Why Are You a Christian Believer?

By J. Warner Wallace 7/5/2017

     I’ve been speaking around the country for a number of years now. I often address church groups of one nature or another, and when I do, I usually begin by asking a simple question: “Why are you a Christian?” The response I get is sometimes disappointing. Typically, attendees provide responses in one of the following broad categories:

     Answer 1: “I was raised in the church” / “My parents were Christians” / “I’ve been a Christian as long as I can remember”

     Answer 2: “I’ve had an experience that convinced me” / “The Holy Spirit confirmed it for me” / “God demonstrated His existence to me”

     Answer 3: “I was changed by Jesus” / “I used to be [fill in your choice of immoral lifestyle], and God changed my life”

     Answer 4: “Because I just know the Bible is true” / “Because God called me to believe”

     As often as I ask this question, I seldom receive anything other than these four responses. If you were asked this question, which answer would you give? Some of these are good answers, but others are not. If you’re a Christian simply because you’ve been raised in the church, how can you be sure Christianity is true? If you’re a Christian because you’ve had a transformative experience, how do you know if this experience is truly from the God described on the pages of the New Testament?

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

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

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

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

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

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

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

God's Perfections Can And Can't

By Robert Jeffress 2023

God's Perfections

     We use words like traits and characteristics to refer to God’s attributes. But perfections is a more accurate term. Human traits and characteristics are limited and often in conflict with one another. For example, one person may be intelligent in certain areas but average at best in others. Another may be friendly at times but vengeful when crossed.

     On the other hand, every one of God’s attributes is perfect and complete. He’s not just loving; His love is perfect and complete. He’s not simply just; His justice is perfect and complete. His justice never negates His love, and vice versa. His attributes exist in perfect harmony with one another.

     God is omnipotent. God’s power over the universe is limitless. In fact, the world exists only because God thought it would be a good idea. One word from Him brought the universe, in all its splendor and complexity, into being. He suspends the laws of nature at will to accomplish His purposes, whether it involves causing a ninety-year-old woman to become pregnant (Gen. 21:1–7), stopping the sun’s celestial movement so the Israelites could score a military victory (Josh. 10:1–15), or allowing three of His servants to walk around unharmed in a burning furnace (Dan. 3).

     6. God is omniscient. God knows everything: past, present, and future. He sees it all because He exists apart from time. He knows how everything in the universe works. He knows why everything happens. He knows everything about us — every good and bad thing we’ve ever done, everything we’re capable of, and every choice we’ll ever face. He knows our true motives and our deepest feelings. He knows what the future holds for us. He knows how we can experience ultimate fulfillment and happiness. He knows how we can maximize the gifts He’s given us to serve Him and make a difference in the world.

Can And Can't

     When we discuss God’s power, the question inevitably arises: “Can God do anything?” Strictly speaking, the answer is no. God can’t do anything contrary to His perfect, holy nature. For example, He can’t lie (Titus 1:2), be tempted by evil (James 1:13), or be faithless (2 Tim. 2:13), to name just a few things. These are called natural limitations — things God can’t do because they go against His nature. These limitations don’t make God any less powerful; they just make Him true to His nature.

     7. God is immanent. The word immanent means “remaining within; indwelling.”1 God is always present in His creation. In corporate terms, He’s a hands - on manager. God didn’t create the world and then walk away, leaving us to fend for ourselves. He doesn’t rely on angels to bring Him monthly progress reports. He sees all and stays ever near to us, in good times and bad.

     8. God is transcendent. God is not constrained by the universe or anything in it. He is completely distinct from His creation. He is not subject to the physical laws of this world. His being is beyond our ability to understand. We know what we know about God only because He chooses to reveal it. God is involved in the daily workings of this world because He chooses to be. He is not compelled to be part of our lives; He wants to be.

     9. God is sovereign. God is the ultimate authority in heaven and on earth. He answers to no one. God is not obliged to do anything unless He obliges Himself. He doesn’t rely on advisors, focus groups, image handlers, or marketing surveys. He isn’t motivated by popularity or party loyalty. He does what He wants, when He wants. And everything God does is right and perfect simply because He does it.

     10. God is unchanging. Old and New Testament writers agree: God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent” (Num. 23:19). He does not change like a “shifting shadow” (James 1:17). God doesn’t phase out old attributes over time and try out new ones. He doesn’t rethink His promises in light of recent developments. We can always count on God to be who He says He is and to do what He says He will do.

God Reveals His Names

     Let’s do a quick exercise: I’ll give you a name, and you think hard about everything that comes to mind when you read that name. Ready? Ronald Reagan.

     Unless you’re too young to remember our fortieth president, it’s likely that some specific images came to mind. You pictured the man’s physical features and mannerisms. You recalled his distinctive voice and speaking style. Perhaps you thought about certain moments from his presidency — the assassination attempt or his challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. You probably recalled things you liked or disliked about him. Maybe you even replayed some scenes from Bedtime for Bonzo in your mind. The point is, the name Ronald Reagan stirred a reaction in you. His name represents his entire being, as your name does with you, my name does with me, and God’s name does with Him.

     Or, in God’s case, His names. Scholars suggest there are more than one hundred names for God in Scripture. These are names that are known to us only because He revealed them.  I like to make videos. One of my favorite videos is The Names of God. You can find it on the home page of my website. https://lean-into-god.com/

     Each name gives us unique insight into God’s character. Certain names also encourage us to draw nearer to Him as circumstances present themselves in our lives. For example, if you or a loved one is struggling with health issues, you may find special comfort in praying to Jehovah Rapha, the Lord our Healer. Or if you’re overwhelmed by the beauty of a sunset or a mountain vista, you might find a satisfying outlet for your emotions by offering praise to El Elyon, God Most High.

     Let there be no confusion: God never changes. There is no difference between Jehovah Rapha and El Elyon. He is the one true God, regardless of nomenclature. But there’s a familiarity — an intimacy — in being able to call God by His various names that serves us well. Consider the different names people use to refer to us. The name they choose reflects their relationship with us. To some people, I’m Dr. Jeffress. To my friends, I’m Robert. To my daughters, I’m Dad. And to my grandchildren, I’m Paw Paw, my new favorite name.

     As with God’s attributes, there’s no way we can do justice to the complexity of God’s names. But we can prime the pump for further study. With that in mind, here’s an introduction to a few of the names of God.

     Elohim is the first name of God used in the Bible — in Genesis 1:1, to be precise. It is the general name for God, and it means “supreme one” or “mighty one.”

     Yahweh is the name God used to identify Himself to Moses in the burning bush (Exod. 3:13–15). It means “I AM WHO I AM” — or “I AM.” Yahweh is the covenant name that refers to God’s special relationship with the nation of Israel.

     El Elyon means “God Most High” (Ps. 57:2). This is the universal name for God. This name is used to refer to His role as the God of the entire universe.

     El Shaddai, or “God Almighty,” is the name God used to make Himself known to Abram in Genesis 17:1.

     El Roi is the name Hagar used in Genesis 16 when God found her in the wilderness. It means “the God who sees me.”

     Adonai is a name for God that means “Lord,” derived from the Hebrew word for “sovereign.”

     Abba is an Aramaic word for “father,” used in a familiar but respectful sense, much like our English word “Daddy” (Rom. 8:15).

     There are many other names of God throughout Scripture, and each one reveals even more of His character. The more we know about the attributes and names of God, the better equipped we are to respond to a third aspect of His revelation: God’s plan.

The Names Of Jehovah

     Jehovah is a variation of the name Yahweh. The Old Testament includes seven names for God that begin with Jehovah:

•     Jehovah Jireh means “the Lord our Provider.” This is the name Abraham used when God provided a ram for him to sacrifice in Isaac’s place (Gen. 22:14).

•     Jehovah Rapha means “the Lord our Healer.” He heals not just our bodies but also our souls by forgiving our sins (Exod. 15:26).

•     Jehovah Nissi means “the Lord our Banner.” Banner, in this context, refers to a rallying site, such as where the Israelites gathered in their victory over the Amalekites (Exod. 17:15).

•     Jehovah Shalom means “the Lord our Peace.” This is the name Gideon used when he saw the angel of the Lord (Judg. 6:24).

•     Jehovah Rohi means “the Lord our Shepherd.” In his most famous psalm, David compared God’s relationship with His people to a shepherd’s relationship with his sheep (Ps. 23:1).

•     Jehovah Tsidkenu means “the Lord our Righteousness.” This name looked forward to God’s providing righteousness through the sacrifice of His Son (Jer. 23:6).

•     Jehovah Shammah means “the Lord is Here” This name celebrated the glory of the Lord returning to Jerusalem after a long absence (Ezek. 48:35).

Pursuing God intellectually: Being honest about our questions

By Travis Dickinson ?

     In my last post, I gave an invitation to pursue God intellectually.

     Jesus identified the greatest commandment as loving God with our all of who we are, and Jesus specifically included loving God with our minds. But what does this mean? I suggested that we understand this as pursuing God intellectually in a way that is consonant with other relational pursuits. When we love someone, we want to know things. We are intellectually curious about what makes them tick.

     Now this was only intended as an analogy and all analogies break down somewhere. When it comes to God, we are not simply in the sort of love relationship as we are in, say, a marriage. Pursuing God intellectually has its own shape, its own approach.

     What does this approach look like?

     The first thing I want to suggest is that we be honest about where we are at intellectually on matters of faith. What I mean by this is that, we tend to act as if we have perfect confidence in all matters. Suppose you were asked, “when it comes to faith, what questions do you have?’ If there are not a ready handful of things that you are thinking about, then I want to suggest you are not intellectually pursuing God.

Welcome to The Benefit of the Doubt where I talk about the art of dialogue, the value of doubts, and the virtue of Christian faith.

     I LOVE to dialogue about big ideas, especially with those with whom I disagree. But the tone of most discussions are, let’s call it, unproductive. I’m really interested in helping people with the art of dialoguing well.

     No one likes to doubt deeply cherished beliefs. However, I want to suggest that there is great value in our doubts. When handled properly, they lead to truth and knowledge, and even deeper faith.

     I’m convinced that Christianity is true, good and beautiful. I’m convinced that Jesus is peerless. Though faith is often disparaged, caricatured and deeply misunderstood, I’m convinced that Christian faith is the primary way to flourish as a human being.

     I am the author of Everyday Apologetics and co-author of Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (B&H, forthcoming). He blogs at www.travisdickinson.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.

Professor Explains How His Study Of The Historical Jesus Made Him Leave Atheism

By Wintery Knight 11/28/2015

     Dr. Michael F. Bird has a great article in Christianity Today. I’ve featured his debates with atheist historian James Crossley on this blog before, and I have the book they co-wrote.

     In the article, Dr. Bird writes:

     I grew up in a secular home in suburban Australia, where religion was categorically rejected—it was seen as a crutch, and people of faith were derided as morally deviant hypocrites. Rates for church attendance in Australia are some of the lowest in the Western world, and the country’s political leaders feel no need to feign religious devotion. In fact, they think it’s better to avoid religion altogether.

     As a teenager, I wrote poetry mocking belief in God. My mother threw enough profanity at religious door knockers to make even a sailor blush.

     Many years later, however, I read the New Testament for myself. The Jesus I encountered was far different from the deluded radical, even mythical character described to me. This Jesus—the Jesus of history—was real. He touched upon things that cut close to my heart, especially as I pondered the meaning of human existence. I was struck by the early church’s testimony to Jesus: In Christ’s death God has vanquished evil, and by his resurrection he has brought life and hope to all.

     RE: Wintery Knight: For now, I prefer to keep anonymous, although I may add additional details to this page later.

     My political views are a mixture of conservative and libertarian. I believe in free market capitalism and liberty, and especially in religious liberty.  I favor a strong defense abroad, “peace through strength”, as Reagan would have it.

     Theologically, I am a conservative evangelical Protestant Christian. I favor the old-earth (14 billion-year universe) perspective, and I am a firm supporter of intelligent design. Socially, I am pro-life, pro-chastity, pro-abstinence and pro-traditional-marriage.

     You can read my story in more detail here.

A Literate Ministry

By T. David Gordon 5/1/2010

     Consider, if you will, how difficult (and sometimes annoying) it is when you encounter computergenerated voice menus when you make telephone calls. The emphasis is almost always on the wrong syllable, the monotonic and a-rhythmic cadence is unnatural, and one would not care to listen to more than small amounts of it. If the present trends continue, all public speech may sound similar to this in the future.

     In both 2004 and 2007, the National Endowment for the Arts released studies tracing the rise of aliteracy (not illiteracy) in the United States: the phenomenon of people who have the ability to read but choose not to. The second report said:

     “The story the data tell is simple, consistent, and alarming. Although there has been measurable progress in recent years in reading ability at the elementary school level, all progress appears to halt as children enter their teenage years. There is a general decline in reading among teenage and adult Americans. Most alarming, both reading ability and the habit of regular reading have greatly declined among college graduates.”

     To be an effective preacher, a certain kind of literacy is a necessity. But first, let me say what kind of literacy is not necessary. A sermon need not be flowery or “eloquent” in a manner that calls attention to its art; to the contrary, any sermonic habit, device, or art that calls attention to the style rather than the message is a liability, not an asset. This point was made ably a century ago both by Bishop J.C. Ryle and by the southern American theologian Robert Lewis Dabney.

     Both Ryle and Dabney objected to the kinds of rhetorical ornamentation that caused people to notice the preacher’s style more than the message, and each suggested that such artifice necessarily intrudes upon earnestness and/or sincerity, which are hallmarks of all good preaching. So a minister need not and should not be literate in the showy, ostentatious, or obviously literary sense. A minister needs to be literate, however, in two other senses. To understand the Holy Scriptures, he must be literate in biblical content, history, and language. To communicate effectively, he must be literate in literature.

     Expository Literacy: All true Christian preaching is expository. The minister’s words cannot be judged to be God’s proclaimed Word unless his words are manifestly derived from some text of Holy Scripture. Therefore, ministers need to be literate at reading texts carefully. Their preaching may be true, their exhortations proper, and their warnings appropriate, but if they are not based upon sound exposition of Scripture, all the hearer knows is the minister’s opinion. He has no way of knowing that the minister’s opinion is also God’s opinion. Such literacy is hard work and involves intricate questions of history, grammar, syntax, rhetoric, and even figures of speech. Moses Stuart, one of the early professors at Andover Seminary, recognized that expository literacy was utterly necessary for a minister: “How can we … listen to prophets and apostles, speaking Hebrew and Greek, without much learning and study? It is plainly impossible.”

     In a culture such as ours, where even college graduates read very little, the NEA’s warnings about the culture are especially acute to the church. If we read little, and especially if we do not read ancient or difficult texts carefully, we are not likely to succeed in an expository calling.

     Literary Literacy: Some readers of Tabletalk are familiar with the Levi P. Stone Lectures given annually at Princeton Seminary for over a century. In 1940, they were given by Charles Grosvenor Osgood, and later published as Poetry as a Means of Grace. Osgood did not argue that poetry was a “means of grace” in the technical, theological sense; rather, he argued that a minister’s usefulness in the pulpit would be determined in a substantial way by the poetry he would (or would not) read for the remainder of his life. Such reading, he argued, would have a profound influence on style (though not because a particular poet’s style would be imitated), but also on his perceptiveness and his vigor.

     I cannot here reproduce everything Osgood said in his lectures, but I should remind that he gave the lectures fifteen years before the advent of commercial television. Sixty years before the NEA published its concerns regarding aliteracy, long before there were any serious cultural competitors with books, Osgood commended a life of poetry reading for those who wished to communicate well. One can only imagine what he would say today about our shallow vision, our infantile diction, our poorly-composed thoughts, or our pre-occupation with the trivial. Reading poetry cultivates both our sensibility of the significant and our instinctive appreciation and use of the aural properties of our language, since poets devote themselves to that very thing. Osgood’s counsel is more apt in our generation than it was in his. Ministers today, even more than in his generation, would do well to cultivate their literary sensibilities.

• 1     Why Johnny Can't Preach: The Media Have Shaped the Messengers
• 2     Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns: How Pop Culture Rewrote the Hymnal
• 3     By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification

Psalm 148

By Don Carson 7/12/2018

     All of the five closing Psalms begin with the single Hebrew word Hallelujah — “Praise the Lord.” This Psalm (Ps. 148) is remarkable for its emphasis on the sheer range and comprehensiveness of beings and things in the universe that unite the whole creation in praise. The first six verses begin with angels, sweeping down through unconscious participants in the heavens; the next six verses — mirror-images of the first six — begin with the unconscious participants on the earth, and rise to human beings (Ps. 148:77-12). The last two verses (Ps. 148:13-14) draw the people in covenant with him. Some notes:

     (1) There have always been people who attach their affections and worship to angels (e.g., Col. 2:18), even though angels are our fellow servants (Rev. 22:8-9). Others foolishly think that their destinies are controlled by the stars, even though stars are nothing more than God’s creation. Both angels and stars — the one sentiently, the other not — bear witness to God’s greatness; in that sense they join together in worship (Ps. 148:2-3).

     (2) The phrase “highest heavens” is literally “heaven of heavens,” a way of expressing the superlative (like “holy of holies”). The expression “waters above the skies” is a Hebrew poetic way of referring to rain (148:4). Whether one thinks of “the heavens” as the sphere in which the rain condenses out of the atmosphere, or as the abode of God Almighty, there is nothing that has not been created: “he commanded and they were created” (Ps. 148:5). So there is nothing that does not bear witness to the Creator-God.

     (3) The denizens of the earth’s oceans, the varied precipitation that waters the ground, the fury of unleashed storms, the majesty and beauty of mountains and hills, the spectacular diversity and color and beauty of earth’s flora and fauna, the scarcely imaginable array of the earth’s births — all attest, mutely but powerfully, to the goodness and greatness of God. As part of that creation, human beings, in all their diversity of their ranks and stations in life, join this universal chorus of praise (Ps. 148:11-12), not simply because he is bigger than we are, but because no matter how highly we envisage his glorious splendor, it is higher yet, higher than anything and everything in all creation (Ps. 148:13).

     (4) This unimaginably great God has not only called out his own people, but has raised up for them a “horn” (a symbol for a king), the praise of all his saints (Ps. 148:14). Living this side of Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection, we know who the ultimate King in the Davidic line really is. And so our praise joins that of the rest of the universe with peculiar intensity and gratitude.

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

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 74

1 O God, why do you cast us off forever?
Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture?
2 Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old,
which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage!
Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt.
3 Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins;
the enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary!

4 Your foes have roared in the midst of your meeting place;
they set up their own signs for signs.
5 They were like those who swing axes
in a forest of trees.
6 And all its carved wood
they broke down with hatchets and hammers.
7 They set your sanctuary on fire;
they profaned the dwelling place of your name,
bringing it down to the ground.
8 They said to themselves, “We will utterly subdue them”;
they burned all the meeting places of God in the land.

9 We do not see our signs;
there is no longer any prophet,
and there is none among us who knows how long.
10 How long, O God, is the foe to scoff?

By John Walvoord

Summary of Messianic Prophecies in  Isaiah

     The prophecy concerning the virgin birth of Christ should be considered in the context of other messianic prophecies in the whole book of  Isaiah. Major future messianic prophecies in  Isaiah include the reign of Christ in the kingdom ( 2:3–5 ), the virgin birth of Christ ( 7:14 ), the joyful reign of Christ ( 9:2, 7 ), the rule of Christ over the world (v.  4 ), Christ as a descendant of Jesse and David ( 11:1, 10 ), Christ to be filled with the Spirit (v.  2; 42:1 ), Christ to judge with righteousness ( 11:3–5; 42:1, 4 ), Christ to rule over the nations ( 11:10 ), Christ to be gentle to the weak ( 42:3 ), Christ to make possible the new covenant (v.  6; 49:8 ), Christ to be a light to the Gentiles and to be worshipped by them ( 42:6; 49:6–7; 52:15 ), Christ to be rejected by Israel ( 49:7; 53:1–3 ), Christ to be obedient to God and subject to suffering ( 50:6; 53:7–8 ), Christ to be exalted ( 52:13; 53:12 ), Christ to restore Israel and judge the wicked ( 61:1–3 ).

The Assyrian Invasion and Israel’s Coming Distress

     Isaiah 8:1–22. The prophecy that a maiden, who was then a virgin, would later conceive and give birth to a son was fulfilled. He was given the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. The name means “quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil.” The prophecy was that before this child would become age two or three, or know the difference between good and evil, the Assyrians would conquer Samaria. This revelation was enlarged in the prophecies of verses  5–10, in which God prophesied that Israel (the ten tribes) would be defeated. Isaiah was instructed to fear God and not the people, and further prophesied Israel’s defeat and suffering (vv.  11–22 ). Judah would be delivered from Assyrian domination ( 37:33–38 ). This illustrates the future deliverance when her Messiah will come. This prophecy is fulfilled in history and prophecy ( 2 Kings 17:1–18; Jer. 23:3–8 ).

     The Lord will be a rock of offense to unbelievers ( Isa. 8:13–15; Rom. 9:32–33 ).

The Coming Son of David

     Isaiah 9:1–7. In contrast to the past humiliation of Zebulun and Naphtali when they were under the rule of Assyria, the area known as “Galilee of the Gentiles” (v.  1 ) will be the scene of her great deliverance, referring to the birth of Christ. Though He was actually born in Bethlehem, His home was in Nazareth in the area related to Zebulun and Naphtali.

     The coming of the Messiah was compared to a time when a great light would shine (v.  2 ) and be a time of joy and rejoicing (v.  3 ). The time was pictured as a great victory of Israel (vv.  4–5 ).

     The great prophecy of the coming of Christ is recorded in verses  6–7: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.”

     This passage is one of the great messianic prophecies of the Old Testament describing Christ as possessing the attributes of God. He will be “Everlasting Father” (v.  6 ), not in the sense of being God the Father, the first person of the Trinity, but in the sense that He will be like a father in His government over Israel in the millennial kingdom. The peace of that period was indicated in the title “Prince of Peace” (v.  6 ).

     As God promised David, his kingdom would go on forever, being fulfilled by the millennial kingdom. God will continue to be sovereign over creation throughout eternity to come. The prophecy specified that His throne would be David’s throne (v.  7 ), in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant indicating that this throne, like David’s kingdom, would be on earth, not in heaven. This kingdom will be distinguished as one of justice and righteousness (cf.  11:3–5 ). The kingdom will be realized by the power of God: “The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this” ( 9:7 ).

     These prophecies, as interpreted in their normal literal sense, predict fulfillment of the expectation of a kingdom on earth after the second coming of Christ, in keeping with the premillennial interpretation of Scripture. There is nothing in this passage that corresponds to the present reign of Christ on earth or the present position of Christ in heaven, the interpretation of amillenarians. In this passage, as in many passages in the Old Testament, the first and second coming of Christ are not distinguished, and the child who was born (v.  6 ) in Bethlehem in His first coming will be the same person described as the Everlasting King who will reign forever (v.  7 ). The theme of the future kingdom of Christ on earth was a familiar subject of the prophecies of Isaiah ( 11:4; 16:5; 28:5–6, 17; 32:16; 33:5; 42:1, 3–4; 51:5 ).

The Captivity of the Ten Northern Tribes of Israel

     Isaiah 9:8–10:4. Immediately following this glorious picture of the future reign of Christ, the prophetic revelation returns to the contemporary situation in Israel.  Isaiah prophesied the future captivity of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel ( 9:8–10:4 ). The ten tribes were warned of God’s judgment on them for their pride ( 9:8–17 ). They are described as already on the way to disaster. Though they claimed they would repair the “bricks” that “have fallen down” with “dressed stone” (v.  10 ), actually, their enemies were going to conquer them. God predicted judgment on their leaders, “the elders and prominent men” (v.  15 ), as well as their “prophets who teach lies” (v.  15 ). Their time of judgment would be one when there would be no pity for orphans and widows (v.  17 ).

     Israel’s increasing wickedness is described as a great fire that burns not only “briers and thorns” but “the forest thickets” as well (v.  18 ). God would respond in His wrath, scorching the land and destroying the people (v.  19 ). God predicted, “Each will feed on the flesh of his own offspring” (v.  20 ).

     Further prediction of Israel’s coming disaster was made, but even this judgment would not turn away God’s wrath ( 10:1–4 ). This was fulfilled in the Assyrian captivity.

Divine Judgment on Assyria

     Isaiah 10:5–34. God’s judgment, however, would fall on Assyria, whom God used to judge Israel, as well as on Israel herself (vv.  5–19 ). God’s judgment on Assyria is described in detail. The prophecy made clear that after God used the Assyrians to judge Israel, He would then judge the Assyrians: “When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, “I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes’” (v.  12 ). God will destroy their “sturdy warriors” (v.  16 ) and their “forests and fertile fields” (v.  18 ).

     After Assyria had been destroyed, God would restore “the remnant of Israel, the survivors of the house of Jacob” (v.  20 ). A remnant of Israel would return to their land (v.  21 ). In graphic language, Assyria is described as cut down like a tree whose limbs are cut off (vv.  33–34 ). A partial return of Israel to their land from Assyria was accomplished after Nineveh fell to the Babylonians (612 BC). The complete regathering of Israel will be fulfilled in relation to the second coming of Christ.

The Future Glorious Kingdom of Israel

     Isaiah 11:1–12:6. Isaiah predicted that Israel would enjoy the future glorious kingdom. Having cut down Assyria as a tree is cut down ( 10:33–34 ), now God would raise up a new “shoot” which “will come up from the stump of Jesse” ( 11:1 ). This branch that comes from the root of Jesse, or David’s line, “will bear fruit” (v.  1 ). This was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus Christ in His first coming.

     The passage, however, reveals primarily Christ’s position as King and Judge at the time of His second coming. It was prophesied that the Holy Spirit would rest on Him and that He would have wisdom, power, and knowledge (v.  2 ). His judgment will be with justice (vv.  3–4 ). He “will slay the wicked” (v.  4 ) and “righteousness” and “faithfulness” will characterize His rule (v.  5 ). These passages, of course, will be fulfilled at the time of the second coming of Christ and do not refer to God’s present rule on earth.

     The future kingdom reign of Christ will be characterized by peace among animals as well as among men. Wolf and lamb will live together, and “the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together” (v.  6 ). The peacefulness of nature was summarized in verse  9: “They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” It should be obvious that any literal fulfillment of this passage requires a millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ. Even in a nonliteral sense, this does not describe the present age. To apply it to heaven or to the new heavens and the new earth, as some amillenarians hold, again does not fit the picture provided in other Scriptures of heaven and of the new earth.

     The restoration of Israel in the time of Christ’s reign on earth will follow His second coming (vv.  10–16 ). The “Root of Jesse,” referring to Christ, will be One to whom the nations rally (v.  10 ). Israel will be regathered from the nations to which she was scattered (vv.  11–12 ). The animosity between the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel will vanish, and Ephraim and Judah will be at peace. Together they will bring into subjection their former enemies (v.  14 ). To assist the regathering of Israel, “the gulf of the Egyptian Sea” may “dry up” and the Euphrates River will not be a formidable water barrier (v.  15 ). While this may be supernatural, Russia has already helped build a dam across the Euphrates River, and when this and other dams are closed, the Euphrates River dries up in several sections. The drying up of the Euphrates River will permit people to cross easily (cf.  Rev. 16:12 ).

     Because of their great victory, Israel will praise the Lord ( Isa. 12:1–6 ). The glorious restoration of Israel and their joy in the future kingdom was anticipated in the Abrahamic covenant ( Gen. 12:1–3; 15:18–21; 17:7–8; 22:17–18 ), the Davidic covenant ( 2 Sam. 7:16 ), and the new covenant ( Jer. 31:33–34 ). The glorious future millennial kingdom of Israel will be in contrast to the predicted fall of Babylon and Assyria ( Isa. 10:5–19; 13:1–22 ).

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Continual Burnt Offering (Mark 16:19-20)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

July 12

Thou from the dead wast raised—
And from all condemnation
Thy saints are free, as risen in Thee,
Head of the new creation!
On high Thou hast ascended,
To God’s right hand in heaven,
The Lamb once slain, alive again,—
To Thee all pow’r is given.

Thou hast bestowed the earnest
Of that we shall inherit;
Till Thou shalt come to take us home,
We’re sealed by God the Spirit.
We wait for Thine appearing,
When we shall know more fully
The grace divine that made us Thine,
Thou Lamb of God most holy!
--- Tregelles

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     29. Since they put so much confidence in his hiding-place of invisible presence, let us see how well they conceal themselves in it. First, they cannot produce a syllable from Scripture to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted what no sound man will admit, that the body of Christ cannot be given in the Supper, unless covered with the mask of bread. This is the very point in dispute; so far is it from occupying the place of the first principle. And while they thus prate, they are forced to give Christ a twofold body, because, according to them, it is visible in itself in heaven, but in the Supper is invisible, by a special mode of dispensation. The beautiful consistency of this may easily be judged, both from other passages of Scripture, and from the testimony of Peter. Peter says that the heavens must receive, or contain Christ, till he come again (Acts 3:21). These men teach that he is in every place, but without form. They say that it is unfair to subject a glorious body to the ordinary laws of nature. But this answer draws along with it the delirious dream of Servetus, which all pious minds justly abhor, that his body was absorbed by his divinity. I do not say that this is their opinion; but if it is considered one of the properties of a glorified body to fill all things in an invisible manner, it is plain that the corporeal substance is abolished, and no distinction is left between his Godhead and his human nature. Again, if the body of Christ is so multiform and diversified, that it appears in one place, and in another is invisible, where is there anything of the nature of body with its proper dimensions, and where is its unity? Far more correct is Tertullian, who contends that the body of Christ was natural and real, because its figure is set before us in the mystery of the Supper, as a pledge and assurance of spiritual life (Tertull. Cont. Marc. Lib. 4). [646] And certainly Christ said of his glorified body, "Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39). Here, by the lips of Christ himself, the reality of his flesh is proved, by its admitting of being seen and handled. Take these away, and it will cease to be flesh. They always betake themselves to their lurking-place of dispensation, which they have fabricated. But it is our duty so to embrace what Christ absolutely declares, as to give it an unreserved assent. He proves that he is not a phantom, because he is visible in his flesh. Take away what he claims as proper to the nature of his body, and must not a new definition of body be devised? Then, however they may turn themselves about, they will not find any place for their fictitious dispensation in that passage, in which Paul says, that "our conversation is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil. 3:20, 21). We are not to hope for conformity to Christ in these qualities which they ascribe to him as a body, without bounds, and invisible. They will not find any one so stupid as to be persuaded of this great absurdity. Let them not, therefore, set it down as one of the properties of Christ's glorious body, that it is, at the same time, in many places, and in no place. In short, let them either openly deny the resurrection of his flesh, or admit that Christ, when invested with celestial glory, did not lay aside his flesh, but is to make us, in our flesh, his associates, and partakers of the same glory, since we are to have a common resurrection with him. For what does Scripture throughout deliver more clearly than that, as Christ assumed our flesh when he was born of the Virgin, and suffered in our true flesh when he made satisfaction for us, so on rising again he resumed the same true flesh, and carried it with him to heaven? The hope of our resurrection, and ascension to heaven, is, that Christ rose again and ascended, and, as Tertullian says (De Resurrect. Carnis), "Carried an earnest of our resurrection along with him into heaven." Morever, how weak and fragile would this hope be, had not this very flesh of ours in Christ been truly raised up, and entered into the kingdom of heaven. But the essential properties of a body are to be confined by space, to have dimension and form. Have done, then, with that foolish fiction, which affixes the minds of men, as well as Christ, to bread. For to what end this occult presence under the bread, save that those who wish to have Christ conjoined with them may stop short at the symbol? But our Lord himself wished us to withdraw not only our eyes, but all our senses, from the earth, forbidding the woman to touch him until he had ascended to the Father (John 20:17). When he sees Mary, with pious reverential zeal, hastening to kiss his feet, there could be no reason for his disapproving and forbidding her to touch him before he had ascended to heaven, unless he wished to he sought nowhere else. The objection, that he afterwards appeared to Stephen, is easily answered. It was not necessary for our Saviour to change his place, as he could give the eyes of his servant a power of vision which could penetrate to heaven. The same account is to be given of the case of Paul. The objection, that Christ came forth from the closed sepulchre, and came in to his disciples while the doors were shut (Mt. 28:6; John 20:19), gives no better support to their error. For as the water, just as if it had been a solid pavement, furnished a path to our Saviour when he walked on it (Mt. 14.), so it is not strange that the hard stone yielded to his step; although it is more probable that the stone was removed at his command, and forthwith, after giving him a passage, returned to its place. To enter while the doors were shut, was not so much to penetrate through solid matter, as to make a passage for himself by divine power, and stand in the midst of his disciples in a most miraculous manner. They gain nothing by quoting the passage from Luke, in which it is said, that Christ suddenly vanished from the eyes of the disciples, with whom he had journed to Emmaus (Luke 24:31). In withdrawing from their sight, he did not become invisible: he only disappeared. Thus Luke declares that, on the journeying with them, he did not assume a new form, but that " their eyes were holden." But these men not only transform Christ that he may live on the earth, but pretend that there is another elsewhere of a different description. In short, by thus trifling, they, not in direct terms indeed, but by a circumlocution, make a spirit of the flesh of Christ; and, not contented with this, give him properties altogether opposite. Hence it necessarily follows that he must be twofold.

30. Granting what they absurdly talk of the invisible presence, it will still be necessary to prove the immensity, without which it is vain to attempt to include Christ under the bread. Unless the body of Christ can be everywhere without any boundaries of space, it is impossible to believe that he is hid in the Supper under the bread. Hence, they have been under the necessity of introducing the monstrous dogma of ubiquity. But it has been demonstrated by strong and clear passages of Scripture, first, that it is bounded by the dimensions of the human body; and, secondly, that its ascension into heaven made it plain that it is not in all places, but on passing to a new one, leaves the one formerly occupied. The promise to which they appeal, "I am with you always, even to the end of the world," is not to be applied to the body. First, then, a perpetual connection with Christ could not exist, unless he dwells in us corporeally, independently of the use of the Supper; and, therefore, they have no good ground for disputing so bitterly concerning the words of Christ, in order to include him under the bread in the Supper. [647] Secondly, the context proves that Christ is not speaking at all of his flesh, but promising the disciples his invincible aid to guard and sustain them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For, in appointing them to a difficult office, he confirms them by the assurance of his presence, that they might neither hesitate to undertake it, nor be timorous in the discharge of it; as if he had said, that his invincible protection would not fail them. Unless we would throw everything into confusion, must it not be necessary to distinguish the mode of presence? And, indeed, some, to their great disgrace, choose rather to betray their ignorance than give up one iota of their error. I speak not of Papists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some are so hurried away by contention as to say, that on account of the union of natures in Christ, wherever his divinity is, there his flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is also; as if that union formed a kind of medium of the two natures, making him to be neither God nor man. So held Eutyches, and after him Servetus. But it is clearly gathered from Scripture that the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired. That Eutyches was justly condemned, they will not have the hardihood to deny. It is strange that they attend not to the cause of condemnation--viz. that destroying the distinction between the natures, and insisting only on the unity of person, he converted God into man and man into God. [648] What madness, then, is it to confound heaven with earth, sooner than not withdraw the body of Christ from its heavenly sanctuary? In regard to the passages which they adduce, "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (John 3:13); "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18), they betray the same stupidity, scouting the communion of properties (idiomatum, koinoni'an), which not without reason was formerly invented by holy Fathers. Certainly when Paul says of the princes of this world that they "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8), he means not that he suffered anything in his divinity, but that Christ, who was rejected and despised, and suffered in the flesh, was likewise God and the Lord of glory. In this way, both the Son of man was in heaven because he was also Christ; and he who, according to the flesh, dwelt as the Son of man on earth, was also God in heaven. For this reason, he is said to have descended from heaven in respect of his divinity, not that his divinity quitted heaven to conceal itself in the prison of the body, but because, although he filled all things, it yet resided in the humanity of Christ coporeally, that is, naturally, and in an ineffable manner. There is a trite distinction in the schools which I hesitate not to quote. Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere. I wish the Schoolmen had duly weighed the force of this sentence, as it would have obviated their absurd fiction of the corporeal presence of Christ. Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgment.

31. They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. They thus leave nothing for the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. Christ does not seem to them to be present unless he descends to us, as if we did not equally gain his presence when he raises us to himself. The only question, therefore, is as to the mode, they placing Christ in the bread, while we deem it unlawful to draw him down from heaven. Which of the two is more correct, let the reader judge. Only have done with the calumny that Christ is withdrawn from his Supper if he lurk not under the covering of bread. For seeing this mystery is heavenly, there is no necessity to bring Christ on the earth that he may be connected with us.

32. Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly, I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive. Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, and are inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. Since they must also be repugnant to the word of God, which teaches both that Christ was received into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, so as to be exalted above all the circumstances of the world (Luke 24:26), and no less carefully ascribes to him the properties belonging to a true human nature. This ought not to seem incredible or contradictory to reason (Iren. Lib. 4 cap. 34); because, as the whole kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so whatever he does in his Church is not to be tested by the wisdom of this world; or, to use the words of Augustine, "this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner." Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality. Those who are carried beyond this with their hyperboles, do nothing more by their extravagancies than obscure the plain and simple truth. If any one is not yet satisfied, I would have him here to consider with himself that we are speaking of the sacrament, every part of which ought to have reference to faith. Now by participation of the body, as we have explained, we nourish faith not less richly and abundantly than do those who drag Christ himself from heaven. Still I am free to confess that that mixture or transfusion of the flesh of Christ with our soul, which they teach, I repudiate, because it is enough for us that Christ, out of the substance of his flesh, breathes life into our souls, nay, diffuses his own life into us, though the real flesh of Christ does not enter us. [649] I may add, that there can be no doubt that the analogy of faith by which Paul enjoins us to test every interpretation of Scripture, is clearly with us in this matter. Let those who oppose a truth so clear, consider to what standard of faith they conform themselves: "Ever spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God" (1 John 4:3); 2 John ver. 7). These men, though they disguise the fact, or perceive it not, rob him of his flesh.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion