Tag: Jeremiah

Cadbury Eggs and Frozen Bunnies

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bulletin, Devotional, Discipleship, Easter, Seasonal

In the Hebrew Bible, the verb zākar (“to remember,” “to memorialize,” “to recite”) appears 222 times in 213 verses, used at least once in every book. It finds its most use in the Psalms, appearing 52 times, then Isaiah (24), Ezekiel (21), followed by Jeremiah (16), and Deuteronomy (15). By contrast, the noun zēker (remembrance, memorial) appears 23 times. It appears memory is an important part of a life that reflects on faith and one’s dependence on God.

In the New Testament, several Greek words are translated with “memory” (mnēmē) or a “remembrance” (anamnēsis), “to remember” or “to remind” (mimnéskō). Each of these words has its shade of meaning, but all speak to things that are brought to the foreground of our thoughts after some time has elapsed. Again, in the New Testament, we see that memory serves a significant function.

If you would like to trace these words down throughout Scripture, I recommend an accessible study guide such as Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words or Stephen D. Renn’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. It will profit your soul to see the range our “memory” is taken by the faithful.

Another profitable way to appreciate the brain is a study of that part of the brain called the hippocampus. It is said to be the place associated with both memory and emotion and the intricate interweaving of both. For example, you go to an event and meet new people. Who would you remember, usually the ones you found interesting or funny (“Memory, Learning, and Emotion: the Hippocampus,” psycheducation.org). I find it particularly ingenious that the place that stores our memories is also the place that attaches emotions to our memories. It is only my opinion, but I believe that makes the hippocampus one of the most important places in the brain.

I want to open my hippocampus and share two stories with you that mean a lot to me. I hope they encourage you. God bless.

Story 1: The Cadbury Creme Eggs of Reconciliation

I grew up with that silly commercial of the white chubby bunny rabbit clucking like a chicken, which then moves aside to reveal the “very unusual” basket with Cadbury Creme Eggs. It is a silly commercial full of nostalgia and a silly candy that is clearly a sugar coma waiting to happen. 

Many years ago, my friend Andy changed the way I see this white and yellow creme-filled chocolate egg. Sometimes friendships have moments that test the ties which bind them together, and as I recall, we had one of those times. Then it happened; Andy gave me a Cadbury Creme Egg. 

At first, it was just a curious gift. Then I learned that for him it was a symbol of reconciliation. It was a gesture of peace; a demonstration of the renewal of our friendship. I was overwhelmed by that gesture. Even today, it still touches me. That’s right, a Cadbury Creme Egg reminds me of compassion, love, and reconciliation.

So the next time you are having a significant break of friendship, love, or something that belongs to both emotions, let me encourage you to find a gesture to share that will truly speak to them about love, renewal, friendship, and the promise that “with compassion and love, dignity and respect, forgiveness and closure… let’s move forward renewed together.”

Story 2: The Warmest “Frozen” Chocolate Bunny

There is a right way to eat a chocolate bunny. I know this. I have a method. I start by breaking off the ears and then breaking off the tail. Lastly, I work my way through its chocolate torso. There is nothing OCD about it (so I tell myself).

Mom always used to send me a chocolate bunny for Easter, even when I was away at college in Henderson, Tennessee. A few thousand miles was not going to deter her from sending a chocolate gesture of her warmest affection.

This one year, I received a rather large postal package that contained some notes of love and Easter treats; this included a “chocolate bunny.” I unsheathed the bunny from its box and went to break off its ears, but this time it was an impossible task. For you see, my friends, the bunny was plastic.

Over the course of a phone call, I thanked her for the plastic bunny. She responded, “what plastic bunny !? I didn’t send you a plastic bunny! I bought you a chocolate bunny and even placed it in the freezer to prepare it for shipping.” Every time the freezer was opened for any length of time, she yelled, “close that door!”

It became a running gag between us. All her intention (the freezer, the wrapping, the shipping, etc.) to make sure her “baby” knew mom loved him hilariously colored by the frozen plastic bunny. I still possess this gesture of maternal love. Its capacity to bring a smile and a chuckle is a reminder of her love.

The Power of the Divine Gesture of Love

Sometimes we take simple gestures of kindness for granted. A cup of coffee, a stick of gum, a handshake or a pat on the back, a prayer, a text, a hug; even an invite to eat. They go a long way.

What then may we say about God’s great act of love? One of the most famous notions of God’s love is found in the Gospel of John. In the pen of the narrator, we read:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. ( John 3:16–18 ESV)

The Apostle John reminds us of three profound ones found in the words of Jesus: (1) “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you,” (2) “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends,” and (3) “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (John 15:12–14).

Let us remember these three lasting demonstrations of love. First, there are gestures of love we extend toward each other. Second, Jesus’ death shows His devotion to his “friends,” which His disciples are to follow. Lastly, there is the obedience we offer to Jesus as a gesture of love. What gestures of love and reconciliation are you handing out to others in your service to God? The opportunity to improve your service is closer than you think.

Of Sheep and Shepherds

On By Jovan PayesIn Essays, Leadership Ethics, Published, Words of Truth4 Comments

Background Bible study is fascinating and is perhaps one of the most important parts of biblical research. Obtaining a “behind-the-scenes” look into the biblical documents will “contribute to a more precise comprehension of the Word of God.”[1] This observation can be said about the shepherd motif found in Scripture. Since it is dangerous to paint half a picture of anyone or anything – especially biblical topics; we stress, then, that this is but a footnote to the beautiful motif of the pastoral profession (i.e. the shepherd) often employed by the biblical authors.

Shepherds in Israel

Shepherding was a great profession in the culture of the Ancient Near East, and so far as it relates to Israel’s history, pastoral work was a constant aspect of nomadic life (cf. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Even when they conquered and settled into Palestine, the end of the nomadic life did not stop pastoral work (e.g. David in 1 Sam 16:19; Amos 1:1, 7:14).[2] The widespread awareness of this profession “made motifs of sheep and shepherding apt descriptions of human and divine roles and relationships.”[3]

Notice one Old Testament example. God through Jeremiah pronounces a “woe” upon the leadership of Judah using the pastoral motif:

“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD. Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: ‘You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD.’” (Jer 23:1-2 ESV)

The “shepherds” failed to maintain the pastoral relationship with God’s flock; consequently, the sheep were scattered. Jeremiah, looking to post-exilic times, promises that God will restore the proper care to his flock with faithful shepherds (Jer 23:3-4).

Shepherds in the New Testament

There are several related New Testament words used to the work of shepherding. The noun form is poimein, and refers to a shepherd, herdsmen, or pastor,[4] and hence it is a metaphor describing a guardian-leader. The third translation option probably receives the most attention from among the three, and this is due to its connection with the eldership of the New Testament (Eph 4:11, here teaching-pastors), and its erroneous, but popular, usage in denominational circles.[5]

However, the New Testament uses the term significantly in its normal sense. Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” in John 10:1-18 to distinguish himself from the leaders who had oppressed or neglected the house of Israel. Luke narrates the story of the shepherds, in the field with their flock, who were told of the arrival of the Messiah (2:1-20). Jesus warned his disciples that when he is handed over to the Jews, that they would be scattered like sheep when their shepherd is harmed (Matt 9:36 = Mark 6:34).

But perhaps the most vivid pastoral scenes are of those moments that relate to our relationship with Jesus. The Lord is described as “the Shepherd and Overseer” of our souls (1 Pet 2:25; cf. Heb 13:20), who receives straying sheep as any good shepherd does. Another vivid scene using the shepherd motif is the Day of Judgment when Jesus “will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats” (Matt 25:32). This is taken from an understanding that sheep and goats were “pastured together” in Palestine, but at certain appropriate times they “require separation.”[6] The figure is given Christian meaning as a metaphor of the judgment upon faithful and non-faithful Christians.

Learning from the Sheep and the Shepherds

There are so many relationship lessons that God has taken from pastoral care, we would do well to reflect upon it more. For example: at the birthing of a new lamb, the shepherd “guards the mother during her helpless moments and picks up the lamb and carries it to the field. For the few days, until it is able to walk, he may carry it in his arms or in the loose folds of his coat.”[7] Could we not make an application from this? The shepherd and the lamb have a wonderfully tender relationship, and we would strengthen our fellowship in taking a lesson from this behavioral motif.

Truly, we can see that a pastoral care for Christians will encourage us to help in the development and care of new converts. It will stimulate us to help heal wounded sheep, and protect them as they are nourished to good health. And more personally, perhaps we would be more receptive to the prodding and care by our shepherds in the church. The “pastoral” mentality is not only for the elders, we would all do well to lead on, or be led, ever so gently (Gen 33:14).

Conclusion

In the Christian age, it is quite common for New Testament students to think of shepherd-pastors as only in terms of the office of a bishop/elder as mentioned in 1 Timothy 3. However, the imagery of a shepherd has a wide application to both describe religious leaders and the effects of their ministries upon their religious constituents, and it also describes how the Lord Jesus and the Father are both presented as providers and keepers of our souls.

May we  take from these lessons, practical ways, to reflect a pastoral concern for ourselves, our fellow believers, family, and our friends.

Sources

  1. Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study, revised ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 1999), 1.
  2. Madeleine S. Miller, et al., Harper’s Encyclopedia of Bible Life, 3rd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1978), 142.
  3. D. Johnson, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green, et al. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), DJG 751.
  4. William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1986), 2:462, 569.
  5. Despite popular usage among denominations as a term for “minister,” a usage which J.P. Louw and Eugene Nida’s lexicon continues to perpetuate (L&N 53.72), typical passages used to support this idea are misapplied. Specifically, Ephesians 4:11 where there are four groups of leadership types (not five) set forth as recipients of the temporary “gifts” which enable the Christians to obtain maturity (Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 13:10). See J. Jeremias in TDNT 6:485-502.
  6. Jack P. Lewis, Matthew (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:137.
  7. J. Patch, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1943), ISBE 4:2764.

This is a reformatted version of the article which originally published in The Words of Truth (Montgomery, AL: 6th Ave church of Christ).

Defining Adultery in the Old Testament

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Ethics, Essays, Interpretation, marriage, Old Testament3 Comments

Adultery. Not exactly the warmest of words. For some, it evokes the pain that can only be felt from experiencing a broken home. For others, it is a reminder of what could have been if certain circumstances had presented themselves. There are some who think of this word as an obstacle that was overcome and they are survivors indeed. While yet still, there are others who are ever vigilant of all the steps that lead to this dreaded sin.

And finally, there are some who stand humbled in the rubble around them (a life destroyed), that was brought to fruition through that terrible act of adultery. They enjoyed their brief night in paradise, only to be awoken by the torrents of horror in the morning.

The Word Adultery

It is amazing that some who would set forth the claim that their interests are in teaching the Word of God hold a variety of views as to the nature and meaning of adultery contrary to the biblical data. Without considerable interaction with these distinct points of view, let us press on to consider some of the Old Testament evidence as to the meaning and nature of adultery. How does God represent it in the Hebrew Bible?

But where does the word adultery come from. The actual derivation of the English word for adultery is quite enlightening. It actually derives from combining a number of Latin terms into one:

The word adultery originates not from “adult”, as is commonly thought, but from the Late Latin word for “to alter, corrupt”: adulterare. Adulterare in turn is formed by the combination of ad (“towards”), and alter (“other”), together with the infinitive form are (making it a verb).

Wikipedia.org

So, in English the word adultery has the idea of one person moving towards another person in order to make a new personal arrangement. Moreover, in some cases the Latin term adulterare carried the meaning of “to pollute” – taking something that is pure, and contaminating it.

When we say that someone has committed adultery, we are simply stating that a person has corrupted his or her marriage by introducing a third party. The marriage has been altered, changed, and polluted. The English word is quite graphic, but since the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew we would be wise to consult the meaning of this term there.

The Old Testament Term

In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word for adultery is nā’ap. As with any word, it is part of a grouping of words with similar meanings. Many of these words emphasize a range of meanings; for example, they can take literal or figurative meanings, and even describe those who are married or betrothed who are unfaithful. However, nā’ap is the found the majority of the time to state that a person has – as we say – “cheated” on their spouse.[1]

William Wilson notes that nā’ap “is confined to adultery in the exclusive sense of the term or fornication by a married person.”[2] James Swanson amplifies the meaning, stating that it refers to a person who has “sexual intercourse with [someone] other than a spouse, as a married or betrothed person, generally, a person of low social status.”[3]

One of the earliest appearances of nā’ap in the Old Testament is in the reading of the “10 Commandments” (Exod 20:14). God says transparently, “You shall not commit adultery.” This command is cradled between the “shall not’s” of murder and stealing, which should give us an indication as to the severity of adultery in the eyes of God (Exod 20:13, 15 cf. Lev 20:10).

Clyde Woods makes the observation that in this command, the “sacredness of marriage” is emphasized, and it is this “principle of social purity” that “provides the basis for numerous [other] laws regarding sexual relationships and offenses” (cf. Exod 22:19; Lev 18:1-18; Deut 22:13-30).[4] And in this connection, R. Alan Cole finds in Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife the fact that:

For a man to have intercourse with another man’s wife was considered as the heinous sin against God as well as man, long before the law, in patriarchal times (Gen 39:9).[5]

R. Alan Cole, Exodus (1979)

The holiness of God demands that the matrimonial bed be undefiled by extra-marital affairs (Heb 13:4). Some people defile their marriage by actually sleeping with someone other than their spouse (John 8:4), others have so saturated their minds with “daydreams” of scenarios to have affairs, that if circumstances presented themselves they would do it (Matt 5:28); and yet still, there are those who have slipped on more rings on their one wedding finger than many super bowl champions have on their whole hand – and with little to no effort (John 4:16-19). From the beginning, however, this was not God’s ideal plan for marriage (Matt 19:9 cf. Gen 2:24).

Literal and Figurative Adultery

Nā’ap may mean literal adultery, but it also carries figurative, or more precisely, a spiritual application as well. Swanson explains: “in some contexts this refers to religious adultery, usually in which Israel is viewed as the unfaithful female spouse to the Lord in a covenantal marriage contract.”[6] Wilhelm Gesenius likewise remarks, “it is applied to the turning aside of Israel from the true God to the worship of idols” (Jer 3:8-9, 5:7, 9:1, 23:14).[7]

Even as Jeremiah writes of the faithless one – the Northern kingdom of Israel:

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 3:6-10)

Judah had not learned the lesson of her sister Israel. The Northern kingdom of Israel’s fixation with idolatry is amply substantiated in the Hebrew Bible, and, in fact, was a foundational aspect of its administration and spirituality (cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33). It was this faithless one that committed adultery with stone and tree.

We see then that the literal usages of nā’ap enhance the figurative-spiritual uses. The literal and figurative uses share a reciprocal connection; that is to say, they enhance each other.[8] And, this makes perfect sense, for there are very few – if any – words that do not lend themselves to figurative or metaphorical uses.

Examples of Adultery in the Old Testament

Several times in the book of Ezekiel, the spiritual appraisal of Israel is pictured in terms of adultery. Principally, the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel address themselves to this theme. Chapters 15 through 17 explain the doom of Jerusalem by means of allegories and parables.[9] Within this framework, chapter 16 portrays the spiritual infidelity of the Hebrews in the unmistakably graphic picture of marital sexual infidelity.

Observe some snippets from the chapter that the English Standard Version translators call “The Lord’s Faithless Bride” (Ezek 16:1-58):

  • “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.” (vs. 8)
  • “But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore [were unfaithful; ESV footnote #2] because of the renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.” (vs. 15)
  • “At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself [“Hebrew spreading your legs”; ESV footnote #1; cf. ASV “opened thy feet […]”] to any passerby and multiplying your whoring.” (vs. 25)
  • “Adulterous [nā’ap] wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (vs. 32)

With great precision, the prophet presents God’s anger and sense of betrayal with the imagery of adultery. As Samuel Schultz and Gary Smith summarize:

[I]n an allegory, Ezekiel compared Judah to a young girl that God cared for and married. But the bride ignored her husband and loved others (foreign customs, idols, her own beauty).[10]

Exploring the Old Testament (2001)

Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity, ministered in Jerusalem and abroad. Numerous false prophets declared that this captivity was merely temporary and that God would return them soon. In Jeremiah 29:1-28, the prophet sends a letter from Jerusalem to the captives in Babylon encouraging them in their situation, rebuking those who oppose the truth of God’s punishment upon Judah, and re-enforcing the fact that Judah will remain in Babylon for 70 years. One of the blistering comments rendered to the false prophets is that they were adulterers (Jeremiah 29:20-23).

Jeremiah says that Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets, “have done an outrageous thing in Israel, they have committed adultery [nā’ap] with their neighbors’ wives, and they have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them” (vs. 23). This language is as transparent as Leviticus 20:10 where Moses writes, “if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Adultery, literal or figurative, describes the most intimate of interactions. Literally, it refers to actual sexual encounters with someone other than their spouse. Spiritually, it expands upon the literal meaning of adultery and give it a figurative flavor stressing the deep treachery felt by God from his people who give their beauty to another.

Conclusion

Literally, then, adultery is sexual activity between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. Spiritually, then, adultery is spiritual and moral activity contrary to God’s teaching. While Old Testament and the New Testament are uniform in their presentation of adultery, space has been given to a brief investigation of the concept in the Old Testament. The Old Testament and New Testament are two testimonies that share the same conception of adultery, a behavior that Russell describes as, a “special and aggravated case of fornication.”[11]

This concept has not been altered or distorted through the passing of time; consequently, we have no right to redefine it in modern times, contemporary times, or in any subsequent generation to come, for God’s truth endures to all generations (Psa 100:5). He means what he says. Heaven help us to keep it secure and unaltered in our minds!

References

  1. James Swanson, “nā’ap,” Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), 2d ed., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
  2. William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 6.
  3. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
  4. Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 179.
  5. R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (1973; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 160.
  6. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
  7. Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, electronic ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003), 525.
  8. Emmet Russell observes this exact point when he writes, “the figurative use enhances the literal sense, emphasizing the divine institution and nature of marriage” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967], 17).
  9. Homer Hailey, Hailey’s Comments (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications, 1985), 1:201-04.
  10. Samuel J. Schultz and Gary V. Smith, Exploring the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 191.
  11. Russell, ZPBD 17.

Jon Meacham, the Bible, and His “Problematic Source”

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Criticism, Bibliology, Book of Acts, Christian Apologetics, Daniel, Gospel, Major Prophets, New Testament, Old Testament, TheologyLeave a comment

It has been a few years since Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” was all that the world could talk about. It was a situation bound to receive controversial media coverage – it just comes with the territory of religion in the media. A case in point was the February 16 issue of Newsweek published in anticipation of Gibson’s film. About a week before this publication hit the stands, Jon Meacham’s cover story entitled, “Who Killed Jesus?,” was published online on MSNBC.com in four internet pages – then later archived on Newsweek.com.

Meacham’s article feigned an attempt to evaluate Gibson’s new movie, and instead, assaulted the biblical text. He openly affirms, “the Bible is the product of human authors.” He further argues that these authors were producing religious propaganda for Christianity, and like any other literary work the Bible is plagued with historical inaccuracies. Concerning the Bible Meacham writes:

The Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.[1]

Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek (2004)

This is just one quote from a number of similar statements found throughout the article. The editor of Newsweek couches his statement with liberal theological overtones. In other words, Scripture is regarded as human produced literature designed only to give morals, void of any direct involvement of God. We shall see that the problematic source is not the Bible, it is Meacham’s theological presumptions.

The Media’s Treatment of the Bible

Meacham’s view of the Bible articulates three ways the Bible is often misrepresented in mainstream American media: (1) the Bible is of sole human origin, (2) the Scriptures are unreliable historical records, and (3) the biblical sources are legendary that need specious sources to embellish the narrative to provide the “true story.” With a national circulation over 3 million plus, there is no doubt that the church, our neighbors (religious or otherwise) and our youth are influenced by this.

How shall we respond? Bible believers need to be able to affirm the following response. Although these erroneous views of the Bible are widespread, the Bible (i.e. Scripture) is beyond that of human production and consequently trustworthy, because the internal evidence of predictive prophecy, the uncanny historical accuracy, and the marvelous unity of the 66 books is of supernatural origin and guidance.

Predictive Prophecy

Predictive prophecy is one of the most powerful lines of evidence that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The specific foretelling of future events serves as an accurate brief definition. Moreover, there are at least three criteria: (1) it must be given separated by a significant amount of time, (2) there are specific details (not generalities) and, (3) 100% fulfillment must follow (not 95% etc.). As an example, observe the prophecy of the rise and fall of four world powers of antiquity given in Daniel 2 and its relationship to the establishment of the church in the first century.

The image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:1-24) was a picture of 4 sequential kingdoms: Babylonia (605-539 B.C), Persia (539-331 B.C.), Hellenistic (331-63 B.C.), and Roman (63 B.C-A.D. 476).[2] Daniel living in the 6th century B.C. predicted the fall of Babylon and the rise of these world empires. Furthermore, in Daniel 2:44-45 the prophecy was declared that during the reign of Imperial Rome, the God of heaven would establish His kingdom for all time.

While Rome was in power Jesus was born, lived, ministered, died, and resurrected (Gal 4:4). He declared that he was going to establish His church (Matt 16:18), which in this context means His kingdom (Matt. 16:19-20; Mark 9:1). This kingdom-church would come after the Holy Spirit had come upon the 12 Apostles (Acts 1:4-8), which arrived on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The prophecy was fulfilled as precisely as it was given centuries in advance.[3]

Precise Historical Accuracy

Historical accuracy is another line of reasoning which demonstrates that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The book of Acts is a powerful example. Luke wrote the book of Acts, which is a chronicle of the labors of Peter and Paul as the gospel goes from Jerusalem to the entire world.

The accuracy of Acts is such that no human could have been so accurate, except for the guidance of the Holy Spirit; observe:

This companion of Paul was a careful and meticulous historian. For instance, in Acts he mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons in Acts, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. He is thoroughly familiar with the geographical and political conditions of his day. And this is really amazing since the political/territorial situation was in a constant state of flux and flow in Luke’s time.[4]

Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (1982)

Accessibility to libraries was minimal due to how few or exclusive they were, and even if they had reference works, “the events Luke was trying to chronicle had taken place – at least at the beginning – in what the people of that day would have said were remote areas of the world.”[5]

There has yet to be the historical accuracy of the magnitude of Acts and the Bible recovered from antiquity to the present.

Unity of the Scriptures

A third line of argumentation is the unparalleled unity of the Scriptures. For instance, Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 are among a variety of passages appealed to for the claim that the Bible is not a harmonious work. Here is the argument. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to the same event in antiquity, the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. 

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. (Daniel 1:1 ESV)
The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon)... (Jer 25:1 ESV)

However, the date of the event mentioned appears upon face value discrepant for Jeremiah says the event happened in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign while Daniel says the timeframe was during the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s rule (see “System” chart[6]).

SYSTEM1ST Sovereign2ND Sovereign3RD
Sovereign		4TH Sovereign
BabylonianYear of Ascension1st Year of Reign2nd Year of Reign3rd Year of Reign
Palestinian1st Year of Reign2nd Year of Reign3rd Year of Reign4th Year of Reign

If the two accounts cannot be harmonized then this is a historical mistake, underscoring a purely human enterprise. The answer to this riddle, however, lies in the distinct systems of dating regnal years used by Daniel and Jeremiah. Bruce K. Waltke writes:

In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as “the year of accession to the kingdom,” and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king’s reign.[7]

Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra (1976)

Therefore, Daniel living in Babylonia used that system, while Jeremiah employed the Palestinian method. The unity spans cross-cultural methods of communication, how wonderful! The remarkable unity is so strong that even difficult passages backfire on the critic.

As so often happens, the supposed discrepancies become evidence against the critics of the Bible.

Conclusion

The Bible is not a problematic source; however, that does not mean that it has no range of complexity. The Bible is “a faithful record of historical events,” and its principles are grounded upon historical reality (e.g. creation, the Exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.). The Bible comes together like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. It is due to overwhelming evidence like this that we affirm that the Bible is beyond human production. The “problematic source” is Meacham’s liberal perspective – it is not the Bible!

Sources

  1. Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek.com (Accessed: 16 Feb. 2004), par. 6.
  2. Robert T. Boyd, World’s Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 309.
  3. Jason Jackson, “How Can the Church be the Fulfillment of Daniel 2:44?,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 28 Sept. 2005).
  4. Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1982), 46.
  5. James M. Boice, Acts: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 14.
  6. Jovan Payes, “Ascertaining the Date of Daniel: A First Look,” BiblicalFaith.wordpress.com. This particular line of reasoning is important evidence supporting the unity of Scriptures against baseless accusations of intertextual (book to book) problems. We are not suggesting there are not difficult passages that take more depth to study, but we are asserting that this “problem” passage is an eloquent statement of intertextual unity.
  7. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976): 326.