The Gospel in Genesis (Part 1)

Eric Lyons

Deity of ChristInspiration of the BibleProphecyUnit

Most people tend to read Genesis as a rapid series of familiar highlights. God creates the world in six days. Everything is good. Adam and Eve sin and are banished from the Garden of Eden. Cain kills Abel. Humanity grows increasingly corrupt, and God sends a global Flood. Afterward, people gather and build a tower at Babel instead of spreading across the Earth.

Then Abraham is called out of Ur and becomes a great man of faith. Lot makes a terrible decision to live in the wicked city of Sodom, which God destroys. Jacob tricks Esau out of his birthright and blessing, flees from home, works for Laban, marries Leah and Rachel, and fathers 12 sons. Jacob’s favorite son, Joseph, is betrayed by his brothers, sold into slavery, falsely accused, imprisoned, and eventually rises to second in command in Egypt—saving many lives, including the very brothers who wronged him.

Read and emphasized this way, the first book of the Bible comes across like a collection of powerful stories about beginnings, morality, sin, faith, failure, heroes, and judgment. None of these is technically wrong, but they are woefully incomplete and sadly miss the main point of Genesis.

Genesis is not meant to be merely a story of a few random facts about a handful of people and events from the first 2,000 years of history. On a much more important and deeper level, Genesis introduces and carefully traces the Bible’s central theme: the One Who will save the world from sin and spiritual death. In Genesis, this One is referred to as “the Seed.”

Seeds

The Hebrew word zera, translated “seed,” “descendant,” or “offspring,” appears 229 times in the Old Testament. One-fourth of all occurrences of this word appear in Genesis.

From a creation science perspective, Apologetics Press often points out the importance of the term “seed” in the Genesis Creation account. Though evolutionists insist that over billions of years various kinds of life must have evolved from completely different kinds of life, testable science says otherwise. The scientific Law of Biogenesis states that “all life comes from previous life of its own kind.” Based upon real, observable, operational science, humanity knows that this law is true and without exception, among plants, animals, and humans. Interestingly, thousands of years ago—before humanity recognized the scientific truth of biogenesis (in the 1600s by Francisco Redi and 1800s by Louis Pasteur)—Genesis 1 specifically testified that God made all vegetation “according to its kind…whose seed is in itself according to its kind” (1:12; cf. 1:11,29). Thus, Genesis not only begins with Creation, but addresses (with complete accuracy) reproduction and expectation: seeds carry life forward, linking the present reality to hopeful future fulfillment.

However, far more significant than any botany lesson, Genesis is fundamentally about another kind of seed altogether—the Seed Who becomes the Savior of the world. This Seed forms the backbone of Genesis, yet far too often is overlooked or minimized rather than recognized as the unifying, central redemption theme God intended (cf. Luke 24:27,44; Acts 28:23).

The Seed Promise

Genesis chapters 1-11 are not merely to inform us about Creation, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel—three of the most significant events in the history of the world—but first and foremost to introduce the reader to the family through whom the Messiah would come. The average person might prefer reading a dictionary to a genealogy, but Bible genealogies (especially those in Genesis 5 and 11) serve an important function: guiding the reader from Adam to Abram. From Genesis 11:26 to the end of this 50-chapter book, the story focuses principally on Abram and his descendants.

Obviously, Adam is important because he was the first human being on Earth, and one with whom our holy God had full fellowship before sin tragically severed it. But what’s so important about Abram—one man among (likely) many millions of people on Earth around the year 2,000 B.C.? Why does Genesis 1-11 bring us to Abram? And why is the rest of the book about his family?

It’s not because Abram was perfect. And it’s certainly not because his family was faultless. On the contrary, Genesis records many flagrant flaws of Abram’s descendants (as does the rest of the Old Testament). The one central purpose of Genesis’ focus on Abram and his family is expressly stated for the first time in Genesis 12:1-3:

Now the Lord had said to Abram: 
“Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

In addition to promising Abram land and a great nation (i.e., many descendants), God then states the most significant and stunning promise: through Abram, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This promise serves as the backbone of Genesis and is the theme of the book. The whole world would one day be blessed through Abram.

In Genesis 18:18, God repeated this promise involving Abram (whose name God had changed to Abraham—17:5), saying, “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.” In Genesis 21:12, God reminded Abraham that this principal promise would come through the son of his old age—Isaac. “[I]n Isaac your seed shall be called” (cf. 17:19,21). Then to Isaac, God said: “[I]n your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” (26:4). And to Isaac’s son Jacob, the Lord said: “[I]n you and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (28:14).

This global blessing through Abraham’s family is anticipated throughout the Old Testament in the form of promises, prophecies, and typology. Once we get to the first century A.D., not only is this Abrahamic promise still pondered by millions, but the identity of this long-awaited Seed is fully revealed. Paul wrote: “[T]he Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, ‘In you all the nations shall be blessed’” (Galatians 3:8). Indeed, “to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ”—Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16; cf. 3:1,14,22,26,28).

Before Abraham: The Promise in Eden

Though humanity’s Messiah was promised to come through Abraham’s family as early as Genesis 12, the first hint of a Savior came much earlier in time—about 2,000 years earlier—all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Critics of the Creator often disparage Him for His judgment upon sinners—both individuals and nations. “How could God banish Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden simply for eating fruit from a forbidden tree? How could God bring a global Flood upon the planet and kill nearly every human on Earth?” However, nearly always overlooked is the fact that immediately following the entrance of sin into the world, our holy God graciously and mercifully responded to that dreadfully dark day with a message of hope and ultimate victory. In the middle of God’s pronounced punishment upon Satan, He said to him: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His [the Seed’s] heel.”

Someone hurriedly reading Genesis 3:15 and without any knowledge of the unifying seed promise of Genesis will be perplexed by God’s statement. However, when this promise is read in the overall context of Genesis—not to mention the rest of the Bible—it is crystal clear what God meant that He would accomplish through a descendant of Eve for humanity’s eternal benefit: Satan’s “head” would be bruised, while in the process, the One doing the bruising would hurt His “heel.”

Thousands of years later, the apostle Paul borrowed from the language of Genesis 3:15 while discussing maintaining unity and peace when Christians are confronted by false teachers. He wrote: “The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Romans 16:20). Though the enmity between followers of Satan and followers of the Messiah continues even today, Satan bruised the Messiah’s heel when He was crucified on a cross. Yet, at that very moment, the Seed of woman was simultaneously crushing Satan to death through His atoning self-sacrifice and victorious resurrection. The whole purpose for Jesus becoming a man was “that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14).

Genesis 3:15 is the “protoevangelium”: the first Gospel. It points to a painful but glorious victory of the Seed of woman over Satan. And it was “preached” by a loving God as soon as humanity rebelled against Him and sinned.

Paul would later summarize the victory first promised in Genesis 3:15 when he wrote, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous…. [W]here sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:19-21).

Conclusion: The Gospel in Seed Form

Far from merely a record of ancient events or a collection of moral lessons about early humanity, Genesis is carefully structured to trace a single redemptive theme—the promise of a coming Seed. Throughout this marvelous book, the reader’s focus narrows from the whole world to one family, and from that family to one ultimate Descendant.

Long before Bethlehem and Calvary, God revealed that sin, death, and Satan would not have the final word, but that the ultimate blessing for all nations would come through this promised Seed. Genesis 3:15 stands as the fountainhead of that hope, and the rest of Scripture unfolds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

In “The Gospel in Genesis—Part 2,” we will see how this rich book continues to develop this promise, showing that the Seed’s victory would come through sacrifice, substitution, and the shedding of blood.

[to be continued]

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Does the Rarity of Miracles Rule Out Their Possibility?

Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Deity of ChristMiracles

Christianity is based on the historicity of the miracles recorded in the Bible, especially the resurrection of Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 15). Critics of the Bible often express concern about the miraculous aspects of Christianity. They typically deny either the historicity of biblical miracles or even the possibility of biblical miracles. In order to respond effectively to such criticisms, the apologist must understand the critic’s argument and show one or more of the premises to be untrue or its reasoning to be unsound. One of the arguments against biblical miracles that has been influential is that of the 18th-century Scottish philosopher David Hume.1 Norman Geisler has summarized Hume’s argument as follows:2

• Premise One: Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence.
• Premise Two: A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.
• Premise Three: The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.
• Premise Four: A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence.
• Conclusion: Therefore, a wise man does not believe in miracles.

In this case, the conclusion is false because the third premise is false. Miracles are indeed rare, but rare events do happen. In fact, many one-time events have been confirmed historically.3 So, it is not the case that the evidence for the regular is always greater than the evidence for the rare. Consider some examples:

• If God created the Universe (and Apologetics Press has presented powerful evidence that He did), the Creation was a one-time event that is nevertheless supported by strong evidence.
• The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a one-time event, and yet the evidence for its historicity is overwhelming.
• People whose exploits are highly unique really lived. For example, Richard Whately cleverly used Hume’s argument satirically to “prove” that Napoleon Bonaparte never existed.4 (If Hume’s argument can be correctly applied and lead to the conclusion that a known historical person never existed, then something is wrong with Hume’s argument.)

Suppose we modified the third premise of Hume’s argument to say, “Alleged miracles are always supported by less evidence than the evidence for natural explanations.” Would this modified premise fare any better? No, because it fails to take into account just how much evidence we could have for a miracle. When we weigh the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, we must consider not just the infrequency of miracles, but also the specific evidence for the resurrection (our three historical facts), and the background information (such as the existence of God and the undeniably unique, powerful ministry of Jesus). The specific evidence and background information can dramatically increase the probability that a miracle has indeed occurred.5

The probability that a miracle occurred is established by answering one question: What is the probability that we would have our same historical facts had the miracle not occurred? For example, consider the three basic, historical facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. It is accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars (even those who deny the resurrection) today (1) that Jesus’ tomb was found empty; (2) that many individuals and groups had experiences of the risen Lord; and (3) that the disciples suddenly came to believe sincerely in the resurrection despite having every predisposition to the contrary.6 What is the probability that these facts would obtain, but that the resurrection did not occur? The answer to this question makes the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth not just a possibility but a historical certainty. The hypothesis that God raised Jesus from the dead requires us to add only one additional belief—that God exists. This additional belief is justified because there are many independent arguments and evidences to show that God exists (e.g., the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments for God’s existence). In order to make it reasonable to believe that our three historical events occurred without the resurrection, skeptics would need to come up with some alternate, plausible, non-miraculous explanations for the three facts. This they have been unable to do.7

Conclusion

Our confidence in the resurrection of Jesus is based, not only on the historical data, but also on the testimony of the supernaturally inspired and confirmed Scriptures (Romans 10:17; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 2:3-4). Nonetheless, in dealing with skeptics who doubt the inspiration of the Bible, it is helpful to show that biblical miracles are not at all unlikely when viewed in the light of accepted historical facts.

Endnotes

1 David Hume (1993), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Indianapolis: Hackett), 2nd edition, section 10.

2 Norman Geisler (1999), Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker), p. 458.

3 See Kyle Butt (2009), “The ‘Problem’ with Miracles,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/the-problem-with-miracles-897/.

4 Richard Whately (1880), “Historical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Napoleon Bonaparte,” ed. Henry Morely, Famous Pamphlets (London: George Routledge and Sons), 2nd edition, p. 290.

5 See John Earman (2000), Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University).

6 Gary R. Habermas (2003), The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield); Habermas, “Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus,” 3[2]:135-53; see also Habermas’ extended version of the article here on his website (2005): https://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm#ch3; William Lane Craig (2008), Reasonable Faith (Wheaton: Crossway), 3rd edition, pp. 361-371.

7 See Kyle Butt (2002), “The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” Apologetics Press, apologeticspress.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ-147/

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed

Understanding the Trinity Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/understanding-the-trinity/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

The 10 Commandments as Wisdom Video 5 min You must drag your mouse over the picture or go to the top (commandment) and then click on it.

https://10commandments.bibleproject.com/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

A Book of Jewish Fables? Video 11 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/a-book-of-jewish-fables/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

A Sponge with Fiber Optic

A Sponge with Fiber Optics

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The last time you picked up a phone to call your business partner about a work project, you might have been using fiber optics. The last time you logged onto the World Wide Web from your home computer, you might have been using fiber optics.

 We hear much about fiber optics these days, but what, exactly, is meant by the term “fiber optics”? In simple terms, a fiber-optic cable has a core (center) made of very thin glass.

 Light can travel through the glass and relay light signals that can reproduce sound and other information. Fiber-optic cables stretch thousands of miles all across the world, and can send information quickly and efficiently.

But there are some problems with these cables. First, since they are glass, they can be brittle, which means they can crack and break. Digging up the cables and replacing them is very expensive.

Second, in order to produce the cables, factories must use very high heat, which also is very expensive. Fiber optics are amazing, but they could use some improvement.

Interestingly, scientists have found an amazing sponge that has wonderful fiber-optic “cables.” The sponge, called the Venus Flower Basket, lives in the deep waters of the ocean. This sponge produces several fiber-optic cables that grow out of its base. These tiny cables are about as wide as a single human hair, and grow to be anywhere from 2 to 7 inches long.

The fibers produced by the Venus Flower Basket have several advantages over the manmade ones. First, they are produced in cool temperatures. If we humans could learn to copy this, we could save millions of dollars.

 Second, the fibers from the sponge are very strong and flexible, and do not crack and break like the ones humans produce. In fact, the fibers from the sponge are so flexible they can be tied into a knot.

 If scientists could learn to make such strong, flexible fibers, we would not have to spend as much time and money repairing our current fiber-optic cables.

Dan Vergano, in an article for USA Today, wrote about the Venus Flower Basket. He quoted several researchers who had been working with the fiber-optic cables of the sponge, or some other facet of biomimetics (the science of copying nature).

 George Matsumoto, a marine researcher of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, said: “Nature often provides us with a better way of doing thing [sic].” He went on to comment that sponges have evolved varied traits over more than 400 million years (2003).

It is amazing that many scientists who are working in the field of biomimicry do not acknowledge the implications of their work. It is a self-evident truth that where there is design, there must of necessity, be a designer; where there is a painting, there must be a painter.

Those who study biomimicry freely acknowledge design in nature. For example, what seems to be the official Web site on biomimicry offers a course from its home page titled “Biologists at the Design Table.”

 In the course summary, under the heading of “Workshop Logistics,” the site describes the participants in the course as those who are “biologists and naturalists with a passion for the natural world, an understanding of sustainability and an interest in applying nature’s elegant design strategies to human challenges” (n.d., “Biomimicry,” emp. added).

Supposedly, then, over a period of billions of years, nature developed “elegant design strategies”—the likes of which even our most educated, brilliant minds have yet to plumb the depths. And yet we are to believe that this “design” somehow originated by a process of blind, evolutionary chance. Such a conclusion steps beyond bounds of logic.

Intelligent scientists have been working on fiber-optic cables for many years, just to get them to work as well as they do now. Yet, the Venus Flower Basket has strong, flexible fibers that are produced in cool temperatures.

 If there is design, which is even more intricate and efficient than that produced by highly intelligent humans, then the designer of such must have an intellect equal to or greater than the humans themselves. The writer of Hebrews accurately noted: “For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God” (3:4). God’s design in the sponge’s fiber-optic “cables” proves that animals like the Venus Flower Basket did not evolve. Design demands a Designer.

REFERENCES

“Biomimicry,” (n.d.) [On-line], URL: http://www.biomimicry.org/intro.html.

Vergano, Dan (2003), “Sponge Goes Man-made Fiber Optics One Better,” USA Today, [On-line], URL: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-08-20-sponge-fibers_x.htm.

---

Copyright  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Storms of Doubt (Audio) 34 min This is very good. Enjoy!

https://apologeticspress.org/video/storms-of-doubt-audio/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Is the Kingdom Yet to be Established?

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersEnd Times

The average American is aware of the periodic claim that “the end is near.” When Y2K was approaching, outcries of doom, global disruption, and Armageddon were widespread. Hal Lindsey achieved nationwide attention over thirty years ago with his national bestseller, The Late Great Planet Earth (1970). A more recent repackaging of the dispensational brand of premillennialism is the popular Left Behind book series (see “The Official…,” 2003). Every so often, a religious figure captures national attention by announcing the impending return of Jesus—even to the point of setting a date—only to fade into the anonymity and obscurity from which he arose when his claim falls flat, but having achieved his “fifteen minutes of fame” (see Whisenant and Brewer, 1989). The sensationalism sells well, and tweaks the curiosity of large numbers of people. Incredibly, this pattern has been repeating itself—literally for centuries!

One feature of the premillennial dispensationalist’s claim is that the kingdom is yet future, and that Jesus is not reigning now, but will commence His reign in His kingdom when He returns in the future to establish it in Jerusalem. However, several passages cannot be harmonized with such a view. First, the Bible teaches that the kingdom exists now, and has existed since A.D. 30. While Jesus was on Earth, He went to Galilee, “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15, emp. added). He also stated: “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1). In fact, Jesus “has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13). To insist that the kingdom is yet to be established is to fail to recognize that the Bible plainly declares that the kingdom already exists on Earth.

Second, the words “kingdom,” “Israel,” and “church” all refer to the same group of people—i.e., the saved, Christians, the church of Christ, or spiritual Israel. Jesus predicted that He would build His “church” and give to Peter the keys of the “kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19). Jesus did not build one institution and then give Peter the keys to a different institution. Paul told the Galatian Christians: “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. …and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7,29; cf. 6:16). He told Christians in Rome: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is the church of Christ—that is, the kingdom.

Third, Jesus is reigning now in heaven and has been since His ascension around A.D. 30. Peter explained that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). Daniel predicted over four centuries prior to its fulfillment: “One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). This prophecy was fulfilled at the ascension of Christ: “while they watched, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Jesus returned to heaven where He was given rule over His kingdom (Hebrews 10:12). When He returns a second time, it will not be to reign on Earth. Rather, “[t]hen comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announced to the gathered crowd that Jesus was reigning at that moment over His kingdom: “God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.… This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God…” (Acts 2:30-33). Paul made the same point in his letter to the church of Christ in Ephesus: “He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet” (Ephesians 1:20-22). I repeat: the Bible repeatedly affirms that Jesus is reigning and ruling now over His kingdom.

Fourth, Jesus completed His work on Earth and, consequently, has no reason to return to the Earth to do any additional work. He explained to the disciples: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34, emp. added). Shortly before His departure from the Earth, He prayed to the Father: “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4).

Dispensationalists say that Jesus came with the intention to be King, and to set up an earthly kingdom, but that the Jews unexpectedly rejected Him. However, this claim is in direct conflict with the facts. On one occasion, after Jesus fed thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fish—a feat that would constitute a tremendous advantage should war with Rome be forthcoming—John noted that “when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to a mountain by Himself alone” (6:15). Here was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to become the physical king that the dispensationalists insist He intended to become. But He refused! Why? He gave the reason to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). The dispensational claim that Jesus is coming back to be a king on Earth on a physical throne is the very thing first-century Jews tried to get Him to do—but which He refused to do.

Premillennialists also maintain that the modern nation of Israel is the recipient of various promises made in Scripture, and that it plays a prominent and continuing role in God’s scheme of things. This contention has had a profound impact upon U.S. foreign policy, and in the way people around the world—especially in the Middle East—perceive America. It must surely be a shock for many people to learn that the Bible depicts no such favored status. All people stand on level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ. God is no respecter of persons, and makes no distinctions between people on the basis of ethnicity (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11,28-29; Galatians 3:28). The promises that were made to physical Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled long ago.

For example, God announced to Abraham that He would give to his descendents (the Israelites) the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1; 15:7). This promise was fulfilled when Israel took possession of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C. (Joshua 21:43-45; 2 Chronicles 9:26). What so many people today fail to recognize is that Israelites’ retaining the land was contingent upon their continued obedience (Leviticus 18:24-28; Joshua 23:14-16; 1 Kings 9:3-7). The complete and final forfeiture of physical Israel took place in A.D. 70. The reestablishment of national Israel, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple (i.e., the national promises of Deuteronomy 30 and Zechariah 12-14) were literally fulfilled in the returning remnant after the Babylonian captivity (Nehemiah 1:8-10; Isaiah 10:22; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezra 3:1-11).

Many of the Old Testament prophecies that predicted the return of the Jews after captivity were laced with predictions of the coming of Christ to the Earth to bring ultimate redemption. Hence, the national promises were spiritually fulfilled in the church of Christ, wherein both Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. For example, premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “ ‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return, set up His millennial kingdom, and reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, incorporating the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millennial interpretation placed upon it.

However, two Bible passages correct this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build—2 Samuel 7:1-7) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house (i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage). It is this lineage to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.

The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James noted two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.”

In light of James’ inspired application of it to the integrated church of the first century, the Amos prophecy, like all others in the Old Testament that premillennialists wish to apply to the future, finds ultimate and final climax in the momentous advent of the Christian religion on the planet. The premillennial treatment of prophecy is, in the final analysis, a demeaning and trivializing of the significance of the Gospel, the church of Christ, and the Christian religion as the final revelation from God to mankind. The kingdom is not future; it is here now. All accountable persons would do well to conform themselves to the preconditions that enable Jesus to add them to His kingdom (Acts 2:38,47; 8:12-13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:5: 22:16).

REFERENCES

Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

“The Official Left Behind Series Site,” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.leftbehind.com.

Whisenant, Edgar and Greg Brewer (1989), The Final Shout Rapture 1989 Report (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.