Two Things Nearly Everyone Believes About the Universe

By J. Warner Wallace 7/15/2017

     My new book, God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe, is set to release on August 1st. In this book, I examine the universe as a “crime scene” and investigate eight different pieces of evidence through the filter of a simple investigative question: “Can the evidence ‘in the room’ be explained by staying ‘in the room’? This question is key to determining whether a death scene is a crime scene, and I typically play a game I call “inside or outside the room” whenever I am trying to determine if a death is, in fact, a murder. If, for example, there is a victim in the room with a gunshot injury lying next to a handgun, but the doors are locked from the inside, all the DNA and fingerprints in the room come back to the victim, the gun is registered to the victim and there are no signs of an outside intruder, this is simply the scene of a suicide or accidental death. If, however, there exist fingerprints or DNA of an unknown suspect, the gun does not belong to the victim, and there are even bloody footprints leading outside the room, I’ve got to reconsider the cause of this death. When the evidence in the room cannot be explained by staying inside the room and is better explained by a cause outside the room, there’s a good chance I’ve got a murder. When this is the case, my investigation must shift direction. I must now begin to search for an external intruder. I think you’ll find this investigative approach applicable as you examine the case for God’s existence. If all the evidence “inside the room” of the universe can be explained by staying “inside the room”, there’s no need to invoke an ‘external’ cause. If, on the other hand, the best explanation for the evidence “inside the room” is a cause “outside the room”, we’ll need to shift our attention as we search for an “external” intruder.

     There are eight distinct pieces of evidence (in four separate categories) that must be explained when examining the attributes of our universe. These divergent categories of evidence all point to the same reasonable inference. The first category involves cosmological evidence. One important attribute of the universe is simply its origin. This first piece of evidence is critical to understanding the very nature of the cosmos and has been examined deeply by atheists and theists alike. As it turns out, nearly everyone agrees on two evidential inferences related to the origin of our universe:

     The Universe Came In To Existence From Nothing | The evidence for the beginning of our universe is cumulative, diverse and substantial. The “stuff” of the universe (all space, time, and matter) came into existence from nothing, and all the evidence scientists have examined so far points to this reasonable conclusion. “Big Bang” cosmology is described as the “Standard Cosmological Model” for a reason: the vast majority of physicists and scientist accept this model as an accurate description of the beginning of the universe:

     “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.” – Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose

     “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is now no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” – Alexander Vilenkin

 Click here to go to source

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

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

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

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

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

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

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

Should We Legislate Morality?

By Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. 7/8/2015

     One objection to Christian involvement in law and politics is that it is somehow wrong to “legislate morality.” Given the heat generated by the same-sex controversy, this epithet is often hurled at Christians who dissent on the Supreme Court ruling and who do not support laws of this kind. These objections, however, have no force.

     Consider the nature of civil law. Through the threat of force, these laws constrain or require actions. They are not suggestions, but imperatives. Such laws are not akin to scientific laws which describe the patterns found in nature. Civil laws prescribe behaviors. Some moral standard or moral vision lies behind all civil laws. They do not appear out of nothing, and they are not morally neutral. As R. J. Rushdoony wrote in Institutes of Biblical Law, “It must be recognized that in any culture the source of law is the god of that society.” A god rewards and punishes, forbids and requires, and defines morality. Since civil law is the last word in adjudicating human affairs, the source of that law is deemed the final authority, even if it is not.

     American civil law ought to be rooted in and consistent with the Constitution, which itself is based on a philosophy of natural law or natural rights. That is, there is a law above the law to which the law should conform as much as possible in a fallen world. This powerful idea is found in the Declaration of Independence.

     We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

     Governments are instituted to secure rights given by the Creator. Governments do not create rights by their dicta. The American vision for law is based on the Judeo-Christian worldview—however imperfectly applied.

• 1     Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith
• 2     Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism
• 3     Philosophy in Seven Sentences: A Small Introduction to a Vast Topic
• 4     Unmasking the New Age
• 5     On Jesus (Wadsworth Philosophers Series)
• 6     Confronting the New Age: How to Resist a Growing Religious Movement
• 7     Deceived by the Light:
• 8     On Jesus (Wadsworth Philosophers) by Douglas Groothuis (June 6, 2002) Paperback 1
• 9     The Soul in Cyberspace
• 10     Jesus in an Age of Controversy
• 11     Revealing the New Age Jesus: Challenges to Orthodox Views of Christ
• 12     On Pascal (Wadsworth Philosophers Series)

The Hebrew Manuscripts and the Early Versions

By Gleason Archer Jr.

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #1: “The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess”

By Michael J. Kruger 1/21/2013

     This new blog series is designed to help the lay believer learn some basic facts about the New Testament canon—the kind of facts that might be helpful in a conversation with a skeptic or inquisitive friend. The first of these facts is one that is so basic that it is often overlooked. It is simply that the New Testament books are the earliest Christian writings we possess.

     One of the most formidable challenges in any discussion about the New Testament canon is explaining what makes these 27 books unique. Why these and not others? There are many answers to that question, but in this blog post we are focusing on just one: the date of these books. These books stand out as distinctive because they are earliest Christian writings we possess and thus bring us the closest to the historical Jesus and to the earliest church. If we want to find out what authentic Christianity was really like, then we should rely on the writings that are the nearest to that time period.

     This is particularly evident when it comes to the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These are the only gospel accounts that derive from the first century. Sure, there are a few scholars have attempted to put the Gospel of Thomas in the first century, but this has not met with much success. After all the scholarly dust has settled, even critics agree that these four are the earliest accounts of Jesus that we possess.

     Now, a few qualifications are in order. First, it should be noted that there are disagreements about the dating of some New Testament books. Some critical scholars have argued that some New Testament books are forgeries written in the second century. Meanwhile, other scholars have defended the authenticity (and first-century date) of these books. This is a debate that we cannot delve into here. However, even if these debated books are left aside in our discussions, we can still affirm that the vast majority of the New Testament writings (including the four gospels) still remain the earliest Christian writings we possess.

     Second, some may point out that 1 Clement is a Christian writing that dates to the first century, and it is not included in the New Testament canon. True, but the consensus date for 1 Clement is c.96 A.D. This date is later than all our New Testament books. The only possible exception is Revelation which is dated, at the latest, around 95-96 A.D. But, some date Revelation earlier. Even so, this does not affect the macro point we are making here.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 6

1 O LORD, rebuke me not in your anger,
nor discipline me in your wrath.
2 Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am languishing;
heal me, O LORD, for my bones are troubled.
3 My soul also is greatly troubled.
But you, O LORD—how long?

4 Turn, O LORD, deliver my life;
save me for the sake of your steadfast love.
5 For in death there is no remembrance of you;
in Sheol who will give you praise?

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

Thus far we have looked at the book and at the history of Israel’s religion, and have found in both a character for which no proper parallel can be discovered elsewhere: we now advance a stage further, and inquire whether the religion itself does not present a similar uniqueness. Only those who have not truly entered into its spirit, or appreciated its relation to other forms of belief, will dispute the proposition that the religion of Israel is unique. It is not the fact of its uniqueness, but whether the uniqueness is of such a kind as to require us to postulate a special, supernatural cause for its explanation, which is matter of controversy. We shall see immediately what the Old Testament itself has to say on that point.

1. A unique religion will display its character equally by what it has and by what it wants. There are, on the negative side, many things absent in Israel’s religion which we should expect to find there, if it was simply one among other religions. Resemblances, as before remarked, in outward respects, there necessarily are. In the religion of Israel we have a sanctuary, priesthood, altars, sacrifices, ritual—much more that has its counterpart in other cults. When, however, from this outward vesture of the religion, we come to its heart and essence, it is not the resemblances, but the contrasts, which impress us. We are not disposed to be stinted in our acknowledgment of the better elements in the ethnic religions; but, whatever place may be given to these, the fact remains that, in their historical forms, the higher elements are hardly visible, while the foreground is occupied by an idolatrous worship, an extravagant and often immoral mythology, customs and usages debasing to the last degree. We need only recall the spirit-worship and magic of Babylonia; the animal-worship and ancestor-worship of Egypt; the stone-worship, and tree-worship, and serpent-worship, the human sacrifices, the lustful rites, the self-immolations, which enter so deeply into most non-Biblical religions. How great the contrast when we come to the religion of Israel! We do not enter into details at present, for we shall have to return to the subject in dealing with the very different theory of the critical school, that Israel began practically on the same level, and with much the same beliefs and practices, as its heathen neighbours, and only late in its history, in the days of the prophets, attained to higher conceptions. It will not be contended, at least, that this is the view of things that meets us on the face of the religion. Few will be bold enough to maintain that tree-worship, stone-worship, serpent-worship, image-worship, and similar superstitions, are conspicuous features on the Bible page. These things, we grant, or some of them, are found in the Bible history—in patriarchal and Mosaic times in sparse traces; later, in times of general declension, when the people fell away into the idolatries and vices of the nations around them, more abundantly; but they are no proper part of Israel’s religion, and are invariably resisted, denounced, and condemned, as apostacy from Jehovah. Idolatry is sternly condemned in the oldest code of laws: divination, necromancy, consulting with familiar spirits, are prohibited; the instances in which contrary practices appear, as Rachel’s teraphim, Micah’s images, Saul’s consulting of the witch of Endor, etc., are sporadic and occasional, and appear either as survivals of older superstitions, or as violations of fundamental principles of the religion, such as are met with in every age and country.

2. We do not dwell longer on these negative features of Israel’s religion, but turn to the positive side, in which, naturally, the clearest proof of its uniqueness must lie. Here it may be sufficient to fix attention on three great fundamental ideas, in which, perhaps, the contrast between it and other forms of religion is most distinctly to be traced.

(1) We take, first, what meets us on the surface—the monotheism of this Israelitish religion. This of itself is much, if we think of the polytheism and idolatry which everywhere else overspread the earth. We look to the religions of ancient Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt, to those of Israel’s own kinsfolk and neighbours in and around Palestine; and, while recognising higher elements in these religions, ever, however, becoming dimmer as we recede from their source, we find them, one and all, in historical times, grossly, growingly, and incurably, polytheistic and corrupt. In Judah alone was God known. In no single case, moreover, was this polytheism ever thrown off by inherent effort. Even, therefore, were the theory, favoured by modern critics, that “ethical monotheism” was only attained by Israel in the age of the great prophets, allowed to be established, the fact would still remain to be accounted for that Israel, alone of all nations, did attain to it, and became the teacher of the rest of the world. We do not, however, give our adherence to the view that this monotheism of the religion of Israel was a late development of the time of the prophets. As will be shown more fully in a subsequent chapter, the Old Testament knows of no time when the people of Israel were without the knowledge of the one God as the Creator and providential Ruler of the whole world. Monotheism is not the doctrine of one part of the Old Testament, and not of another. Its oldest parts—those which the critics allow to be the oldest—have this doctrine of the unity of God as well as the latest. In these oldest parts, we have as fundamental ideas the creation of the world by God, the unity of the human family as descended from a first pair, made by God, the destruction of the whole race by a flood on account of sin, the promises to Noah, embracing the whole earth, a new descent and distribution of the race from Noah, the recognition of God by Abraham as the Judge of the whole earth,—all laying the foundation for the call of Abraham, the covenants with the patriarchs, the growth of Israel into a nation, its redemption from bondage, and formation into a people for God’s glory. While, therefore, it is not contended that there was no advance in the ideas of God,—no deepening, purifying, or spiritualising of these ideas,—from the days of Abraham and Moses, it may very confidently be maintained that, in the Old Testament as we have it, the unity of God is present as a basal conception from the first.

(2) The monotheism of Israel, however, is not the whole, is not even the main thing, in this religion. It is not so much, after all, in its declarations of what God is in Himself, or of the unity of God, as in what it tells us of the relations of God to man, and of His purposes of grace to the world, that the peculiarity of the religion of the Old Testament lies.  No religion exalts man so high as the religion of the Bible, in representing him as made in the image of God, and capable of knowing, loving, and serving God; and no religion abases man so low, in picturing the depths of his apostacy from God, and his inability to deliver himself from the guilt and bondage in which that apostacy has involved him.  But it is the glory of the religion of the Bible—this in both Old Testament and New—that over against the picture it gives of the developing sin and corruption of the race, there appears almost from its first page the developing plan and purpose of God for man’s salvation. The history of the Bible is essentially, what Jonathan Edwards called it, “the history of redemption.” If the malady is aggravated, the remedy provided is adequate to cope with it, even on the Bible’s own showing of its evil. In Paul’s language, “Where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly.” This again brings us to the idea of teleology, but now shows us more precisely in what the teleology consists. It is the unfolding in its successive stages of God’s gracious counsel for man’s salvation. It is this which gives its unity to the Bible; which is the golden thread running through history, psalm, prophecy, Gospel, epistle, and binding all together. There is nothing, again, which even remotely resembles this in any other religion. The partial exception is the Zoroastrian, which, in a dim, mythological way, has the idea of a conflict of the good principle with the evil, and of a final triumph of the good. But, apart from the fact that, as was inevitable on a dualistic basis, good and evil are in Zoroastrianism largely physical conceptions, the idea receives no development, is the subject of no history, is embodied in no plan which is historically carried out. The uniqueness of the Biblical religion appears only the more strikingly from the contrast.

(3) The aim of God’s salvation, of His entire work of grace in humanity, is, that man shall be made holy. This brings us to a third marked feature in the religion of the Old Testament, as of the Biblical religion generally—the indissoluble relation it establishes between religion and morality. Religions can readily be found which have no close connection with morality; we are familiar also with a morality which would fain make itself independent of religion. In few of the higher religions, however, is this relation between religion and morality altogether obscured. Throughout history there is generally some dim perception that the gods will protect and reward the good, and will not fail to punish the evil-doer. The peculiarity of the Biblical religion is that in it this idea of the connection of religion with morality is the all-dominating one. To minds awakened to the significance of the moral it may now appear self-evident that a religion has no real worth which does not ally itself with moral ends,—which, going beyond even external guardianship and sanction of duties, does not take morality up into itself as the expression of the will and character of God, and count moral obedience an essential part of His service. But it should not be forgotten that this was not always the view taken of religion, and that it is largely through the influence of the religion of the Bible, purifying and ennobling our conceptions, that we have now come to perceive even this truth as clearly as we do. Already in its first pages—before the word “holy” is yet met with—the Old Testament sets itself against sin in heart and deed. God accepts and vindicates righteous men like Abel, Enoch, and Noah; overwhelms with His judgments a world corrupted by sin; destroys wicked cities like Sodom and Gomorrah. He requires that Abraham shall walk before Him and be perfect; Abraham’s assurance about Him is that the Judge of all the earth will do right. As revelation advances, the indissolubleness of this connection of religion and morality becomes only clearer. The ethical was never so exalted; the ideals of conduct were never raised so high; religion and duty were never so completely fused together, as in the pure and sublime precepts of psalms and prophets. “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” A religion of this kind, so high in its views of God, so true to the needs of man, so adequate in its provisions for man’s deliverance, so holy in its spirit, so exalted in its moral demands, never emanated, we may be sure, from man’s own devisings. It is too high for him; he could not attain to it. Even if he could have conceived the idea of it, he could not have translated it into fact and history as is done in the Scriptures.

The Problem of the Old Testament

When Your Goodness Goes Splat

By Tim Challies 1/7/2016

     At some point, each one of us becomes proud of our goodness. We become proud of a good thing we have done. We boast, even if only in our own minds, about the purity of an action, the extent of a sacrifice, the value of a gift. We elevate this good act as if it could be held before God as evidence that we aren’t really all that bad, or that we are working our way back toward goodness. We elevate it as if it is worthy of his attention, his favor.

     These considerations of our goodness never come about in isolation. When we think about our own goodness, we always compare ourselves to others. It’s not that we are good by any objective standard; we are good compared to the parent, the neighbor, the stranger, the criminal. We choose our comparisons carefully.

     Michael Kruger uses a helpful illustration to describe the futility of this kind of boasting, and he illustrates using the Grand Canyon. Imagine that you and I travel together to Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. We park and walk for a little while, and before we know it we are standing on the rim, on the edge, of one of the world’s natural wonders.

     As we stand there, we get the idea to have a fun and friendly little competition between ourselves. We decide to see who can jump the farthest, who can make it to the far rim, or at least who can make it closest. You guess that you can make it all the way across. You back up a little bit, get a running start, and sprint off the edge. You are even better than you thought and make it nearly fourteen feet! Then, of course, you plummet to the bottom of the canyon and go splat. I take my running start and do even better with a tremendous fifteen-foot jump. Then I, too, hurtle to the bottom, my moment of triumph ending with a crunch.

     If God’s standard of holiness is as wide as the Grand Canyon—eighteen miles wide at its widest point—it hardly matters whether I end up at ten, twelve, or fifteen feet. No matter how far I jump, I will still fall far, far short of the mark. It matters even less whether I can jump farther than you, because your jump and my jump both lead to an ugly end. These attempts to meet or match God’s standard of holiness leads only to death. All of our goodness goes splat.

Click here to go to source

     I began my web site in 2002 and have been writing there daily since 2003. It is my place to think out loud and in public while also sharing some of the interesting things I’ve discovered in my online travels.

Tim Challies Books:

• 1     The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment
• 2     Sexual Detox: A Guide for Guys Who Are Sick of Porn
• 3     The Next Story: Life and Faith after the Digital Explosion
• 4     Do More Better: A Practical Guide to Productivity
• 5     Visual Theology: Seeing and Understanding the Truth About God

The Deception of Jacob for the Blessing

( Genesis 27:1–40 )

     God expects His servants to carry out their spiritual responsibilities by faith. Unfortunately faith is not always present and then matters become complicated. This chapter portrays an entire family attempting to carry out their responsibilities by their physical senses, without faith. This is the familiar story of how Jacob got the blessing of his father Isaac through deception. It is a story of the fragmenting of a family over spiritual matters!

     All participants were at fault. Isaac knew of God’s oracle to Rebekah ( 25:23 ) that the elder would serve the younger; yet he set out to thwart it by blessing Esau! Esau, agreeing to the plan, broke the oath he had made with Jacob ( 25:33 ). Rebekah and Jacob, with a just cause, each tried to achieve God’s blessing by deception, without faith or love. Theirs would be the victory, but they would reap hatred and separation for Rebekah never saw Jacob again! So the conflict between Jacob and Esau was greatly deepened by Jacob’s pursuit — he wanted what belonged to the firstborn, the blessing. Yet the story is not just about Jacob. He alone did not destroy the family; parental preference did.

      27:1–4. SCENE 1 (Isaac and Esau) — Issac offered to bless Esau. Important notes are given here about Isaac’s weak eye sight and old age. Moreover, stress is placed on the love he had for wild game and tasty food (cf.  25:28, 34 ). His palate governed his heart. But Isaac’s point was that he intended to give Esau his blessing. Here was a dilemma for Rebekah that prompted her to action.

      27:5–17. SCENE 2 (Rebekah and Jacob) — Rebekah sent Jacob into action to stop Isaac. Rebekah seemed certain she could duplicate the taste of meat from wild game with goat’s meat (v.  9 ). But Jacob was not so sure he could deceive his father. After all, Jacob said, if Isaac touched him, Isaac would know the difference between Esau’s hairy skin and Jacob’s smooth skin. Jacob had no guilt — only fear — regarding the plan. But the blessing was in danger and all must be risked, including even the possibility of a curse on Rebekah (vv.  12–13 ). So Jacob did as his mother told him. Rebekah even had Jacob put on some of Esau’s best clothes!

      27:18–29. SCENE 3 (Jacob and Isaac) — Jacob deceived his father and obtained the blessing. Prodded by his mother Jacob lied twice to his father, first, about his identity (I am Esau, v.  19 ), and second, that God had given him success (in hunting, v.  20 ). Three times the old man voiced his suspicion (vv.  20, 22, 24 ). But deceived by his senses of touch (vv.  16, 23 ) and smell (v.  27 ), he blessed Jacob, thinking he was Esau (vv.  27:27–29 ). The blessing included prosperity in crops (v.  28 ), domination over other nations and his brothers (cf. v.  37 ), cursing on those who cursed him, and blessing on those who blessed him (v.  29 ).

      27:30–40. SCENE 4 (Esau and Isaac) — Soon Esau came home and pleaded for a blessing from his father. When Esau brought in his food, emotions ran high. Isaac trembled violently over what had happened and Esau was very bitter and angry (v.  34 ). Isaac knew he had been tampering with God’s plan and had been overruled; there was no going back now. Esau began to realize the true nature of Jacob — twice he had “overreached” or deceived Esau, by taking his birthright ( 25:27–34 ), and now by taking his blessing. All that was left was a blessing for a profane person ( 27:39–40 ). Esau would not enjoy the earth’s riches or heaven’s dew (cf. v.  28 ). The Edomites, Esau’s descendants, would live in a land less fertile than Palestine. Also Esau would live by force, be subservient to Jacob, and be restless (cf. Ishmael,  16:12 ).

     So in a sense Rebekah and Jacob won, though they gained nothing that God would not have given them anyway; and they lost much.

     Yet God would work through their conniving. Their activities only succeeded in doing what God’s oracle had predicted. God’s program will triumph, often in spite of human activities.

     The story is one of parental favoritism, which tore their family completely apart. The story is also an account of spiritual insensitivity. All the natural senses play a conspicuous part — especially the sense of taste in which Isaac prided himself, but which gave him the wrong answer.  Reliance on one’s senses for spiritual discernment not only proves fallible, but often fouls up life unduly. 

     Most importantly, however, the story is about deception. Jacob’s only hesitancy was his fear that he would be cursed instead of blessed ( 27:12 ). At least he realized such actions would place God’s promise in jeopardy. Jacob later would learn that blessings are given by God, not gained by deceit.

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

January 9

When God the way of life would teach,
And gather all His own,
He put them safe beyond the reach
Of death, by blood alone.

It is His Word, His precious word,
It stands forever true,
When I the Lord shall see the blood
I will pass over you.

By John F. Walvoord

Prophecy In Exodus

     Four books are dedicated to the exodus from Egypt, the years of wandering in the wilderness, and the death of Moses. Though mainly historical books, numerous prophecies were revealed throughout this portion of the history of Israel. In most cases the prophecies describe events that were to be fulfilled soon.

Moses Called to Deliver His People

      Exodus 3:1–4:31; 6:1–8. God as the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses at the burning bush and revealed to Moses that he was to be the deliverer of the children of Israel from Egypt. This experience is described in  3:5–12. The sign promised Moses (v.  12 ) was fulfilled ( 17:6 ).

     Moses was reluctant to accept this challenge as described in  4:1–31, even though God promised to perform miracles (vv.  21–23 ). After his contest with Pharaoh ( Ex. 5 ), Moses was given confirmation of his prophetic role in leading the children of Israel out of Egypt ( 6:1–8 ). Subsequent history, of course, confirmed these prophetic promises (cf.  12:37–50 ).

Then Plagues on Egypt

      Exodus 7:1–12:36. The ten plagues were inflicted on the Egyptians in fulfillment of the prophecy: (1) water was turned to blood ( 7:14–24 ); (2) the plague of frogs ( 8:1–15 ); (3) the plague of gnats (vv.  16–19 ); (4) the plague of files (vv.  20–30 ); (5) the plague on livestock ( 9:1–7 ); (6) the plague of boils (vv.  8–12 ); (7) the plague of hail and fire (vv.  13–35 ); (8) the plague of locusts ( 10:1–20 ); (9) the plague of darkness (vv.  21–29 ); (10) the plague of the death of the firstborn ( 11:1–10; 12:29–30 ).

     At each of these plagues, Pharaoh was warned of the next plague. In each case, except the final plague, Pharaoh resisted letting the children of Israel go. And in each case, the prophecy of the plague was fulfilled. It is noteworthy that all of these prophecies were simple, factual prophecies of events of the future that were literally fulfilled.

      Exodus 12:46; cf.  Numbers 9:12. The Passover lamb was a type of Christ. The fact that no bones were broken is a foreshadowing of Christ’s sacrifice without a bone being broken ( John 19:36 ).

The Exodus Begun

      Exodus 12:31–36. After the tenth plague Pharaoh allowed the children of Israel to leave, and they were delivered from Egypt as God had prophesied to Moses. The Israelites were able to take silver and gold and other plunder from the Egyptians because the Egyptians were eager to see them leave after the tenth plague (vv.  33–36 ). The exodus from Egypt was the most important move in Israel’s history until the twentieth-century movement of Israel back to the Promised Land.

Deliverance through the Red Sea

      Exodus 14:1–31. Biblical history recorded Pharaoh pursuing the Israelites to prevent their departure. God intervened and protected the Israelites. Then, miraculously, God prepared a way for them through the Red Sea. The Egyptians tried to follow, but they were thwarted by the returning waters and drowned.

Victory over the Amalekites

      Exodus 17:8–15. Israel was attacked by the Amalekites, but was able to overcome them. God predicted the Amalekites would be destroyed (v.  15; 1 Chron. 4:43 ).

The Preliminary Promise of the Covenant with Moses

      Exodus 19:1–13. The favored status of the people of Israel in the world was revealed (vv.  1–6 ). In connection with the giving of the covenant, the children of Israel were warned not to approach Mount Sinai (vv.  11–13 ).

Prophetic Promise of Guidance for Israel

      Exodus 23:20–31. God directed Israel to follow the guidance of the Angel of the Lord, who would go ahead of them and lead them to the Promised Land. God promised to establish their borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines and from the desert to the Euphrates River. The leading of the Lord was mentioned again in  33:15; 34:10–12.

By John F. Walvoord

Prophecy In Leviticus | Promises Relating to Their Laws

     The book of  Leviticus is a summary of many laws and regulations that governed Israel’s religious life. Promises are often attached to a regulation indicating blessing for obedience or judgment for disobedience. Promises of forgiveness are frequently found ( 5:13, 16; 6:7; 19:22 ). Certain rites would make things or people holy ( 6:18, 27 ). Some rituals resulted in ceremonial cleansing ( 14:20; 15:22; 16:30; 17:15 ). Some offerings were declared unacceptable ( 7:18 ). Certain acts of disobedience would result in individuals being cut off from Israel ( 7:27; 17:9; 23:29 ). Some acts of disobedience would result in death ( 10:6 ).

The Feasts of the Lord

     Though no major prophecies were revealed,  Leviticus 23 outlines the feasts of the Lord that are typically prophetic of future events. The Passover pointed to the sacrifice of Christ (vv.  4–5 ). The Feast of Unleavened Bread represents the holiness of communion with Christ as represented by the absence of leaven (vv.  6–8 ). The Feast of the Firstfruits anticipates Christ’s resurrection as the firstfruit from the dead (vv.  9–14 ). The Feast of Weeks, also known as Pentecost — fifty days after the Feast of Firstfruits — represents the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (vv.  15–22 ). The Feast of Trumpets anticipates the future regathering of Israel (vv.  23–25 ).

     The Day of Atonement was a feast held on the tenth day of the seventh month (cf.  Lev. 16 ), recognizing the sacrifice of atonement offered by the high priest that day and anticipating the repentance of Israel at the second coming ( 23:26–32 ). The final feast, that of Tabernacles, is a memorial of Israel’s redemption from Egypt and is prophetic of her regathering and restoration at the second coming (vv.  33–44 ).

Conditions for Blessing and Warnings of Curses

      Leviticus 26 reveals the conditions for blessing and the warnings of curses. They are commanded not to make idols, to observe the Sabbath, and to reverence the sanctuary (vv.  1–2 ).

     Conditions of blessing and resulting disobedience include bounteous crops, peace, triumph over enemies, increase in their numbers, and God’s presence among them (vv.  3–13 ).

     An extended statement of the curses for disobedience are revealed, similar to the warnings of Moses ( Deut. 28:15–68 ). They were promised distress (vv.  16–17 ), drought (vv.  18–20 ), wild animals (vv.  21–22 ), plagues (vv.  23–26 ), famine (vv.  27–31 ), and worldwide dispersion (vv.  32–39 ).

     Israel was promised forgiveness if their sins were confessed. The Abrahamic covenant was reaffirmed as being certain of fulfillment even if they sinned (vv.  40–45 ).

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     6. In those actions, which in themselves are neither good nor bad, and concern the corporeal rather than the spiritual life, the liberty which man possesses, although we have above touched upon it (supra, Chap. 2 sect. 13-17), has not yet been explained. Some have conceded a free choice to man in such actions; more, I suppose, because they were unwilling to debate a matter of no great moment, than because they wished positively to assert what they were prepared to concede. While I admit that those who hold that man has no ability in himself to do righteousness, hold what is most necessary to be known for salvation, I think it ought not to be overlooked that we owe it to the special grace of God, whenever, on the one hand, we choose what is for our advantage, and whenever our will inclines in that direction; and on the other, whenever with heart and soul we shun what would otherwise do us harm. And the interference of Divine Providence goes to the extent not only of making events turn out as was foreseen to be expedient, but of giving the wills of men the same direction. If we look at the administration of human affairs with the eye of sense, we will have no doubt that, so far, they are placed at man's disposal; but if we lend an ear to the many passages of Scripture which proclaim that even in these matters the minds of men are ruled by God, they will compel us to place human choice in subordination to his special influence. Who gave the Israelites such favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, that they lent them all their most valuable commodities? (Exod. 11:3). They never would have been so inclined of their own accord. Their inclinations, therefore, were more overruled by God than regulated by themselves. And surely, had not Jacob been persuaded that God inspires men with divers affections as seemeth to him good, he would not have said of his son Joseph (whom he thought to be some heathen Egyptian), "God Almighty give you mercy before the man," (Gen. 43:14). In like manner, the whole Church confesses that when the Lord was pleased to pity his people, he made them also to be pitied of all them that carried them captives (Ps. 106:46). In like manner, when his anger was kindled against Saul, so that he prepared himself for battle, the cause is stated to have been, that a spirit from God fell upon him (1 Sam. 11:6). who dissuaded Absalom from adopting the counsel of Ahithophel, which was wont to be regarded as an oracle? (2 Sam. 17:14). Who disposed Rehoboam to adopt the counsel of the young men? (1 Kings 12:10). Who caused the approach of the Israelites to strike terror into nations formerly distinguished for valour? Even the harlot Rahab recognised the hand of the Lord. Who, on the other hand, filled the hearts of the Israelites with fear and dread (Lev. 26:36), but He who threatened in the Law that he would give them a nn "trembling heart"? (Deut. 28:65).

7. It may be objected, that these are special examples which cannot be regarded as a general rule. They are sufficient, at all events, to prove the point for which I contend--viz. that whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. Your judgment often fails, and in matters of no great difficulty, your courage flags; at other times, in matters of the greatest obscurity, the mode of explicating them at once suggests itself, while in matters of moment and danger, your mind rises superior to every difficulty. [176] In this way, I interpret the words of Solomon, "The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them," (Prov. 20:12). For they seem to me to refer not to their creation, but to peculiar grace in the use of them, when he says, "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will," (Prov. 21:1), he comprehends the whole race under one particular class. If any will is free from subjection, it must be that of one possessed of regal power, and in a manner exercising dominion over other wills. But if it is under the hand of God, ours surely cannot be exempt from it. On this subject there is an admirable sentiment of Augustine, "Scripture, if it be carefully examined, will show not only that the good wills of men are made good by God out of evil, and when so made, are directed to good acts, even to eternal life, but those which retain the elements of the world are in the power of God, to turn them whither he pleases, and when he pleases, either to perform acts of kindness, or by a hidden, indeed, but, at the same time, most just judgment to inflict punishment," (August. De Gratia et Lib. Arb. ad Valent. cap. 20).

8. Let the reader here remember, that the power of the human will is not to be estimated by the event, as some unskilful persons are absurdly wont to do. They think it an elegant and ingenious proof of the bondage of the human will, that even the greatest monarchs are sometimes thwarted in their wishes. But the ability of which we speak must be considered as within the man, not measured by outward success. In discussing the subject of free will, the question is not, whether external obstacles will permit a man to execute what he has internally resolved, but whether, in any matter whatever, he has a free power of judging and of willing. If men possess both of these, Attilius Regulus, shut up in a barrel studded with sharp nails, will have a will no less free than Augustus Caesar ruling with imperial sway over a large portion of the globe. [177]

__________________________________________________________________

[171] The French adds, "dont on doute communement;" on which doubts are commonly entertained.

[172] The French adds, "Car quand nous voyons des voleurs, qui ont commis quelque meurtre ou larrecin, nous ne doutons point de leur imputer la faute, et de les condamner."--For when we see robbers who have committed some murder or robbery, we hesitate not to impute the blame to them, and condemn them.

[173] The French adds, "se retractant de l'autre sentence;" retracting the other sentiment.

[174] Ezek. 7:26; Psalm 107:40; Job 12:20, 24; Isiah 63:17; Exod. 4:21; 7:3; 10:1; 3:19.

[175] Isa. 5:26; 7:18; Ezek. 12:13; 17:20; Jer. 2:.23; Isa. 10:15.

[176] The French adds, "D'où procede cela sinon que Dieu besongne tant d'une part que d'autre?"--Whence this, but that God interferes thus far in either case?

[177] The French is simply, "Car si cela pouvoit etre en l'homme, il ne seroit par moins libre enfermé en un prison que dominant par toute la terre." If that could be in man, he would be no less free shut up in a prison than ruling all the earth.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain      Institutes of the Christian Religion