The gospel of the grace of God by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/063-grace.html

The gospel of the grace of God

Just hearing his name was enough to frighten Christians in the first century. He was known far and wide as a tireless persecutor of Christians. “He made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison” (Acts 8:3).
In those days, who would have thought that Saul of Tarsus would ever become a Christian, let alone become God’s chosen vessel to proclaim the Christian message to the nations of his time and, through his writings, to the nations of all times. But, by the grace of God, he became the apostle Paul whose commission was “to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24).
In his letter to the Romans Paul explains the gospel: why grace is necessary, how it is provided, what it accomplishes, and how it is obtained. Grace is necessary because everyone sins. Grace is provided by justification. The intended result of grace is sanctification. Grace is obtained by obedient faith.

[For the many references from Romans, only the chapter and verses will be given.]

What is grace?

Grace is benevolent, unmerited favor. “The LORD is merciful and gracious” (Psalm 103:8). God’s grace is shown by His bountiful blessings, especially salvation in Christ. God bestows grace according to His sovereign will: “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion” (9:15, Exodus 33:19).

What is the gospel?

“Gospel” means “good news.” The gospel is the good news of salvation by grace through the substitutional sacrifice of Christ. The gospel “which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (1:2) is God’s power for salvation (1:16). The gospel was foretold in the Old Testament as a mystery and is “made known to all nations” in the New Testament (16:25, 26).

Grace is necessary because everyone sins.

Sin is the violation of God’s laws. The whole world is blameworthy before God (3:19). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23). “Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).
Grace does not excuse sin. After powerfully affirming His graciousness to Moses, God added, “by no means clearing the guilty” (Exodus 34:6, 7). “The righteous judgment of God” (2:5) requires that sin be punished by death (1:32). “The wages of sin is death” (6:23).
Through Adam “sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (5:12).
Because of our sins, we deserve the death sentence. To appreciate grace, we must understand how bad sin is. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (1:18). God’s wrath is mentioned twelve times in Romans (1:18; 2:5, 8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; 13:4, 5). God is not unjust when He inflicts wrath (3:5).

Although everyone sins, people have different patterns of behavior and different relationships with God, “who ’will render to each one according to his deeds’: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness - indignation and wrath” (2:6-8).

Since all are sinners, and death is the just penalty for sin, how can God extend grace to some sinners and wrath to others, and still be righteous?

Grace is provided by justification.

God can forgive the sins of believers without compromising His righteousness if the penalty for their sins is borne by someone else.

But who is qualified to serve as a sacrifice for sin?
Animal sacrifices are not sufficient: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). No sinner is qualified because he must die for his own sins! Only a sinless man could volunteer to suffer the penalty for the sins of mankind.
Of the Messiah it was foretold: “By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11).
God sent His Son who “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) and “was in allpoints tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15) so He could die for man’s sin. John testified: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). Because He was without sin, Jesus did not have to die, but He allowed Himself to be crucified for the sins of humanity (John 10:11, 17, 18). He “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24).

God justifies believers through the atonement of Christ.
Justification is mentioned seventeen times in Romans (2:13; 3:4, 20, 24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5, 25; 5:1, 9, 16, 18, 19; 8:30, 33). “To justify” means to declare free of condemnation. We are justified by the blood of Christ and His resurrection (5:9; 4:25). Someone whom God has justified may not be condemned (8:30-34)!
Justification is “by faith” not by meritorious “deeds of the law” (3:28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1). Justification is a “gift” (5:16).
Although we are “under grace” and “not under law” for justification (6:14, 15), grace does not exempt one from God’s laws. “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (3:31). Grace encourages and helps believers to abide by God’s laws!
Justification is for those who keep “the righteous requirements of the law” (2:26). “Doers of the law will be justified” (2:13). But because the law is “weak through the flesh” “the righteous requirement of the law” is fulfilled only by grace through Christ’s sacrifice for those “who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (8:3, 4).

People can be righteous only by the grace of God!
“The righteousness of God” is bestowed on those who believe (3:22), who are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith” (3:24, 25). This was to demonstrate “His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (3:26).

In justification, faith is accounted as righteousness.
“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (4:3, Genesis 15:6). This means that God credited Abraham’s faith to him as righteousness even though he was not completely righteous.
Abraham was faithful and obedient. “You found his heart faithful before You” (Nehemiah 9:8). “Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5).
Although Abraham was obedient, he was not justified because of his obedience but because of his faith. Justification was necessary, not because of the good he did, but because of his sin! God credited his faith to him as righteousness.
When someone believes on Him who justifies the ungodly “his faith is accounted for righteousness” (4:5). “David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: ’Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin’” (4:6-8, Psalm 32:1, 2).

Abraham’s example indicates that righteousness will also “be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (4:22-24). 

The intended result of grace is sanctification.

Paul’s letter is addressed to those who are “called to be saints” (1:7). Throughout Romans he calls believers saints (8:27, 12:13; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2, 15). A saint is someone who has been sanctified (made holy) and is dedicated to God. Paul’s purpose in
writing was that his readers might be “sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (15:15, 16). The branches on God’s tree are holy (11:16). The sanctified ones present their “bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (12:1). They present their “members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification” (6:19, 22 ESV).
The intended result of grace is “sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14 NASB).

Sanctification involves obedience.
In the letter to the Romans disobedience is denounced seven times (1:30; 2:8; 5:19; 6:12; 10:21; 11:30, 32). This refutes those who would turn God’s grace into license (Jude 4) by claiming that grace makes obedience unnecessary.
The gospel must be obeyed (10:16)! The preaching of the gospel of grace is for “obedience to the faith among all nations” (1:5; 16:26). “The faith” that must be obeyed is the “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5) “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
Paul defines the sanctified as those who have “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine” to which they were subjected (6:17). Believers must avoid teachers who depart from the original doctrine (16:17).

The sanctified must be slaves of “obedience leading to righteousness” (6:16). Christ worked through Paul “to make the Gentiles obedient” (15:18). Paul complimented the saints at Rome for their obedience (16:19).

Grace is obtained by obedient faith.

Justification is “by faith” (3:28, 30; 5:1, 2; 9:32; 11:20). In the gospel “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, ’The just shall live by faith’” (1:17,Habakkuk 2:4). This has a two-fold meaning. Habakkuk 2:4 is quoted in two other passages. The life of the just is founded on his faith (he does not “draw back” but “believes to the saving of the soul” - Hebrews 10:38, 39) and God gives him eternal life because of his faith (not because of his imperfect “works of the law” - Galatians 3:10-12).
Thus, one must live by faith! Superficial, half-hearted faith is not enough. The faith required to receive God’s grace is a true, living, obedient faith that walks “in the steps of the faith” of Abraham (4:12) who trusted God and obeyed His voice (Genesis 26:5; Hebrews 11:8).
We are “justified by faith” (5:1) but “not by faith only” (James 2:24). As “obedience to the faith” (1:5; 16:26) additional prerequisites for salvation by grace are stated in Romans: “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (10:17), “the goodness of God leads you to repentance” (2:4), “with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (10:10), and one is “baptized into Christ Jesus” (6:3).
Since we are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:24) and since we are “baptized into Christ Jesus” (6:3) baptism is essential for salvation by grace.

After being “buried with Him through baptism” we “walk in newness of life” (6:4), continue “in doing good” (2:7), and present our “bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God” (12:1).

What have we learned about grace?

In Romans, Paul has testified to the gospel of the grace of God, explaining why grace is necessary, how it is provided, what it accomplishes, and how it is obtained. Grace is necessary because everyone sins. Grace is provided by justification. The intended result of grace is sanctification. Grace is obtained by obedient faith.
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (5:1, 2). Amen.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Dead or Dying? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=642&b=Luke

Dead or Dying?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After healing the men who were possessed with demons on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 8:28-34), Jesus passed over to the other side and “came into his own city” (probably Capernaum—Matthew 9:1). Soon thereafter, a man by the name of Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, fell at Jesus’ feet and worshipped Him saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live” (Matthew 9:18). Normally, we would continue telling this wonderful story and rehearse how Jesus raised the twelve-year-old girl from the dead. However, the purpose of this article is to answer the skeptics who claim that a contradiction exists between Matthew’s account of this story and the accounts recorded by Mark and Luke. Whereas Matthew records Jairus telling Jesus, “My daughter has just died” (Matthew 9:18, emp. added), the other two accounts indicate that his daughter was “at the point of death” (Mark 5:23, emp. added) and that “she was dying” (Luke 8:42, emp. added). Critics of the Bible’s inerrancy assert that the difference in these accounts represents a blatant contradiction.

Various Greek scholars and commentators have stated that there is not as much difference between Matthew’s arti eteleutesn (“has just died”; cf. Hebrews 11:22) and eschates echer (“is dying,” NIV) in Mark 5:23 as some would have us to think. According to Craig Blomberg, arti (“even now” or “just”) has some connotations that suggest not always a presentreality, but an inevitable reality (cf. Matthew 3:15; 23:39; 1 Corinthians 4:13). Therefore, Blomberg concluded that it is possible Matthew was relating the inevitability and certainty of Jairus’ daughter dying, rather than making a statement about her current condition (1992, p. 160). Adam Clarke mentioned in his commentary on Matthew that 9:18 could be translated, “my daughter was just now dying” (1996). Albert Barnes agreed, saying:

The Greek word, rendered “is even now dead,” does not of necessity mean, as our translation would express, that she had actually expired, but only that she was “dying” or about to die…. The passage [Matthew 9:18—EL] may be expressed thus: “My daughter was so sick that she must be dead by this time” (1997).

Therefore, the alleged contradiction may be a simple misunderstanding of what Matthew actually wrote about the dying child.

A better explanation to this alleged discrepancy is that Jairus uttered both statements: Mark and Luke mention her severe sickness, while Matthew speaks of her death. As in so many other places, each writer reported only a part of what occurred and what was said. Does Matthew’s omission of the coming of the messengers who tell Jairus that his daughter has just died mean that his account contradicts the others (Mark 5:35; Luke 8:49)? Certainly not! Nor do his additional details. R.C. Trench, in his classic work on the miracles of Jesus, made the following observation concerning the differences in the gospel writers’ accounts of what was said when Jairus approached Jesus:

When the father left the child, she was at her last gasp; and he knew not whether to regard her now as dead or alive; and, yet having not received certain knowledge of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, expressing himself one moment in one language, and at the next in another. Strange that a circumstance like this, so drawn from life, so testifying of the things recorded, should be urged by some as a contradiction (1949, pp. 107-108, emp. added).

Strange indeed!

Skeptics who attack God’s Word with unsupported allegations will continue to fail. The Bible is and always has been the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). And based upon the evidence we have, it is reasonable to believe that Bible is inspired by God. There is no other book like it on the planet. Evidence to substantiate the Bible’s claims of its own inspiration can be drawn from such external evidence as the historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events, or archaeological artifacts that corroborate biblical statements or circumstances. The internal evidence includes the Bible’s unity, predictive prophecy, and scientific foreknowledge (to list just three examples). The Bible is unparalleled in human history and bears testimony to the fact that the very existence of it cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that it is the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Blomberg, Craig L. (1992), Matthew (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Trench, Richard C. (1949), Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

A.D. and B.C. are no Longer P.C. by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1471

A.D. and B.C. are no Longer P.C.

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Seemingly never satisfied with the successive gains made in their relentless assault on the Christian religion, the social engineers of “political correctness” are even unhappy with our calendar. There appears to be no end to their capricious desire to sanitize our society by expunging every indication of America's Christian heritage. Western civilization's reckoning of time is based on the Gregorian calendar that reflects a Christian worldview by dating the whole of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” (“Before Christ”) refers to the years that preceded the birth of Christ. “A.D.” (Anno Domini—Latin for “year of our Lord”) refers to the years that have transpired since the birth of Christ.

For years, academicians have solved the “problem” by embracing the designations “C.E.” and “B.C.E.,” i.e., “Common Era” and “Before the Common Era.” Of course, such attempts to restructure our values are designed to avoid “offending” or being “insensitive” to those who do not share the Christian worldview. But the efforts are fraught with self-contradiction, and cannot be sustained consistently. While resorting to C.E./B.C.E. may be more palatable to Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, and Buddhists, what will be done to accommodate the 1.2 billion Muslims—who are immigrating to America in increasing numbers? Their calendar reckons time based on the designation A.H. (after the Hegira). Hegira in Arabic means “flight,” and refers to the year (A.D. 622) that Muhammad fled Mecca and went to Medina, marking the beginning of the Islamic era. Muslims will never be fully content with any other means of reckoning time. Pluralism and “political correctness” are self-contradictory.

Many of these ardent zealots insist that they are merely championing the will of the Founding Fathers, who, they maintain, intended to establish a religionless society in which all religions and philosophies receive equal standing and consideration. They insist that the Constitution enjoins “separation of church and state” in which no one religion is given public sanction—certainly not to the exclusion of any other religion. But this claim is complete nonsense and historical bunk. Though these social liberals have been rewriting American history, obliterating public allusions to Christianity, and capitalizing on nationwide ignorance for over 40 years, the truth is still existent for those who wish to examine it.

Were there no Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or atheists in America at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and launched the great American republic? History shows that there were! While these minority viewpoints were not persecuted, the Framers did not adjust their own belief system to accommodate those who held opposing worldviews. As a matter of fact, they did not advocate pluralism. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (one of two men who share the title the “Father of American Jurisprudence”) declared in his monumental multi-volume Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government (1833, 3:728, emp. added).

Indeed, the Founders were adamant in their insistence that Christianity must remain the foundation of America. For example, after serving two terms as president of the United States, in his farewell address to the nation, George Washington explained:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle (1796, emp. added).

To what religion did Washington refer? One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll, in a letter to James McHenry on November 4, 1800, expounded further: “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying theChristian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475, emp. added). Another Founding Father, Noah Webster, in an October 16, 1829 letter to James Madison, likewise insisted: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government...and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added).

The second president of these United States held the same viewpoint. After serving two terms as vice-president alongside President George Washington, on October 11, 1798, John Adams affirmed: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1854, 9:229, emp. added).

Observe that these Framers and Founders went on record, stating that should this nation ever abandon the Christian religion and Christian morality, the nation would be subject to inevitable collapse. Their words were prophetic. Calvin Coolidge, the 30^th president of the United States, expressed the sentiments of the Founders when he stated: “The foundation of our society and our government rests so much on the teaching of the Bible that it would be difficult to support these foundations if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country” (“Coolidge-Bible,” 2004, emp. added). As French historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his remarks regarding America in the 1830s: “How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?” (1945, p. 307). The moral tie of America has experienced significant erosion over the past 50 years. If Tocqueville, and these American predecessors were correct, America is moving swiftly toward destruction.

So should we abandon B.C. and A.D. in deference to those who reject the Christian worldview? To do so would be to abandon the very foundations of American civilization. It would be to abandon the foundational document of the country—the United States Constitution. How so? Just prior to the listing of the 39 signatories—men who placed their signatures on this paramount document as indication of their approval of its contents—the Constitution's own closing remark reads:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names (“The United States…,” emp. added).

Will the Constitution be censored and altered to incorporate “C.E.”? Will the ACLU and the liberal social engineers attempt to remove this unmistakable allusion to the Framer's Christianorientation as well?

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).

“Coolidge-Bible” (2004), Minnesota Family Council, [On-line], URL: http://www.mfc.org/contents/transcript.asp?id=996.

Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York, NY: University Press of America).

Steiner, Bernard (1907), The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers).

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, and Company).

de Tocqueville, Alexis (1945 reprint), Democracy in America (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf).

The United States Constitution, [On-line], URL: http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws/const.pdf.

Washington, George (1796), “Farewell Address,” [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm.

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1631

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The Law of Biogenesis tells us that in nature, life comes only from life of its kind (Miller, 2012). Therefore, abiogenesis (i.e., life arising from non-living materials) is impossible, according to the scientific evidence. How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable? There is a growing trend among evolutionists today to attempt to sidestep the problem of abiogenesis by contending that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather is a theory which starts with life already in existence and explains the origin of all species from that original life form. However, this approach is merely wishful thinking—an effort to avoid the logical import of the Law of Biogenesis.

Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. In 1960, British evolutionary physiologist, G.A. Kerkut, listed abiogenesis as the first assumption in a list of non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is founded. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (Kerkut, 1960, p. 6). Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the origin of species through natural means—without supernatural Creation. Logically, unless you concede the existence of God and subscribe to theistic evolution in order to explain the origin of life (a position that has been shown to be unsustainable, cf. Thompson, 2000), abiogenesis must have originally occurred in order to commence the process of Darwinian evolution. Abiogenesis is required by evolution as the starting point.

Further, atheistic evolutionary geologist, Robert Hazen, who received his doctoral degree from Harvard, admitted that he assumes abiogenesis occurred. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, he says, “In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with natural laws of chemistry and physics” (2005, emp. added). Again, evolution is an attempt to explain life through natural means, and abiogenesis must go hand-in-hand with such a theory. Hazen further stated that in his assumption of abiogenesis, he is “like most other scientists” (2005). It makes perfect sense for atheistic evolutionists to admit their belief in abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis in place, there is no starting point for atheistic evolution to occur. However, many evolutionists do not want to admit such a belief too loudly, since such a belief has absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. It is a blind faith—a religious dogma.

It is also true that atheists themselves use the term “evolution” as a generalized catchall word encompassing all materialistic origin models, including those dealing with the origin of the cosmos, not just the origin of species. A simple Google search of the keywords, “cosmic evolution,” illustrates that contention. Consider, for example, the title of Harvard University astrophysicist Eric Chaisson’s Web site: “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind” (2012). Consider also the comments of NASA chief historian, Steven Dick: “Cosmic evolution begins…with the formation of stars and planetary systems, proceeds…to primitive and complex life, and culminates with intelligence, technology and astronomers…contemplating the universe…. This story of the life of the universe, and our place in it, is known as cosmic evolution” (2005). If atheism were true, in this mythical story of how the Universe evolved from nothing to everything, abiogenesis must have occurred somewhere along the way. Thus, abiogenesis is a fundamental, implied phenomenon of evolutionary theory. Creationists are merely using atheistic evolutionists’ terms in the same way they use them.

The truth is, one cannot logically commence a study of Life Science or Biology—studies which are intimately linked with the theory of evolution by the bulk of the scientific community today—without first studying the origin of that life which allegedly evolved from a single-celled organism into the various forms of life on Earth today. Biology and Life Science textbooks today, with almost unanimity, include a discussion of biogenesis, abiogenesis (ironically, discussing the work of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, who disproved the theory of abiogenesis), and extensive discussions of evolutionary theory. The evolutionists themselves inevitably couple Biology and Life Science with evolution, as though they are one and the same. But a study of life—biology—must have a starting point. So, evolutionists themselves link the problem of abiogenesis to evolution. If the evolutionary community wishes to separate the study of biology from evolution—a position I would strongly recommend—then the evolutionist might be able to put his head in the sand and ignore the abiogenesis problem, but not while the evolutionist couples evolution so intimately with biology.

The reality is that abiogenesis stands alongside evolutionary theory as a fundamental plank of atheism and will remain there. The two are intimately linked and stand or fall together. It is time for the naturalist to forthrightly admit that his religious belief in evolution is based on a blind acceptance of an unscientific pheonomenon.

REFERENCES

Chaisson, Eric (2012), “Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind,” Harvard College Observatory, https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.

Dick, Steven J. (2005), “Why We Explore: Our Place in the Universe,” NASA,http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_13.html. 

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Thompson, Bert (2000), Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3747

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A gentleman who was struggling with his beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible recently contacted our offices questioning why Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that “no sign shall be given to this generation” (Mark 8:12; cf. Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29). Since other scriptures clearly teach that Jesus worked “many signs” (John 12:37; 20:30-31; 3:2; Acts 2:22), how could Jesus truthfully and consistently say, “no sign shall be given to this generation”? According to certain Bible critics, Jesus was a false prophet since His “prediction that no sign would be given to that generation is clearly false” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 114; cf. Wells, 2010). How can a Christian reasonably and biblically respond to such an assertion?

Sadly, Bible critics (and some Christians) are fond of disregarding the context in which biblical statements are found. Yet, no statement can be understood properly without some kind of background or contextual information. Words mean different things depending on how, when, and where they are spoken. Figures of speech abound in all cultures around the world (cf. Lyons, 2010). Truthful people, for example, have been joking, exaggerating, and using sarcasm for millennia (cf. Job 12:2; Psalm 58:3), all the while rightly expecting their listeners to interpret their language accurately, and without accusation of lying. Unfortunately, skeptics of the Bible’s inspiration often ignore much of the necessary information needed to properly understand Scripture.

When Jesus first made the statement, “no sign will be given” to this generation (Matthew 12:39; Luke 11:29), He had just healed a person who was blind, mute, and demon-possessed (Matthew 12:22; Luke 11:14). Notice that, rather than acknowledging that the great miracle Jesus worked was proof of His deity (John 20:30-31), the hard-hearted Pharisees alleged that His power came from the devil (Matthew 12:24). They did not simply turn away from Jesus; they turned 180 degrees away from the direction that such miracles led the honest and good-hearted truth-seekers. And Jesus’ enemies had not simply seen one miracle. Earlier in Matthew 12, Jesus had healed a man with a withered hand (vss. 9-13). How did the Pharisees react then? Rather than acknowledge the power of Christ, they “plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him” (vs. 14). The fact is, by this time in Jesus’ ministry He had already worked a number of miracles (Matthew 11:4-5), and many of the scribes and Pharisees absolutely refused to believe in Him (cf. Matthew 9:32-34). Regardless of what Jesus did or said, some of His enemies would never be convinced (cf. Matthew 12:31-32; see Butt, 2003).

So what did Jesus mean when He said on two different occasions that “no sign” would be given to “this generation” except “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29)? Jesus was responding to the Pharisees’ desire to see a sign. But they had already witnessed and heard about many of Jesus’ miracles. They wanted something “more.” They sought “a sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16; Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11, emp. added). Exactly what Jesus’ enemies meant by this, we may not know. What we do know is that while on Earth Jesus manifested His power over nature, disease, demon, and death (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), yet the Pharisees said they wanted more. It seems, as Burton Coffman noted, they “meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to man’s curiosity” (Coffman, 1984, p. 179). Jesus, however, always rejected doing such miracles. He refused to turn stones to bread or to jump from the temple’s pinnacle simply because Satan challenged Him to do so (Matthew 4:1-7). Jesus could have performed any miracle that He wanted—whether when tempted by Satan, prodded by Herod (Luke 23:8-12), or tested by the Pharisees. He could have pulled rabbits from hats for the sole purpose of amusing people. He could have turned His Jewish enemies into stones or given a person three eyes. He could have commanded that it literally rain cats and dogs. He could have lit the robes of the Pharisees on fire with the snap of his fingers and told them that hell would be ten times as hot. He could have done any number of wonders. But the insincere Pharisees would see none of that (i.e., “no sign [like these] will be given”).

What sign would be given? Other than the kinds of miracles that Christ’s enemies had already rejected, the only other sign Jesus prophesied was “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29)—Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.

Most certainly, Jesus performed miracles. And though Jesus “humbled himself...taking the form of a bondservant” (Philippians 2:7-8), He refused to get on the lowly, perpetually defiled spiritual level of His enemies. He worked no miracle of the kind that the Pharisees wished to see. But make no mistake, He worked plenty of the kind that provide honest-hearted people sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that He is, indeed, “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30-31).
 

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The Unpardonable Sin,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2272.

Coffman, Burton (1984), Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Lyons, Eric (2010), “The ‘Twelve,’” http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/177.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “The Very Works that I Do Bear Witness of Me,” Reason & Revelation, 26[3]:17-23, March, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2857.

McKinsey, Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Wells, Steve (2010), “Did Jesus Perform Many Signs and Wonders?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/signs.html.

All Law, No Love? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=530

All Law, No Love?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When contrasting the Old Testament with the New Testament, we often hear those in the religious world make statements such as: “The old law was concerned only about man’s actions, whereas the new law emphasizes the heart of man,” or “The Old Testament stressed rules and regulations; the New Testament is all about love,” or “The old law emphasized being pure on the outside; the new law is concerned about the inside.” Statements like these have caused many people to view the Old Testament, and perhaps even the “God of the Old Testament,” as cold, cruel, and unmerciful. But is that really how we should view the first 39 books of the Bible? Was the old law concerned only about the actions of man? Was it oblivious to such concepts as love, mercy, and kindness? Just how are we to understand the Old Testament?

The Old Testament contains numerous laws, and story after story of people breaking these laws and suffering the consequences (e.g., the book of Judges). However, the Bible declares that the Old Testament (and the “God of the Old Testament”) also placed great emphasis on the “heart” of man. Even before the Law of Moses ever was given, we learn that God judged both man’s thoughts and actions. Prior to the Flood He “saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, emp. added). It was not only their actions that were evil, but also their thoughts. Once the Law of Moses was given, God revealed to the Israelites that He was still concerned with man’s inner self. Moses commanded them to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart” (Deuteronomy 6:5-6). A few hundred years later when David was about to be anointed King of Israel, the Lord told Samuel that He “does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7, emp. added). Then, approximately 700 years before the new law was given, the prophet Isaiah taught that actions apart from a sincere heart are worthless: “Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men” (Isaiah 29:13).

As one can see, the old law was not as cold and heartless as some theologians would have us believe. In fact, the apostle Paul summed up the Law of Moses with these words:

[L]ove one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law [the law of Moses—EL]. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10, emp. added).

And as if Paul’s summary were not enough, Jesus summed up the old law thusly: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the prophets” (v.12, emp. added). Jesus explained that doing “to others what you would have them do to you” is a summary expression of all that the Old Testament required. The Master Teacher Himself let us know that the Old Law, although unable to take away the sins of man and make him perfect (i.e., Hebrews 10:1,11), was not the cold, cruel law that so many make it out to be. Rather, it was intended to prick both the heart and actions of man.

All Clocks Have a Clockmaker by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3799

All Clocks Have a Clockmaker

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In 1802, William Paley published his famous book Natural Theology, in which he presented the watchmaker analogy. He explained that if a person were to stumble across a well-designed watch in the middle of the woods, the complexity of the watch would be evidence that an intelligent designer made the machine. His analogy is an extension of the more formal teleological argument, which simply states that if there is design in nature, that design demands the existence of a designer. The Hebrews writer used the same line of reasoning when he wrote: “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (3:4).

Cutting-edge biological research has added some fresh insight to this ancient wisdom. Malcolm Ritter recently reported on work done by Akhilesh Reddy of Cambridge University and Joseph Bass of Northwestern University (2011). Their research, published in Nature centers on the built-in clocks that are housed in the cells of the human body. Ritter wrote, “even the cells throughout our body have their own 24-hour clocks to coordinate activities at the cellular level. Now new research suggests these internal timepieces may be more complicated than scientists thought” (2011).

How interesting! Our body is filled with trillions of cells that contain complicated clocks. Man-made clocks are complex and effective. If a person found such a device in the middle of the forest, he would be forced to conclude it was intelligently designed. The same is true of the biological clocks found in the body.

REFERENCE

Ritter, Malcom (2011), “Study of Cell ‘Clocks’ Looks at What Makes Us Tick,” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_sc/us_sci_body_clocks/print.

Babylon: A Test Case in Prophecy [Part I] by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=282

Babylon: A Test Case in Prophecy [Part I]

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

It was the most remarkable community of its day—a San Francisco, New York, or London of the antique world. Herodotus (484-425 B.C.), known as the father of ancient history, once visited the great metropolis. He said that “in magnificence there is no other city that approaches to it” (I.178). It was Babylon!

Babylon’s roots reached back almost to the dawn of civilization. Its genesis was with the mighty hunter, Nimrod, who conquered men and made them his unwilling subjects (Genesis 10:10). From that ignoble origin eventually evolved the Neo-Babylonian empire (614-539 B.C.), which figures so prominently in Old Testament history.

THE GOLDEN CITY

The city of Babylon straddled the Euphrates River about fifty miles south of what is now modern Baghdad in Iraq. Herodotus claimed that the town was laid out in an exact square, approximately fifteen miles on each side. The historian suggested that the city was surrounded by a moat (more than 260 feet broad), behind which was a massive wall—some 75 feet thick and 300 feet high, with 15 large gates of brass on each side. Later writers (e.g., Strabo and Diodorus Siculus) gave somewhat smaller dimensions. But these may reflect different areas of measurement, or perhaps other historical periods (Keith, 1840, p. 271). When Jacob Abbott wrote his fascinating volume,History of Cyrus the Great, he suggested that Babylon was four or five times the size of London (1850, p. 190). Modern archaeological investigations have involved a significantly smaller area. One of the prominent features of this illustrious city was Nebuchadnezzar’s Hanging Gardens, constructed for his Median wife who was homesick for her hill-country environment. This botanical marvel was considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The Scriptures take note of the fame that characterized this community. The prophets designated Babylon as “great” (Daniel 4:30), the “glory of the kingdoms” (Isaiah 13:19), the “golden city” (Isaiah 14:4), the “lady of the kingdoms” (Isaiah 47:5) who was “abundant in treasures” (Jeremiah 51:13), and the “praise of the whole earth” (Jeremiah 51:41). Surely a kingdom of this nature could last forever.

BABYLON:THE INSTRUMENT OF PROVIDENCE

In order to appreciate the significance of Babylon in light of Bible prophecy, one must understand something of Hebrew history. The northern kingdom of Israel had been destroyed by the Assyrians in 722-721 B.C. The southern kingdom (Judah) had been spared that catastrophe (see Isaiah 37) but, due to her progressive apostasy, was on a clear collision course with Babylon. The prophets warned that if Judah continued her rebellion, Jehovah would raise up Nebuchadnezzar as His “servant” to punish the wayward Hebrews. Many of them would be killed; others would be captured and taken away as prisoners by the marauding Babylonians (Jeremiah 25:9). The Chaldean monarch, however, would not be commended or rewarded for this endeavor; rather, after his subjugation of Judah, the Lord would punish him, and the Babylon regime would commence a journey toward oblivion. Jeremiah summed up the history of this affair in the following way:

Israel is a hunted sheep; the lions have driven him away: first, the king of Assyria devoured him; and now at last Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon has broken his bones. Therefore thus says Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria (Jeremiah 50:17-18).

But Babylon was the epitome of arrogance. She boasted that no one would be able to conquer this powerful citadel. The Babylonians felt absolutely secure within their mighty fortress, and believed that the capital city would never be vanquished. “I shall be mistress forever.... I am, and there is none else besides me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children” (Isaiah 47:7-8). Inscriptions from the Chaldean archives have illustrated the haughty disposition that characterized the Babylonian rulers (Millard, 1985, p. 138).

PROPHECY AS AN APOLOGETIC

Before I discuss prophecies relating to Babylon, there are some preliminary matters that must be considered. First, there is the nature of God—the eternal “I AM” (Exodus 3:14). He is the One Who is, Who was, and Who is to come (Revelation 1:4). He, and only He, knows the future as well as the past. The Lord, therefore, is able to speak of those things that “are not” as though “they were” (Romans 4:17).

Only God can know the future. If, then, we are able to establish the fact that the prophets announced—many years in advance—truths regarding the desolation of Babylon, it would amount to a demonstration that ultimately the biblical record was given by God Himself. These matters never could have been known by mere chance.

There is an interesting passage in the book of Jeremiah that illustrates this point. On a certain occasion in the prophet’s ministry to Judah, Jeremiah was told by the Lord that his cousin, Hanamel, would arrive soon, offering to sell him a parcel of land in the town of Anathoth. Presently, Hanamel came to the prophet and made that very offer. Jeremiah subsequently uttered this significant statement: “Then I knew that this was the word of Jehovah” (Jeremiah 32:8, emp. added). When a prophecy is made—and the prediction comes to pass—one can know that God has spoken, provided other prophetic guidelines are in place.

PROPHETIC PRINCIPLES

In this two-part study, we will survey some of the prophecies that focus upon Babylon’s demise. First, though, let us remind ourselves of several principles that govern the validity of genuine prophecy. (1) True prophecies are stated emphatically; they are not couched in the jargon of contingency (unless, of course, contextual evidence suggests that one is dealing with aconditional prophecy). (2) Generally, a significant time frame must lapse between the prophetic utterance and the fulfillment, so as to exclude the possibility of “educated speculation.” (3) The prophecy must involve specific details, not vague generalities. (4) The predictive declarations must be fulfilled precisely and completely. No mere substantial percentage will suffice. One should recognize, though, that occasionally a prophecy may contain figurative terminology; this does not, however, militate against its evidential validity.

In the forthcoming reflections, we will emphasize these important points: (1) Babylon’s fall is announced unequivocally: (2) the time of the beginning of her end is declared; (3) the invading forces are specified; (4) particular details of the Chaldean destruction are chronicled; (5) the final result—Babylon’s utter dissipation—is portrayed quite graphically. These factors, considered in concert, testify eloquently to the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures.

BABYLON TO FALL

In addition to the passage mentioned earlier (Jeremiah 50:17-18), there are many other prophecies that affirm the ultimate desolation of Babylon. In the early eighth century before the birth of Christ, and almost two hundred years before Cyrus conquered the “golden city,” Isaiah declared: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the graven images of her gods are broken unto the ground” (21:9). The double use of “fallen” is for emphasis. Although the verb “fallen” is in the present tense form in English, it actually is in the perfect tense in Hebrew, which representscompleted action. This reflects a grammatical idiom commonly known as the “prophetic perfect,” frequently employed in the Old Testament to stress the absolute certainty of fulfillment (Freeman, 1968, pp. 122-123). The action thus is expressed confidently—as though it had been accomplished already.

Again Jehovah, through his prophet, rhetorically calls to Babylon: “Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans” (Isaiah 47:1). Babylon is designated as a “virgin” because for many years she had escaped the ravages of other nations. But that status would come to an end!

Or consider the announcements of Jeremiah: “Declare you among the nations and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken” (Jeremiah 50:2). “Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed; wail for her; take balm for her pain” (Jeremiah 51:8). Among other contexts, a survey of Isaiah, chapters 13 and 14, and Jeremiah, chapters 50 and 51, will reveal numerous declarations concerning Babylon’s impending fall and ultimate desolation.

THE PROPHETIC CHRONOLOGY

In giving consideration to the “time” factor in prophecies regarding the destruction of Babylon, two things must be kept in view. First, there was to be an initial defeat of the superpower. Second, afterward there would be a gradual but progressive degeneration of the locale that ultimately would result in total ruin. At this point, we will consider only the first of these matters.

After Judah’s good king, Josiah (639-608 B.C.), died during the battle of Megiddo, he was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz, a miserable failure who reigned only three months. Jehoahaz was taken captive to Egypt (2 Kings 23:30-34), where, as Jeremiah prophesied, he died (Jeremiah 22:11-12). Then Jehoiakim, Josiah’s second son, came to Judah’s throne. He reigned eleven years (608-597 B.C.). During his administration, the compassionate Jeremiah, via his prophetic proclamations, was attempting to bring the southern kingdom to a state of repentance—with little success, I might add. Let us focus momentarily upon the oracles of Jeremiah, chapter 25.

First, we must observe that the material of this important chapter is dated. “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (25:1). Thus, the following prophecies can be dated to 605 B.C. The prophet described the horrors that were to be visited upon Palestine by the impending Babylonian invasion. He then announced the fate of Babylon herself.

And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations [Judah and several of her neighbors—WJ] shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, says Jehovah, for their iniquity (Jeremiah 25:11-12).

Thus, almost three-quarters of a century before Babylon fell, when there was absolutely no indication of Chaldean vulnerability, Jeremiah announced the impending doom of the ancient world’s superpower, and he gave a time indicator as to when those circumstances would unfold. There simply was no natural way he could have “guessed” it.

THE CONQUERORS SPECIFIED

But who would overthrow mighty Babylon? Both Isaiah and Jeremiah provide that information. In a section that concludes with: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon,” the messianic prophet wrote: “Go up, O Elam; besiege O Media; all the sighing thereof have I made to cease” (Isaiah 21:2). As I have noted elsewhere, “Elam is here used to facilitate the Hebrews’ understanding of the source of the impending invasion, since Persia was not yet prominent. Later, Elam is considered as a part of the Persian empire...” (Jackson, 1991, p. 48). Skinner observed that Elam and Media were

[t]he dominions of Cyrus. The former lay east of the Tigris and north of the Persian Gulf; Media was the mountainous district adjoining it on the north. Cyrus, according to the Babylonian records, was originally king of Anzan, in the north of Elam; in 549 he conquered Media, uniting the two in one kingdom (1963, 1:170).

Rawlinson noted that “Elam” is named because it was familiar to the Hebrews, whereas “Persia” would have been a designation alien to them at the time of Isaiah’s writing (1950, 10:336). What precision!

Again, Isaiah detailed the conquering exploits of Cyrus, leader of the Medo-Persian forces and the brilliant strategist who overthrew the city of Babylon:

Thus says Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut (45:1).

The prophecy was uttered two centuries before the birth of the Persian monarch, and yet, as I shall demonstrate subsequently, it set forth a number of remarkable events in connection with the conquest of the Chaldean capital.

Jeremiah was equally specific regarding the invaders of Babylon. “Make sharp the arrows, hold firm the shields: Jehovah has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes; because his purpose is against Babylon to destroy it” (51:11). Some have suggested that this passage sarcastically urged the Babylonians to sharpen their arrows and firmly clutch their shields—as if they would be able to defend themselves against the Lord’s forces (Clarke, n.d., 4:388). Others feel that this is a rhetorical charge to the Medo-Persian soldiers to prepare their military implements for attack against the Chaldean forces (Plumptre, 1959, 5:168). “The Persians were famous among the ancients for their archers” (McClintock and Strong, 1969, 1:372). Jehovah has plans for Babylon. He will destroy it by means of the “kings” (tribal rulers) of the Medes. Again, the accuracy of the biblical text is demonstrated by the precise terminology used. As Wiseman has noted concerning Jeremiah 51:11: “Babylonian texts (Nabonidus) show that the title ‘king of the Medes’ (11) was correctly in use in 544 B.C.” (Wiseman, 1979, p. 849).

The historical facts are not disputed. The Babylonian ruler, Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 B.C.), was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach (562-560 B.C.), who is mentioned in 2 Kings 25:27-30 and in Jeremiah 52:31-34. Next came Neriglissar (560-556 B.C.), an evil conspirator who was defeated and slain in battle by the Medes and Persians (Sanderson, et al., 1900, 1:54). Labashi-Marduk subsequently came to the Chaldean throne in 556 B.C., but was assassinated after a few months. Finally, there was Nabonidus, who ruled from 556-539 B.C. His son, Belshazzar, was co-regent with his father. Actually it was Belshazzar who was occupying the city of Babylon when it fell (see Daniel 5:1ff.). Inscriptions have been discovered which make it clear that Nabonidus had entrusted the “kingship” of the capital city to his son while he campaigned in Arabia for about a decade (Vos, 1988, 1:276). When Cyrus advanced against Babylon, Nabonidus marched east to meet him, but fled before the Persian general’s army. Later, after Cyrus had captured the city (539 B.C.), Nabonidus surrendered to the Persians. And so, the biblical prophecies regarding the conquerors of the city of Babylon were fulfilled exactly.

In the second installment of this study, I will present some of the many details concerning the fall and deterioration of Babylon—details that were previewed prophetically by the great seers of Israel.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Jacob (1850), History of Cyrus the Great (New York: Harper Brothers).

Clarke, Adam (n.d.), Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).

Freeman, Hobart (1968), An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Herodotus (1956 reprint), The History of Herodotus, George Rawlinson, translator (New York: Tudor).

Jackson, Wayne (1991), Isaiah: God’s Prophet of Doom and Deliverance (Abilene, TX: Quality).

Keith, Alexander (1840), Evidence of the Truth of the Christian Religion Derived From Prophecy(Edinburgh, Scotland: William Shyte and Co.).

McClintock, John and James Strong (1969 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Millard, Alan (1985), Treasures From Bible Times (Oxford, England: Lion Publishing).

Plumptre, E.H. (1959 reprint), Ellicott’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Rawlinson, George (1950 Reprint), “Isaiah,” The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Sanderson, Edgar, J.P. Lamberton, and John McGovern (1900), The World’s History and Its Makers (Chicago, IL: Universal History Publishing Co.).

Skinner, J. (1963), “Isaiah: I-XXXIX,” The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).

Vos, Howard (1988), “Belshazzar,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Wiseman, D.J. (1979), “Jeremiah,” The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, ed. G.C.D. Howley, F.F. Bruce, and H.L. Ellison (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).