https://video.wvbs.org/video/two-different-questions-what-and-when-salvation-matters/
Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.
posted by Believer | 1:30 AM
|
0 comments
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1101692172845481
Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.
posted by Believer | 1:00 AM
|
0 comments
https://video.wvbs.org/video/accept-all-of-gods-word-salvation-matters/
Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.
posted by Believer | 1:00 AM
|
0 comments
Did the apostles release Gentile Christians from the Law of Moses while requiring Jewish Christians to remain under it? In Acts 15, the apostles refused to require circumcision and Mosaic observance for salvation. Only a few chapters later, however, Paul entered the Jerusalem Temple, participated in purification rites, and allowed others to say that he “walk[ed] orderly and ke[pt] the law” (Acts 21:24). This tension has led some to conclude that the early Church recognized two continuing obligations: Gentile Christians lived apart from Torah, while Jewish Christians remained bound to it.1
Paul’s letters make that conclusion awkward. Paul identified himself as a Jew who had “died to the law” through Christ (Galatians 2:19). He taught those who knew the law that they had “become dead to the law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4). The apostles recognized one means of salvation, one new covenant, and one people governed by Christ. The New Testament therefore teaches that the Mosaic covenant ceased to bind Jewish and Gentile believers alike. Jewish Christians could continue certain ancestral customs as matters of culture, conscience, or accommodation, but they could not treat those customs as covenantal obligations.
The controversy in Acts 15 concerned nothing less than salvation. Teachers came from Judea and declared, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Others insisted that Gentile converts must be circumcised and commanded “to keep the law of Moses” (15:5). Peter answered by recalling the conversion of Cornelius. God gave the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles and “made no distinction” between them and Jewish believers, “purifying their hearts by faith” (15:8-9). To impose the law afterward would challenge God’s own verdict and place a yoke upon the disciples that Israel had never successfully borne (15:10). Peter’s conclusion reaches beyond Gentile liberty. He said, “[W]e believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they” (15:11). Jewish believers are the “we,” and Gentile believers are the “they.” Peter does not say that Gentiles may be saved like Torah-observant Jews. He says that Jews must be saved in the same way as Gentiles, through the grace of Jesus Christ. Both stand on the same ground before God.
Paul’s argument in Galatians confirms this reading of the text. When he was forced to address Peter’s Judaizing, Paul emphasized that they were both “Jews by nature” (Galatians 2:15). He then declared that a person, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified through faith in Christ rather than by works of the law (2:16). Paul himself had “died to the law” so that he might “live to God” (2:19). His covenantal identity was now determined by union with Christ.
Galatians 3 places this change within the history of redemption. The law “was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come” (3:19). The law of Moses served as a guardian “to bring us to Christ,” but “after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (3:24-25). The Mosaic law possessed divinely appointed purposes which culminated in Christ and were fulfilled in Him.
Romans 7 makes the same point. Paul writes to people who “know the law” and tells them that they “have become dead to the law through the body of Christ” to belong to the risen Lord (7:1,4). The Jewish Christians were separated from the law of Moses just as a spouse is separated from a deceased spouse and free to marry another. Christians now serve “in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (7:6). Hebrews states the law of Moses was set aside because of its “weakness and unprofitableness” (Hebrews 7:18), and the establishment of the new covenant made the first covenant obsolete (8:13).
Acts 21 records genuine Jewish observance, but it does not prove continuing Mosaic obligation. The Jerusalem elders hoped to answer reports that Paul despised Jewish customs. They asked him to join four men in purification and to pay their expenses (Acts 21:20-24). Paul agreed for the sake of peace and his mission to the Jews.2 His conduct follows a pattern visible elsewhere. Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews among whom they would work (Acts 16:3), yet he refused to circumcise Titus when false teachers demanded the act as a Gospel requirement (Galatians 2:3-5). Circumcision could be tolerated as cultural accommodation. It could never be accepted as necessary for justification or covenant membership.3
First Corinthians 7 supplies a controlling distinction for this discussion. Paul does not require Jewish believers to erase the marks of their Jewish identity, nor does he permit Gentile believers to seek circumcision as though it granted fuller covenantal standing (7:18-20). Circumcision and uncircumcision belong to the sphere of historical and ethnic identity; neither determines justification, membership in Christ, or rank within the Church (Romans 3:28-30; Galatians 3:26-29; 5:6; 6:15).
Romans 14 applies the same principle to days and foods. Believers may retain inherited practices as matters of conscience, provided those practices remain voluntary and are never imposed as measures of faithfulness (14:1-6,13-17,22-23). Jewish Christians could therefore continue certain ancestral customs as members of the new covenant, but they were no longer obligated to the Mosaic covenant as a governing redemptive order (Acts 15:1-29; Romans 7:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-11; Hebrews 8:6-13). The decisive boundary is theological: a custom may be preserved as cultural practice, but once it is made necessary for salvation, binding upon the Church, or a ground of spiritual superiority, it becomes a denial of the sufficiency of Christ and the freedom of the Gospel (Acts 15:1,5,10-11; Galatians 2:3-5,15-16; 5:1-4; Colossians 2:16-23).
I think Herman Bavinck captured the biblical balance when he said, “For, even though the Mosaic law, especially in its principles, continues significant even now, we know that God Himself intended it as a temporary code, and that in the fulness of time, when it had reached its fulfillment, it was abandoned because of its weakness and uselessness.”4 “Temporary” does not mean mistaken or worthless. The law was holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). It revealed sin, preserved Israel, anticipated Christ, and supplied the categories by which the apostles explained His sacrifice and priesthood.
Christians still receive the Law of Moses as inspired Scripture. It warns the Church (1 Corinthians 10:6-11), instructs believers (Romans 15:4), and bears witness to Christ (Luke 24:27,44). Yet Christians read Moses from within the new covenant and under the authority of Christ. Neither Gentile nor Jewish Christians remain under the Mosaic covenant. Through Christ, Jews and Gentiles receive the same blessings and obligations.
1 This interpretation continues to be defended by some contemporary Messianic Jewish and post-supersessionist theologians. David J. Rudolph argues that Paul envisioned a “Torah-defined ecclesiological variegation” in which Jewish believers continued to observe the Mosaic law as an expression of their enduring Jewish covenantal calling, while Gentile believers remained uncircumcised and were not obligated to adopt a Jewish pattern of life. Mark S. Kinzer similarly proposes a “bilateral ecclesiology” in which Jewish and Gentile believers are united in the Messiah while retaining distinct ecclesial and covenantal vocations. See David J. Rudolph (2010), “Paul’s ‘Rule in All the Churches’ (1 Cor 7:17–24) and Torah-Defined Ecclesiological Variegation,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, 5:1-24; idem (2016), A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock); and Mark S. Kinzer (2005), Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People (Grand Rapids: Brazos), esp. pp. 264-265,299-300. Related arguments appear among interpreters associated with the “Paul within Judaism” perspective, although these scholars differ over whether continued Torah observance should be understood descriptively as Paul’s historical practice or normatively as an enduring obligation for all Jewish believers in Jesus.
2 The narrative establishes Paul’s voluntary participation in Jewish observance, rather than the continuing covenantal necessity of that observance. The elders’ proposal was designed to refute the report that Paul taught Jewish believers to abandon Moses, circumcision, and ancestral customs. By undergoing purification and sponsoring the four men, Paul demonstrated his willingness to accommodate Jewish practice where the Gospel was not compromised, consistently with his stated missionary principle of becoming “as a Jew” to win Jews (1 Corinthians 9:19-23; cf. Acts 16:3; 18:18). See F. F. Bruce (1988), The Book of the Acts, rev. ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 404-408; I. Howard Marshall (1980), The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 5 (Leicester: InterVarsity Press), pp. 344-347; and David G. Peterson (2009), The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 600-605.
3 Acts 15:1-29; 16:1-3; Romans 2:25-29; 3:28-30; 4:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7:18-20; Galatians 2:3-5,15-16; 5:2-6; 6:12-15; Philippians 3:2-9. Paul’s circumcision of Timothy “because of the Jews” in the region demonstrates that circumcision could be practiced as a voluntary cultural and missionary accommodation when no saving significance was attached to it (Acts 16:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). His refusal to circumcise Titus, however, shows that the same act became impermissible when demanded as a condition of Christian freedom, justification, or inclusion among God’s covenant people (Galatians 2:3-5). In Galatians 5:2-6, receiving circumcision under such terms amounted to seeking justification through the law and therefore to abandoning the sufficiency of Christ. Circumcision itself was neither spiritually advantageous nor inherently sinful; its theological meaning depended upon whether it was treated as an ethnic custom or as a necessary boundary marker of salvation and covenant membership. See Douglas J. Moo (2013), Galatians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), pp. 19-31,138-146,323-332; Thomas R. Schreiner (2010), Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 9:120-128,309-318; and Eckhard J. Schnabel (2012), Acts, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 5:661-666.
4 Herman Bavinck (2016), Our Reasonable Faith, trans. Henry Zylstra (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 68-69
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.
posted by Believer | 1:00 AM
|
0 comments
Perhaps to avoid the stringency of Jesus’ requirements for marriage, some have maintained that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to non-Christians. They insist, therefore, that the verse has no bearing on the marital status of non-Christians who wish to become Christians. It is claimed that Matthew 19:9 is “covenant legislation” and was intended by Jesus to apply only to those who have already entered into His Christian covenant. Hence, it is alleged that non-Christians who have been divorced and remarried for reasons other than fornication may “start fresh” when they become Christians and remain in whatever marriage relationship they are in at the time they are baptized. Only at that point are they to be considered amenable to Matthew 19:9.
One attempt to defend this viewpoint is the claim that the word “whoever” generally refers—even in the Old Testament—to those who are already in covenant relationship with God.1 However, hos (ό΄ς) is a relative pronoun which, when used with an (ά΄ν) and a verb in the subjunctive mood, means “whoever.” It carries no peculiar application to Christians, as if its use indicates that those being referenced are in a covenant relationship with God. The claim is grammatically incorrect and linguistically indefensible. The parallel in Matthew 5:32 uses pas (πάς) which simply means “all” or “everyone.”
1. In context, Jesus was speaking specifically to Jews—not Christians. Christianity had not even been established.
2. Jesus answered their question about divorce (vs. 3). They were not asking Jesus what His divorce policy would be once His kingdom was established. They desired to know His will for Jews right then. The frequent allusion that some make to the divergent views of Hillel and Shammai2 is further proof that Jesus was directing His remarks to His pre-Christian contemporaries.
3. Nor did Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 commence its application in Acts 2. It went into effect when it was first uttered to the entire human race in Genesis 2:24—intended for all people for all time: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This divine declaration was not limited to Adam and Eve—as shown by Jesus’ quotation of it in the first century A.D. Deuteronomy 24 did not conflict with this original Law of Marriage. It was simply an attempt to minimize and contain the stubborn abuses of the Israelites.3 On the other hand, God’s declaration at the beginning of human history was intended to apply to all human beings—Jew, Gentile, Christian, non-Christian—for all time.
4. To see the fallacy of the claim that “whoever” throughout the Bible is used to refer to those in covenant relationship with God, simply examine passages that use the word and insert “Christian(s),” or “the Christian who,” or “those already in covenant relationship with Jesus” in the following verses where “whoever” occurs:
The Old Testament has the same application:
Many more instances of the term “whoever” could be cited. Notice the flawed rationale: Go to passages that refer only to certain people, and then conclude that since “whoever” in those verses refers to those people, “whoever” must always or generally refer to those people. The Hebrew and Greek terms that underlie the English word “whoever” do not support this peculiar contention.4 Since the Bible reports primarily activities by those who were believers in God, most occurrences of the word do pertain to them—even as the words “you” and “they” refer to them—simply because they are the audience. But it absolutely does not follow that, therefore, “covenant people,” or Jews, or Christians inhere in such words and do not apply to a universal audience. Indeed, the Bible uses the word precisely in the same fashion as we use the English word “whoever.” Ask yourself: Do you use “whoever” only when talking to or about Christians?
To summarize: Matthew 19:3-12 constitutes divine directives concerning the only grounds for divorce in God’s sight for all people who have ever lived or will live. It is “human race” legislation which God, Himself, articulated at the very beginning of the world, and Jesus reiterated in response to His disciples’ question. God’s intention for all people is that they marry an eligible partner the first time they marry and remain married to that spouse for life. The only exception to this all-encompassing directive is that if one of the marriage partners commits fornication, the innocent partner has the scriptural right to divorce that unfaithful spouse and remarry a scripturally eligible partner, while the fornicator must remain single for life.5
1 Lonnie Ritchie (2024), Sunday Morning Bible Study, May 5th; Recorded live Magnolia church of Christ, Magnolia, TX, https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1188268528826915.
2 Two prominent Jewish rabbis in the first century whose influence resulted in the creation of two “schools” of followers who tended to be antagonistic toward each other. See Marcus Jastrow and S. Mendelsohn (1906), “BET HILLEL AND BET SHAMMAI,” Jewish Encyclopedia, 3:115-116, https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3190-bet-hillel-and-bet-shammai.
3 Dave Miller (2021), “Did Jesus Disagree With Moses on Divorce?” Reason & Revelation, 41[7]:74-77, July, https://apologeticspress.org/did-jesus-disagree-with-moses-on-divorce-5975/.
4 Greek grammarian Robertson states that the clause in Matthew 5:32 “pictures any one in general without a definite individual in mind”—A.T. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (1931), A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament, for Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (London: R.R. Smith), p. 323.
5 For a more detailed study of Matthew 19, see Dave Miller (1985), “To Whom Does Matthew 19:3-12 Apply?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/to-whom-does-matthew-193-12-apply-4187/. For an extensive study of divorce and remarriage, see Thomas Warren, ed. (1978), Your Marriage Can Be Great! (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
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.
posted by Believer | 1:00 AM
|
0 comments
It is widely known that the inspired biographer Luke related how Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus traveled to Bethlehem due to a Roman census: “Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:1-2, NASB). While acknowledging that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius officially became governor of Syria in A.D. 6, about 10 years after the birth of Jesus, we have pointed out that critics of the Bible have failed to prove that Luke made a historical error.1 This includes the fact that Luke’s word translated “governor” is generic enough to make possible Quirinius’ oversight of the census even though he was not technically the governor.
Interestingly, our historical information about the official governor or legate of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth provides additional support to the plausibility of Luke’s assertion that Quirinius, although not the official legate of Syria at the time, could have overseen a census.
Publius Quinctilius [sometimes spelled “Quintilius”] Varus (d. A.D. 9) was a Roman general whose father had been one of Julius Caesar’s assassins.2 Varus became the Roman governor of Syria in 7/6 B.C. and served until sometime after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C.3 The Roman historian Suetonius gives us insight into Caesar Augustus’ view of Varus, which was conditioned by Varus’ disastrous military loss (and suicide4):
[Augustus] suffered but two severe and ignominious defeats, those of Lollius and Varus, both of which were in Germany. Of these the former was more humiliating than serious, but the latter was almost fatal, since three legions were cut to pieces with their general, his lieutenants, and all the auxiliaries. When the news of this came, he ordered that watch be kept by night throughout the city, to prevent any outbreak, and he prolonged the terms of the governors of the provinces, that the allies might be held to their allegiance by experienced men with whom they were acquainted. They say that he was so greatly affected that for several months in succession he cut neither his beard nor his hair, and sometimes he would dash his head against a door, crying: “Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!” And he observed the day of the disaster each year as one of sorrow and mourning.5
Granted, Varus’ military defeat to the Germanic tribes took place sometime after the census mentioned by Luke. Nonetheless, in Suetonius’ report we have a case in which Augustus directly questioned the leadership of the very person whose leadership is the lynchpin in a criticism of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Given Augustus’ displeasure with Varus, would it be surprising for him to have put Quirinius, of whom he plausibly had a favorable view,6 in charge of a census-enrollment that would have an impact on taxation?7
Luke’s remarkable accuracy as a historian should always motivate commentators to provide relevant evidence supporting possible explanations for what would otherwise be a glaring and uncharacteristic mistake.8
1 Dave Miller (2002), “Luke, Quirinius, and the Census,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/luke-quirinius-and-the-census-907/.
2 “Publius Quinctilius Varus,” Encyclopedia Brittanica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Publius-Quinctilius-Varus (n.d.).
3 Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 7:17.5,9.
4 Dio Cassius, Roman History, 7:56.21.5.
5 Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 1:23.
6 Tacitus, Annals, 1:3.48.
7 Josephus reports that Quirinius’ later census was for the purpose of assessing Jewish property (Antiquities of the Jews, 1:1). See the documentation in Wayne Brindle (1984), “The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,27[1]:50.
8 See Colin Hemer (1989), The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr), chapters 4-5.
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.
posted by Believer | 1:00 AM
|
0 comments
One powerful proof of the supernatural origin of the Bible is the presence of predictive prophecy within its pages. Old Testament prophets predicted minute details of events that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The uninformed observer may take this claim with “a grain of salt,” thinking that anyone can write a book that makes predictions, and then report the fulfillment of those predictions in the same book. In other words, one might simply assume that the entire Bible was written by only one (or a few) writers who simply selected contemporaneous events at the time they were writing, and then couched their subject matter in an anticipatory format, creating the impression that they were predicting events yet future to their own day.
This methodology certainly has been followed by other books that claim to be from God. The Book of Mormon is characterized mostly by its reporting of the past. It purports to be the result of a single individual—Joseph Smith—who allegedly received gold plates from an angel, which then were translated with divine assistance (see Miller, 2003). Likewise, the Quran claims to be the result of revelations presented to a single individual—Muhammad—by the angel Gabriel. It, too, gives the appearance of being the result of a single person responding to his surroundings without the ability to predict the future.
In contrast, the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, completed prior to the formation of the New Testament, stands as an indisputable fact of history. Although the higher textual critics have attempted to reassign late dates to many of the Old Testament books, even they have not dated them beyond the second century B.C., with canonization complete by 100 B.C. (see Archer, 1974, pp. 77-79). One reason for this concession is the fixed historical fact that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was translated into Greek by seventy-two scholars in Alexandria in approximately 250 B.C. The existence of this translation, known as the Septuagint, is corroborated by several independent historical witnesses (see Harrison, 1969, pp. 228ff.; Koester, 1982, 1:252ff.; Tenney, 1976, 5:342-343). The existence of the Septuagint verifies that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were intact over 300 years before the first books of the New Testament were penned. Likewise, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has further demonstrated a pre-Christian presence of the Old Testament books (see Finegan, 1959, 2:271ff.; Thompson, 1962, p. 264; Free and Vos, 1992, pp. 175ff.; Pfeiffer, 1969, pp. 25ff.; Archer, 1974, pp. 38ff., 505-509).
One category of Old Testament predictive prophecy is Messianic prophecy, i.e., prophecy that pertains to the coming of the Messiah—Jesus Christ. Some 332 (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 241) minute, intricate predictions are scattered throughout the Old Testament that pinpoint details of events and circumstances that transpired while Jesus lived on Earth. Included among these moments in the life of Christ are: His descent from Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Luke 3:34), through the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14), through the family of David (2 Samuel 7:12; Luke 1:32), through the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22), during the Roman empire (Daniel 2:44; 9:26; Luke 2:1), while Judah still had a king (Genesis 49:10; Matthew 2:22), His escape to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15), His Galilean ministry (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:12-16), His priesthood comparable to Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6; 6:20; 7:15-17), His rejection by the Jews (Isaiah 53:3; Psalm 2:2; Luke 15:25; 23:18; John 1:11; 5:43), His triumphal entry (Zechariah 9:9; Isaiah 62:11; Matthew 21:1-11; John 12:12-15), His betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18), for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15), which would be returned for a potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13; Matthew 27:3-10), with His accuser replaced (Psalm 109:7-8; Acts 1:16-20), being spit upon and beaten (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30), His silence when accused (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 26:62-63), by false witnesses (Psalm 27:12; 35:11; Matthew 26:60-61), mocked and insulted (Psalm 22:6-8; Matthew 27:39-40), given gall and vinegar (Psalm 69:21; John 19:29), His death with sinners (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38), with His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16; Luke 24:39), but no bone broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33), while lots were cast for his clothing (Psalm 22:18; Mark 15:24), buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60), but in death his body would not decay (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:22ff.), and His ascension (Psalm 68:18; Daniel 7:13-14; Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:9).
One particularly striking prophecy was uttered by the prophet Micah, who lived and prophesied in the eighth century B.C. (Lewis, 1966, p. 32). He articulated a very specific reference to the place of Christ’s birth: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (5:2). This prophecy is remarkable on at least two counts. First, the fact that anyone could predict the precise city where a “ruler” would be born centuries later is unsurpassed in ordinary human experience. A charlatan would be “leaving himself wide open” to being discredited. Psychics, palm readers, spiritualists, and faith healers of today are very careful to maintain ambiguity and to keep their words sufficiently vague as to allow for adjustment, evasion, and multiple explanations. Pinpointing a specific city is specificity that is incomparable in its own right.
Second, Micah “stuck his neck out” even farther when he identified the city as “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” Few people probably realize that Palestine contained two towns named Bethlehem. Similarly, in the United States, we have Paris, Texas, and Paris, Tennessee. There’s a Jackson, Mississippi, and a Jackson, Tennessee, as well as a Lexington, Tennessee, and a Lexington, Kentucky. The Bethlehem with which most people are familiar is Bethlehem of Judah, located five miles south of Jerusalem. This town, or its inhabitants, is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 35:19; 48:7; Judges 17:7-9; 19:1ff.; Ruth 1:19), and was the birthplace of King David (1 Samuel 16:4; 17:12,15; 2 Samuel 23:14,16). After the Babylonian exile, Bethlehemites reinhabited the town (Ezra 2:21; Nehemiah 7:26). This same Bethlehem served as the birthplace of the Messiah (Matthew 2:1,5; Luke 2:4,15). In fact, King Herod’s familiarity with biblical prophecy caused him to concentrate his massacre of innocent babies on the infant population of this particular Bethlehem.
The other Bethlehem was Bethlehem of Zebulun in northern Palestine. Though mentioned less frequently in the Old Testament (Joshua 19:15; Judges 12:8,10), archaeological excavations indicate that it was a place of some importance in earlier days (Masterman, 1956, 1:449-450).
How did Micah know that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem—let alone Bethlehem Ephrathah? The only rational explanation is that Micah was inspired in his writing—supernaturally guided to predict the precise location where the Messiah would be born. The Bible stands alone—in a class by itself—apart from all other books on the planet that claim to be of divine origin. It is, in fact, the Word of God. As such, it reserves the right to require conformity to its precepts by all accountable human beings.
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Finegan, Jack (1959), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), second edition.
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), revised edition.
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Koester, Helmut (1982), History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).
Lewis, Jack (1966), The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Masterman, E.W.G. (1956), “Bethlehem,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Is the Book of Mormon from God?” [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2243.
Pfeiffer, Charles (1969), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Tenney, Merrill, ed. (1976), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Thompson, J.A. (1962), The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
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.
posted by Believer | 1:30 AM
|
0 comments
