed accurately from the past to the present. The skeptics’ attack is not against the Bible, per se; it is against the idea that we can know anything from ancient history. If it is possible to know what any writer has ever penned, then the skeptic’s accusations against the Bible cannot be sustained. When Eichenwald states, “And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones,” he implies there are so many variations in the manuscripts that the original message has been lost. This misleading exaggeration is a typical ploy by those who wish to discredit the integrity of the text of the Bible. What’s more, when he states, “Scribes added whole sections of the New Testament, and removed words and sentences that contradicted emerging orthodox beliefs,” he unwittingly admits that scholars have been able to identify and isolate those very words and sentences! In actuality, those manuscripts wherein scribes manifested doctrinal bias are in the small minority, do not represent the mass of manuscripts, and are identifiable.

Due to length constraints, a detailed analysis of textual variants is beyond the scope of this article. However, the sincere inquirer may easily access the analyses that have been made on each passage. For example, for a thorough discussion of the last 12 verses of Mark, see Miller, 2005; Scrivener, 1861, pp. 429ff; et al. For a discussion of the manuscript support pertaining to the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), see Scrivener, pp. 439-443; Woods, 1989, p. 162; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16; Metzger, 1971, pp. 219-222; Jackson, 2011, p. 161; et al. For 1 John 5:7, see Woods, 1962, pp. 324-326; Metzger, 1971, pp. 716-718. For Luke 22:17-20, see Metzger, 1971, pp. 173-177. Any standard text on textual criticism discusses these and many other variants (e.g., Aland and Aland, 1987). If the reader desires the truth regarding the authenticity and integrity of the Bible, the evidence is available—if the individual is willing to spend the time and effort to weigh that evidence and arrive at the proper conclusion (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1).

What Eichenwald fails to divulge are several facts that completely undermine and discredit his attack on the integrity and transmission of the Bible:

1. God knew that the original autographs would not survive, and that His Word would have to be transmitted through the centuries via copies. The transmission process is sufficiently flexible for God’s Word to be conveyed adequately by uninspired, imperfect copyists.
2. We know how the original New Testament books read because we have three surviving classes of evidence by which to reconstruct the original New Testament: Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic citations.
3. The current number of Greek manuscript copies containing all or part of the New Testament now stands at 5,795. This amount of manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author.
4. The time between the writing of the original books of the New Testament and the earliest surviving copies is relatively brief.
5. Although no two manuscript copies agree in every detail, the degree of accuracy achieved by most scribes was remarkably high. The vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake.
6. Suitable solutions to these differences are detectable. Even if they weren’t, the original reading is one of the extant options. And even those variants that some might deem “doctrinally significant” pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness/certainty is unquestioned.
7. We can confidently affirm that we have 999/1000^ths of the original New Testament intact. The remaining 1/1000^th pertains to inconsequential details.

These observations have been verified by the greatest textual critics and linguistic scholars of the past two centuries. Their conclusions have not become outdated, but remain as valid today as when first formulated. If the integrity of the text of the Bible was fully authenticated in their day, it remains so today. Consider the following statements by some of these world class authorities.

Scholarly Verification of the Purity of the New Testament Text

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) was a biblical scholar who taught Greek at the University of Edinburgh and the University of Leeds, chaired the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, received an honorary Doctor of Divinity from Aberdeen University, and served as the Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester. He wrote over 40 books and served as Editor of The Evangelical Quarterly and Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Bruce declared: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the N.T. affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1975, pp. 19-20, emp. added). As if anticipating the Newsweek article, he also stated:

In view of theinevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament (1963, p. 178, emp. added).

Bruce further insisted:

Something more ought to be said, and said with emphasis. We have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims to be regarded as best representatives of the original New Testament. But there are not wide divergencies between these types, of a kind that could make any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ…. If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice (1963, p. 189, emp. added).

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was also a scholar of Greek, the New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism, serving as professor at Princeton Theological Seminary for 46 years. He was a recognized authority on the Greek text of the New Testament. He served on the board of the American Bible Society, was the driving force of the United Bible Societies’ series of Greek Texts, and served as Chairperson of the NRSV Bible Committee. He is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20^th century. Metzger stated:

…even if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers (as quoted in Strobel, 1998, p. 59).

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was a British bishop, biblical scholar and theologian, serving as Bishop of Durham and holding the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge. His colleague, Fenton John Anthony Hort(1828-1892), was an Irish theologian who served as a Professor at Cambridge. Together, they pioneered the widely recognized Greek text The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. They are still considered to be renowned textual critics. They forthrightly asserted:

With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament…there is no variation or other ground of doubt…. [T]he amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament…we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic’s labours (1882, pp. 2-3, emp. added).

These peerless scholars also insisted: “[I]n the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writing” (p. 278, emp. added). They add: “The books of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak to us in every important respect in language identical  with that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written” (p. 284).

Benjamin Warfield (1851-1921) was a Professor of Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He is considered to be the last of the great Princeton theologians. In his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Warfield insightfully observed:

[S]uch has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivalled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes…. The great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation (1886, pp. 12-13,14, emp. added).

Richard Bentley (1662-1742) was an English classical scholar, critic, and theologian who served as Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and was the first Englishman to be ranked with the great heroes of classical learning. He was well-known for his literary and textual criticism, even called the “Founder of Historical Philology,” and credited with the creation of the English school of Hellenism. Here are his comments on the integrity of the New Testament text:

[T]he real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. ‘Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them (1725, pp. 68-69, emp. added).

Sir Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952) was a widely respected, imminent British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar who occupied a series of posts at the British Museum. He served as President of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921 and President of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. He made a lifelong study of the Bible as an historical text. In his masterful Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon affirmed:

One word of warning…must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading…might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world (1895, pp. 10-11, emp. added).

In his monumental The Bible and Archaeology, Kenyon further stated:

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established (1940, pp. 288-289, emp. added).

Indeed, “the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear of hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, faithfully handed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (1895, pp. 10-11).

Samuel Davidson (1806-1898) was an Irish biblical scholar who served as Professor of Biblical Criticism at Royal College of Belfast and Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Lancashire Independent College at Manchester. He authored many books on the text of the Bible. Referring to the work of textual criticism, Davidson concluded:

The effect of it has been to establish the genuineness of the New Testament text in all important particulars. No new doctrines have been elicited by its aid; nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from their obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected.… [I]n the records of inspiration there is no material corruption…. [D]uring the lapse of many centuries the text of Scripture has been preserved with great care…. Empowered by the fruits of criticism, we may well say that the Scriptures continue essentially the same as when they proceeded from the writers themselves (1853, 2:147, emp. added).

Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891) was a prominent and important New Testament textual critic of the 19^th century. Having graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, he taught classics at several schools in southern England. His expertise in textual criticism is self-evident in that he served as a member of the English New Testament Revision Committee (Revised Version), edited the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis and several editions of the Greek New Testament, collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus, and was the first to distinguish the Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text. In his A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Scrivener admitted:

[O]ne great truth is admitted on all hands—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration…. Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people (1861, pp. 6-7, emp. added).

J.W. McGarvey (1829-1911) was a minister, author, educator, and biblical scholar. He taught 46 years in the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky, serving as President from 1895 to 1911. He summarized the point: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1974, p. 17).

Elias Boudinot (1740-1821) was a prominent Founding Father of America. He served in the Continental Congress (1778-1779, 1781-1784), as its President in 1782-1783, and was the founding president of the American Bible Society. In his refutation of Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, Boudinot explained: “[T]he facts upon which the Christian religion is founded, have a stronger proof, than any facts at such a distance of time; and that the books which convey them down to us, may be proved to be uncorrupted and authentic, with greater strength than any other writings of equal antiquity” (1801, p. 239, emp. added). This Founding Father’s view of the purity of the text of the New Testament was the view of the vast majority of the Founders.

With all the kindness one can muster, these imminent, well-studied, competent, peerless scholars, whose expertise in the field of Textual Criticism is unsurpassed, are far more qualified and accurate in their assessment of the credibility, integrity, and authenticity of the biblical text than the author of the Newsweek article.

conclusion

Here is the deeply disturbing predicament of our day:

• Outstanding scholarship of bygone days fully demonstrated the authenticity and integrity of the text of the Bible, forcefully refuting the skeptics to the extent that the skeptics gained little traction in western civilization. The textual evidence that has come to light in recent decades has added even more weight to the arguments for biblical integrity.
• But in recent years, such honest biblical scholarship has been succeeded by those who do not possess the same burning desire to seek the truth, but instead want to maintain their own infidelic agenda.
• These biased unbelievers have the brazen effrontery to foist false information upon their unsuspecting victims who are completely unaware of the facts and ill-equipped to handle the onslaught.
• Due to the propaganda to which the average citizen has been subjected (in an education system that long ago abandoned the pursuit of the truth)—professors and magazine writers know they will go largely unchallenged by the bulk of society.

Indeed, it is unfortunate that such articles as Eichenwald’s even need answering. There was a time when this type of anemic propaganda against the Bible would have immediately been dismissed for the slanted, biased, foolishness that it is. IfChristians will arm themselves with the evidence, and “always be ready to give a defense” to those who are attacking the Truth, God may grant that we see those times again. [NOTE: Those who are fearful that the integrity of the text of the Bible is compromised by the reality of textual variants need to be reminded that the world’s foremost textual critics have demonstrated that currently circulating copies of the New Testament do not differ substantially from the original (see Miller, 2005a, “Is Mark…,” 25[12]:89-95; Miller, 2010).]

REFERENCEs

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland (1987), The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Bentley, Richard (1725), Remarks Upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (Cambridge: Cornelius Crownfield).

Boudinot, Elias (1801), The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia, PA: Asbury Dickins), http://www.google.com/books?id=XpcPAAAAIAAJ.

Bruce, F.F. (1963), The Books and the Parchments (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell).

Bruce, F.F. (1975 reprint), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Butt, Kyle (2002), “The Resurrection Narratives,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=294.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Hate Your Parents or Love Them?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=781.

Davidson, Samuel (1853), A Treatise on Biblical Criticism (Boston: Gould & Lincoln).

Eichenwald, Kurt (2014), “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,”  http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html.

Ignatius (1973 reprint), “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jackson, Wayne (1991), “Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131.

Jackson, Wayne (2011), A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier).

Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), “The First Apology of Justin,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1895), Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode).

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row).

Lyons, Eric (2003), “Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch—Tried and True,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=36.

Lyons, Eric (2005), “Did Paul Want Christians to Come Together on Saturday or Sunday?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=23&article=1575.

Lyons, Eric (2006), “The First Day of the Week,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022.

Lyons, Eric (2011), “When Did Jesus Go to Egypt?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4132.

McGarvey, J.W. (1902), The Authorship of Deuteronomy (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press).

Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies).

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=932.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25(12):89-95, December, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.

Milligan, Robert (1975 reprint), The Scheme of Redemption (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Scrivener, F.H.A. (1861), A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co.).

Strobel, Lee (1998), The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Warfield, Benjamin B. (1886), An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton).

Westcott, B.F. and F.J.A. Hort (1882), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers).

Woods, Guy (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Woods, Guy (1962), A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

The post Newsweek Article’s Attack on the Bible: So Misinformed It’s a Sin appeared first on Apologetics Press.

In truth, a multitude of accurate, predictive prophecies fill the pages of the Bible. This article will deal with only one, which is found in Daniel chapter 8. In that passage, the prophet Daniel relates to his readers the following prophetic vision:

In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me—to me, Daniel—after the one that appeared to me the first time. I saw in the vision, and it so happened while I was looking, that I was in Shushan, the citadel, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision that I was by the River Ulai. Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great. And as I was considering, suddenly a male goat came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. Then he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand. Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land. And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host; and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed” (Daniel 8:1-14).

After narrating what he saw in the vision, Daniel wondered what the dream meant. While in this state of contemplation, the angel Gabriel approached Daniel to explain the dream. Gabriel proceeded to offer an accurate interpretation of the events that Daniel saw:

The ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia. And the male goat is the kingdomof Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors have reached their fullness, a king shall arise, having fierce features, who understands sinister schemes. His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; he shall destroy fearfully, and shall prosper and thrive; he shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people. Through his cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;and he shall exalt himself in his heart. He shall destroy many in their prosperity. He shall even rise against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without human means.And the vision of the evenings and mornings which was told is true; therefore seal up the vision, for it refers to many days in the future (Daniel 8:20-26).

The Time of this Prophecy

In order to understand the significance of this prophecy, it is important to settle the date when the prophecy purports to be written. The author claims to be writing the prophecy in the “third year of the reign of King Belshazzar.” A look at secular, historical records gives us a solid understanding of this date. Nabonidus was the king of Babylon and father of Belshazzar. In the ancient historical inscription known as The Verse Account of Nabonidus, we read, that when “the third year was about to begin—He [Nabonidus] entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn, the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him” (Pritchard, 1969, p. 313). A different ancient inscription known as the Nabonidus Cylinder explains that his firstborn son was Belshazzar (“The Nabonidus Cylinder…,” n.d.). He was entrusted with the army in the third year of Nabonidus’ reign, which most scholars agree was around the year 553 B.C. So the third year of his reign, in which the prophecy of Daniel 8 was delivered, was approximately 550 B.C.

The Kings of Media and Persia

Daniel saw a ram with two notable horns, one being higher than the other. This ram was pushing westward, northward, and southward, and became great. The angel Gabriel explained that this ram with two horns signified the kings of Media and Persia. When we look into history, we see that the description of their activities matches what we know from secular historical accounts. The Median Empire had been growing in strength for many years. Historian J.M. Cook noted, “By the middle of the seventh century [B.C.—KB] things were running for the Medes” (1983, p. 3).

Famed Greek historian Herodotus, writing in the 5th century B.C., describes the formation of the Median Empire in which the Medes had numerous smaller settlements that were united by a man named Deioces. This man built a large capital city known as Ecbatana. According to the historian, he reigned for 53 years and united at least six regional groups into the kingdom of Media. Herodotus then documents that Deioces’ son Phraortes reigned for 22 years after his father. He was succeeded by his son Cyaxares, who “united all Asia beyond the Halys under his rule” (1996, 1:95-103). Cyaxares reigned 40 years, died, and was succeeded by his son Astyagas. Under the reign of Astyagas, the Persians revolted against the Medes. Led by Cyrus the Great, the Persian army defeated Astyagas’ army, and Cyrus ascended to the throne of both the Medes and the Persians (1:127-130). The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms Cyrus’ victory against Astyagas (The Nabonidus Chronicle, n.d.).

One interesting point as it relates to the prophetic vision of Daniel is the fact that initially, the Medes were the superior, ruling class. This information comes from numerous statements found in Herodotus. For instance, Astyagas married his daughter to “a Persian named Cambyses, a man he knew to be of good family and quiet habits—though he considered him much below a Mede even of middle rank” (1:107). When Cyrus took control of the empire, however, the Persian facet of the kingdom grew to be stronger, even though it was the second to rise. Herodotus wrote: “On the present occasion the Persians under Cyrus rose against the Medes and from then onwards were masters of Asia” (1:130). This historical fact coincides perfectly with Daniel’s vision in which the first ram had two horns “but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last.”

The dual power of the Medo-Persian Empire, led first by Cyrus and then by his son Cambyses, continued to grow in strength and territory. Herodotus documents that the empire stretched across all Asia. Cyrus then began to “push westward,” subjugating peoples such as the Ionians as far westward as the Aegean Sea (1:169). The historian notes that Cyrus was possessed of “restless ambition” and engaged in “successive acts of aggression against one nation after another” (1:190). Cambyses, who reigned over the empire after his father, seemed to have the same ambitious spirit. He “pushed southward,” conquering nations as far south as Egypt (3:1-27). Darius, who assumed the throne after Cambyses, claimed to rule over a host of nations, including areas as far north as Armenia (The Behistun Inscription, n.d.). Thus, there can be no doubt that the ram with two horns signified the Medo-Persian Empire, exactly as the angel Gabriel stated.

The Male Goat From the West:
Alexander the Great

In Daniel’s vision, the ram with two horns, which was the Medo-Persian Empire, was defeated by a male goat that arose out of the west and had a notable horn in the center of its head. In his explanation of the vision, Gabriel said that this male goat was the kingdom of Greece, and the notable horn was the “first king.” Anyone familiar with ancient history recognizes this first king as Alexander the Great, the son of Philip of Macedon. Alexander was arguably the most successful military commander in the history of the world. First-century A.D. Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus stated that Alexander had “a lust for glory and fame reaching a degree which exceeded due proportion” (2001, 10:29). His conquest of the world was so thorough, that Rufus suggested that Fortune had shown her face on him with such delight that it was to Fortune he owed the most gratitude. In fact, Rufus stated: “The fates waited for him to complete the subjection of the East and reach the Ocean, achieving everything of which a mortal was capable” (10:36). In the course of his conquest, he defeated the Medo-Persian Empire and assimilated it into the Greek Empire. Rufus documented the various battles Alexander fought with king Darius, the ruler of the Persian armies, and the Greek’s victory over the opposing Medo-Persian Empire (Books 3 and 4).

The Four Notable Horns:
Rulers After Alexander

Quintus Curtius Rufus noted that upon Alexander’s death, since he lacked a definite heir, various individuals would most likely make a bid for the throne (10:12). Amidst the scramble for Alexander’s throne, his kingdom was divided into four segments: “[T]he Macedonian Empire split into four main kingdoms—the one of Seleucus (Asia), Ptolemy (Egypt), Lysimachus (Thrace), and Antipater’s son Cassander (Macedonia, including Greece)” (“Alexander the Great Biography,” 2003).

Plutarch, the ancient historian, documented this division in great detail. In his exposition on Demetrius, he wrote:

The followers of Ptolemy in Egypt on their part…gave him the title of king. And thus their emulation carried the practice among other successors of Alexander. For Lysimachus began to wear the diadem, and Seleucus also in his interviews with the Greeks…. Cassander, however, although the others gave him the royal title in their letters and addresses, wrote his letters in his own untitled name (1920, 18).

Diodorus Siculus confirmed this account in Book 19 of his work when he wrote: “When they had been brought into the council, they demanded that Cappadocia and Lycia be given to Cassander, Hellespontine Phrygia to Lysimachus, all Syria to Ptolemy and Babylonia to Seleucus” (1947, 19:57). Both writers mention that Antigonus and his son Demetrius fought for control of portions of the empire as well, but upon their defeat, Plutarch wrote: “The victorious kings carved up the entire domain which had been subject to Antigonus and Demetrius, as if it had been a great carcass, and took each his portion, adding thus to the provinces which the victors already had” (1920, 30).

Thus, over 250 years after Daniel’s vision in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, Alexander’s kingdom was divided and ruled by “four notable horns.” As the prophet Gabriel had predicted concerning the kingdom of Greece in Daniel 8:22, “four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.” Secular history perfectly confirms the accuracy of this statement.

Antiochus Epiphanes IV:
The Little Horn

In Daniel’s vision, a little horn came out of one of the four notable horns (kingdoms) and grew to be great. This horn spread his authority toward the south, east, and the “Glorious land.” He exalted himself as high as the “Prince of the host,” and took away the daily sacrifices. Gabriel stated that this horn represented a king who would “understand sinister schemes,” “magnify himself,” and “be broken without human hand.” Does history record the life of an individual who fits this prophecy? It certainly does. Out of the Seleucid Empire arose a king named Antiochus Epiphanes IV. His reign began in 175 B.C. and lasted until 164 B.C. It was characterized by tyranny, deceit, and brutality, just as Daniel’s vision predicted and Gabriel confirmed. A brief look into the specifics of these prophecies verifies Antiochus Epiphanes IV’s presence predicted in them.

“Exalted Himself as High as the Prince of the Host”

The little horn of Daniel’s vision was predicted to be so enamored with his own importance that the text states, “He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host” (Daniel 8:11). The angel Gabriel explained that he would “magnify himself in his heart” (Daniel 8:25). When we compare this prediction with the historical record of the life and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, we see a striking fulfillment in the hubris of this king. Bible scholar H.W. Hoehner explained that Antiochus Epiphanes IV “assumed the title of Theos Epiphanes meaning ‘the manifest God’” (1976, 1:192-193). Coins that were minted during Epiphanes’ reign add further weight to the fact that he exalted himself to the position of deity. Mahlon H. Smith provides detailed pictures of a silver tetradrachma minted by Epiphanes that has on it “Basileos Antiochou Theou Epiphaniou Nikephorou,” which means “of King Antiochus, God Manifest, Victory Bearer” (2008). Smith also presents a bronze coin that depicts Antiochus IV with the phrase “God Manifest” on it as well. There can be no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes IV exalted himself “as high as the Prince of the host,” a fact that adds additional weight to the idea that Antiochus Epiphanes IV is the little horn of Daniel’s vision.

The Daily Sacrifices Were Taken Away

Daniel’s vision predicted that the little horn that arose from the male goat would grow “exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious land” (Daniel 8:9). The reference to the “Glorious Land” is a reference to Judea and Jerusalem, a fact that is borne out by the statement that the little horn would cause the daily sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem to cease. It is a simple matter of history to identify the point in time when the daily sacrifices in the temple were taken away. The book of 1 Maccabees documents that Antiochus IV waged war against Ptolemy, routing his army and killing many (1976, 1:17-19). On the return trip from Egypt, Antiochus IV plundered the temple. Two years later, he sent a general named Mysarch who destroyed many of the towns of Judah and killed a host of the Jews. In addition, he sent letters to Jerusalem “to put a stop to burnt offerings and meal offering and libation in the temple, to violate Sabbaths and festivals.” And in 167 B.C. he desecrated the altar in the temple, which the 1 Maccabees writer refers to as the abomination of desolation  (1:44-64).

“Broken Without Human Means”

When the angel Gabriel explained Daniel’s dream, the heavenly messenger predicted that the wicked king who was portrayed as the little horn would be “broken without human means” (Daniel 8:25). When we compare the death of Antiochus Epiphanes IV with this statement, we can see that it accurately describes his demise. Antiochus did not die in battle, as many ancient kings did, nor was he assassinated by conspirators. In fact, Antiochus did not die at the hands of any other human. Various historical references relating to his death verify the fact that he died because of a distemper or fever. Josephus stated:

[H]e was confounded, and, by the anxiety he was in, fell into a distemper, which, as it lasted a great while, and as his pains increased upon him, so he at length perceived he should die in a little time; so he called his friends to him, and told them that his distemper was severe upon him, and confessed withal, that this calamity was sent upon him for the miseries he had brought upon the Jewish nation, while he plundered their temple and condemned their God; and when he had said this, he gave up the ghost (Antiquities of the Jews, 12:9:1).

Polybius, a Greek historian from the second century B.C., stated that Antiochus “died at Tabae in Persia, smitten with madness, as some people say, owing to certain manifestations of divine displeasure” (1927, 31:9). Appian, a Roman historian from the second century A.D., said that he died of “wasting disease” (n.d., 66). And Diodorus Siculus, who wrote during the first century B.C., recorded that Antiochus Epiphanes IV “was driven mad by certain apparitions and terrors, and finally died of disease” (1947, 31:18a). Both Siculus and Polybius attribute Antiochus’ disease to divine displeasure over his attack on the temple of Artemis, while Josephus attributes it to his actions against the temple of the Jews. But the fact upon which they agree is that Antiochus Epiphanes IV died of a “disease,” or “distemper,” or “madness,” that was not the result of any human means. Thus, his death perfectly coincides with the death of the little horn of Daniel 8 that would be “broken without human means.”

Enemies Accuse Daniel 8 of Being History, not Prophecy

Daniel’s vision and Gabriel’s commentary on it have proven to be so accurate that skeptics are forced to admit its accuracy, but claim that it was written after the events transpired— not hundreds of years before. One can see why skeptics must adopt this tactic. If the vision of Daniel 8 actually was written in approximately 550 B.C., and it accurately predicted events in detail that did not transpire until 164 B.C., then whoever wrote the book must have been aided by divine guidance. Since the atheists, skeptics, and many liberal theologians cannot tolerate such a conclusion, they must find some way to deny the prophecy. Since secular history verifies the prophecy in great detail, to deny that the vision of Daniel 8 documents actual events would be tantamount to intellectual suicide. Thus, the only alternative is to contend that the record of the events in Daniel 8 is a historic record that was penned after the events took place. We will see that such a tactic is misguided and flawed, and cannot be sustained. But the fact that it is used does much to confirm the accuracy of the prophecy. After all, if the prophecy were not accurate, why would any unbeliever be forced to call it history?

Near the beginning of the 5th century A.D., Jerome became a prominent figure among Christians. He penned a commentary on the book of Daniel, in which he mentioned a skeptic by the name of Porphyry,

who wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of Antiochus who was surnamed Epiphanes. He furthermore alleged that “Daniel” did not foretell the future so much as he related the past…. [B]ecause Porphyry saw that all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy by taking refuge in this evasion…. For so striking was the reliability of what the prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers to be a predictor of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past (1958, pp. 15-16).

Modern-day skeptic, Chris Sandoval, was forced to adopt the same line of reasoning, stating: “Actually, the book was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future…” (2007). Throughout his work, while claiming (without success) that the author of Daniel made mistakes, he insists that the author had an accurate knowledge of much world history. Sandoval said of the author of Daniel: “We see that he was well-acquainted with the history of the Seleucids and Ptolemies up to a century and half before his time;” and “[s]ince these predictions largely came true until the middle of the war and failed thereafter, we know that the author lived in Seleucid times, not Babylonian times” (2007). Sandoval’s statement that Daniel’s prophecies “failed” after the war is false, but he concedes that Daniel’s predictions “largely came true until the middle of the war.” Such reasoning tacitly admits the fact that even the skeptics believe that Daniel’s vision accurately detailed many events as they occurred in history.

Were Daniel’s Visions Prophecy or History?

Since Daniel’s vision coincides perfectly with actual events to such a degree that the skeptic is forced to label it history instead of prophecy, the Christian apologist is left with the task of showing that the book of Daniel was, indeed, written hundreds of years prior to the events it describes. If that can be done conclusively—and it can—then Daniel’s prophetic vision in Daniel 8 stands as a fulfilled, predictive prophecy, and an infallible proof of the Bible’s inspiration and the existence of God Who inspired the book. Let us explore various reasons why the book of Daniel should be dated to the sixth century B.C.

The Primary Reason to Date Daniel in the Second Century is its Accuracy

Skeptics insist that the book must have been written in the second century B.C. due to anachronism in its text and various other discrepancies. None of their allegations has been sustained. Instead, the astute reader finds that the primary reason the skeptic rejects the early date of Daniel is because of its accuracy. Due to their naturalistic assumptions—that no writer could accurately predict events that occurred 400 years after his writing—skeptics assert a late date for Daniel based on the false assumption that predictive prophecy is impossible.

Sandoval’s article provides an excellent example of this assumption. He stated:  “Since these predictions largely came true until the middle of the war and failed thereafter, we know that the author lived in Seleucid times, not Babylonian times” (2007). Observe the reasoning behind how he arrives at a date for the book. The information in Daniel is accurate up to the time of the Seleucids, thus Daniel must have been written after those events occurred. [Again, I would note that his accusation that Daniel’s information fails after that point is false.]

Notice the circular reasoning involved. The assertion is that Daniel must have been written in the second century solely because of its accuracy. But the assertion fails to account for the possibility of accurate, predictive prophecy. In essence, the skeptic is forced to say that Daniel is accurate, and thus could not have been written before the second century, because no such thing as predictive prophecy exists. Yet, is it not the case that the very point of the discussion is to determine the legitimacy of predictive prophecy? The skeptic cannot say that Daniel is not predictive prophecy because there is no such thing as predictive prophecy. To date Daniel in the second century because it is accurate is faulty reasoning of the highest order.

The Internal Evidence of Authorship

The book of Daniel claims to have been written by an Israelite exile named Daniel. Various verses in Daniel (7:2,15; 8:1,27; 9:2; 12:5) insist that Daniel authored the book. In addition, the book provides specific statements such as, “in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign” (2:1), “in the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (8:1), and “in the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus” (9:1), that date the book to the sixth century B.C. In order for the skeptic or liberal theologian to reject these clear statements, he must provide valid reasons why they cannot be true. Such reasons have never been provided. As jurisprudence expert Simon Greenleaf stated: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise” (1995, p. 16).

Daniel in the Dead Sea Scrolls Collection

Another reason to date Daniel in the sixth century B.C. instead of the second is its presence in the Dead Sea Scrolls collection. Several partial copies of Daniel were found at Qumran. First, this fact shows that by the time the books were being collected to store at Qumran, the book of Daniel was viewed with such respect that numerous copies were made to store there. As Bruce Waltke stated: “The discovery of manuscripts of Daniel at Qumran dating from the Maccabean period renders it highly improbable that the book was composed during the time of the Maccabees” (1976, 133:321). By the time of the Maccabees, Daniel was already such a respected and revered, sacred book that it had been copied and stored with other ancient texts at Qumran. Second, in his study of a section of Job found at Qumran, a fragment known as 11QtJob, Robert Vasholz suggested that the composition of the fragment “may have originally dated to the late third century or early second century B.C.” (1978, 21:319). He compared this fragment to sections of Daniel and concluded that the data “suggest that Daniel was written before 11QtJob and lead us to believe that the evidence now available from Qumran indicates a pre-second-century date for the Aramaic of Daniel” (p. 320). Not only does the presence of Daniel at Qumran provide evidence of a pre-second-century date, but the Aramaic used in the book supplies additional weight to support an early date.

Daniel’s Use of the Name Belshazzar

For many years, critics used Daniel’s reference to Belshazzar as evidence that the book contained historical errors. They asserted that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon and Belshazzar was a figment of the author’s imagination. Evidence began to accrue, however, in the form of ancient writings and inscriptions, that showed that “for much of the reign of Nabonidus, his eldest son, Belshazzar, acted as coregent” (Waltke, 1976, 133:328). This fact led Waltke to correctly conclude: “It seems clear, then, from a straightforward reading of the narratives of the Book of Daniel that the author possessed a more accurate knowledge of Neo-Babylonia and early Achaemenid Persian history than any other known historian since the sixth century B.C.” (p. 328). The information was available in the Babylonian records if a person had access to those. There is no evidence, however, that a later author of Daniel could have accessed them. Thus the use of the name Belshazzar adds credibility to an early date for the book (Jackson, n.d.).

Josephus’ Witness to an Early Date for Daniel

Josephus, the first century A.D. historian who penned Jewish history for a Roman audience, adds additional weight to the fact that Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C. and not in the second century. First, in regard to the book of Daniel, Josephus expressed the then-common Jewish belief that Daniel was a prophetic book that belonged among the Scriptures or sacred writings. He concluded that a person who wanted to know certain aspects of prophecy should be “diligent in reading the book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings” (Antiquities…, 10:10:4). A few paragraphs later, after relating information taken directly from the book of Daniel, Josephus said, “Let no one blame me for writing down everything of this nature, as I find it in our ancient books” (10:10:6). Notice that Josephus viewed Daniel as both part of the “sacred writings” and as part of the list of “ancient books” about which the entire Jewish community had no doubt of their authenticity.

In addition, in his book Against Apion, Josephus explained that the Jewish nation revered 22 books as divinely inspired, Daniel being one of those. Concerning the date of the writing of the books, he said: “[F]rom the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books” (1:8). He went on to explain that certain Jewish writers had written history books after the time of Artaxerxes, but their writings were not esteemed “of the like authority with the former by our forefathers” (1:8). Thus, Josephus viewed Daniel as sacred Scripture, and noted that no such Scripture had been written after the reign of Artaxerxes, the date of whose reign is established by secular historians as 465 B.C. to 424 B.C. (“Artaxerxes,” 2011). There is, then, no honest way to read Josephus without understanding that he viewed the date of Daniel to be prior to 424 B.C. and, speaking as a representative for the Jewish nation, believed this view was the common one among his people.

Furthermore, when Josephus wrote about the conquest of Alexander the Great (336-324 B.C.), he again mentioned the book of Daniel. He noted that as Alexander was coming into the land of Judea, one of the priests showed him the book of Daniel: “And when the book of Daniel was showed him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended” (Antiquities…, 11:8:5). He came into Jerusalem, treated the high priest “magnificently,” and offered sacrifices to God in the temple. He also promised to let the Jews “enjoy the laws of their forefathers.” Additionally, after Josephus’ discussion of Daniel’s prophecy in chapter 8, he stated: “And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel’s vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass” (Antiquities…, 10:11:7).

Were the testimony of Josephus all that history had preserved about the book of Daniel, it would be enough to positively date the book to the sixth century B.C. In order to discredit such powerful testimony, the skeptic or liberal theologian must completely reinvent the way ancient history is viewed. Such attempts show an obvious and ill-advised prejudice against biblical prophecy. The only reason to dismiss such testimony is if a person is dedicated to the proposition that prophecy is impossible. An honest evaluation of the testimony of Josephus forces the analyst to conclude that Daniel cannot be a second century B.C. document, but must be included in the list of ancient books—sacred Scripture—that was written prior to 424 B.C.

An Additional Consideration

Of course, it has been impossible to consider at length all the reasons to date the book of Daniel in the sixth century and not the second, but one additional reason merits brief mention. “The precision of the details within the book [of Daniel] relative to the city of Babylon argues that the writer was an eyewitness of that ancient culture” (Jackson, n.d.). Indeed, so accurate are the historical facts and the specific knowledge of the writer of the book that a lengthy article could be written solely documenting the myriad examples of the writer’s intimate, accurate knowledge of the culture and history of the precise period in which the book claims to have been written.

Conclusion

Daniel 8 provides an accurate, detailed description of the historic events that occurred between 550 B.C. and 164 B.C. A straightforward reading of the text indicates that these events were predicted hundreds of years before they actually occurred. If they are accurate predictions, then the book of Daniel stands as irrefutable evidence that (1) God exists, and (2) the book is divinely inspired by God. Of course, the skeptic and unbeliever do not believe in divine inspiration or God’s existence. Due to their preconceived bias against the supernatural, they are forced to concoct ways to try to discredit the prophecies in Daniel. Since the secular historical record so clearly coincides with the book, attempts to gainsay the book as inaccurate fail miserably.

Thus, the skeptic is forced to conjecture that the book was written after the events took place, instead of before. In this vein, it has been suggested that Daniel was written in the second century B.C., instead of the sixth. The evidence against this assertion, however, is so powerful that to adopt the late date for Daniel lands the skeptic in a morass of contradiction and inconsistency. Gleason Archer, Jr. accurately summed up the force of the evidence for an early date for Daniel when he wrote:

This poses such problems for the committed antisupernaturalist, who can only explain the successful predictions of Daniel as prophecies after the fulfillment, that he is not likely to be swayed by any amount of objective evidences whatever. Nevertheless, such evidence continues to pour in… (1970, 127:297).

In truth, Daniel 8 stands as an insurmountable barrier to naturalism and an atheistic worldview, and provides positive evidence of God’s existence and the inspiration of the Bible.

References

“Alexander the Great Biography,” (2003), http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/AncientMacedonia/AlexandertheGreat.html.

Appian (no date), The Syrian Wars, http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_syriaca_00.html.

Archer, Gleason Jr. (1970), “Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from the Exile to Malachi,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 127:121-128, October-December.

“Artaxerxes,” (2011), The Jewish Encyclopedia, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1827-artaxerxes-i.

The Behistun Inscription (no date), http://www.livius.org/be-bm/behistun/behistun03.html.

Cook, J.M. (1983), The Persian Empire (New York: Schocken).

Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence (Grand Rapids: Kregel Classics).

Herodotus (1996), The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt (New York: Penguin Classics).

Hoehner, W. H. (1976), “Antiochus,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Jackson, Wayne (no date), “An Amazing Prophecy in the Book of Daniel,” Christian Courier, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/869-an-amazing-prophecy-in-the-book-of-daniel.

Jerome (1958), Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Josephus (1987), The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

1 Maccabees (1976), trans. Jonathan Goldstein (New York: Doubleday).

The Nabonidus Chronicle (no date),  http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html.

“The Nabonidus Cylinder from Ur” (no date), http://www.livius.org/na-nd/nabonidus/cylinder-ur.html.

Plutarch (1920), Demetrius and Anthony, Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Polybius (1927), The Histories, trans. W.R. Paton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Pritchard, James, ed. (1969), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Rufus, Quintus Curtius (2001), The History of Alexander, trans. John Yardley (New York: Penguin Classics).

Sandoval, Chris (2007), “The Failure of Daniel’s Prophecies,” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html.

Siculus, Diodorus (1947), The Library of History, trans. Russel M. Greer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Smith, Malhon (2008), “Antiochus IV Epiphanes,” http://virtualreligion.net/iho/antiochus_4.html.

Vasholz, Robert (1978), “Qumran and the Dating of Daniel,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 21:315-321, December.

Waltke, Bruce K. (1976), “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 133:319-329, October.

The post The Prophecy of Daniel 8 appeared first on Apologetics Press.