A Personal God is the Best Explanation for the Beginning of the Universe

By J. Warner Wallace 2/6/2017

     Christians aren’t the only ones looking for the first “uncaused cause” of the universe. Everyone, theists and atheists alike, is looking for the cause of a universe that clearly had a beginning. If the cause of the universe was itself caused, then our search for the beginning of everything would continue, wouldn’t it? We’d be sifting through a series of previous causes toward infinity past, and we all recognize that a search of this nature is both futile and illogical. Believers, skeptics and seekers are in search of the uncaused “first cause”; some of us believe this first cause to be purely “natural’ while others believe this first cause to be supernatural.

     Big bang cosmology, often referred to as the Standard Cosmological Model, demonstrates that everything we see in the universe (all space, time, and matter) had a beginning and came from nothing. If this is true, the first cause of the universe must itself be non-spatial, a-temporal, and immaterial. This description of the uncaused first cause begins to sound a lot like the God of the Bible. But there is another attribute of this uncaused “first cause” that is often overlooked. This cause must also be personal. I first realized this many years ago after reading William Lane Craig and J. P.  Moreland’s seminal work, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Craig and Moreland laid out a clear and concise argument for the personal nature of the uncaused “first cause”.

     There are two kinds of forces in the universe: personal forces and impersonal forces. Impersonal forces, like the force of gravity, have no choice about how they affect their environment. They enter, their effect is realized. Imagine a gravity free room in which everything is simply floating in midair. Now introduce the impersonal force of gravity. What happens? We would expect the effect of gravity to be felt immediately. The instant gravity enters this room every object will be drawn to the floor. Impersonal forces cannot decide when to act; if they are present, their effect is felt. This truth has a great impact on the way we understand the first cause of the universe.

     If the cause of the universe is an impersonal force, its effect (the appearance of everything from nothing) would be realized the instant the force was present. If that were the case, the first cause of the universe could be no older than the universe itself. The appearance of the cause (the impersonal force) and its effect (the creation of space, time and matter) would be simultaneous events; one would be no older than the other. But if that’s the case, we would once again find ourselves looking for what caused the first cause to appear in the first place! See the problem? The first cause of the universe must itself be uncaused and eternal in order for us to avoid the illogical and endless pursuit of a prior cause. Unless we are willing to accept the irrational premise that the cause of the universe is itself only as old as the universe itself, we are going to have to admit that this cause cannot be an impersonal force. The cause of the universe had the ability to decide to bring the universe into existence, and the ability to decide is an attribute of personhood.

     Now let’s review the characteristics of the cause of the universe given the reasonable evidence that confirms Big Bang cosmology:

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

Evangelicals and the Loss of Prophetic Imagination

By Sharon Hodde Miller 2/9/2017

     This year has changed me. I say this in all earnestness and with no dramatic intent, but this year really has changed me. I am not the same person I was, and my calling has shifted too.

     It’s difficult to pinpoint when the change occurred. Perhaps it was a series of events. It began when conservative evangelicals began to endorse a presidential candidate whose rhetoric, lifestyle, and priorities resembled nothing of Christ, but much of the fool as described in Proverbs.

     I watched Christians use dubious biblical interpretations and downright bad theology in an “ends justify the means” kind of ethic. I watched those same Christians bend over backwards to prove that this man, who possessed no discernible fruit of the Spirit, was a Christian. I watched Christians remain silent as the man they put in office continued to lie, name call, belittle, and slander. And I watched conservative Christians take up the mantra “Do not judge” in lock-step with the liberals they used to deride, as if Jesus’ words were intended to silence sound judgment. This wasn’t just hypocrisy. This was a forsaking of basic Christian doctrine and our primary citizenship in the Kingdom of God. And it changed me.

     I struggled to articulate the impact of this experience, until I ran across an essay by author Jonathan Martin in which he describes our present historical moment as an “apocalypse.” Apocalypse is a word we sometimes confuse with “armageddon” but it refers to an “unveiling,” and for me, that was the word I was looking for. This year, I was able to see with a clarity I hadn’t before.

     Martin further explains, “These are the days when the hearts of men and women in America are being revealed,” and as this apocalypse unfolded in evangelicalism, this is what I saw: the faux-faithfulness of pragmatism, in place of cruciform obedience; moral relativism in place of biblical truth; personal security pitted against Christ-like compassion; and the true spiritual character of our leaders. Once I saw this, I became “disillusioned” in the very best sense of the word. God had pulled back the curtain of my illusions to show me our true spiritual state.

     Each of these failures deserves serious attention, but there is one more failure I want to focus on here: evangelicalism’s prophetic bankruptcy. At a time when our country has utterly lost its moral center, this could have been our moment. Rather than negotiate with evil, we could have rejected worldly notions of “good” in a show of prophetic imagination. Instead, we accepted the terms the world set for us. We chose short-term gains over long-term credibility, and traded our birthright for porridge.

     A sweeping number of evangelicals contributed to this prophetic forfeiture, but there have been some notable exceptions. Russell Moore, for example, has leveraged his influence in the Southern Baptist Convention to challenge idols of nationalism and vestiges of racism in his tradition. Moore is committed to the SBC, but he is also clear-eyed about its shortcomings.

Brueggemann’s Creative Word

     In addition to Moore, Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann is an essential perspective for correcting our prophetic deficit. Brueggemann’s book The Prophetic Imagination: 40th Anniversary Edition is probably his best-known work, but he also wrote a lesser-known book which is just as important, called The Creative Word, Second Edition: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education. In this book, Brueggemann makes the case that the Biblical canon is a “clue to education,” and he pays particular attention to the three sections of Old Testament literature— Torah, prophets, and wisdom—as pedagogical models.

     Brueggemann begins with the authoritative character of the Torah, which is symbolic of our doctrinal foundations, those fixed truths which shape who we are as a people. Torah represents a category of teaching that is, in Brueggemann’s words, “not debatable.”

     Torah is an essential pedagogical paradigm, but Brueggemann also warns, “If a community educates only in the Torah, it may also do a disservice to its members. It may nourish them to fixity, to stability that becomes rigidity” (40). This caveat naturally leads to the second major section of the Old Testament, which is the prophets. Whereas the Torah constitutes unchanging truth, the prophets challenge errant interpretations of Torah. He describes their relationship as “delicate,” since “there are aspects of continuity and discontinuity; both appeal to the consensus and a shattering of consensus” (51).

     To be clear, Brueggemann does not believe the prophets undermine the Torah. God’s truth, as embodied in the Torah, is never to be contested, so there is an important continuity between them. However, our interpretations and applications of God’s truth certainly warrant critique, a service not only performed by the Old Testament prophets, but Jesus himself. Quite often, the prophets were divine pruning shears, clipping away the weeds of false teaching which had grown up around God’s truth.

     That is why, for Brueggemann, the prophets were not merely social activists. They were disrupters. The prophets did not claim new revelation, but they did set about the task of nurturing the “poetic imagination” by questioning the truthfulness of the popular imagination, and challenging the status quo.

     This, for Brueggemann, continues to be the task of Christian leaders today. If we want to teach in a manner that is actually “biblical,” then the shape of the canon is a blueprint. We must pass down the fixed truths of “Torah,” while also disrupting the false interpretations and moral blind spots which have grown up around them. It’s a hard tension to navigate, but it is how we remain faithful to God and His Word.

     Ever since I first read The Creative Word several years ago, I have thought about this tension a lot. It has helped me understand my calling as a writer and teacher, as well as the broader witness of the church. One of the convictions I have come to, is that “prophetic disruption” is not simply a matter of speaking hard or unpopular truths. I think what makes a message truly prophetic is its audience. When a conservative pastor preaches about modest dress to his pious congregation, this is not prophecy. And when a progressive evangelical tweets about care for the poor and oppressed to his sympathetic followers, this is not necessarily prophecy either.

Prophecy is disruptive.

     More often, prophecy disrupts the particular audience God has given you, the audience that trusts you, follows you, and considers you an authoritative voice. (This is exactly what Moore did, for example.) If you are attempting to disrupt some other audience “out there,” then you are more likely shouting to the wind, or toppling straw men. But if you are stepping on the toes of your closest followers, then you are probably more in line with the prophetic tradition.

     In my own context, my audience is mostly female, and in the world of evangelical women’s ministry, the status quo is “positive and encouraging.” Messages for women are big on self-help, “being enough”, and speaking affirmation. This is an all but unspoken standard, and for years I followed it. I didn’t want to lose followers by talking about controversial subjects. Instead I opted for a manicured Instagram profile and inspiring quotes on my Facebook page. People like positive, so that was what I wrote.

     But this year I realized the prophetic impotence of self-help messages. Encouragement does have its place, but as I considered the state of women’s ministry and the disciples we were making, I realized something: knowing you are “beautiful” will not embolden you to acts of true courage. At its heart, these messages are fundamentally about us, which means they are powerless to resist a narcissistic culture.

     This has been a sobering realization for me. It forced me to ask whether I was contributing to the formation of women who would actually take up Jesus’ cross and follow him. Or, was I nurturing a generation of women who felt great about themselves, but were totally unequipped to lay down their lives out of love for God and neighbor. Those are the questions that have been keeping me up at night.

     This is the challenge facing evangelical women. The pressure to be nice competes with the calling to be prophetic. But women are not the only ones facing this struggle. For every article about making money with your blog, or having a better marriage, we need leaders who are leveraging their authority with their particular audience to call people to rugged faithfulness. We need teachers who are targeting the idols of people-pleasing and politics and worldly success, and helping us to be the actual people of God. And we need pastors engaged in the kind of spiritual formation that resists cultural influence, and prepares believers for loving self-sacrifice.

     Last year Brueggemann summarized our prophetic failing this way: “I believe the crisis in the U.S. church has almost nothing to do with being liberal or conservative; it has everything to do with giving up on the faith and discipline of our Christian baptism and settling for a common, generic, U.S. identity that is part patriotism, part consumerism, part violence, and part affluence” (A Way Other Than Our Own: Devotions For Lent, p. 3)

     Both in women’s ministry and “American Christianity,” we are witnessing the fruit of inadequate spiritual formation. When our spiritual formation winks at, or embraces, cultural idols, we will produce individuals who are totally unable to resist the culture. That is why we are in dire need of prophetic leaders with the courage and clarity to name our adulterous loves. It’s hard work, and humble work (since ranting should not be confused with prophetic teaching), but we need it now as much as ever.

     That’s what this year taught me. And I hope I never forget it.

• 1     Free of Me: Why Life Is Better When It's Not about You

How to Prove the Nonexistence of Something

By Lenny Esposito 2/7/2017

     Atheists commonly claim that they bear no burden of proof since one cannot prove a negative. A couple of years ago, I debated Richard Carrier on the question "Does God Exist?" Given this was a question and not a proposition, each party bears an equal burden of proof in asserting his claim; I must provide evidence for why I believe God exists and Carrier must provide evidence for why he believes God does not. Yet, a lot of atheists felt that I should shoulder the burden is such a debate. "How do you prove the non-existence of something? That's ridiculous" exclaimed one commenter. In fact, proving universal negatives is important, and something we do all the time in other contexts.

     The idea that a universal negative is unprovable is what Steven D. Hales calls "a principle of folk logic," not rigorous thinking. Hale writes:

Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can't prove a negative? That's right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it's easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I'll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait… this means we've just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a negative. So we've proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can't prove a negative' is a negative—so if you could prove it true, it wouldn't be true! Uh-oh.

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

By John Bunyan 1678

THE NINTH STAGE

CHR. And did you presently fall under the power of this conviction?

     HOPE. No, I was not willing presently to know the evil of sin, nor the damnation that follows upon the commission of it; but endeavored, when my mind at first began to be shaken with the word, to shut mine eyes against the light thereof.

     CHR. But what was the cause of your carrying of it thus to the first workings of God’s blessed Spirit upon you?

     HOPE. The causes were, 1. I was ignorant that this was the work of God upon me. I never thought that by awakenings for sin, God at first begins the conversion of a sinner. 2. Sin was yet very sweet to my flesh, and I was loth to leave it. 3. I could not tell how to part with mine old companions, their presence and actions were so desirable unto me. 4. The hours in which convictions were upon me, were such troublesome and such heart-affrighting hours, that I could not bear, no not so much as the remembrance of them upon my heart.

     CHR. Then, as it seems, sometimes you got rid of your trouble?

     HOPE. Yes, verily, but it would come into my mind again; and then I should be as bad, nay, worse than I was before.

     CHR. Why, what was it that brought your sins to mind again?

     HOPE. Many things; as,

1. If I did but meet a good man in the streets; or,
2. If I have heard any read in the Bible; or,
3. If mine head did begin to ache; or,
4. If I were told that some of my neighbors were sick; or,
5. If I heard the bell toll for some that were dead; or,
6. If I thought of dying myself; or,
7. If I heard that sudden death happened to others.
8. But especially when I thought of myself, that I must quickly come to judgment.

     CHR. And could you at any time, with ease, get off the guilt of sin, when by any of these ways it came upon you?

     HOPE. No, not I; for then they got faster hold of my conscience; and then, if I did but think of going back to sin, (though my mind was turned against it,) it would be double torment to me.

     CHR. And how did you do then?

     HOPE. I thought I must endeavor to mend my life; for else, thought I, I am sure to be damned.

     CHR. And did you endeavor to mend?

     HOPE. Yes, and fled from, not only my sins, but sinful company too, and betook me to religious duties, as praying, reading, weeping for sin, speaking truth to my neighbors, etc. These things did I, with many others, too much here to relate.

     CHR. And did you think yourself well then?

     HOPE. Yes, for a while; but at the last my trouble came tumbling upon me again, and that over the neck of all my reformations.

     CHR. How came that about, since you were now reformed?

     HOPE. There were several things brought it upon me, especially such sayings as these: “All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.”

Isa. 64:6  We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.   ESV

“By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

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

“When ye have done all these things, say, We are unprofitable,”

Luke 17:10 So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’ ”   ESV

with many more such like. From whence I began to reason with myself thus: If all my righteousnesses are as filthy rags; if by the deeds of the law no man can be justified; and if, when we have done all, we are yet unprofitable, then is it but a folly to think of heaven by the law. I farther thought thus: If a man runs a hundred pounds into the shopkeeper’s debt, and after that shall pay for all that he shall fetch; yet if his old debt stands still in the book uncrossed, the shopkeeper may sue him for it, and cast him into prison, till he shall pay the debt.

     CHR. Well, and how did you apply this to yourself?

     HOPE. Why, I thought thus with myself: I have by my sins run a great way into God’s book, and my now reforming will not pay off that score; therefore I should think still, under all my present amendments, But how shall I be freed from that damnation that I brought myself in danger of by my former transgressions?

     CHR. A very good application: but pray go on.

     HOPE. Another thing that hath troubled me ever since my late amendments, is, that if I look narrowly into the best of what I do now, I still see sin, new sin, mixing itself with the best of that I do; so that now I am forced to conclude, that notwithstanding my former fond conceits of myself and duties, I have committed sin enough in one day to send me to hell, though my former life had been faultless.

     CHR. And what did you do then?

     HOPE. Do! I could not tell what to do, until I broke my mind to Faithful; for he and I were well acquainted. And he told me, that unless I could obtain the righteousness of a man that never had sinned, neither mine own, nor all the righteousness of the world, could save me.

     CHR. And did you think he spake true?

     HOPE. Had he told me so when I was pleased and satisfied with my own amendments, I had called him fool for his pains; but now, since I see my own infirmity, and the sin which cleaves to my best performance, I have been forced to be of his opinion.

     CHR. But did you think, when at first he suggested it to you, that there was such a man to be found, of whom it might justly be said, that he never committed sin?

     HOPE. I must confess the words at first sounded strangely; but after a little more talk and company with him, I had full conviction about it.

     CHR. And did you ask him what man this was, and how you must be justified by him?

     HOPE. Yes, and he told me it was the Lord Jesus, that dwelleth on the right hand of the Most High.

Heb. 10:12–21 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

16  “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

17 then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,   ESV

And thus, said he, you must be justified by him, even by trusting to what he hath done by himself in the days of his flesh, and suffered when he did hang on the tree.

Rom. 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,   ESV

Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.   ESV

1 Pet. 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.   ESV

I asked him further, how that man’s righteousness could be of that efficacy, to justify another before God. And he told me he was the mighty God, and did what he did, and died the death also, not for himself, but for me; to whom his doings, and the worthiness of them, should be imputed, if I believed on him.

     CHR. And what did you do then?

     HOPE. I made my objections against my believing, for that I thought he was not willing to save me.

     CHR. And what said Faithful to you then?

     HOPE. He bid me go to him and see. Then I said it was presumption. He said, No; for I was invited to come.

Matt. 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.   ESV

Then he gave me a book of Jesus’ inditing, to encourage me the more freely to come; and he said concerning that book, that every jot and tittle thereof stood firmer than heaven and earth.

Matt. 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.   ESV

Then I asked him what I must do when I came; and he told me I must entreat upon my knees,

Psa. 95:6  Oh come, let us worship and bow down;
let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!   ESV

Dan. 6:10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.   ESV

with all my heart and soul,

Jer. 29:12-13 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.   ESV

the Father to reveal him to me. Then I asked him further, how I must make my supplications to him; and he said, Go, and thou shalt find him upon a mercy-seat, where he sits all the year long to give pardon and forgiveness to them that come.

Exod. 25:22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.   ESV

Lev. 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.   ESV

Num. 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.   ESV

Heb. 4: 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.   ESV

 I told him, that I knew not what to say when I came; and he bid say to this effect: God be merciful to me a sinner, and make me to know and believe in Jesus Christ; for I see, that if his righteousness had not been, or I have not faith in that righteousness, I am utterly cast away. Lord, I have heard that thou art a merciful God, and hast ordained that thy Son Jesus Christ should be the Saviour of the world; and moreover, that thou art willing to bestow him upon such a poor sinner as I am - and I am a sinner indeed. Lord, take therefore this opportunity, and magnify thy grace in the salvation of my soul, through thy Son Jesus Christ. Amen.

     CHR. And did you do as you were bidden?

     HOPE. Yes, over, and over, and over.

     CHR. And did the Father reveal the Son to you?

     HOPE. Not at the first, nor second, nor third, nor fourth, nor fifth, no, nor at the sixth time neither.

     CHR. What did you do then?

     HOPE. What? why I could not tell what to do.

     CHR. Had you not thoughts of leaving off praying?

     HOPE. Yes; an hundred times twice told.

     CHR. And what was the reason you did not?

     HOPE. I believed that it was true which hath been told me, to wit, that without the righteousness of this Christ, all the world could not save me; and therefore, thought I with myself, if I leave off, I die, and I can but die at the throne of grace. And withal this came into my mind, “If it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, and will not tarry.”

Hab. 2:3  For still the vision awaits its appointed time;
it hastens to the end—it will not lie.
If it seems slow, wait for it;
it will surely come; it will not delay.   ESV

So I continued praying until the Father showed me his Son.

     CHR. And how was he revealed unto you?

     HOPE. I did not see him with my bodily eyes, but with the eyes of my understanding,

Eph. 1:18-19 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might   ESV

and thus it was. One day I was very sad, I think sadder than at any one time in my life; and this sadness was through a fresh sight of the greatness and vileness of my sins. And as I was then looking for nothing but hell, and the everlasting damnation of my soul, suddenly, as I thought, I saw the Lord Jesus looking down from heaven upon me, and saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”   ESV

     But I replied, Lord, I am a great, a very great sinner: and he answered, “My grace is sufficient for thee.”

2 Cor. 12:9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.   ESV

Then I said, But, Lord, what is believing? And then I saw from that saying, “He that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst,”

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.   ESV

that believing and coming was all one; and that he that came, that is, that ran out in his heart and affections after salvation by Christ, he indeed believed in Christ. Then the water stood in mine eyes, and I asked further, But, Lord, may such a great sinner as I am be indeed accepted of thee, and be saved by thee? And I heard him say, “And him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.”

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.   ESV

Then I said, But how, Lord, must I consider of thee in my coming to thee, that my faith may be placed aright upon thee? Then he said, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”

1 Tim. 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.   ESV

He is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.   ESV

(and chap. 4)

He died for our sins, and rose again for our justification.

Rom. 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.   ESV

He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.

Rev. 1:5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.   ESV

He is the Mediator between God and us.

1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,   ESV

He ever liveth to make intercession for us.

Heb. 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.   ESV

From all which I gathered, that I must look for righteousness in his person, and for satisfaction for my sins by his blood: that what he did in obedience to his Father’s law, and in submitting to the penalty thereof, was not for himself, but for him that will accept it for his salvation, and be thankful. And now was my heart full of joy, mine eyes full of tears, and mine affections running over with love to the name, people, and ways of Jesus Christ.

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

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 20

1 May the LORD answer you in the day of trouble!
May the name of the God of Jacob protect you!
2 May he send you help from the sanctuary
and give you support from Zion!
3 May he remember all your offerings
and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices! Selah

4 May he grant you your heart’s desire
and fulfill all your plans!
5 May we shout for joy over your salvation,
and in the name of our God set up our banners!
May the LORD fulfill all your petitions!

Ye Of Brittle Faith

By Larry Alex Taunton 2/2017

     On December 15, 2011, Christopher Hitchens died of esophageal cancer. Some remember him as a man of the left who, after 9/11, converted to a kind of neoconservatism; others remember him as an atheist provocateur and serial blasphemer. For me, Christopher Hitchens was much more than either of these things. He was, as he put it, my “debate partner” and friend. This relationship, largely hidden from view, was a surprise to no one more than me. I am, after all, an Evangelical Christian. Even so, after his diagnosis of cancer in 2010, it was my privilege to take two lengthy road trips with the celebrated atheist. The first was from his home in Washington, D.C., to mine in Birmingham, Alabama. The second was through Yellowstone National Park. In both instances, we studied the Bible together and discussed the Great Questions. This relationship is the subject of my recent book The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Notorious Atheist.

     The book received ample praise, with Booklist calling it “loving” and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews hailing it as “beautiful.” The Gospel Coalition declared it “an instant classic” and recently named it a 2016 Book of the Year winner. At the same time, however, the book evoked fierce denunciations by a number of the so-called New Atheists. They seized upon the title as proof that I claim Hitchens made some sort of last-minute conversion. As any reader of the book can tell you, this is not so. I say as much in the opening paragraph. But just in case the reader missed it, in the final chapter I emphasize that it is unlikely that Hitchens became a Christian. The subtitle makes it clear that I believe that Christopher was, in fact, an atheist, albeit a restless one.

     That was not enough for the atheist critics of my book. University of Chicago biologist and professional atheist Jerry Coyne published a review on his whyevolutionistrue.com website titled “A vulture spreads the false rumor that Hitchens accepted God at the end.” The false rumor comes from Coyne himself, since my book says nothing of the kind. When those who had actually read The Faith of Christopher Hitchens accused Coyne of not reading it, he posted this update: “Because people have suggested that I wrote this entire piece without having read any of Taunton’s book, I read the six pages about Hitchens given on the [New York] Times site, and, after writing it, have read substantial sections of the book that someone sent to me.” Six pages? So much for the scientific method.

     Coyne was not alone. I was invited to appear on BBC’s Newsnight along with atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss. Newsnight’s host, James O’Brien, hostile from the start, said that I didn’t really know Hitchens but was just “trying to flog a few books off the back” of his reputation. Didn’t know him? I had never claimed to be a part of Christopher’s inner circle, but our acquaintance was much more than slight. “[Christopher] spoke very warmly, publicly, of our friendship,” I told him. “This is on film, James. I’m not inventing anything here.”

     Unmoved, O’Brien teamed up with Professor Krauss, who pressed the same point, claiming that I was simply exploiting the dying atheist. “He’s trying to make money off of Christopher’s name,” he said. “Christopher was paid to spend time with this man.” He went on to pronounce authoritatively about a relationship of which he knew nothing and about conversations of which he was not a part.

• 1     The Faith of Christopher Hitchens: The Restless Soul of the World's Most Notorious Atheist
• 2     The Grace Effect: How the Power of One Life Can Reverse the Corruption of Unbelief
• 3     Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     6. But if his filiation (if I may so express it) had a beginning at the time when he was manifested in the flesh, it follows that he was a Son in respect of human nature also. Servetus, and others similarly frenzied, hold that Christ who appeared in the flesh is the Son of God, inasmuch as but for his incarnation he could not have possessed this name. Let them now answer me, whether, according to both natures, and in respect of both, he is a Son? So indeed they prate; but Paul's doctrine is very different. We acknowledge, indeed, that Christ in human nature is called a Son, not like believers by gratuitous adoption merely, but the true, natural, and, therefore, only Son, this being the mark which distinguishes him from all others. Those of us who are regenerated to a new life God honours with the name of sons; the name of true and only-begotten Son he bestows on Christ alone. But how is he an only Son in so great a multitude of brethren, except that he possesses by nature what we acquire by gift? This honour we extend to his whole character of Mediator, so that He who was born of a Virgin, and on the cross offered himself in sacrifice to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God; but still in respect of his Godhead: as Paul teaches when he says, that he was "separated unto the gospel of God (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures), concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power," (Rom. 1:1-4). When distinctly calling him the Son of David according to the flesh, why should he also say that he was "declared to be the Son of God," if he meant not to intimate, that this depended on something else than his incarnation? For in the same sense in which he elsewhere says, that "though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God," (2 Cor. 13:4), so he now draws a distinction between the two natures. They must certainly admit, that as on account of his mother he is called the Son of David, so, on account of his Father, he is the Son of God, and that in some respect differing from his human nature. The Scripture gives him both names, calling him at one time the Son of God, at another the Son of Man. As to the latter, there can be no question that he is called a Son in accordance with the phraseology of the Hebrew language, because he is of the offspring of Adam. On the other hand, I maintain that he is called a Son on account of his Godhead and eternal essence, because it is no less congruous to refer to his divine nature his being called the Son of God, than to refer to his human nature his being called the Son of Man. In fine, in the passage which I have quoted, Paul does not mean, that he who according to the flesh was begotten of the seed of David, was declared to be the Son of God in any other sense than he elsewhere teaches that Christ, who descended of the Jews according to the flesh, is "over all, God blessed for ever," (Rom. 9:5). But if in both passages the distinction of two natures is pointed out, how can it be denied, that he who according to the flesh is the Son of Man, is also in respect of his divine nature the Son of God?

7. They indeed find a blustering defence of their heresy in its being said, that "God spared not his own Son," and in the communication of the angel, that He who was to be born of the Virgin should be called the "Son of the Highest," (Rom. 8:32; Luke 1:32). But before pluming themselves on this futile objection, let them for a little consider with us what weight there is in their argument. If it is legitimately concluded, that at conception he began to be the Son of God, because he who has been conceived is called a Son, it will follow, that he began to be the Word after his manifestation in the flesh, because John declares, that the Word of life of which he spoke was that which "our hands have handled," (1 John 1:1). In like manner we read in the prophet, "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Israel, yet out of thee shall he come forth that is to be a ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," (Mic. 5:2). How will they be forced to interpret if they will follow such a method of arguing? I have declared that we by no means assent to Nestorius, who imagined a twofold Christ, when we maintain that Christ, by means of brotherly union, made us sons of God with himself, because in the flesh, which he took from us, he is the only-begotten Son of God. And Augustine wisely reminds us, [250] that he is a bright mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, because as man he obtained honour which he could not merit. With this distinction, therefore, according to the flesh, was Christ honoured even from the womb--viz. to be the Son of God. Still, in the unity of person we are not to imagine any intermixture which takes away from the Godhead what is peculiar to it. Nor is it more absurd that the eternal Word of God and Christ, uniting the two natures in one person, should in different ways be called the Son of God, than that he should in various respects be called at one time the Son of God, at another the Son of Man. Nor are we more embarrassed by another cavil of Servetus--viz. that Christ, before he appeared in the flesh, is nowhere called the Son of God, except under a figure. For though the description of him was then more obscure, yet it has already been clearly proved, that he was not otherwise the eternal God, than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal Father. Nor is the name applicable to the office of Mediator which he undertook, except in that he was God manifest in the flesh. Nor would God have thus from the beginning been called a Father, had there not been even then a mutual relation to the Son, "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named," (Eph. 3:15). Hence it is easy to infer, that under the Law and the Prophets he was the Son of God before this name was celebrated in the Church. But if we are to dispute about the word merely, Solomon, speaking of the incomprehensibility of God, affirms that his Son is like himself, incomprehensible: "What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Prov. 30:4). I am well aware that with the contentious this passage will not have sufficient weight; nor do I found much upon it, except as showing the malignant cavils of those who affirm that Christ is the Son of God only in so far as he became man. We may add, that all the most ancient writers, with one mouth and consent, testified the same thing so plainly, that the effrontery is no less ridiculous than detestable, which dares to oppose us with Irenaeus and Tertullian, both of whom acknowledge that He who was afterwards visibly manifested was the invisible Son of God. [251]

8. But although Servetus heaped together a number of horrid dogmas, to which, perhaps, others would not subscribe, you will find, that all who refuse to acknowledge the Son of God except in the flesh, are obliged, when urged more closely, to admit that he was a Son, for no other reason than because he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit; just like the absurdity of the ancient Manichees, that the soul of man was derived by transfusion from God, from its being said, that he breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). For they lay such stress on the name of Son that they leave no distinction between the natures, but babblingly maintain that the man Christ is the Son of God, because, according to his human nature, he was begotten of God. Thus, the eternal generation of Wisdom, celebrated by Solomon (Prov. 8:22, seq). is destroyed, and no kind of Godhead exists in the Mediator: or a phantom is substituted instead of a man. The grosser delusions of Servetus, by which he imposed upon himself and some others, it were useful to refute, that pious readers might be warned by the example, to confine themselves within the bounds of soberness and modesty: however, I deem it superfluous here, as I have already done it in a special treatise. [252] The whole comes to this, that the Son of God was from the beginning an idea, and was even then a preordained man, who was to be the essential image of God. nor does he acknowledge any other word of God except in external splendour. The generation he interprets to mean, that from the beginning a purpose of generating the Son was begotten in God, and that this purpose extended itself by act to creation. Meanwhile, he confounds the Spirit with the Word, saying that God arranged the invisible Word and Spirit into flesh and soul. In short, in his view the typifying of Christ occupies the place of generation; but he says, that he who was then in appearance a shadowy Son, was at length begotten by the Word, to which he attributes a generating power. From this it will follow, that dogs and swine are not less sons of God, because created of the original seed of the Divine Word. But although he compounds Christ of three untreated elements, that he may be begotten of the essence of God, he pretends that he is the first-born among the creatures, in such a sense that, according to their degree, stones have the same essential divinity. But lest he should seem to strip Christ of his Deity, he admits that his flesh is oJmoouvsion, of the same substance with God, and that the Word was made man, by the conversion of flesh into Deity. Thus, while he cannot comprehend that Christ was the Son of God, until his flesh came forth from the essence of God and was converted into Deity, he reduces the eternal personality (hypostasis) of the Word to nothing, and robs us of the Son of David, who was the promised Redeemer. It is true, he repeatedly declares that the Son was begotten of God by knowledge and predestination, but that he was at length made man out of that matter which, from the beginning, shone with God in the three elements, and afterwards appeared in the first light of the world, in the cloud and pillar of fire. How shamefully inconsistent with himself he ever and anon becomes, it were too tedious to relate. From this brief account sound readers will gather, that by the subtle ambiguities of this infatuated man, the hope of salvation was utterly extinguished. For if the flesh were the Godhead itself, it would cease to be its temple. Now, the only Redeemer we can have is He who being begotten of the seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh, truly became man. But he erroneously insists on the expression of John, "The Word was made flesh." As these words refute the heresy of Nestorius, so they give no countenance to the impious fiction of which Eutyches was the inventor, since all that the Evangelist intended was to assert a unity of person in two natures.

__________________________________________________________________

[245] Augustine employs the same similitude, Epist. 52.

[246] Isiah 41:1, &c.; John 5:17; Luke 2:52; John 8:50; Mark 13:32; John 14:10; 6:38; Luke 24:39.

[247] John 1:29; 5:21--23; 9:5; 10:9--11; 15:1.

[248] VideCalv. Epist. ad Polonos adversus Stancarum.

[249] See August. in Enchir. ad Laurent. c. 36.

[250] See August. De Corruptione et Gratia. cap. 11, et De Civitate Dei, lib. 10 cap 29, et alibi See also cap. 17 s. 1.

[251] See Irenæus, lib. 4 cap 14 et 37; Tertullian adversus Praxeam. The above passages from The Proverbs is quoted by Augustine, Ep 49, Quæs. 5.

[252] Vide Calv. Defensio Orthodoxæ Fidei Sacræ Trinitatis adversus Prodigiosos Errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani.

__________________________________________________________________

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain

     Institutes of the Christian Religion

A Survey Of Old Testament Introduction

By Gleason Archer Jr.

Supposed Doublets and Parallel Accounts (cont)

     6. As for the episode in  Gen. 26:6–11  where Isaac resorted to the same subterfuge in regard to his wife Rebekah, and did so moreover at Gerar at a time when an Abimelech was king of the Philistines, it is to be conceded that there are remarkable points of resemblance with the E account in  Gen. 20  (where Abraham and Sarah are involved). But before we resort to the Wellhausian explanation of a garbled version of the same tradition (  Gen. 26  being attributed to J), we must satisfy ourselves on these three points: first, that sons never repeat the bad example of their parents; second, that the inhabitants of Gerar must necessarily have improved their sexual morals by the time Isaac settled among them; third, that Philistine dynasties never handed on the same name from ruler to ruler (i.e., Abimelech I, Abimelech II, etc.), even though this was demonstrably the practice in Egypt (whose Dyn. XII showed such a series as Amenemhat I, II, and III, and also Senwosret I, II, and III) and in Phoenicia (where a succession of Hirams or Ahirams ruled at Tyre and Byblos). It ought to be pointed out, incidentally, that both the Egyptian adventure of Abraham in  Gen. 12  (where he denied that Sarah was his wife) and the Gerar episode of Isaac (  Gen. 26 ) are attributed to J by the Documentarians. Here, then, is an instance where a doublet does not indicate necessarily a difference in source. The same is true of Jacob’s second visit to Bethel (when he reaffirms the name Bethel a second time); E records this second visit (  Gen. 35:1–8 ) as distinct from the first (  Gen. 28:18–22 ). Here again is a “parallel account” which is conceded even by the critics to stem from the same source.

     7. There are two accounts of the flight of Hagar from Abraham’s home. The one in  Gen. 16:4–14 is attributed to J (relating how she fled before Ishmael was born) and the E account,  Gen. 21:9–21, relates how she fled again when Ishmael was already a young lad. But considering the tensions existing between Sarah and Hagar over the years, was it not reasonable for two such incidents to occur at different times and under dissimilar circumstances? Does not history abound in such repeated episodes in the lives of other important personages, such as Bishop Athanasius and his three banishments (in A.D. 335, 339, and 356)? (Would not the same type of divisive literary criticism have to parcel out these three banishments to three different “sources” whose several traditions have later been combined by a redactor?)

     8. As for the two namings of the well at Beersheba, the first time under Abraham in  Gen. 21:31 (attributed to E), and the second time under Isaac in  Gen. 26:33 (attributed to J), there is no compelling necessity for regarding these as variant traditions of the same original episode. Considering the nomadic habits of Abraham and his immediate descendants, it is altogether likely that the hostile inhabitants of the locality would have stopped up the well after the Hebrew sheikh had moved away. Upon Isaac’s return to the old familiar rangeland would it not be quite natural for him to open the well again and piously revive the old name which his father had given to it? Would it not be expedient for him also to confirm his right to the well by a renewed treaty (confirmed by a shiḇ˓â, “oath”) with the current ruler of the land? (Here it should be observed that the word shiḇ˓â is but the feminine form of the word shebaʾ in the name Beersheba; they both mean “oath.”)

A Survey of Old Testament Introduction

Hindsight (2010)

By Richard S. Adams

Articles

     Richard S. Adams | Lover of Christ, husband of Lily, father of four, grandfather of eleven, Masters in Divinity and Certificate in Spiritual Direction. On staff at George Fox Evangelical Seminary 1/2009 to 7/2018.

• Jan 23     Potholes (2021)
• Jan 24     The Hornet
• Jan 26     Dealing With Disappointment
• Jan 27     Lost (2014)
• Jan 28     Life Support, A Non-Stop Flight
• Feb 5     Prosperity and the Camp Fire
• Feb 7     Job 6:14-23
• Feb 10     Spontaneous Generation
• Feb 14     Hindsight
• Feb 18     The Cure For Despair
• Feb 22     RE: Job's Friends
• Feb 23     Job 23:14
• Feb 25     No Time To Text
• Mar 5     Polemics and Caricature
• Mar 6     Ecclesiastes 3:14 | Grace
• Mar 17     A Walk In The Rain
• Mar 25     The Corona Virus
• Apr 20     Death and My Master's Voice
• Apr 26     The Unexpected Blessing Returns
• May 10     Ruth | Relationships
• May 25     Jesus and the Passover
• June 2     Extension Cords
• June 18     Lincoln City 6/2/18
• July 14     Tom - Gen andRevelation
• July 15     Knowledge and World Peace
• July 16     The Church as Lobbyist
• Aug 3     Have You Noticed
• Sept 1     Branches Ran Over The Wall
• Sept 2     1 Cor 9:1-2
• Sept 2     Many Young Folks Get This
• Sept 13     Reading God's Word
• Nov 27     The Way The World Is
• Nov 30     The Renewal Of Israel
• Dec 09     December 22
• Dec 11     Open Door
• Dec 20     Replacement Theology

Luke 1:1 - 38

By Don Carson 2/14/2018

     HOW DID THE CANONICAL Gospels come down to us?

     At one level, it is enough to be assured that God provided them. But normally God operates through identifiable means. At no point do the canonical Gospels give the impression that they were handed down from heaven on golden plates, or transcribed by apostles attentive to divine dictation.

     Luke provides the most detail as to how he went about his task (Luke 1:1-4). He tells us that “many” had already “undertaken to draw up an account” of Jesus’ life and ministry, in line with what was “handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (1:1-2). From this we can infer two things: (a) Luke does not himself claim to be an eyewitness of Jesus. He does claim to be in touch with what the original “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” handed down. (b) By the time he writes, Luke knows that already there are many written reports circulating. This is not surprising. The Jews were a literate race. Every boy learned to read and write. It is inconceivable that no one committed anything to paper in the first years after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation.

     Then Luke tells us he himself “carefully investigated everything from the beginning.” The words suggest that he read the sources, talked with all the principals he could find, and evaluated the reports. We can glimpse at least a little of his method when we read his second volume, the book of Acts. There, by following his movements, we discover that he can be placed in all the early major Christian centers, where he would have the opportunity to talk to all of the earliest Christian leaders, and to read all of the earliest reports and archives. It is not too much of a leap, then, to infer that if Luke the doctor (see Col. 4:14) has some extra information about Mary’s unique pregnancy (Luke 1:26ff.), it is because he looked her up and had some long chats. In due course, then, he chose to write “an orderly account” (1:3).

     Two things follow. First, however much the Spirit of God superintended the production of this gospel, such divine superintendence did not obviate the need for strenuous research and careful work. Second, this method of bringing a canonical book into being is entirely in line with its subject matter: God himself brought the messianic Son of David, the Son of God, into this world (1:35), the eternal invading the temporal, forever assuring that one could talk of him as a witness speaks of what is observed. The transmission of Christian truth necessarily rests, in part, not on mysticism, but on witness.

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

The Continual Burnt Offering

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

February 14

Isaiah 55:7  let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

Hosea 6:1 “Come, let us return to the LORD;
for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
2  After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.

Hosea 14:1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God,
for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.

“Yet even now,” declares the LORD,
“return to me with  all your heart,
with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;
13  and rend your hearts and not your garments.”
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and merciful,
slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love;
and he relents over disaster.   ESV

My Saviour, by His powerful word,
Hath turned my night to day;
And all those heavenly joys restored
Which I had sinned away.

Blest Lord, I wonder and adore,
Thy grace is all divine;
Oh, keep me, that I sin no more
Against such love as Thine.

Oh, speak that gracious word again,
And cheer my drooping heart;
No voice but Thine can soothe my pain,
And bid all fear depart.

The Problem Of The Old Testament

By James Orr 1907

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII | THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

THE historical character of the Book of  Joshua  is assailed, partly on the ground of discrepancies in the narrative, as in the chapters on the crossing of Jordan (chaps.  3, 4 ), where two accounts apparently blend; but chiefly because of an alleged difference in the mode of representation of the conquest. On the so-called discrepancies we have no need to deny the use of separate sources, if these are not held to be contradictory. In the above instance, Köhler remarks that the notices of the two monuments (of twelve stones, one in Jordan, the other at Gilgal), while belonging to distinct sources, do not exclude each other, and are both to be held fast: so in other narratives.

As regards the conquest, it is urged that, according to one representation, that derived from the Deuteronomic redactor and the still later P, the conquest under  Joshua was rapid, continuous, and complete; while older notices in separate passages, and in  Judg. 1, show that it was in reality only achieved gradually, by the efforts of the several tribes, and never completely. There is, however, if the book be taken as a whole, and allowance be made for the generalising tendency peculiar to all summaries, no necessary contradiction in the different representations of the conquest, while the circumstantiality, local knowledge, and evidently full recollection of the narratives, give confidence in the truth of their statements. On the one hand, the uniform assumption in all the JE history, from the original promise to Abraham of the possession of the land to the actual conquest, in the Deuteronomic discourses, and generally in the tradition of the people, is, that the tribes under  Joshua did take effective possession of the land; and this is borne out by the fact that in  Judges it is not the Canaanites chiefly by whom they are molested (an exception is the temporary oppression by Jabin), but surrounding and more distant peoples (e.g. Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, Moab, Ammon, Midianites, Philistines). With this agrees the picture given of the conquest, beginning with the taking of Jericho and Ai, advancing to the defeat of the confederacy of the kings at Bethhoron, and destruction of their cities, then to the defeat of the greater confederacy in the North under Jabin, and conquests there, afterwards, in more general terms, to further campaigns in the middle, South, and North of Palestine, till the whole land has been overrun. The course of conquest is what might have been expected from the terror described by Rahab (JE?), and accords with the retrospect of  Joshua in his last address (E?). On it the division of the land, described with so much topographical minuteness, naturally follows.

On the other hand, the Book of  Joshua itself gives many indications that, notwithstanding these extensive, and, as respects the main object, decisive conquests, there still remained much land to be possessed, which the tribes could only conquer gradually. Much detail work had to be done in the several territories; and there is no difficulty in the supposition that, after the first sweeping wave of conquest, the Canaanites rallied, and regained possession of many places, e.g., Hebron, from which they had been temporarily expelled. An instance of this we have in Jerusalem, which had been taken by the Israelites, and burnt with fire, and the population destroyed, but which the Jebusites regained, and held till the time of David. These facts do not really contradict the other narrative: indeed, it is hard to see how a Deuteronomic redactor could have incorporated them unchanged in his narrative, if he believed they contradicted it. The language in Joshua about the conquest is not more sweeping than that in the Tel el-Amarna tablets about the Khabiri. In the letters of Abdi-Khiba, king of Jerusalem, e.g., to Amenophis IV. of Egypt, we have such expressions as the following: “The cities of my lord, the king, belonging to Elimelech, have fallen away, and the whole territory of the king will be lost.… The king has no longer any territory.… If no troops come, the territory of my lord, the king, is lost.” “Bring plainly before my lord, the king, these words: ‘The whole territory of my lord, the king, is going to ruin.’ ” “The Khabiri are occupying the king’s cities. There remains not one prince to my lord, the king: every one is ruined.” “The territory of the king has fallen into the hands of the Khabiri.”

There is no feature in the conquest better attested than that Joshua was the leader of the tribes in this work, and that they advanced and acted under his single leadership till the first stages of the conquest were completed. This was not a thing done at once, but probably occupied several years. Kittel, who defends in the main the truth of the historical recollections in the narrative, and emphasises this point about Joshua, thinks that a partition of the land (which he finds implied in  Judg. 1 , etc.) must have taken place before the conquest began, and supposes that, after the general crossing of Jordan under Joshua, and capture of Jericho, Judah and Simeon separated from the main body to act for themselves in the south. Joshua was thereafter leader of the Joseph tribes alone. The view seems artificial, and no improvement on that in the book. The course of events is, we may believe, correctly represented in  Josh. 24.

The Problem of the Old Testament