Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space (Revised)

age of the earth, apologetics, evolution No Comments

In January, 2017, the Warren Christian Apologetics Center published a revised edition of Nobie Stone’s work, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space.  A review of the first edition of this work was published on this blog under Book Reviews in 2014 when the first edition was published.  Now, a thorough review of the new revised edition has been published on this blog under Book Reviews.  Simply click on Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space Revised and you will have access to the ten page review.
Nobie Stone is a theistic evolutionist and a mitigated skeptic who misinterprets Genesis 1 in an attempt to harmonize it with evolutionary chronology.  He makes many mistakes in logic, science and theology.  Many of these same mistakes were made in the first edition.  Now, they are repeated in the revised edition and many more errors are added.  Please take the time to read this review and, then, distribute it to others who may be interested in examining the faulty apologetics the book affirms.

The Gap Theory Refuted

age of the earth, apologetics, Gap Theory No Comments

An excellent article appeared recently in Apologetics Press titled, “Is Gap Theory Linguistically Viable?” (December, 2015, vol. 35, no. 12). It was written by Justin Rogers who holds a Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.  Rogers clearly shows that the Gap Theory violates clear biblical teaching. This is remarkable in light of the fact that Nobie Stone allows for the Gap Theory in his book, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space, p. 67.  Stone states, “The point here is that there is a grammatical break between the first sentence and the second, which begins with the word now.  It is such an obvious break that it has been suggested that the first sentence is not a sentence at all, but a title for the following material; although this has its own problems.  We simply ask the question, “What right do we have to impose any constraint on this clear break?” Is it continuous? Is there a gap? We truly do not know.”  Dr. Rogers is much more definite than Dr. Stone.
What is the Gap Theory?
The Gap Theory is an effort to harmonize Genesis 1:1-2 with the evolutionary concept of an Earth that is billions of years old.  The theory holds that there is a gap between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 that would allow for billions of years of time to pass.  Proponents of the Gap Theory insist that “science” requires an Earth that is billions of years old.  Consequently, the Scriptures must be made to “fit” science.  Gap theorists then twist the Scriptures to make them fit their theory.  Obviously, to many Christians, this is backwards.  Scripture should take precedence over scientific theory (scientism is not a fact, but a philosophy).  Evolution is not a fact, but a theory based upon presuppositions that include a materialistic interpretation of origins.
What Are The Linguistic Arguments?
Rogers states the specific linguistic arguments that Gap theorists allege.  First, Gap theorists begin by affirming that the Hebrew term bara in Genesis 1 means “create” (from nothing) and asah  means “restore” (at a later time) (p. 135). Rogers comments, “By interpreting the Hebrew in this fashion, Gap theorists believe they can accommodate an Earth billions of years old without compromising the essential integrity of the Genesis account.  The bara state of Creation occurs first (Genesis 1:1), and, after centuries or even billions of years, the asah stage of Creation occurs (the “six days,” Genesis 1:2ff) (p. 135).  Rogers shows that this sharp distinction between these two Hebrew words does not hold up under further examination.  He affirms, “…these terms (along with eleven others-DS) are used interchangeably of God’s creative activity” (p. 136).  For instance, the term bara is used of the creation of man (Gen. 5:1 and 6:7) which, if Gap theorists were correct, only asah should have been used.  While these terms are often found in parallel constructions of God’s creative activity, they are not always synonymous terms (p. 136).
Second, Gap theorists make three arguments on the grammar of Gen. 1:2.  “They claim: (1) the Hebrew waw implies a gap in the narrative; (2) the verb form “was” (hay tah) signals a new beginning; and (3) the nouns tohu va-vohu imply a re-creation from a degraded, earlier Creation (pp. 137, 140).  Rogers answers each of these arguments.  First, when the waw is attached to a noun it is disjunctive and signals a shift in the narrative.  The disjunctive waw can simply provide background information to the story being related (e.g. Genesis 13:13), or explain what is happening simultaneous with the narrative, but elsewhere in location (e.g. Genesis 37:36, translated well as “meanwhile” in the ESV).  In these cases, the waw sets up a parenthetical remark which functions to explain the preceding information (p. 140).  Rogers addresses the second grammatical feature, the hay tah or “was.”  Gap theorists mistranslate this term insisting it means “became” or “had become.” Rogers acknowledges that this can be a possible meaning, but that the context determines the actual meaning.  In this context, the word “was” refers to the time when God began his work of creation.  It serves as a copula (a word that joins parts of one thought to another).  “Was does not mean that the earth remained in this shapeless state for a long time; nor does it mean that it became such after being something else earlier” (Reyburn and Fry, 1997, p. 30) (p. 140).  “This point is recognized by virtually every decent translation of the Hebrew text since the Septuagint (cf. the Latin Vulgate and the mountain of English translations)” (p. 140).
Rogers addresses the final grammatical consideration, the  Hebrew phrase, tohu va-vohu (“without form and void”-KJV).  Gap theorists affirm that these terms imply a depreciation of the original Creation. Rogers replies, “While the Gap theorists are correct to understand tohu va-vohu to mean a state of creation God did not regard as ideal, nothing in the Hebrew words themselves implies a depreciation of Creation. Rather, the expression conveys the amorphous nature of the Earth before God provided His creative structure to it” (p. 141).
Rogers concludes, “There is nothing in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 to demand a gap of time” (p. 141).

The Danger of Theistic Evolution

apologetics, evolution No Comments

What is Theistic Evolution?  Theistic evolution is a system of thought that attempts to compromise the teaching of the Bible that God is the creator of all things with the materialistic worldview of organic evolution.  There are many variations of thought among theistic evolutionists. Consequently, there is little agreement among them regarding the actual events involved in the origin of the universe and the development of life.  When faced with the questions of when these things happened and how they happened the answers are often contradictory and full of speculation.
The Danger of Theistic Evolution.
John Otis in his book, Theistic Evolution, remarks, “One of the greatest dangers that the visible church faces today is the growing threat of theistic evolution.  Theistic Evolution is a “Pandora’s Theological Box” (Otis, Theistic Evolution, p. 287).  Why would Otis make a statement like this? Consider the following answers to this question.
First, Theistic Evolution is false because it adopts a faulty hermeneutic.  The infallible rule of interpretation is Scripture itself.  We often say, “Let Scripture interpret Scripture.”  A rule of hermeneutics is: “The words of the scripture text should be understood literally, unless there is some compelling reason to interpret figuratively.”  In regards to Genesis 1, we are faced with the decision to interpret literally and so historically or figuratively and metaphorically.  Dr. Don DeYoung has written a book titled, Thousands…Not Billions, that addresses the question of the age of the earth.  This book is a thorough review of the dating methods commonly used to date the age of the rocks and consequently of the earth.  The book reviews and summarizes the work of a team of seven scientists and one theologian all with earned doctorate degrees that make up a group called RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth). Dr. Steven Boyd is the Biblical Hebrew scholar that did an analysis of Genesis 1 to determine if it belonged to narrative literature or poetical literature.  The analysis involved the use of finite verbs.  The distribution of finite verbs in Hebrew narrative writing differs from that used in poetry.  Dr. Boyd made the following conclusions regarding Genesis 1:  (1)  Genesis 1:1-2:3 is determined to be narrative with a probability of one (an extraordinary level of confidence); (2) It is not statistically defensible to interpret Gen. 1:1-2:3 as poetry or metaphor; (3) since Gen. 1:1-2:3 is clearly narrative, it should be read as other Hebrew narratives are intended to be read.  That is, the creation account describes actual events which carry an unmistakable theological message; (4) when Gen. 1:1-2:3 is read as narrative, there is only one tenable view: God created everything during six literal days (p. 168-169). Most theistic evolutionists believe that Genesis 1 is figurative language and that the days of creation are not 24 hour periods of time (solar days), but may be interpreted as encompassing vast eons of time (billions of years).  Consequently, theistic evolutionists must violate the basic rule of hermeneutics stated above in order to reach the conclusions that they affirm.  In addition to this argument, there are other passages that are clearly historical that support a historical understanding of Genesis 1.  Let Scripture interpret Scripture!  Consider Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Another argument that must be considered is the Lord Jesus Christ’s own remarks regarding the beginning and placing the creation of the first man and woman at the beginning of time which cannot be harmonized with the evolutionary scheme regarding the age of the earth and the beginning of human life on the earth.  Jesus said, “…Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.”  Jesus is referencing Gen. 2:24.  He places the creation of man at the beginning of time.  The veracity of the Lord is at stake and consequently His deity with regard to the age of the earth and the creation account given in Genesis 1.
Second, Theistic Evolution assaults the dignity and uniqueness of man.  Gen. 1:27.  Evolutionists teach that man evolved from lower life forms.  The Bible teaches that man was created by God “in his image” (Gen. 1:27).  Both cannot be true!  Paul declares, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (I Cor. 15:39).  Man is not an animal.  Man possesses a soul that will never die.  Man is the crowning jewel of God’s creation.  The dignity and uniqueness of man has a connection to the humanity of Jesus Christ (Psa. 8:4-6; Heb. 2:6-11).  Evolutionary thought is an assault on the dignity of man and the dignity of the Lord who was made in likeness of men.
Third, Theistic Evolution undermines the Bible’s credibility.  Bible chronology cannot allow for billions of years for the age of the universe (14 billion years) and the age of the earth (4-5 billion years).  Bible chronology allows for an earth that is about 6,000 years old.  The genealogical records given in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 may be compared with the genealogical accounts given in the Old Testament.  These genealogies are important because they relate to the identification of the Messiah (Jesus Christ).  If they are not historically accurate, then a significant proof for the Messiahship of Jesus is lost.  Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam.  Jesus places the first male and female at the time of the beginning of all things (Matt. 19:4).  Some Theistic Evolutionists deny that Adam was a real person.  Some deny that Adam could have been 930 years old or that Methuselah could have been 969 years old.  They do this in order to compromise with evolutionary models of the age of the earth.  Scientism is used to interpret the Bible rather than the Bible being used to interpret the facts of science.  Scientism is a materialistic worldview that uses organic evolution to interpret origins and the age of the earth.  This view is false because it contradicts the Bible.
Theistic Evolution must be rejected because it introduces a “Pandora’s Theological Box.”  To deny the historical narrative of Genesis 1 is to deny the veracity of the Bible and the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Review of Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space

apologetics, evolution, theistic evolution No Comments

I have recently posted a review of the book titled, Genesis 1 and Lessons From Space by Nobie Stone.  This book is published by the Warren Christian Apologetics Center, Vienna, WV under the direction of Charles Pugh III.  Pugh states regarding the work of Nobie Stone, “This promises to be a fascinating journey through the cosmos and the associated scientific and religious thought” (p. xi). The reader must judge for himself/herself whether or not this is true.  I found the book to be challenging to my faith because of the many logical, philosophical, scientific and theological errors it contains.
Nobie Stone is a theistic evolutionist.  He allows for the Gap Theory and affirms a modified form of the Day-Age Theory.  Guy N. Woods in Questions and Answers, vol. 1, p. 17 remarks concerning the Day-Age Theory: “The day-age theory is a consequence of the evolutionary theory.  But for that speculative view such a hypothesis would never have been advanced.  The theory itself is patently opposed to other affirmations of the sacred writings; why, then, should we concede that there is merit to its imaginations in this area? Conservative Geologists (E.G., George McReady Price), have long since shown, in the most convincing fashion, that the “onion-skin” hypothesis and the geologic time-time (sic) based thereon are fanciful and false; we ought not, therefore, to give credence to its suppositions in an area where it is obviously in conflict with inspiration.  It is not possible to force the Mosaic account of creation into conformity with the evolutionary hypothesis. Life, according to that theory began in the water; life, according to the Holy Spirit, began on the land! Which shall we believe?”  Woods makes it abundantly clear that the theory of evolution is not compatible with Scripture.  The contrast is between the fallible words of men and the infallible word of the living God.
Charles Pugh III indicates in the Publishers Afterward that the Warren Christian Apologetics Center is not a “cookie cutter” of the apologetics of Thomas Warren for whom the center is named.  This means that the apologetics of the center is not the “same as” the apologetics of Thomas Warren. What is the difference?  Pugh remarks, “The Center’s work includes the availability of venues whereby respected scholars from various disciplines, in some fashion supportive of the Christian worldview, are engaged for presentations that make contributions of varying degrees to the overall field of apologetics for Christian evidences.”  Pugh will present views in the field of Christian apologetics that are not necessarily true according to the Scriptures, but “in some fashion” support the Christian worldview.  I do not believe that Thomas Warren would have done this.  Thomas Warren wrote a book titled, On Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes.  In this work, Warren states that a Christian cannot support error.  Whenever an entity, religious or otherwise, supports error, then that entity is disqualified from receiving funds from New Testament churches or New Testament Christians.  Warren states, “Oh,” someone says, “but you said that a church might help someone who is not a member of the church.” Yes, I certainly did say that.  And I say it again.  But I never did say that a church could give to anyone or to any thing if such giving would enhance the spread of error” (p. 195).  The Warren Center under the direction of Charles Pugh III has published error without refutation and disseminated it worldwide via Amazon.com.  The Christian worldview is stated in the Scriptures.  Any doctrine that contradicts the Scriptures is not the Christian worldview.  Theistic evolution contradicts the Scriptures. Theistic evolution is not the Christian worldview.  Pugh includes a disclaimer about material that is published by the Warren Center on p. 158.  You can read it in my review.  This disclaimer is necessary for Nobie Stone’s work because of the many logical, scientific, philosophical, and theological fallacies it contains. The obvious contradiction between the stated mission of the Warren Center to uphold and defend the Christian worldview and the means (publishing materials that teach error without any refutation and disseminating such throughout the world) should be apparent to any rational person.  Every faithful gospel preacher is under a solemn apostolic charge (II Tim. 4:1-3) to oppose this type of  material and contradictory effort.

Was Jesus Married?

apologetics, Bible, faith No Comments

A recent internet article titled, “Nine Things You Probably Didn’t Know About Jesus” affirmed the notion that Jesus was married.  The article referenced an ancient papyrus scrap found in 2014 that referred to the wife of Jesus.  We will examine the evidence for this papyrus fragment
An article published in Biblical Archeology Review (BAR-May/June, 2015) by Harold Shank examined the evidence for the papyrus fragment that stated that Jesus had a wife.  Here are some of the findings and facts:
1. Karen King, a professor at Harvard Divinity School (she currently holds the oldest endowed academic chair in the United States) drafted a lengthy manuscript on the little papyrus fragment, the size of a business card with eight incomplete lines on one side and six illegible lines on the reverse.  This fragment is referred to as”The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” and was given to King anonymously.  It is the only text from antiquity in which it is stated that Jesus has a wife.
2.  King was careful to say that the fragment supplied no reliable historical evidence that Jesus was married, but that some Christians depicted him as married.  King believed the fragment was dated in the fourth century, but was of a composition earlier in the second century.  However, the fragment, dated by Carbon-14 methods, was found to be an eighth century document.
3.  Since the fragment was received by King from an anonymous donor, there is no provenance (historical background) for it.
4.  At first, King submitted her analysis of the fragment to the Harvard Theological Review for publication.  It was accepted and scheduled for publication in January, 2013.  But, it was not published then.  Information about the fragment was also posted online where other Coptic (a form of late Egyptian) scholars could evaluate it.
5.  Leo Dupuydt, Copitc scholar at Brown University, examined it and declared it to be a forgery.  He said, “It stinks.”
6.  Francis Watson at the University of Durham also declared the fragment a forgery.  Other scholars seemed to think it was authentic.
7.  The Harvard Theological Review decided not to publish King’s analysis of the fragment.
8.  After more tests and other scholars weighing in on the controversy, HTR decided to go ahead and publish King’s findings in April, 2014.
9.  The Smithsonian Institution in Washington made a television program about “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” before January, 2013, but after HTR decided not to publish the findings from King, they decided not to air the program.  When HTR published King’s analysis of the fragment, the Smithsonian aired the television program.
10.  Within days of the publication of the new evidence and analysis in HTR, a bombshell dropped on the scholarly world.
11.  The anonymous donor of the fragment had given King another slightly larger fragment from the Gnostic Gospel of John.  It was also in Coptic as the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment.
12.  Another scholar, Christian Askeland, an American Coptic scholar associated with Indiana Weslyan University, and who had recently completed a Ph. D. on the Gnostic Gospel of John knew of another Gospel of John fragment in Coptic called Codex Qau.  He compared it to the fragment of the Coptic Gospel of John that had been given to King.
13.  Askeland found that the text of the small fragment of CGJ replicated every other line from a leaf of the Codex Qau (discovered in 1923 and known to be authentic).  CGJ was a forgery of Codex Qau.
14.  The “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” fragment was written in the same hand and with the same writing instrument as the Coptic Gospel of John (CGJ) which was given anonymously to King.  The conclusion:  if one is a forgery, so is the other.
15.  The overall conclusion:  the fragment, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” is probably a forgery and since it is the only text from antiquity that states that Jesus’ had a wife, that notion is completely false.
16.  Karen King acknowledges that this evidence is weighty.
Many have attempted to prove that the Scriptures are unreliable.  None of the Gospels indicate that Jesus was married.  Here are a few facts about the reliability of the Scriptures.
1.  Fact:  archaeology has yielded more than 25,000 finds that either directly or indirectly relate to Scripture.
2.  Fact:  The historical existence of some 30 individuals named in the New Testament has been proven.  Jesus is one of those historical individuals.
3.  Fact:  The historical evidence of nearly 60 individuals from the Old Testament has been proven.  BAR lists 52 of these individuals.
4.  Fact:  Only a fraction of possible biblical sights have been excavated in the Holy Land.  There is much more information to be discovered.  (God-Breathed, Josh McDowell, pp. 158-159).

Popologetics

apologetics, gospel, popologetics No Comments

Ted Turnau has written a book titled, Popologetics.  Turnau develops a method for analyzing our current culture and evaluating it from a Christian Worldview.  He defines popologetics as the “use of the imagination and intellect to critically engage popular culture in order to open a way of worship of the true God.”  Turnau suggests five questions to ask about a piece of popular culture.  The goal is to be able to discern between the good and the evil present in popular culture and to hold to that which is good while rejecting the evil.  Here are the five questions.
What’s the Story?
Popular culture comes to us in many different stories.  What is the overall narrative?  If we were to ask this question about the Bible, we would be able to answer that the Bible is the story of the redemption of mankind through Jesus Christ.  Every book in the Bible relates some aspect of this story.  The overall narrative is called a metanarrative.  Politicians attempt to develop  a story or metanarrative about war, climate change, immigration, etc.  Fascination with celebrity lifestyles is driven by our addiction to story.  Movies, television shows, books, songs, etc. tell stories.  The object is the discover the overall story presented in these various forms of popculture.  In order to do this, we must break down the story into its constituent elements.  Summarize the plot.  Isolate the different elements that make up the story:  main characters, major conflicts, and plot points.  Look for the main theme.  Consider the main character.  Does he/she attain his/her goal?  Look for broad themes.  Look at the structure of the story: the setting, the narrator’s point of view, prominent symbols, and repeated motifs. The overall goal is to be able to give a solid interpretation of the story.
Where Am I?
Examine the world of the text.  The worlds depicted by popular culture are ways of seeing reality.  Popcultural texts proposition our imaginations, displaying to the imagination different ways of seeing the world and of seeing ourselves.  We interpret our own lives through the metanarratives that we come to accept.  So, our own worldview is shaped by them.  The story is shaped by style.  Style involves some type of medium: music (gets under your skin and haunts your memory); cinema (embraces us.  We are sucked into the story); novels (embraced in a different way–through imagination–we supply the images); television (intimate worlds and very personal); computer (interactive and immersive).  The story is guided by conventions.  Conventions are time-honored rules and expectations that guide how the story is told.  How fast and lose does the author play with the rules?  You can go against the rules or you can go with the rules.  Here are some questions to ask:  What counts as good or evil in this world?  What is beautiful in this world?  What makes relationships work or fail?  Where is God?  What is worshiped?  What makes life worth living?  We need to pay particular attention to the texture of the worldview.  It is here that our own worldview intersects with the worldview of the popular culture event.  Every experience shapes us in some way.
What is Good and True?
The third question focuses on what is good in the popular culture event.  There will be moments when good and beauty shine forth in popular culture.  Those who make culture also bear the image of God (are created by God in His image).  Some truth will come forth.  In the world of popular culture, there will always be a mixture of good and evil.  We may have to look hard to find what is good.
What is False and Evil?
The fourth question forces us to probe popular culture events and discover what is evil or idolatrous.  Where does popular culture lie about the truth?  A good knowledge of the truth/scriptures is indispensable to discovery of error or evil.  The Christian Worldview is established by God’s Word.  God’s Word gives us an objective means to analyze the different aspects of popular culture.  We must prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.  At the same time, we must abstain from every form of evil (I Thess. 5:21-22).  Satan transforms himself into an “angel of light” (II Cor. 11:14).  Can you detect the “angel of light” that is really Satan in disguise?  Some questions to ask:  What does “salvation” look like in this story?  Is it all about getting the girl?  or, getting rich?  What isn’t portrayed as sin that God says is sin?  Satan is a parasite.  He takes the good and distorts it. He represents the good and then lies about it.  This is the classic bait and switch.  Idolatry sells.  Idolatry seduces and tempts.  Idolatry appeals to the flesh.  Beauty and sex are both gifts from God, but Satan corrupts both through pornography.  Making money into a god that you live for will pierce you through with many sorrows.  Romance and sex without commitment and authentic love (agape) in marriage is another distortion.
How Does the Gospel Apply?
The final question focuses on the gospel.  The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).  A biblical perspective responds to popular culture by providing exposure and giving answers.  True love, reconciliation, contentment, security, justice, family and forgiveness are defined by and found in the gospel.  Popculture may distort these and offer something else (an idol) instead of God.  The Christian Worldview is not a dry set of theological propositions.  It is rooted in the astounding reality of the gospel and touches on our deepest desires–desires for relationship, for truth, for forgiveness, for healing, for peace, for justice and much more.  The gospel is not small.  It is all-encompassing.

Jesus and Moses

apologetics, Jesus Christ, Moses No Comments

In a recent article in the Christian Courier, Wayne Jackson presented material concerning Jesus and Moses (Christian Courier, April, 2014, p. 15). I would like to expand on that material.
Unbelievable Quotes
T. K. Cheyne (1899) wrote that the books of Moses were written almost a thousand years after Moses and therefore, could not have been written by Moses (Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 2, p. 2055). According to Cheyne, Moses could not have written anything about Jesus.
John Willis (2009) in the Transforming Word, (Abilene Christian University Press) said, “There is no unequivocal specific prediction of the coming of Jesus Christ and/or the church in the Old Testament.” Willis does not believe that there is any Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament.
Both of these statements betray the liberal theology of the men who wrote them.
The Statement of Jesus
In John 5:46-47, Jesus stated, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words.” Jesus believed that Moses wrote of Him. Jesus believed that Moses’ writings were Scripture (John 5:39). Jesus connected belief in Moses’ words with belief in His own words. Jesus words are also Scripture.
What Moses Wrote About Jesus
Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament (Luke 24:44). Consider the following passages that Moses wrote about Jesus.
First, Gen. 3:15 was written by Moses. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” This is the first Messianic prophecy in Scripture. The prophecy relates to the “seed of woman” who would destroy the works of Satan (Heb. 2:14; I John 3:8). This is the beginning of the seed promise. “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). God promised Abraham that through his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18). Paul applies this promise to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:16). The seed promise was also made to David (II Sam. 7:11-17). In Matthew 1:1, the word of God declares that Jesus was the son of David, the son of Abraham. This connects Jesus with the seed promise. Moses wrote concerning the physical line of descent that would be the means by which Jesus was brought into the world.
Second, in Gen. 49:10, Moses wrote, “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” The sceptre denotes rule. Shiloh would be a descendent of Judah and would rule with authority and might. Shiloh would also be a lawgiver. Jesus was a lawgiver (Heb. 1:1-2). The word Shiloh means “rest-giver.” Jesus brought rest and peace (Matt. 11:28; John 16:33). John refers to Jesus as the “lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). Jesus is the Shiloh mentioned in this text and this text was written by Moses!
Third, Moses wrote the book of Exodus. In Exodus 12:1-14, the details of the Passover are given to us. The Old Testament foreshadows the New Testament (Heb. 10:1). “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.” The Old Testament forshadows or typifies things that were to come. The New Testament contains the antitype or substance (reality). The Passover lamb was a type of which Jesus is the antitype. Paul writes, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (I Cor. 5:7). Jesus is the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Moses wrote of our redemption through Jesus Christ by giving us the type of which Jesus is the antitype. This feature of the link between the Old Testament and the New Testament is just as important as prophecy and its fulfillment.
Fourth, the various sacrifices offered under the Old Testament foreshadowed the supreme sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of mankind. In Leviticus 1-7, Moses writes concerning the various sacrifices that comprised the sacriicial system under the law of Moses. One of these sacrifices was the burnt offering which was made in order to obtain atonement. However, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:4). Only the blood of Jesus purges the conscience from dead works (Heb. 9:14-15). Consequently, the atonement for sins committed under the Old Testament was secured by the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Only the blood of Jesus remits/forgives sin. Jesus is a superior sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:4). Once again, Moses foreshadows the utimate sacrifice for sin.
Fifth, in Numbers 21:4-9, we read that the Israelites were discouraged during their journey from Mount Hor to the land of Edom. They murmured against God. God sent “fiery serpents” (poisonous snakes) among them and many were bitten and died. God instructs Moses to make a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole. When the people looked upon it, they would be healed. In John 3:14-15, Jesus applies this historical event to His own death. “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Mosess lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” Jesus also said, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:32). Jesus referenced His death upon the cross. Through His death, many would be healed spiritually (forgiven of their sins). Through type and antitype, Moses wrote of Jesus.
Finally, consider the prediction that Moses made in Deut. 18:18-20, “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” In Acts 3:22-23, Peter, an apostle of the Lord, said, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” Peter states that Moses wrote about Jesus! Moses pointed to Jesus as a spokesman for God that all people must obey.
In every book that Moses wrote, i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, he said something about Jesus! Jesus said Moses wrote of Him. Peter said that Moses wrote of Jesus. You simply cannot appeal to a higher authority to prove this fact. In light of the unbelievable statements given above, we must affirm, “let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

« Previous Entries