Podcasts about did moses

Did Moses have horns? Why was his face shining? Walk through Exodus 34 with us and find out! -- more from us at www.saarfellowship.com

Did Moses write that? When was the Bible written? How much time passed between its writing and the events of the Bible? In this episode, Scott discusses two interpretations of the dating for the Pentateuch. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Supplementary Hypothesis. This discussion is a primer on the subject of biblical scholarship. There are […] The post Rameumptom Ruminations: 012: Did Moses Write That? appeared first on Mormon Discussions Podcasts - Full Lineup.

The Bible is replete with examples of great men and women "hearing" God speak to them. But, in 2021, is that still something that happens? And if it does, is it audible? Did Moses actually "hear" God speaking with his ears? Did Abraham? Did Jesus? Can you?This week, Townsend and Preacher Man delve into another listener submitted topic and muse on how someone can know when God is speaking to them. It's a question that's got as many answers as you have fingers and toes... so listen in and see where these two land on the subject!Got a question you want answered or a topic you'd like to hear Townsend and Preacher Man muse on? Let them know at mtpm.podcast@gmail.com !Intro music: "Royalty Free Music from Bensound" 

Ex 34:29-35 Did Moses’ face have horns on it? The encounter with the Lord gives radiance Mt 13:44-46 Today’s passage is really about God’s royal nature Letters Father tells a touching story about Angels Question about having another child Word of the Day: Many Callers Question about the Eucharist and the Old Testament A caller […] All show notes at Father Simon Says – July 28, 2021 – Angels Among Us - This podcast produced by Relevant Radio

Biblicism might sound like a good thing…but it’s not. Biblicism is a methodology that tends to introduce confusion and mystery into the Scriptures where there isn’t any. It also tends to confuse doctrinal and theological categories such as law/gospel distinction and faith versus works. Jon and Justin consider these things and more in this episode.Semper Reformanda: The guys discuss how biblicism is related to theonomy and unhelpful views on the nation of Israel. And, as a bonus, we get into a little bit of eschatology.Resources:Episode: Is the whole Bible about Jesus? Episode: Is your theological system any good?Series: Covenant Theology seriesBook: “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” by David VanDrunnenSUPPORT Theocast: https://theocast.org/give/ Podcast TranscriptJon Moffitt: Hi, this is Jon. Today on Theocast, we are going to be explaining what biblicism is. There’s a lot of theological confusion and categories and systems and theologies that have been birthed out of biblicism. We’re going to explain to you what it is, how to refrain from it, and how to spot it when you see it. Stay tuned.Today is a podcast we probably have been needing to do for a long time and we reference it often.Justin Perdue: We even promised to do a podcast on it multiple times.Jon Moffitt: I know. The real estate on the podcast is very small so we have to be choosy on what we pick.Biblicism is a word. I saw someone use it the other day, saying, “I’m a biblicist.” Someone should tell him not to say that.Justin Perdue: It’s not a badge of honor.Jon Moffitt: It’s a negative thing and we’re going to explain to you why. Someone may think, “Why would ‘Bible’ and ‘-ism’ be a bad thing?” Typically, “-ism” isn’t good. Not always the case; Calvinism isn’t necessarily bad—it has gotten a bad rap—which I just did an introduction to that on Ask Theocast. Check that out.But to stay focused: biblicism. Justin, give us a quick definition of what it is. Then we are going to work through about five or six examples of what happens when you don’t use Scripture properly, or you’re a biblicist, this is what it ends up producing.So what’s a good definition, a simple definition, of a biblicist for our listeners?Justin Perdue: Let me define it in a simple way, and even use pop level accessible language in talking about this. You already alluded to it once when you said a person would describe themself as a Bible person. Another way that you hear this commonly presented is people will say, “no creed but Christ”, or, “no confession but the Bible”. People will say that the only thing that we need to use is Scripture and any kind of framework outside of the Bible, or any tools outside of the Bible are not useful; it’s not faithful or it’s not responsible to use such things to understand the Scripture. And so you end up getting this kind of a situation where people will say that if the text does not say it explicitly, then we cannot preach it and we cannot teach it.Jon Moffitt: Or the reverse is true: “The text explicitly said it, therefore I’m going to preach it.”Justin Perdue: Sure. We’re going to give illustrations of this, like you said, in broad categories and the like.What ends up happening is you make the Bible sound very schizophrenic because you quote chapter and verse in isolation and you don’t interpret that verse within its broader context, even maybe within the book that it’s situated in, let alone within the epoch of redemptive history that it’s situated in, or let alone the entire Bible. And so you end up introducing mystery and tension into the Scripture where it does not exist, and you end up introducing things that sound contradictory and really confusing your listener when the Bible—rightly understood on its own terms with appropriate theological systems in place—is not contradictory. It is not confusing. There is going to be mystery, but we want to put the mystery in the right place.Biblicism is dangerous on a number of levels because as you’re going to hear us talk about, there really are hardly any key areas of doctrine that would not be compromised or confused by a biblicism. If you’re using biblicism and you’re a biblicist, you’re going to confuse almost every major doctrinal category.Jon Moffitt: Can I give an example here? A simple one would be Colossians 1:15: he is the firstborn of all creation. You could conclude that Jesus is born, or even is a created being, and I would even dare say the Trinity, if you do not allow all of Scripture to inform you about the nature of who Christ is. Many biblicists in the past have become heretical. Arian would be a great example of this, where they isolate texts and they don’t allow the analogy of faith or all of Scripture to speak into a theological position or a particular text. A good example of this is that there are many people, even in recent days, who do not understand the nature of Jesus because they read individual texts and say, “Well, that’s what it says. I’m going to take it literally in English without even using biblical language. That’s exactly what it means in the English. That’s exactly what it means. Therefore, that’s what I believe.”Justin Perdue: Proof texting is an example of biblicism where you cite chapter and verse in isolation to prove a point. That’s a common mistake that people make. Maybe a humorous way to put this is when you get people really worked up about these things and they will say, as I alluded to earlier, “I have no confession but the Bible and no creed but Christ,” as they wave their study Bible in your face. What do you think those study notes are other than an exercise in systematic theology and biblical theology and everything else that people seem allergic to?We did an episode a while back, Jon, something along the lines of is your theological system any good? That would be a useful episode for people to go back and listen to because we are going to contend today that the Scriptures present to us certain frameworks and systems of theology that come up out of the text that we then can utilize to better understand the text. A couple of those are going to be the redemptive-historical framework, and for us as Reformed guys, a covenantal framework of the Bible. Those things are really helpful. And a biblicist is going to press really, really hard against both of those things. They’re gonna say, “That’s the system that you’re imposing down on the Bible and you shouldn’t do that. You’re being irresponsible in the ways that you’re understanding and interpreting the Scripture.” Hopefully, we’re going to demonstrate how, if anything, biblicism is the much more dangerous and irresponsible perspective today.Jon Moffitt: I do a lot of internet research for things and recently I’m doing a series on Calvinism for Ask Theocast and just reading different arguments here and there. And the proof texting on either side, the Calvinist or free will…Justin Perdue: Just to be very clear, there are people that could consider themselves to be Reformed who can be biblicists from time to time. We want to be fair. Anybody can be a biblicist. I’m sure you and I have been at certain points, not meaning to be.Jon Moffitt: What we’re arguing is that being able to identify biblicist tendencies or passages that we may have interpreted in the past where we have not allowed context and tried and true theological categories.Let me give you this one illustration. It’s the most simple one that I’ve always used. When you read any text of Scripture that has relation to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—if you are an evangelical who’s been trained in a good church, you never read those without understanding that that is one in three. Another way of saying that is you’re reading it by a theological system called Trinitarianism. It’s important that you do so because it helps you fully understand that this isn’t one God working in opposition or in isolation to the other gods, because we’re not polytheists—we’re monotheists; poly meaning multiple, mono meaning one. Where are monotheists who believe in a Trinity. It is a complicated system, but it’s important to believe that because Jesus will say things like “I and my Father are one.” These have to be read in a Trinitarian context.I have met biblicists who will allow a Trinitarian context to be set on the text, but that’s as far as they will go. They won’t allow any other theological systems because “it’s not biblical”, yet they allow the Trinitarian system to guide them. It’s not the only theological system in the Bible presented to us clearly in the text. We’re going to argue for a couple others here in just a minute.Justin Perdue: One of the categories that’s most important that Jon and I are convinced of—and we’re not alone amongst the Reformed in seeing this—is that biblicism really just botches the distinction between law and gospel. There are a number of places we could go. I’m mindful of several examples in the life and ministry of Jesus where people will cite Christ in terms of chapter and verse, in terms of what God requires out from the lips of Jesus himself and say, “See? There it is. There’s the road to salvation. That’s the way of salvation.” When Jesus has in fact been actually speaking a message of law, like, “Here is how you inherit the kingdom of God. Here’s what you need to do in order to be in a right relationship with God.” People will say that’s somehow a part and parcel of the good news.One of the greatest examples of this is a large section of Scripture called The Sermon on the Mount, where people will say things like The Sermon on the Mount is gospel, to which we would say no. A much more careful reading of that text—a redemptive-historical reading of that text, and a reading of that text with an eye for law and gospel distinction—would actually lead you to conclude that that sermon is a sermon on the law, not the gospel, in terms of what God does require of us, not just at the level of outward conformity, but at the level of the heart, mind, desires, and everything else. That becomes quite clear as Jesus begins to discuss the law pointedly in Matthew 5:17 and following: here is what you’ve heard, but here is what it actually means for you. And he more or less damns everybody who hears him by saying, “You think you’ve done okay, but you haven’t; you haven’t kept the law. This is what the Lord requires of you. In fact, you need to be perfect like your heavenly Father is perfect.” That confusion of law and gospel and the life of ministry of Jesus is a big deal.Jon Moffitt: The gospel is the way in which the Bible presents its message or information, but it also is a theological category. The word “gospel” is a very closed tight knit bubble. There’s only so much that can be in there, and if you add anything into it, you are now changing what the gospel is. This is why Paul gets very upset and even says, “If anybody comes to you and starts teaching you anything other than what you’ve already been taught, adding to the gospel,” Paul is arguing for the clarity and he’s saying, “this is encapsulated and cannot be changed. It’s been set forth.” You have to read every passage of the Bible with a clear understanding of gospel, because if you don’t, then you will get “glawspel”—you get the law and the gospel together. So the gospel must be clarified.A great example of this is the rich young ruler, which we use in the past as an example. “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus gives him what he needs to do if he wants to inherit it, like if he wants to receive it by earning.Justin Perdue: Jesus says, “If you would be perfect.”Jon Moffitt: That’s not gospel, that’s law. When you understand gospel, and you have the category of gospel and you’re holding that lens in your mind, and then you read Jesus, you go, “Jesus didn’t give him gospel, but what do we do?” The biblicist will say “No, Jesus answered the question; therefore, it’s good news.”Justin Perdue: Jesus just told people what they need to do to inherit eternal life so we need to go about the business of doing it.Jon Moffitt: That is, to forsake everything. We need to sell all our possessions.Justin Perdue: That is the conclusion of the biblicist when law and gospel are confused.Another great example from the Old Testament: the prophet Micah, chapter six. The context in Micah 6—the Lord begins that chapter by indicting his people. They’re guilty. They stand condemned before Him and then the prophet goes on in verse six and following of Micah 6 to write these things. He’s hypothetically speaking for the people here: “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high?” And sense the sarcasm here: Lord, you’re extreme; what do you require? “Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” And then Micah says, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”Now, what people do with that passage is they read that and they say, “See? Here it is. The Lord is not satisfied with empty ritualistic religion. He is not interested in people’s sacrifices. What he is interested in is the true religion of doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly before it.” And so now you need to be a true religion, an old time religion kind of person, who is characterized by the doing of justice, the loving of kindness and the walking humbly before your God, and the Lord will be pleased with you. Again, that’s biblicism. The prophet there is not giving people a message of gospel either; he’s telling folks that a better understanding of what the Lord requires actually is this heart level reality. It’s not external conformity to a written code, but it’s a heart level reality of doing justice and loving kindness and walking humbly before your God. Nobody’s ever done it well enough. That’s the thing.This is where you go to that verse. Micah 6:8 is often posited as an Old Testament presentation of the gospel. It’s not. It’s an Old Testament presentation of the law very similar to how Jesus presents it in the Sermon on the Mount and other places in his ministry. Learn what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”Jon Moffitt: I believe with all my heart that God blesses righteousness. He does not lie. It reflects who He is. Paul tells us there is none righteous and our good works, according to Jeremiah, are compared to really disgusting, filthy rags. Those are important. They’re not in opposition to each other.Justin Perdue: You just beautifully segued to another category. Law and gospel are massive. This one is at least as important and it is the confusion between faith and works. Biblicism is notorious for muddling this up to the high heavens. How is it that we’re justified? How is it that we’re finally saved even? Is it by faith or is it by our works? The classic text for me is Romans 2. In this context, Romans 2-3 are really illustrative.Paul has already indicted all the brilliant Gentiles at the end of Romans 1. Then he begins, at the beginning of Romans 2, to talk to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, because we all pass judgment on other people for not meeting our own standards. If people don’t meet our standards and we pass judgment on them, we need to realize that we don’t meet our own standards and thereby we condemn ourselves with our judging. If we haven’t even met our own standards, how much less so have we met God’s standard? We misunderstand God’s kindness, not understanding that it’s meant to lead men toward repentance.And then Paul goes in Romans 2:6 and following, and as the Reformed theologian Robert Haldane once said, you either leave Romans 2:6 and following a Protestant or a Romanist—and I think he’s right. There’s no middle ground here in terms of how you can interpret it. And let me say this kindly, but sincerely: if you pick up a Romans commentary, there are a lot of guys who otherwise are pretty reasonable who absolutely lose their minds when it comes to Romans 2:6-13.Let’s just read a few of these verses and talk about what biblicists do with it, and then talk about how we should understand it in the context of Romans. Romans 2:6; this is true about God: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”What you hear people say—again, otherwise pretty orthodox, like sound teachers, Protestants—they come to Romans 2:6-13 and they’ll go, “We know that we are justified by faith, but somehow—you can see it right here it says in the text—somehow our works will factor into our final salvation, because it says so right here that God will render to each one according to his works. Those who do good, He’s going to reward with eternal life. Those who do evil, He’s going to punish with wrath and fury.” No. That’s not the way to interpret that passage, somehow mysteriously our works factor into our final salvation, because this question has to be asked in the broader context of Romans: what is Paul doing? There’s a flow of his thought that’s going to culminate in Romans 3:21. He’s arguing that everybody has judged themselves and judged others. We don’t need our own standard, let alone God’s. God is an impartial righteous judge who rewards those who do good and punish those who do evil.The problem though is that nobody’s good. Because he’s going to go there in Romans 3:9 and the following: “Nobody is good. There’s not one righteous. No, not one.” We should be thinking we are all damned. How can anyone be saved? Which is why he says in verse 21 and following: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” He concluded that whole section of his argument in verses 19 and 20, where he says that the law condemns everyone, Romans 3:19, and verse 24, by works of the law, no human being will be justified in His sight because the law only crushes people. But yet, in a biblicism kind of way, we go to Romans 2:6, and we go to Romans 2:13, and we quote it and say, “Ah, but guys, we’ve got to work for this. We got to do something. Even though we’re saved by faith, somehow our works factor in.” And that’s just an irresponsible presentation. What does it do? It confuses the nature of the gospel itself and robs the saints of assurance.Jon Moffitt: This is another way of saying this: understanding the nature of man and understanding the gospel are two categories we have to hold in both hands as we read every text. We know from scripture that we are in Adam, meaning that we have received the curse of Adam which is that our spiritual nature, the capacity to love and obey and please God, to trust in Him, has been cursed unto death. Paul describes it as being dead cause we’ve had to go from death to life. Obviously we are not physically dead; he is speaking about the cursed nature that we have. So you cannot demand a cursed dead nature to do that which it has no capacity to do, which is to obey God.This is even in James: the classic quote, “faith without works is dead.” We really needle down into that. And if I am looking at someone who says to me, “I’m a Christian,” and yet they don’t see the necessity of producing good fruit in keeping with repentance and obedience, all that… “I don’t need to do that. I just need to say a prayer and I’m good.” I would agree that they are confused. James is even getting it out in the context saying, “You’re saying you’re a follower of Jesus, but the way that you are acting is contrary to that. And if you’re unwilling to repent of that, then the faith you were claiming is a dead faith.” At that moment, you don’t call someone to do something they can’t do. Because at that moment, you go, “Okay, you don’t understand the gospel. This isn’t a works issue; this is a gospel issue.” Because those who have saving faith are going to obey.Justin Perdue: It’s a gospel issue, it’s a union with Christ issue, and it’s a regeneration issue. If you have been born again and if you are not just giving some kind of mental assent to some truth about Jesus, but you are trusting him, and you’re hoping in him, that only occurs via the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. You have now been united to Christ and you will bear fruit. That’s what the Scriptures say. But to confuse that, to invert that, to proof text it and say, “Faith without works is dead; show me your faith by your works,” to then conclude, “We need to go about telling people to do good work so that they know they’re saved.” Wrong. That’s not the conclusion that we draw. We go about preaching Christ. We tell people to trust Christ. Through their union with him, fruit will be produced. You can’t invert that relationship, but biblicism confuses that relationship to no end.Jon Moffitt: I’ll just reference this here for two reasons: one, we have a podcast on it and two, we have a podcast coming. On repentance and biblicism, we did a needle down, focus in on that a couple of weeks ago. You can go back and listen to What Is Repentance? We really unfold that from what biblicism is. I would also say lordship salvation falls into this, where a lot of the arguments that you will see again in the next coming weeks… we’re going to give you some more examples on this, but I’ll just say this now: I think lordship salvation is built upon a biblicism platform.Justin Perdue: It completely is in that there’s a collapsing of law and gospel. There’s a confusion of faith and works and repentance. There’s really a different definition of faith that is given in the lordship camp where obedience and repentance and a sincere desire to obey and all those kinds of things are woven into the definition of faith. And that is something that, historically, Protestants have been very careful to not do. And we’ll talk about that in some subsequent episodes.Jon Moffitt: One example that’s like a precursor to that is as someone Reformed and even Calvinist, when you understand the depravity of man and the sovereign election of God as it relates to our salvation, the biblicism of lordship doesn’t seem to work. I would agree with the fact that when Jesus saves me and brings me to new life, I am now owned by him—and I’m gladly thankful that he is my Lord. But I don’t have the capacity to make that change within myself or determine that that is handed to me. It’s not something that is given to me as if there’s something I must do in order to be a child of God.Justin Perdue: And the bottom line is that when you have been united to Christ by faith, you now—Romans 6:17—have become obedient from the heart. You actually do desire to obey God, but the desire to obey is not a piece of faith itself. The new birth that is worked by God produces faith and then the fruits of regeneration and faith are a desire to obey, amongst a whole host of other things. But you can’t confuse that. We’re going to talk more about that in the coming weeks and I’m excited for those conversations.One of the last couple of big categories in the regular portion of the podcast is also a reference back to an episode. We did one on typology and types and shadows and all those kinds of things called Is the Whole Bible Really About Jesus? Just to briefly pick back up on this and to help explain how biblicism is unhelpful here: we talk regularly about how the whole Bible really is about Christ, that it’s about the plan of redemption that God has had since before the foundation of the world, that centers on Christ, that’s accomplished through him, that’s then applied to us by the work of the Holy Spirit—all to the praise of God’s glorious grace. And so we interpret every passage of Scripture in light of that main message, in light of that main point.We realize that the way that God has revealed His plan of redemption by farther steps through history, and in the pages of Scripture, there are all of these things that serve as types of something greater to come, their shadows and the substance is going to come. There are pointers to things that are going to come later that are ultimate, that will fulfill them. And so when we preach anything in the Old Testament, for example—I could think of a number of examples, the obvious ones are the Passover, when we preach the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, when we preach the day of atonement or whatever it may be, we’re talking about those in light of Christ and what he would come to do. He’s the Passover Lamb. He is the one who has atoned for our sin and removed it from us. He is going to deliver us not out of bondage to Egypt, but from bondage to sin and death and Satan. But we would argue preaching the entire Old Testament this way.Sometimes people get really worked up when we preach in a very Christocentric, a Christ-centered way, from the Old Testament, a biblicist will say, “Brother, you are not giving appropriate attention to the original author’s intent. Did Moses fully understand everything that you’re saying about Jesus? Did David fully understand everything that you’re saying about Jesus from the Psalms? Did Micah understand everything that you’re saying about Christ?” Fill in the blank. A biblicist will rail against a Christ-centered sermon sometimes from the Old Testament because we are not doing justice to the original author’s intention—to which I want to say this humbly, but I would stake my ministry on this: is it legitimate, for example, to preach baptism from Noah and the Ark? Yes. Peter makes that connection for us in 1 Peter 3. But what should we preach when we preach a sermon on the Ark and the flood? We should preach salvation, we should preach baptism, and we should preach Christ as the emphasis of that passage.What should we preach when it’s the Passover or the day of atonement? We should preach Jesus. What about the temple? We were having this conversation before we hit record. There is an obsession in some circles with the temple and the rebuilding of the temple and all these kinds of things, and when we see the temple being built in the Old Testament—God’s having a house built for Him where he’s going to dwell with His people—when we see the tabernacle for that set up in the camp of Israel, we should be preaching Jesus from those passages. Why? Because Jesus shows up on the scene and says himself that he is the fulfillment of the temple. He is God’s presence on earth. Then as he ascends and sends his Holy Spirit, the church is now the fulfillment of the temple. The Spirit of God Himself dwells in the church with His people and the like. Then in the new heavens and the new earth, there will be no temple because God will be there and the Lamb will dwell among us. There’s no need for a temple anymore. This is how we should preach the temple. And there are going to be people who are going to be saying, “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Should you preach the temple that way in the Old Testament?” Yes. If we’re a Christian, we should.Jon Moffitt: All of Scripture is Christian Scripture.Justin Perdue: This is where I think I get really upset with biblicism, maybe as much as any place: Romans 2 and 3 get me worked up, but this stuff really works me up because people almost call into question whether we should preach Christ from the Old Testament from these things that prefigure him and point to him, as though it’s, “Maybe you should, but that shouldn’t be the emphasis of your sermon.” The last time I checked, we are Christians and we preach Christian sermons, do we not? We want to read Genesis or Exodus or Micah or Esther as Christians, for crying out loud.Jon Moffitt: I think there’s a fear of allegorizing there. I remember when I was in Bible college and even in seminary, it’s like, “Oh, we don’t want to fall into that trap where we’re allegorizing everything in the text and putting things in the text that aren’t there.” That’s a legitimate argument: you can’t force into the text things that aren’t there. I would argue that if you got five points of how to be faithful like David…Justin Perdue: Tell me where that is in the text.Jon Moffitt: No, it’s not in the text at all. Let me read you something real quick from Romans 15. I think it will make your point, Justin. Paul says this: “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.” And then Paul gives us the motivation—and it’s interesting how he gives us motivation—pay attention to this in verse four: “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction that through endurance and through encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope.” So he’s referencing Christ, he’s referencing our needs to bear with the weak, and our motivation is the Old Testament leads us to hope. There is no way you can conclude that Paul isn’t meaning hope in Christ because he just got done arguing for it in chapter 14… well, I would say all of Romans. The point of it is that anytime you see these New Testament writers referencing the Old Testament, they are referencing it as these are designed for endurance and encouragement because the Old Testament gives us hope. Because what is the Old Testament about? It’s about Jesus. This is one more example of a text of interpreting the Old Testament for us.Justin Perdue: I know we said this last week; I’m gonna say it again: whenever we do what we’re describing, where we interpret and read and preach the Old Testament in this Christ-centered way, we’re doing what Jesus told us to do and we’re doing what the apostles did. Full stop.I understand there’s a danger of allegorizing everything, and that is not at all what we are advocating for; all we’re advocating for is to read the Old Testament the way the apostles read and understood it. There are countless examples that we could give from Paul, from Peter, from the writer of the Hebrews, from John, where it’s obvious that they see things in the Old Testament. If they were in a hermeneutics class in most modern day seminaries, they would get a failing grade for saying what they’re saying. “Oh, what about the original author’s intent? Did the Psalmist really mean that in Psalm 68? Were they really talking about Jesus’s ascension and the giving of gifts, Paul, like you say in Ephesians 4? Or the rock from 1 Corinthians 10:4 referencing Exodus 17?” All of these things are just example after example after example of how the apostles read the Old Testament. The writer of the Hebrews—what’s the sacrificial system about? What’s the priesthood about? It’s about Christ. It all pointed to him. Why would we go back to something that’s been fulfilled in the Lord Jesus? What was Abraham about ultimately? He was justified by faith as a pattern for everyone who had ever believed the promises of God realized in the Messiah, and we would be saved the same way. This is how we should read all of these things. Jesus himself in John 3, the snake that’s lifted up on a pole in Numbers 21—it’s about him and how he would be raised up, and when we look to him and what he’s done, we’re saved.Jon Moffitt: We could go on and on and on, but we are running out of time. We did have one left. We’re going to leave it for the other podcast we’re about to do. We’re going to talk a little bit about eschatology and biblicism.For those of you that are new and listening, we have a ministry called Semper Reformanda, “always reforming”, and we started this as a way to connect with our listeners, but also to go to a deeper level. There are many who love what we’re saying on Theocast but have questions and want to go to that next level of conversation. Justin and I step into a different role in that way, where we interact with our listeners a little bit more and we take this conversation to a little bit deeper level. And you can join us.Semper Reformanda is two things: one, it’s a podcast that we do, but two, it’s also a community. It’s an online community, and believe it or not, a local community. By now, our app is out and you can go and sign up to get our private podcast feed, and also join a group. Download our app and see what groups are available. You can join an online discussion group, or you do it over zoom, or you can do it locally in your town. Those are growing. I think we’re over 20 plus so far. People are getting signed up to start their own. So if you want to learn more about that, you can go to theocast.org.Excited to continue this conversation. We’ll see you next week.

Is the whole Bible really about Jesus? Here at Theocast, we believe that it is. Jon and Justin consider the pattern of Jesus and the apostles with regard to how they understood the Bible. The guys consider typology and how it is useful in understanding the Scriptures–and biblicism and how it is not helpful.Semper Reformanda: Justin talks about the thing that has most impacted his preaching. Jon and Justin then discuss how important it is to see that every promise of Scripture finds its fulfillment in Jesus.Resources:Episode: Is Christ-Centered Preaching Dangerous?“The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant & His Kingdom” by Samuel Renihan“Preaching Christ in All of Scripture” by Edmond Clowney“The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament” by Edmond ClowneyFREE Ebook: theocast.org/primerSUPPORT Theocast: https://theocast.org/give/   Podcast TranscriptJustin Perdue: Hi, this is Justin. Today on Theocast, we are going to answer the question, “Is the whole Bible really about Jesus?” We don’t like to bury the lead here at Theocast, and so our position is that yes, in fact, the whole Bible is about Christ and what he has accomplished on behalf of sinners in order to save us. We’re going to have this conversation from a couple of different perspectives. We’re going to talk about typology and how that works in the Bible. If you don’t even know what typology is, don’t worry, we’re going to define it and try to explain it for you.We’re also going to talk about Biblicism and how it is unhelpful to understanding the Scriptures accurately. Again, if you don’t know what Biblicism is, stay tuned. We’re going to try to explain it to you and help you see how it relates to this conversation.We really hope this is an encouraging and life-giving conversation for you, and that is a conversation that will open up the Scriptures and show you how from Genesis to Revelation, Jesus really is the point of it.The title of the episode is Is the Whole Bible Really About Jesus? What we want to do today is answer that question. But we’re really just pulling the curtain back here and having a conversation about a couple of different things—and I’m going to try to explain briefly what we mean by these terms and then we’ll just kind of take-off and run with this. We’re having a conversation today about typology and somewhat also about Biblicism. And so just briefly to define those terms for the listener: when we talk about typology, we are talking about the way that God reveals Himself, the way He reveals redemption—in particular, the way He reveals redemption through Christ in Scripture—where there are things that occur earlier on in biblical revelation, referred to as types, that are significant in and of themselves but they point to something that is greater, different, and ultimate. So those greater, different, ultimate fulfillments of the types are often referred to as antitypes. We’re going to talk about examples of some of that today. But if the Bible is read appropriately in a typological way, we are going to see types and shadows and pointers to Jesus all throughout the Old Testament before Christ even shows up on the scene in the New Testament.If you think about, for example, the writer to the Hebrews and how he explains the fact that the sacrificial system, and so many of the other things that were revealed to Israel in the law, were ultimately about Christ. They were ultimately shadows and pointers to Jesus and the redemption that would be accomplished through him. That is a biblical example of typology. We’re going to talk about some other biblical examples of typology in this episode. So we’re having that conversation about how typology is really helpful in coming to the Bible, and it’s helpful to us, in particular, in seeing Christ through all of Scripture.But then we’re also going to be having a conversation about something referred to as Biblicism. The goal of a biblicist is a good goal; it’s a good aim. It’s admirable that you want to be a Bible person and only say things that the Scripture says, and you don’t want to add to it or take away from it. That’s a good aim. But oftentimes, the way that Biblicism presents itself is that if the text does not specifically and explicitly say something, that it just must not be true. And so there’s a real concern in Biblicism for some of the systematic categories, the covenantal categories, the redemptive-historical categories that the Reformed have always had that help us to see Christ in all of Scripture. The biblicist gets very anxious about that. We’re going to explain what we mean by that, too.Before you check out, if you’re sitting here and you’re thinking, “Oh my gosh. This is an academic conversation and this is something that’s going to be over my head,” it is not going to be. We’re going to talk about this at a street level, as a couple of pastors who deal with the Scriptures regularly and are trying to teach the Scriptures to our people. This conversation ultimately is about seeing Christ in all of Scripture in ways that are legitimate and responsible, and really upholding what Jesus Christ himself says about the Bible, namely, that it’s all about him. We hope that you come away from this episode more encouraged to study the Scriptures, more encouraged to sit under the Scriptures on the Lord’s Day as you hear your pastor preach them to you, or if you’re a pastor out there and you’re more excited to get in the pulpit and herald Christ from any text in the Bible.I might just launch us off, Jon, in thinking about the words of Jesus Christ himself in Luke 24 and in John 5. Luke 24, the road to Emmaus. Jesus is resurrected and he appears to a couple of his disciples and he says to them that they are slow of heart to believe everything that the Scriptures have revealed. Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to these disciples everything in Moses and the prophets that was written about him.Then in John 5, at a couple of different points, Jesus makes it very clear to his Jewish audience. He says to them, “You search the Scriptures thinking that in them you find eternal life; yet it is they that bear witness about me.” And then he goes on later in John 5 to say they talk about Moses a lot, and, “if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”This is the conversation that we’re having today. I get excited for this because this has changed my Christian life. It has changed the way that I think about the Bible wholesale. This is probably the single greatest thing that informs my preaching from a week to week basis: it is the fact that all of the Scriptures from Genesis to revelation are about Christ and what he has done for sinners.Jon Moffitt: I was preaching through the book of John, and John is probably one of the greatest prolific writers when it comes to the Old Testament in terms of how much he references in typology, in referencing to ceremonies and the law. He mentions the Psalms and Isaiah a lot. He won’t do a direct quote, but he’ll even say things like “to fulfill scripture” to allow the reader to know what Scripture something is in reference to.To add to the Scriptures that talk about Jesus in the Old Testament, there’s a couple more. You have Acts 8:35: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.”Book of Acts. Let’s do some math here. The New Testament has not been written at the moment; it’s being recorded as past history. What Scriptures is he referencing? What is he talking about?Justin Perdue: Whenever we hear the apostles in the New Testament reference the Scriptures or Jesus reference the Scriptures, they’re talking about what we call the Old Testament.Jon Moffitt: Philip is telling the eunuch about Jesus from the Old Testament, which I can tell you right now that Justin and I both can preach the gospel clearly from the Old Testament because the apostles did. We can use Old Testament text to preach Christ and we do, and we’ll always do. We are not crippled by only having the New Testament in order to preach the gospel because what else was Philip using?Another verse that would be connected to this is Acts 18:28 where he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that Christ was Jesus. Again, Scripture has to reference the Torah, the Old Testament, and he’s referencing the Old Testament to show that it is about Jesus. It’s not one little reference. I know sometimes people say, “Well, you guys always quote Luke 24 and you’re basing an entire theological system and way of reading the Bible based on one verse. It’s not. There are multiple examples of New Testament writers using the Old Testament to teach us about Jesus. There is much that can be learned and should be learned about Jesus.Now, this is where understanding typology is so important. It took me a long time to understand this and so I’m going to say it in such a way that if you’re brand new to Reformed theology, if you’re brand new to redemptive-historical biblical theology or covenant theology, typology is really important. When someone said “type” and “antitype”, my brain didn’t have a category for that. So if you’re smart unlike me and you already know it, you can fast forward the next 30 seconds. But if you’re like me and you need help in these categories, the antitype thing is what threw me off.A type is an example or a picture of something, but not the reality of it. We use these illustrations all the time, but one of my favorite ones is if you go to a Mexican restaurant and you get that real big laminated menu. I love that the more expensive ones will have a picture of the burrito and underneath it, it says, “Not the actual size.” Thanks for clarifying. But it’s a picture; it’s a type of the burrito. You look at it, anticipate it, and are excited about what you see, but the picture is not what you taste, it is not what sustains you, it is not what gives you energy. The substance, or the real burrito, is called the antitype.So when we say type and antitype, which we’re going to give some examples here in the Old Testament, those are the theological terms for it. A great example of this is when Jesus says to Nicodemus, “as the serpent was raised in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” The serpent in the wilderness was a type, an example, a picture of what is going to happen to Jesus, because those who looked on the serpent and believed were healed, and those who looked to Christ on the cross and believed are also healed of their sins. That’s a good example of type and antitype as it relates to Jesus being referenced in the Old Testament, pointing us towards the New Testament reality.Justin Perdue: Jesus, of course, picks up on that very thing in his conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. The New Testament is replete with examples of this kind of thing being done by Christ and the apostles.You mentioned earlier how the apostles write what I might even call the apostolic pattern when it comes to this conversation. When we are saying that we read the Bible from a redemptive-historical perspective, meaning it’s redemptive history with Christ at the center, and we read it in that Christ-centered way, and we read it with an eye for typology—types and shadows and pointers and fulfillment and all those things—all we are saying and all we are advocating is, “Hey guys, let’s read the Bible. In particular, let’s read the Old Testament the way that the apostles understood it and the way that Christ understood it.” We’re not coming up with anything new. We are looking to Christ, Paul, Peter, John, and the writer to the Hebrews, and we are just following their lead in terms of how they understood the Old Testament Scriptures to bear witness to Christ and the redemption that he would accomplish for sinners.This is maybe one of the more controversial pieces of this conversation: we have freedom to not only go to the texts that the apostles specifically reference, but we have freedom to read the entire Old Testament that way, because they have given us a pattern; they have shown us how to do it.For example, the way that Peter in 1 Peter 3 connects the ark and the flood and what happened there, to redemption and to baptism. That means that it is legitimate to now go back to the Old Testament as saints have done for a long, long time and see other passages, to use Peter’s language, where the saints are brought safely through water. And we can see those things as a pointer to our baptism, through which we are united to Christ, we are sealed into him, and our sins are drowned in the waters of baptism because Christ ultimately has taken the judgment of God for us. We’ve died in Christ to the law.So Peter connects that in 1 Peter 3 to Genesis 6-8. But then there are other ways that the saints have seen the same connection, like Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea, where God’s people walk safely through water. People have said this is a pointer to baptism—they’re entirely right about that. Because it’s a pointer ultimately to the deliverance that God would accomplish for us through the Lord Jesus Christ.But a lot of times—again, talking about that Biblicism thing where it’s gotta be on the face of the text and if the text doesn’t say it, we shouldn’t draw the conclusion—if you do that, if you go to the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus, where if you were to preach the flood from Genesis and you were just conclude that Moses, in writing about the ark and the flood, doesn’t say anything about baptism, doesn’t say anything about Jesus and the ark being a type of Christ, and so as you preach this, you think, “The original authorial intent must have been this thing and this is what I need to say.” In order for you to do that, you have now divorced the account of the ark and the flood in Genesis 6-8, you have divorced that from the entire canon, you have divorced it from the entire context of the whole Bible, and have actually been irresponsible in preaching it if you do not preach Christ and baptism from Genesis 6-8.That’s the really controversial thing, I think, to say here. There is such an obsession sometimes over original authorial intent in the Old Testament that we almost academically, thinking that we’re smart, convince ourselves to not preach Christ from the Old Testament.Jon Moffitt: To go back to explain what you mean by authorial intent, for those who this might be new to if you didn’t grow up a part of a church that does expository teaching or preaching, what Justin is getting at is that when an author like Moses sat down to write the history, inspired by the Spirit, there’s a reason behind their writing. That’s authorial intent. What’s the intention of the author? You can see these things in the epistles, you can hear in the beginning when Paul says, “I’m writing you for this reason.” Even in the gospels, you can see the introductions to the gospels and what they’re writing them for. The argument has been—within conservative, evangelical Calvinistic churches—is that you cannot give any other application than the original intention of that individual author. What we mean by author is Paul, David, Moses, etc.There’s a danger when you read Scripture in that way because it disconnects the Bible as if it’s a library of books that are all of the same time period, and God is a part of them—but they’re not all connected as if there was one theme.Our argument is that according to the New Testament, there is a theme and there is a driving message. We can go to Ephesians 1 and it literally says that before the foundations of the world, God made a pactum, a covenant, that there would be salvation promised to sinners. This was before the first mention of Scripture; this is before creation. We take great heart in that because Paul is saying there’s a greater theme that’s going on; there’s a major theme of what all of Scripture is about. Paul thankfully gives us a good peek into that to say, “This is how you should read your Bible: from a redemption of sinners that unfolds through history.” This is why we use the term that’s been used for many years: redemptive-historical understanding of Scripture.So our argument would be the author of Scriptures, the intention of the author, which is God by means of the Holy Spirit. The authorial intent is redemption. And then you go down into the writer. I would argue the author is God, the writers are the humans; they’re instruments. So the authorial intent is always God and His redemptive plan as revealed to us in Scripture. And then we go down and say, what did the writer say in their context? We don’t want to interpret it in our own means saying, “Well, I can say whatever I want now because the writer just wrote something.” No, the writer wrote it for a purpose, but it’s not disconnected from all of Scripture and God’s authorial plan, which was told to us before.Justin Perdue: A few comments here. 1 Peter 1:10-12 in that area. The apostle there makes it clear. I’ll just read 1 Peter 1:10 and following: “Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preach the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.” That’s 1 Peter 1:10-12. What that is saying is that the prophets of old, as they wrote down things inspired of the Holy Spirit, did not fully, in their humanity, understand everything that they were writing. That right there has to be taken into consideration when we have this conversation about original authorial intent.Did Moses understand everything that he wrote completely in terms of how it pointed to Christ and would be fulfilled in Jesus? No, he didn’t. Did Isaiah in Isaiah 53 fully understand what was going to happen? No, he didn’t. So if you are going to govern yourself by what Isaiah or Moses or David or whoever understood then you’re going to gut the Scriptures of their ultimate meaning that point to Christ and his work for sinners to save us. That’s just one thing for us to keep in mind.Here are two examples that I think are very illustrative and perhaps provocative when it comes to this conversation. They are both from the pen of the apostle Paul. 1 Corinthians 10, in particular, verse four is where I want to get. But I’m going to begin with chapter 10 in verse one and read it real quick. Paul says, “For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” That is a reference to Exodus 17. Now, in Exodus 17, what’s happening? In verse four of 1 Corinthians 10, it’s a reference to that chapter; in Exodus 17, the people had been brought out of Egypt, they’ve been brought through the Red Sea, and they are grumbling because they’re thirsty. And Moses says to God, “What am I supposed to do with these people?” Basically. And God says, “I will stand before you there on the rock of Horeb, and you shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people will drink.” and Paul is saying that that rock and the water that came out of it is about Jesus.Can you imagine in an Old Testament class or in a hermeneutics class, if a student in many seminaries today were to preach that text or to write an expositional paper on Exodus 17 and to ultimately make the point of that. “Well, Jesus is the point of this.” You will get a failing grade in many seminary classes because that is irresponsible hermeneutics and exegesis of the text. But that’s what the apostle Paul does.Another passage that perhaps is even more illustrative of what we’re talking about is Ephesians 4:7 and following. Paul has just been talking about how there’s unity in the church. Then he goes on to say, he’s going to talk now about how each of us have been given gifts for the use of the body and for the building of the body. He says, “But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says,” and he is referencing now Psalm 68, “‘When he ascended on high he led a host of cap his, and he gave gifts to men.'” And then he goes on to talk about how that’s ultimately about Jesus giving gifts to the church.If a person were to read Psalm 68, that psalm is about God being enthroned on Mount Sinai, traveling from the wilderness to Mount Sinai and being thrown on Mount Sinai. We would be looking at that again in an Old Testament class, an exegesis situation, or a hermeneutics class. And if someone were to stand up and say, “Hey, that right there—God being enthroned on the mountain—what that’s ultimately about is Jesus Christ and his ascension. And then it’s about him giving gifts to the church.” Again, I think that many people would be rebuked for such an interpretation. I think Paul himself would have gotten an F in many seminary classes for saying that that’s what this is ultimately about. He would be scolded to consider original authorial intent. “Paul, what are you doing?” These are the things that we’re talking about, and we could give a dozen, 20, or 30 more examples like that from the New Testament and how the apostles write. And so all we’re contending for today is for us to interpret the Scriptures just like Paul. Let’s look to the Old Testament and when we preach the old Testament, let’s preach it asking this question: where does this text stand in relation to Christ? It’s so helpful because then we are kept from moralizing.Think 1 Corinthians 10, Exodus 17. We can talk about the people grumbling, we can talk about our sin and all those kinds of things, and we can talk about God’s provision for the things that people need. But ultimately, what are we going to leave people with? That God in His grace—not only has He already rescued people from bondage to Egypt, which is a pointer to the rescue that’s going to come from our bondage to Satan and sin, not only has He brought the people safely through the Red Sea, which is a pointer to baptism and how we’ve been brought safely through water. But now He’s sustaining His people in the wilderness while they are sojourners. And He is saying that the water that He gives for their sustenance is ultimately about Jesus Christ himself. That’s what we can say. It’s so wonderful. It’s beautiful.Jon Moffitt: In Sam Reniham’s book, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom, chapter 13 on the mystery of Christ is really helpful in this because that is what we’re dealing with: the revelation of the mystery of the Messiah and the final consummation where Jesus does finally show up from type to antitype, or from shadow to substance.I want to allow Justin and I to speak into this for a moment where it does change two things: I think it changes God in the way in which God interacts with you and His Word, and number two, I think it allows the Word of God to come alive. My kids love putting together puzzles. They’re up there right now. It’s summer break and they don’t have school. I wake up and they’re out there putting together a puzzle, which I don’t do. To me, I’d rather read a book or something. Puzzles just seem puzzling to me. But if I were to go in there and flip the puzzle upside down where all the color is now gone and there are only shapes, they could painstakingly, and probably with not a lot of joy, put that together. It’s going to be confusing and they could get the outer border and the frame down. But after that, it’s just not gonna be as enjoyable because part of the puzzle is seeing the progress. That’s how most people read the Bible; they don’t see the picture, they don’t have the box cover, and they are not looking at the live colors of the illustration. They hear about how powerful the Word of God is, they hear about how wonderful it is, but what they look at is a puzzle turned upside down. I can see the general idea; I know the corner pieces are obvious, but the rest of it doesn’t make sense.What we’re trying to say is once someone introduced to us the historical understanding—and this is how the Word of God has been taught and read for hundreds of years—all of a sudden, we couldn’t stop putting the puzzle pieces together and seeing Christ come to life as the Old Testament reveals him.Justin Perdue: You just talked about power. People were told that the Word of God is powerful. Last I checked, Jesus Christ is the power of God: the gospel and the message of Christ and his cross are the power of God unto salvation. If the word of God is powerful, which it is, and if the word of God accomplishes its work, which it does, ought we not herald the one that the Word is about, who is described as the power of God, the wisdom of God, our Redeemer, our righteousness, our sanctification, and our redemption? Yes. We should preach him. I get geeked up about this, which is probably evident even on this podcast today.I’m going to continue to illustrate some of this just to maybe demonstrate my excitement over this and how this fires me up. I’m saying this publicly so I’m bound to this forever: if someone were to push me on my favorite book of the Bible, I usually say whichever one I’m reading and studying or preaching through at the moment. It’s my favorite because it’s on the front of my mind. But I think I am at a place finally in my life where if somebody told me to pick one book, it is unquestionably the book of Hebrews for me at this point because of this very reality.What’s the book of Hebrews about? It’s about Christ and how he’s greater than everything and how he’s the point of it all. The writer is telling people, “Don’t go back to the law. Don’t neglect such a great salvation and go back to the law. You know why? Because Jesus is greater than the law. He’s greater than angels. He’s greater than Moses. He’s greater than Aaron. The law, the sacrificial system, the priesthood, and the whole nine yards: all of that was about Jesus Christ. He has accomplished your salvation. He has once and for all made an atonement for your sins. He is seated at the right hand of God in the heavens and he’s coming back. He’s got you and you’ve been given a Kingdom that can never be shaken. It’s ultimately all about Jesus and what he’s done for you. And so now, in full assurance of faith, draw near to the throne of God with confidence and boldness.” What a wonderful message. That’s one.Another one is John 6. This just pops into my brain and it encourages me to no end. This illustrates our point too: when Jesus has given this whole business to people about how he’s the bread of life, and how he’s the bread that came down from heaven, he references the manna in the wilderness. He says your fathers were fed with bread from heaven. How many people, in preaching manna from the Old Testament, are gonna preach Christ? Because we should. As Jesus spoke about it, he said, “I am the bread that comes down from heaven. Just like your fathers were sustained in the wilderness by heavenly bread, you and your pilgrimage on this earth will be sustained by me. You need to eat my flesh and drink my blood because I am true food and true drink for you.” He’s pointing to the Lord’s Supper, but ultimately he’s talking about union with him, how he is our nourishment, and how he is what we need.This is just another example of how we often are not taught from the whole Bible everything that Christ understood the Scriptures to be saying about him. When I come to the Scriptures and when I sit under the Word, I need instruction on wisdom. I need instruction on things that I need to avoid doing because they’ll wreck my life. I need instruction on things that I should pursue because it will be good for me. I need good teaching on God’s law so that I understand what God requires and how I have not met the test. But ultimately, what do I need and what do you need when we come to the Scriptures? We need Christ proclaimed to us because he’s the only hope for sinners—and he is everywhere.I’ve said this before and I just want to clarify. Forgive me for being excited about all this, but when we talk about preaching the Bible and understanding the Bible this way, we are not saying that the Bible is a Where’s Waldo? book, Jesus is Waldo, and on every page, we’re trying to find him hidden underneath words and rocks and everything else. It’s not what we’re saying, but we are asking the questions of the text, always knowing that everything in the Bible is oriented toward and around Christ. And so then we preach that way and we understand it that way. To your point, Jon, it makes the Bible come alive.There’s actually good news all throughout. Because if I’m only told about wisdom or if I’m only given law, there’s no good news in that. Or if I’m only told that God is holy and God is good, or if I’m only told that Jesus is Lord, there is no inherent good news in that for me because I’m a sinner. You’ve got to give me the whole thing and you got to tie it together for me with Christ as my Savior.Jon Moffitt: If I were to hand you a drill that’s got a screwdriver bit in it and there’s no battery in it, and you’re over there and you’re twisting it, you’re getting the job done. You’re using it like a screwdriver. That’s how most people see the Old Testament. They understand it’s supposed to screw or unscrew something. Then I walk over, I pop a battery in, I hit a button and I say, “Watch this. Your mind is going to explode at the capacities and the abilities of how much more you’re going to be able to accomplish.” That is understanding the Old Testament in light of the power of the New Testament.One more passage I want to give as an example of this is 2 Corinthians 1:20 where it says, “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him.” He just summarized the Old Testament. The Old Testament is just one massive unfolding promise. It started with Adam, clarified with Abraham, moving on to David and Solomon, and all the way through the prophets. And he says, “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.” So Paul in the beginning of his letter in 2 Corinthians, he’s concluding for you that Jesus is the finality of all that has been written. He is it; he is the point. There’s nothing wrong with asking how this promise is connected to the greater reality of Christ. So when we look at Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the prophets and all of that, he says all the promises of God. All of them. If Paul didn’t mean to say that, he should have clarified it like “some of the promises of God”. But he says, “all of them” are pointed in a redemptive nature to a Person of redemption who saves sinners. It is exhilarating to go back and read a book full of, you can say fantasy, but it’s not fantasy, but it feels like fantasy, because there’s so many miraculous texts in there. It’s Narnia on steroids.When you go, “Hey, this is God showing how He’s going to fulfill the promise of a Messiah, and Paul already told us it’s going to happen. So let’s go back and watch it over,” now you have one conclusion. You begin to read the Bible as one story, promise, and one covenant after another of God always being faithful. Even when the children of Israel went down to one person, God was still faithful to preserve His seed, to preserve His promise in the midst of debauchery and sin and absolute chaos. God is still in control. You look at the death of Christ, which is utter chaos, and yet John says that was according to the plan.Justin Perdue: Well, how many times does it look like the light is going out on redemption as you read the Scriptures? I just preached the account of Noah and the flood not long ago because we’re in Genesis right now, and the line of the promise is down to one guy and his family. There are going to be other points like David and Goliath: is redemption about to be over if this giant kills this guy? What’s going to happen? And that happens over and over again in the Bible. Ultimately that’s about God and what He’s doing—this is His movie and we should sit on the edges of our seats with our popcorn and jumbo Coke ready, watch it, and behold what our God has done.This is maybe my closing thought: let’s just say that you watch a really good movie for the first time and you’re watching all these things unfold. Then you get to that point in the movie where this thing happens that makes everything that happened before it clear. It makes everything that happened before it obvious. Everything that you were watching for the last two hours was about this. It changes everything for you in terms of how you think about that movie.Jon Moffitt: Can I give one example? The Village.Justin Perdue: Exactly. That’s a good illustration of what we’re discussing today. Jon, if you go back and watch The Village tonight, you’re going to watch it knowing that, and it’s going to change how you see it, because you’re going to identify all of these things throughout the movie before that revelation really occurs—and we read our Bibles that way now because we’ve been told the point of it all, and we’ve been shown how to read it by the apostles and by Christ himself. Why on earth would we go back and read the Scriptures that were written before Christ came as though he isn’t the point? We shouldn’t.It’s kind of crazy. And I think it’s just a joyful and joyous experience for people when you read and study the Scriptures, or you sit under preaching, where it becomes very clear that there are sermons about Christ all throughout the Old Testament. What a wonderful book the Bible is.Jon Moffitt: I know you’re going to take us into the Semper Reformanda and explain what it is, but in there, I would like to talk about the dangers of not reading your Bible this way and how modern day history, through different biblical interpretation models that have been given to us, have actually caused pietism, legalism, doubt, fear, and anxiety when it relates to the Old Testament, instead of hope and joy.Justin Perdue: We’ll have that conversation. Saints, if we’re going to leave you with one final thought today, it’s that read your Bible, study it, and sit under the preaching of God’s Word knowing that the whole Bible is about your Savior who died for you, who atoned for your sin, in whom you died to the law and your penalty has been dealt with, and he is the one who provided you with righteousness and you’re secure in him. Read your Bibles that way and they’ll come alive, we pray, for you.We are now headed into our Semper Reformanda podcast. This is a second podcast that we record every week for people that have partnered with our ministry. If you’re not familiar with Semper Reformanda and what it is, you can go over to our website theocast.org, and you will find all the information that you need to know about Semper Reformanda over there. We would encourage you, if you’ve not already done so, to go check that out and consider joining the Reformation as we seek to spread this message of the sufficiency of Christ and the rest that is ours in him as far and wide as possible. We would love for you to lock arms with us.For many of you that are listening to the regular podcast and will not be listening to the other one, we’ll talk with you again next week. For those of you Semper Reformanda folks, we’ll talk with you guys in just a moment. 

Did Moses really hear G-d's voice? How do we know? Can we hear that voice today?

Our new mini-series Road Trip to Long Island featuring tales of historic sites outside of New York City. In the next leg of our journey, we visit Jones Beach State Park, the popular beach paradise created by Robert Moseson Long Island's South Shore. Well before he transformed New York City with expressways and bridges, Moses was an idealistic public servant working for new governor Al Smith. In 1924 he became president of the Long Island State Parks Commission, tasked with creating new state parks for public enjoyment and the preservation of the region's natural beauty.  But preserving, in the mind of Moses, often meant radical reinvention. The new Jones Beach featured glamorous bathhouses, proper athletic recreations (no roller coasters here!), an endless boardwalk and even new sand, anchored to the coast with newly grown beach grass. Sometimes called 'the American Riviera', Jones Beach made Moses' reputation and became one of the most popular beach fronts on the East Coast. But more than that, Moses and the Jones Beach project transformed the fate of Long Island's highways (or should we say parkways).  PLUS: Greg and Tom hit the road to give you a tour of Jones Beach up close -- from one end of the boardwalk to the other! AND The overpass bridges of Southern State Parkway. Did Moses develop them with low clearance to prevent buses (i.e. transportation for low income families) from coming to Jones Beach? boweryboyshistory.com Get a Bowery Boys tee-shirt from our official Tee Public store! Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/boweryboys See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is there any Christ in your Genesis? The book of Genesis is often mishandled. Peripheral things are over-emphasized and the main point is lost. Jon and Justin talk about Genesis from a redemptive-historical, covenantal, and Christ-centered perspective.Semper Reformanda Podcast: Jon and Justin take a deeper dive into covenant theology and the book of Genesis. It is our perspective that Genesis cannot be rightly understood apart from a covenantal framework. We aim to explain how and why.Resources:Our Covenant Theology teaching seriesBook study on Sam Renihan’s bookOur episode: Is Your Theological System Any Good?Ask Theocast: GENESIS: About Creation? A Science Book? NEITHER?!?! Book Giveaway: “Grace in Despair” by Dianna CarrollSUPPORT Theocast: https://theocast.org/give/ FACEBOOK: Theocast: https://www.facebook.com/Theocast.org TWITTER: Theocast: https://twitter.com/theocast_org INSTAGRAM: Theocast: https://www.instagram.com/theocast_org/  Podcast TranscriptJustin Perdue: Hi, this is Justin. Let me begin by asking you a question: is there any Jesus in your Genesis? Today on Theocast, Jon and I are going to be talking about the book of Genesis, the ways that it is often mishandled, and how we often miss the main point of that wonderful book. We’re going to look at Genesis today from a redemptive-historical perspective, from a covenantal perspective with Jesus at the center. We hope it’s encouraging for you.We’re going to take a deeper dive into covenant theology over in Semper Reformanda, and how that relates to our understanding of Genesis. We hope all of this is helpful and encouraging to you. Stay tuned.For those who listen to us all the time, you might be ready for what I’m going to say: we talk about redemptive-historical theology and the redemptive-historical framework of the Bible. We talk about covenant theology and we talk about a very Christ-centered way to understand the entirety of Scripture.Today, we’re going to put some of those tools to work, and we’re going to have a conversation about the very first book of the Bible—and that’s obviously none other than the book of Genesis. There are many takes on the book of Genesis in our day. There are a lot of things said about it that, we don’t want to bury the lead here, that Jon and I find to be a little bit less than helpful and confusing. And the main point of Genesis, we fear, is often lost because of some of these peripheral things that often become the focus. In particular, what we want to do today is be able to talk about Jesus from the book of Genesis.The episode title, if you’ve already looked at it, is There is No Jesus in Your Genesis, Sir, which is a reference to a Charles Spurgeon quote, a paraphrase of the Charles Spurgeon quote, where he said, “No Christ in your sermon, sir? Go home and never preach again until you have something worth saying.”So we’re going to talk about the book of Genesis today on a number of levels. We’re going to begin by just talking about some of the things that are often the focus of evangelicalism when it comes to the book of Genesis and hopefully have a little fun; we have a little fun in a gracious way and point out how that’s less than helpful.And then we’re going to pivot and talk about the ways that we think we should understand the book. I hope that this is mega encouraging for the listener as we think about how God the Son is all over the place in the book of Genesis.Jon Moffitt: What is the book of Genesis about? I asked this to my kids the other day just to test them out. Justin has his hands way up in the air. And the common answer is…Justin Perdue: Creation.Jon Moffitt: Creation. That’s right. What is interesting is Justin, you’re preaching through the book. I’ll throw you on the spot here. How many chapters are in Genesis?Justin Perdue: 50.Jon Moffitt: 50. And how many of those chapters are in reference to creation?Justin Perdue: Two.Jon Moffitt: That’s right.Justin Perdue: I’ve got my hand raised. Can I make some comments? Ask me what Genesis is about.Jon Moffitt: We’ll get there. We’ll get there.I grew up influenced by what’s called an evidentialist apologetic. For those of you that are new to Theocast, or maybe new to this whole idea, apologetics is to give an answer. You’re not apologizing for something because you feel sorry, but it’s to provide an answer. And there are two different categories of apologetics: you have evidentialist, meaning that with enough evidence you can provide solid truth so that someone can make a logical decision to follow Christ. So apologetic through evidence. And then Justin, what would be the opposite of an apologetic perspective?Justin Perdue: Presuppositionalist perspective? That means we understand that there are presuppositions that must be maintained and held if one is going to see these truths as legitimate and valid, and ultimately, given that we understand that God is the one who grants us true wisdom and sight by His grace, we understand that we’re not going to reason anybody into the kingdom of God and that God must do a work in someone’s life in order to cause them, help them, by His grace to see these things as true.Jon Moffitt: Right. Those are the two perspectives. The one I came from was an evidentialist perspective. We’re going to be as kind as we can be here, but this is the reality. We always try. We’re sinners and we often need to repent.Anyways, what you end up getting into is an evolution/creation debate, and we use the Bible—specifically the book of Genesis—as a science textbook, or as you like to say, a documentary on creation. We then go through and we try to prove the legitimacy of creation, which I understand and I would agree with, that we can look at science to see the glory of God and to strengthen and encourage our faith. There’s nothing wrong with that. But as we do with any text of the Bible, we need to always ask two very important questions: who is the audience and what’s the author’s intention of writing to that audience? And that will tell you the purpose of the book.Justin Perdue: And alongside that, as the divine Author of the entire Bible, what is God meaning for us to understand here too? And I know you agree.Jon Moffitt: Right. The hard part about when we’re thinking about Genesis is that we immediately focus on the scientific/historical side of it—and it is important. If you don’t have a historical Adam and Eve, you’re going to be falling off into heresy after chapter 2. So we have a problem.We understand the debate; this is not what this debate is about. We hold to a historic understanding of Adam and Eve, but when it comes down to our understanding of Genesis, because we have created such an evidentialist/this is an evolution-creation debate, we miss the whole point of why Genesis was written and the purpose of Genesis in modern day life. Our life today, as a believer—what is it supposed to be for us? There’s the Creation Museum, we’ve got the big ark over in Kentucky, and people would ask me what my thoughts are on that. I think there are some helpful things there for Christians. They can go there and be encouraged. It’s a lot of money. I don’t know if I would have spent all that money on that. So if someone wants to give me multi-millions of dollars, I probably will use it for something else. But I’m not here to judge—I don’t live far from Kentucky, so probably one day I’ll take my kids to go see it.Justin Perdue: I’ll even go so far as to say, in a slightly more joke-ish, punchy way, that if the initial thought bubbles that go up from your head when the book of Genesis is mentioned is creation versus evolution, if you immediately think Creation Museum and you immediately think Ark in Kentucky, then this podcast is for you. With all due respect, not that those things are bad. And like Jon said, there’s a time and a place for some of these debates and conversations. There are useful things, I’m sure. Going to the Creation Museum or going to the ark in Kentucky could be a great experience to have with your family. I also don’t think that Christians that don’t go are going to be missing out on something that is somehow just essential to our faith because the point of the book of Genesis is something entirely different.I’ll go ahead and say this really quickly before we get into more of the meat of the episode. When you read Genesis 1 and 2, your mind should immediately go to Revelation 21 and 22. Because in reading the account of creation, we are reading that in light of God’s promise of the consummation of redemption and restoration at the end of it. There are striking parallels between those respective chapters at the beginning and end of the Bible. I think this episode is going to maybe flesh out for us why and how that’s the case.It’s sad that we have sort of gotten lost in the weeds—and the concerns that are peripheral at best have become the main focus of our conversation about this book of the Bible. And we miss the main point and are robbed of really edifying and encouraging stuff.Jon Moffitt: Justin, if you don’t mind, I’d like to give the context to Genesis and why it was written, and then we’ll move from that to try and give us a fuller explanation, comparing to what most commentaries and what most people do with Genesis. Then, I think, we’re going to argue the way in which the Bible has used the book of Genesis and we’ll go from there.We need to think about the historical context at this point. I know that this is a little bit snarky, but Genesis was not written the day after creation. Adam didn’t have a pen out and was tracking along.Justin Perdue: It was actually written millennia after.Jon Moffitt: Yes. 2,500 plus years is the estimate of how much recorded history had passed in Genesis before it was given us. So you have to understand why then was it written so far down the line? Let’s just think about the history. To understand Genesis, I would say Genesis is the prologue to Exodus, and in many ways you would want to go read Exodus first because it explains why Genesis exists. I know that the order of the books come in Genesis, Exodus, but it is for this very reason: Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. Moses’ life and story explain the necessity of why these books were written. This is, I would say, the really fast prologue introductions to the whole explanation of Genesis. The people of Israel who had been enslaved in Egypt for 400 years, they have not only been there that long, but there is no recorded history other than the verbal history that’s been handed to them about Abraham and the promises of Abraham, and they have become flat out polytheists, and it becomes the plague of the nation for the rest of their existence. It’s just horrible. God talks about whoring after other gods and idols constantly with the prophets and even Moses. When they’re brought out, Moses is up on the mountain. He comes back and what are they doing? They’re worshiping another golden calf. So you have an issue of polytheism. When Moses leaves and he goes up on the mountain and brings back the 10 commandments, what’s the first commandment? “You should have no other gods before me”, which is the issue Israel is going to face. When Moses begins to write this, he’s not writing this with the absence of reality. In Egyptian history, the tradition was that there wasn’t one god who created everything; there were multiple gods.Justin Perdue: And that was true of all the ancient Near Eastern creation accounts.Jon Moffitt: So Moses is writing in such a way that it’s shocking to say that in the beginning, Yahweh, one God, created all things. You have to understand that there is definitely an apologetic going on. It’s polytheism, not evolution, that he’s going after. This is a monotheistic religion that Moses is introducing to a polytheistic people.Justin Perdue: Sure. A few comments here on not only Moses writing it, but what he’s doing. As we’ve already said, Genesis is historical and Moses is writing redemptive history, and it’s really important that we understand that. That’s why I say it’s not a documentary, it’s not a history textbook. It’s not written like that.Two things can be true at the same time, and I think this is worth mentioning: we can uphold the fact that even the account of creation is written in a very beautiful and literary way, and at the same time, uphold its historicity. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I know sometimes people lose their minds when we start to talk about the literary elements of the way Moses wrote the book, but he is writing redemptive history for the people of Israel. And like you said, Jon, if anything, the creation account in Genesis is written as a polemic against not only polytheism generally, but also specifically against other creation myths that would have existed. It’s very clear as you study it because there are very interesting distinctions between Genesis and these other accounts of creation, and those distinctions make all the difference. They’re too coincidental to be a coincidence. So Moses knows what he’s doing.Now, is Genesis—and the Bible in general—useful in speaking to atheism? Yeah, because in the Bible, it’s very clear that people have denied the existence of God forever. The fool says in his heart that there is no God and all that. So we’re not saying that one can’t use the Bible to argue against an atheistic worldview, but understand why Genesis was written to the people of Israel originally. I think it does matter.Jon Moffitt: I do not feel the necessity, at any moment, when I am dealing with unbelievers or even the atheist to prove to them the evidence of science or use science to prove Scripture. And the reason I have to say that is Paul is very clear that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God. That’s Proverbs. But Paul has also said that the unbeliever will look at the Word of God, specifically the gospel, and call it foolish.Justin Perdue: And the unbeliever will suppress the truth about God and unrighteousness. Romans 1. So, clearly, God has to do a work in a person’s heart and mind in order for the person to ever see God’s existence is true and good.Jon Moffitt: Now, does that mean that any efforts at apologetics, when it relates to creation and all that, is of no value? No.Justin Perdue: We want to clear up misunderstanding.Jon Moffitt: That’s right. I just think we need to be very careful that we don’t use Genesis in a way it was not intended to be used. If you think that God wrote that so that we could prove to the evolutionists they’re wrong, evolution didn’t come around until many, many, many years later.Justin Perdue: Let’s talk about Genesis and what it’s about. What is Genesis about? Short answer: Genesis is about redemption. Because that’s what the whole Bible is about. It is also more specifically about redemption accomplished through God the Son who took on flesh, and that is in view all throughout the book of Genesis.Let’s begin with the account of creation in Genesis 1:1 and following. Is Jesus in Genesis? Is God the Son in Genesis, even Genesis 1? Absolutely. He is. We should not read Genesis one without thinking of some other passages of Scripture. So when we read in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God…” our mind should immediately go to John 1. “In the beginning,” the exact same construction, “was the Word,” who is the divine Word, God the Son, “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” So in that sense, God the Son is the beginning of all things in terms of this world, and he is the agent of creation through whom the whole thing is made.Jon Moffitt: I would say that we need to, I would say as the Reformers do, but I would argue as the apostles do, they use the New Testament in order to interpret and explain the Old Testament. This is a great example of that.Justin Perdue: A couple of other texts just for our encouragement: Colossians 1:16 about Jesus. “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”Jon Moffitt: Did the readers of Genesis, when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, fully understand that?Justin Perdue: Of course not. Did Moses understand it fully?Jon Moffitt: Probably not.Justin Perdue: This is an epic thought: the writer of the Hebrews, at the beginning of his letter, he says that God has spoken to us at various times in various ways through the prophets, etc. “But in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. . . through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Think about that thought, that the one through whom all things were made is the very one who takes on flesh to go and live in that world, suffer in that world, bleed in that world, and die in that world in order to save sinners. I think it’s legit that we see that from the opening tip of Scripture. Genesis 1:1—there it is. “In the beginning, God….” We have God the Son present, and we need to think about God the Son and his redemptive work that he would do, connecting it to these other passages in the Bible.Jon Moffitt: I would say there are two ways in which Genesis has been read, but they come to the same conclusions. When the children of Israel would hear the law read over them constantly and they would memorize it, they would write it upon the tables of their heart—all of the commands that we have given to us and Deuteronomy—they would hear it as the same way: it is the history of redemption. The reason is that in Exodus, they just entered into a covenant with a God they really don’t know much about. And Moses says, “Here’s the God you just entered into covenant with. He is the creator. He’s also the one who made the promise to restore that which was broken.”So Moses, through the inspiration of the Spirit, is explaining how they got from creation to Egypt, and explaining the faithfulness of God along the way. I will say that the most important part of the story of Genesis is the fall, because the question then becomes, one, we know that there is sin because everyone experiences it. Moses just explains how it got here. And then the greatest part about Genesis is that you have the Creator of the universe, and now you’re going to have the restoration by the Creator.Justin Perdue: He’s the Restorer of the universe.Jon Moffitt: In the mind of the reader, the question has to be, “Who is the seed of Eve?” Because when he shows up, then all will be made right. That’s the question the reader has.Justin Perdue: And we’re going to get to that promise in just a minute. But I think you’re right. I think it’s important for people to see that the work of redemption is effectively the work of re-creation. That’s what God is about. We’re just going to pepper some stuff in here from the early chapters of Genesis. Even in verses three through five where God creates light, I think this is significant. And I think it preaches a sermon about Christ. Because there is light in the universe now, and light only comes from God—without God, there’s darkness—but there’s light that exists without the sun being created yet. And people sometimes lose their minds and wig out. How is there light without the sun? Have you read the book of Revelation? Have you read Revelation 21 where we’re told that the Heavenly City has no need of sun or moon to shine on it for the glory of God gives it light and its lamp is the Lamb.Jesus, also according to John’s gospel, in him, in the Word was life, and that life was the light of men, the true light that enlightens everyone who is coming into the world. So Christ is described that way. He’s going to literally be the light of the new heavens and the new earth. So we ought to see that in the early chapters of Genesis: there’s light that exists apart from the sun. It’s preaching Christ to us.Last thing, if you’ll allow me from the creation account early there. The seventh day, the Sabbath day; it’s a very unique day because all the other six days have this common refrain of “there was evening,” “there was morning,” “the first, second, third, etc. day.” The seventh day doesn’t have that refrain. Many Christians through history have understood that to be a pointer to Christ because that seventh day is awaiting its fulfillment, and that seventh day of our Sabbath rest finds its yes and amen in Christ. In particular, it’s fulfilled when Jesus would lay in a tomb outside Jerusalem. 1500 years after Moses wrote these words, he’s going to lay in a tomb outside Jerusalem on the seventh day of the week because his work is done. Redemption is over. Sin is atoned for. Righteousness fulfilled. And he’s going to get up from the dead on the next day to usher us into the new creation. And then the writer to the Hebrews picks up on that and tells us that we have entered into God’s Sabbath rest when we cease from our working, like God rested from His. And we know that Christ is the fulfillment of that rest that we are promised forever, but it’s already ours in Him.Genesis 1 and the early verses of Genesis two—we should read these in light of Christ and what God is going to do through him if we’re going to read Genesis like Christians.Jon Moffitt: Genesis is a Christian book, just to be clear. The Old Testament is a Christian book. I mentioned there are two ways to read it: first of all, it’s treated as an Israelite who understands that God is the one redeeming them and they’re looking forward to the seed of Eve, and then it comes through the seed of Abraham, and so we gain clarity. You have the promise and then you have the narrative of humanity about how they just constantly prove they are in desperate need of restoration, or I would say rescuing. You get to the flood and God says no one is righteous, and so He abolishes the world. And then just like anybody would ever think, if we could start all over and just get rid of all the bad people, God proved that won’t work. Because the problem is not with the current people on the earth; the problem is that it’s in the heart or in the seed of man—it’s passed down.Justin Perdue: If we’re going to talk about Adam and Noah, Noah is a type of Adam. God wipes humanity off the face of the earth because He sees that the inclinations of man’s heart is only evil continually in Genesis 6. After the flood, God has hit the reset button but the problem with Noah is that he’s too much like Adam. Basically, sin remains. We even see one of Noah’s sons is cursed, like God cursed humanity, the snake, and the whole creation in the garden. Just hitting the reset button and wiping people off the earth is not going to fix this. There’s something more fundamentally at issue here.Jon Moffitt: The second way it’s read, as modern day Christians, is that we have the whole Canon now, and we allow the New Testament interpretation of the book of Genesis to be the filter by which we then go back and read and say with full confidence that Genesis is the introduction of Jesus to us, not only of the Father, but Jesus, the Creator and Sustainer of the world. And not only that, but the Spirit that moved upon the water. So we allow the New Testament to be read now as redemptive as well, but we read it as seeing that it’s the fulfillment of Jesus and how we get Jesus to this point. I think, as an Israelite or as a modern day Christian, we both read Genesis from a redemptive historical understanding of Scripture because it’s how we get Jesus.Justin Perdue: It’s a great observation. You have the Trinity in the first two verses of Genesis 1, because you have the Father, and then the Son is the agent of creation, and the Spirit hovering over the face of the deep. That’s a pretty cool thought, too.Going back to the garden and thinking about Adam and Eve, covenants and promises, and the like… Jon, let’s not bury the lead here. We are convinced, and we’re going to talk about this in Semper Reformanda in detail, that it is impossible to rightly understand Genesis apart from a covenantal framework—and that’s a big deal. More on that over in Semper Reformanda. We’re going to talk a little bit about some of this stuff right now. So God makes Adam and Eve in His own image, and then God makes a covenant with Adam where He gives him things that he is to do, and He gives him prohibitions—one prohibition in particular that there’s a particular tree that he’s not to eat of, and He gives a sanction: “If you break this covenant that I’ve made with you, then in the day that you break it, you’ll surely die.” Adam, in that sense, is serving as the representative of the entire human race. And when he falls into sin, he plunges all of humanity and all of the creation into sin and ruin along with him.How do we know this is true? We could go a number of places, but we can go to the book of Romans where Paul connects all of these things for us, and we see that through one man’s disobedience, all of this wreckage and ruin has come upon us. But then through the obedience of the new Adam, the second Adam—Christ—that many will be made righteous. And so we can connect Adam and Christ that way, and see that God intended that if Adam had obeyed and had been righteous, that all would have been well with humanity. But because he fell and we fell in him, there now has to be another one who can represent us before God and actually accomplish all of the terms of the covenant that God made with Adam. He is perfectly obedient, he is sinless, he is completely righteous, and then his work is counted to us and he represents us for all of those who are united to him in faith. I don’t think it’s overstating it to say that that promise that God makes to Adam and Eve in the aftermath of the fall, that there will come a seed of the woman who will step on, who will crush the serpent’s head—that is the proto-euangelion, the first promise of the gospel, as it’s often referred to—that is the promise we would say of the covenant of grace.The rest of the entire Bible—it’s a big book, and Genesis 3:15 is only a few pages in—the rest of the entire Bible is the unfolding and the accomplishment of that promise.Jon Moffitt: That’s right. Yes, creation is a big part of it. But I would say I agree with Justin: the covenant of works, and I would call it the first Adam and the last Adam, or he’s also described as the second Adam in that Christ is the fulfillment where Adam failed. And you have Paul mentioning this language and using this language that Jesus is the second Adam. In many ways, that’s what you’re waiting for. You’re waiting for the federal head, meaning the representative of humanity. Federal head is a language that I was introduced to by Reformed theology, and a lot of people struggle with the concept of a federal head, but federal means representative. Because Adam sinned, we are all sinners. We inherited his sin. He is the representative of humanity. If you reject that theology, it’s kind of dangerous because that’s the very thing that Paul says: in Adam all died because he is the original human and his disobedience is now passed on to us. But it also says in Christ, all are made alive.So, you want federal headship because if you don’t have it, then Christ can’t be your representative for righteousness. This doctrine is introduced in the very beginning, in the very first book, and it really becomes the theme. Because you see the federal head and the representative of the effects of it in Genesis 3:16 and following, and all of a sudden, you see the curses that come forward, you see the fallout, and then you also see the promise of the federal head of Christ, the second Adam, which is in the seed. And you see the story of the two seeds, which we would argue is the two covenants—covenant of grace versus covenant of works—Christ being the promise of the covenant of grace. If you want to know what we mean by that, we did a whole five-part series on the covenant of grace or covenant theology. It’ll be in the show notes. So go down there and find that it’s free. Go listen to it. There’s a whole handout. We encourage you to do so.The reason why we mentioned this is that it helps you understand and really flow the narrative, where you’re not trying to find one evidence to prove somebody wrong about history. Number two, you’re not trying to find moral application. Can you find moral application in these texts? Sure. Don’t be like Adam and Eve and disobey God. But you’re missing what’s really happening and the superstar of the story, which is God using Jesus to redeem sinners. That’s the superstory, and there are these stories under that.I will say this: in the dispensational-evidentialist world, it seems like the superstar of the story, which should be Christ, is put down as a subset and everything else becomes a priority, whether it’s the evidence of creation or moralism, the “be like” whoever…Justin Perdue: I would argue that it’s not just in the evidentialist-dispensational world. I agree completely with what you assessed about that world, but I think in other streams within evangelicalism, there are still things that are inappropriate, like there’s an off-centered emphasis. For example, even in thinking about Genesis 2 and the covenant God makes with Adam, I think people are happy in a general sense, to say that Adam represents us and that in his fall he represents us. But there’s not always that obvious connection made with how everything that was lost in Adam and then some is going to be gained for us in Christ. We miss that connection or we emphasize things that are secondary application as though they’re the main takeaway. In Genesis 3 and the account of the fall, how many times have you heard sermons where the emphasis is Adam and Eve doubting God’s word? And that’s the problem. Or Adam didn’t lead Eve like he should have, and that’s the emphasis.I’m not saying that all of that is illegitimate to say at all, but the point of that text is the fall of humanity into sin because our first covenant head and federal head fell and failed in the covenant that God had made with him. And there was a promise immediately upon sin entering the world, and immediately upon us in Adam blowing it—there’s the promise of grace, there’s the promise of Christ in the gospel. And God went, “I’ve got this. I’m going to save a people. You guys, because you have such a thing as freedom of choice, right in the garden, you have blown this. But I’m a Redeemer and I always have been, and I’m good. And there’s one who’s coming.” that needs to be what we preach from Genesis 3. And then as we make our way through the rest of the book, we’re tracing those two lines of the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.And the question that you often will ask, Jon, that I think is a really good one: as we’re reading the rest of the Bible, we’re thinking who that promised seed is. When is he coming? That’s what we’re finding out as it unfolds through farther steps in Revelation, unfolds through the rest of the Old Testament, where we are primed and ready by the time the angels announce to Mary and to Joseph that there’s one coming who’s going to be named Jesus, because he’s going to save his people from their sins. Thank God he’s coming. He’s here.I think that we do people a tremendous disservice when we do not emphasize the redemptive plan of God accomplished through Christ, that has always been the plan not just from Genesis 1, but from before the world began.Jon Moffitt: I would even say what is great when you start having a Christocentric understanding or a redemptive-historical understanding of Scripture, you begin to see the connection. There’s a flow. There’s a cohesiveness to the text. One of the things I love about the grace that’s in the New Testament is absolutely seen in the Old Testament. Here’s a great example: God comes into the garden and says, “Hey, Adam! Where are you?” As if God does not know. It’s like, “Hey, buddy. I know you’re hiding. I know what you just did.” It’s like you caught the kid with the hand in the cookie jar, but it’s far worse than that. You caught them with a bloody knife and he just murdered. What does God do when He promises the seed? What requirement did He put on Adam and Eve?Justin Perdue: Nothing.Jon Moffitt: Nothing. He did one thing: He separated himself from their presence and then said, “Oh, and by the way, not have anything to do with you, but through my providence and my promises, I will then restore your presence back to me.” That’s grace, right? To receive unmerited favor. And it was seen right in the beginning. God not only promises Jesus, but promises Jesus with no strings attached. That’s good news.Justin Perdue: I could talk about this for a long time, but we got to get over to Semper Reformanda. I’ll make a couple of brief comments about something you just raised.What we’ve done today, I hope, with Genesis is maybe begin to show people how they can and should read their entire Old Testament. Because I do think a lot of people approach the Old Testament in a number of ways that are bad. We’ve touched on several. One, for many people, the Old Testament is just like a wasteland: it’s hard, it’s full of law and threats. There is maybe an occasional oasis because there’s a prophecy about the Messiah or some promise of grace or comfort or restoration. But generally speaking, the Old Testament is just hard. We ought not see it that way if we’re looking at it through this Christocentric, redemptive-historical lens. You already talked about our tendency to moralize the Old Testament, where we follow around these Old Testament saints and figure out how to be like them. That’s not a good way to approach the Old Testament.Lastly, I think people tend to approach the Old Testament, and this is probably especially true in a dispensationalist framework with an almost completely law-centered mentality. What are you doing with that? You’re mining through every text to find the things that we need to be doing or the things that we need to not do, and that becomes the point of the message. Here’s the issue: none of that squares with how Jesus understood the Scriptures and none of that squares with how the apostles understood the Scriptures. And remember that for Jesus and the apostles, the Scriptures were the Old Testament. That was their Bible at that time. They understand that whole thing, the Old Testament, to be a testimony about Christ. And so we should certainly understand the book of Genesis that way. And I think we’ve tried to do that this morning as we’ve recorded.So we’re about to make our way over to Semper Reformanda, which is a podcast for those who have partnered with Theocast and have joined the Reformation, as we like to say, to see this message and this theology spread as far and wide as possible. Because Jesus really is enough for us to have peace with God now and forever, and we want as many people to know that rest and that peace is possible. If you don’t even know what Semper Reformanda is, you could find out more information about it and the ways that you could partner with our ministry over at our website, the URL for that is theocast.org. We encourage you to go check out everything we got over there on the site, including how to become a member of Semper Reformanda.Jon Moffitt: And a big part of the membership is online and local groups where you can get together and discuss the podcast each week. So don’t miss out on that.Justin Perdue: Not only are you partnering with us, but we’re trying to create a community where you can love on each other and encourage each other and sharpen each other. So if that sounds good to you, go check it out.We will talk with many of you over there on SR. I think that’s the lingo we’re using these days.Jon Moffitt: And what are we talking about?Justin Perdue: How a covenantal framework is essential to our understanding of Genesis, and in a lot of ways the Bible, but especially Genesis.All right. We’ll see you over there guys. 

Moses set out on the journey back to Egypt, as God instructed him to do. But God sought Moses' life because they hadn't kept the covenant with God - they weren't circumcised. Circumcision was one of the visible signs that God commanded His Old Testament people to do to every male as a reminder that they were God’s people. Did Moses escape God's anger? Who saved him? Our Bible reading is Exodus 4:18-31. "But I will harden his heart so he will not let the people go."Exodus 4:21b Circumcision Circumcision did involve the shedding of blood, pain, and a little suffering for males, since it could only to be done to males. It was an action God commanded His people to do in order to be part of His covenant.  Whenever they saw the circumcision, it reminded them they were God’s people. Circumcision in the Old Testament, in the Old Covenant for God’s People, was also a foreshadowing to the shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross for us! Support Our Show Please prayerfully consider supporting our ministry at https://buymeacoffee.com/donutsanddevos. Your donations will help keep our show running and improving the valuable content we can provide our wonderful audience!

Entering His Presence Numbers 12 Does God still love me, despite my past? Can I really experience a personal relationship with him? Why do my sinful desires keep tripping me up? Numbers 12 has some fascinating metaphors that will help us understand our relationship with the Lord.   God's unconditional love for all people.  In this chapter, we hear a puzzling piece of news: Moses has married a Cushite woman. Why did he marry her? Is his current wife dead? Did he have more than one wife, like Jacob? Did he marry her out of greed? The Bible doesn't tell us, so we have no way of knowing. We also are left wondering why Miriam and Aaron spoke out against Moses because of this (Numbers 12:1). Verse one says that Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because he married a Cushite woman. But in verse 2, what they really said was this: "Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?" (ESV) Is this really what they wanted to say? Why didn't they just come out and say it directly: "Why did Moses marry a Cushite woman"? Biblical scholars generally believe that the Cushites are black people, based on Jeremiah 13:23, "Can the Cushite change his skin?" (CSB) Psalm 68:31 also says, "Nobles shall come from Egypt; Cush shall hasten to stretch out her hands to God.” (ESV) Stepbible.org explains that Cush is in the area of modern-day Ethiopia, so the word “Cushite” means “black.” When we are dissatisfied with people, we often fail to say the real reason for our dissatisfaction. Instead, we find some of their shortcomings or mistakes to blame. This seems to be human nature. Why did Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses saying, "God did not speak only through Moses," just because Moses married a Cushite woman? The essence here is the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron - to challenge Moses' leadership. As a result, God punished Miriam with leprosy. What is the spiritual meaning of this story? A lady who was leading our Bible Study asked these questions. I prayed for God's help, and suddenly I got an inspiration in the Spirit. This inspiration came in the form of a question: "Think about where this black woman came from before coming to the wilderness." Immediately, I was inspired. I felt that there was a close connection between this chapter and Numbers 11. Numbers 11:4 tells us, “Some foreigners among the Israelites had a strong craving for other kinds of food. Even the Israelites started crying again and said, ‘If only we had meat to eat!'” (God's Word Translation. GTW) The complaints of the Israelites and the strong craving of the foreigners brought the discipline of the Lord. His fire even burned some outlying parts of the camp. That place is called Taberah, and the word means "burn," because the fire of the Lord had burned among them (Numbers 11:3). In the end, the Lord struck some people with plague. That place was called "Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had the craving" (ESV, Numbers 11:34). ("Kibroth-hattaavah" means "graves of craving.”) The Cushite woman is a black woman. She probably was not an Israelite, but a part of the foreign crowd mentioned in Numbers 11. After God disciplined the cravings of the foreigners and the complaints of the Israelites, some foreigners and others may have repented. They became sincerely willing to join the journey of the Israelites. But it was not easy to assimilate with the Israelites. Why were Miriam and Aaron dissatisfied with Moses' marrying a Cushite woman? The Bible does not tell us whether Moses' wife Zipporah was still alive, so we have no way of knowing. But from the perspective of God's defense of Moses and His punishment of Miriam, Moses may be innocent in His eyes. Is it possible that the reason why Miriam and Aaron were dissatisfied with Moses' marrying a Cush woman was because of racial discrimination? If so, it shows the narrow-mindedness of Miriam and Aaron and the humility of Moses. If the Cushite woman represents the repentant foreigners, and her act of marrying Moses represents their willingness to unite with God's chosen people, then rejecting her would be an act of profound arrogance. God loves the Israelites, and he also loves those who live in Israel as sojourners. An obvious theme of the Old Testament is that the Lord is willing to be the father of orphans and to take care of the poor, weak, humble, widows, the elderly and the sojourners. God hates social injustice. Since Moses loves God, he also loves all those who are willing to choose God. If the Cushite woman is willing to marry Moses, and Moses humbly and willingly accepts her, their marriage creates a picture of God's love. In the United States today, interracial marriage is common. But in the 1970s, interracial marriages faced more significant discrimination and pressure. Moses' interracial marriage must have faced intense opposition; even his own sister and brother were against him. Despite this struggle and pressure, Moses willingly accepted the Cushite woman. He was not racist, and he exhibited great humility. We can compare Moses to the Spirit of God, and the Cushite woman to our sinful past. As Jeremiah 13:23 says, "Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil." (CSB) Just as Moses was willing to accept the Cushite woman who loved him, God's Spirit is willing to accept repentant sinners. Even if you have committed a heinous sin, Heavenly Father will not despise you as you come to him in repentance. He will not think you are unclean because of the blackness of your sin. Even though God will never reject his people, despite their sinful past or racial background, many religious people can and do reject their fellow humans. People often despise others for fear of defiling themselves. Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan vividly depicts religious and racial discrimination. The Jewish religious elite, the priest and the Levite, both avoided the half-dead man who had been beaten by the robbers. This half-dead man represents the scarred people who are dominated by sins in the world. Only the Good Samaritan crossed cultural and religious lines to care for the wounded man. The Samaritan did not despise him. He gave oil and wine to the half-dead man, helped him heal, took him to the inn, and promised to pay those who cared for him. The Good Samaritan is a portrayal of the Lord Jesus and the Father himself; he heals us, welcomes us, and carries us home to his body, the church. My seminary teacher, Tom Jones, told a fascinating story. He and his team often go to Brazil with Randy Clark to preach the gospel. Once, their team was preaching to some prostitutes on the street. One of the prostitutes came to know Christ and attended a church activity the group had recommended. But when the prostitute walked into that particular church, she was refused entry because she was improperly dressed. When she came back, her face was wet with tears. She felt very ashamed of the fact that the church people thought she was dirty. After this incident, Tom Jones and their team continued to preach the gospel to these prostitutes. The next time they saw them, they specially prepared some lovely, fragrant roses. They gave each prostitute a rose, hugged them, and told them, "Your Heavenly Father loves you. In His eyes, you are as beautiful as this rose." I have heard Tom Jones tell this story countless times, but I am still very moved each time I hear it. In the summer of 2019, he told the story again at a summer intensive class at the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. The principal of the seminary was so touched that he asked the staff members to buy a lot of roses. He passed them out to each person in attendance, and asked the giver to say to the recipient, "Heavenly Father loves you. In His eyes, you are as beautiful as this rose." There was a lot of crying that day, and everyone was deeply moved. If my guess is correct, God was greatly offended after Miriam and Aaron opposed Moses' marriage to the Cushite woman. God is certainly the God of the Israelites, but he is also the God of the Gentiles. God is not racist. God loves all people in the world because they all were created in His image.   Submitting to the Spirit. Miriam and Aaron masked their racism by asking a question about Moses' authority. Their inner rebellion and ambition were exposed, so the Lord came out to endorse Moses. Why did God stand up for Moses at this time? We know that strong leadership is essential to a powerful army. In order to keep up the morale and win the battle, a leader should get rid of dissatisfaction in the army. It is the same here. Before leading the Israelites to fight with the enemy, God first unified the team under the leadership of Moses. The Israelites made 42 different stops in the wilderness, representing the trials that the Israelites went through. The trials at each station have spiritual significance. God dealt with the cravings and complaints of the foreigners at Taberah (“burn”) and Kibroth-hattaavah (“graves of craving”). Here, he cleansed the congregation. From Kibroth-hattaavah, the people of Israel journeyed to Hazeroth and lived there. "Hazeroth" means "settlement". Next, the people left Hazeroth and encamped in Paran, which means "place of caverns.” (Numbers 12:16). At Hazeroth, God dealt with the internal rebellion of the leaders of Israel. Aaron called Moses “my lord” (vs. 11), and Moses was established as the absolute leader before moving on to Paran. In the very next chapter, the twelve spies began to scout out the Promised Land. It was important to establish leadership before God led the Israelites into battle with the enemy. Metaphorically, this chapter represents the Christian journey. After receiving salvation, we leave the bondage of sin (Egypt). We pass through many trials in the wilderness of life. First, we're tempted by fleshly desires, represented by the cravings of the multitude in Chapter 11. Next, God cleanses the rebellion and the hidden sins in our souls, represented by Aaron and Miriam's rebellion. God is humble and gentle, like Moses was in this passage. But our souls often disobey the leading of God's Spirit in our hearts, like Miriam and Aaron rebelled against Moses. Our flesh and soul often bully and even resist the Spirit in us (Galatians 5:17). Rather than obeying Moses and Aaron, Miriam took the lead in rebelling against Moses. Miriam's name is mentioned first, indicating that she was the ringleader. Aaron seems to have repented in the end, calling Moses “my lord” (Numbers 12:11). Miriam represents the flesh and the hidden sins inside our hearts. Just as she influenced Aaron to rebel against Moses, our flesh influences our soul to rebel against God's Spirit. God specifically asked the three of them to come to the tent of meeting. He came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and spoke to Aaron and Miriam. Aaron, as High Priest, should have been able to meet with God in the Holy of Holies in the tent of meeting. But because of his rebellion, he could only meet with God at the entrance of the tent. Similarly, God punished Miriam by sending her outside the camp for seven days. She could only come in after being cleansed. The presence of God inhabited the tabernacle, and especially in the Holy of Holies. Not only could Miriam not enter the Holy of Holies, but she was even excluded from the sanctuary, the outer court, and the entire camp of Israel. This story points to the New Testament reality that sin breaks our fellowship with God. Even though we don't lose eternal life when we sin, we forfeit our sense of peace and rest in him. We must repent and experience God's cleansing before we can re-enter His presence and rest. The story of Aaron and Miriam can teach us an important lesson about our flesh and our relationship with Christ. After coming to Christ in salvation, our old man is crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20). The person living inside is no longer me, but Christ. Just like Miriam and Aaron prevented Moses from ruling, our old life prevents the new life in Christ to rule in our souls. God disciplines us, just like he disciplined Aaron and Miriam. He allows the old life in our soul to be crucified so the new life can live in us. In this way, we can win the battle against the enemy.   Experiencing the Presence of God. As we repent of our sins and re-enter his presence, we can experience a personal relationship with God, like Moses did. God gives an astounding description of his relationship with Moses: "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” (ESV, Numbers 12:6-8). Did Moses see God with his own eyes? In Exodus, God said that Moses could not see God's face, or he would die. God placed him in a cleft of the rock and covered him with His hands so that Moses could only see His back. In this verse, the Bible states that Moses spoke with God face to face and saw his image. Are these two verses contradictory? The same dichotomy appears in the New Testament. The apostle John said, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.” (ESV, John 1:18). But the Lord Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (ESV, Matthew 5:8). Regardless of whether people can see God with the naked eye, I believe people can meet God in the Spirit. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that because of Jesus' blood, we can come to God's throne of grace without fear and meet with Him. Ephesians 2:18 also tells us that we have access in one Spirit to the Father through Him. As we conquer the flesh, yield to the Spirit of God, and know his unconditional love for us, we will enter personally into the warm, tender embrace of our Father.  

Scripture Reading: Numbers 11:4-18 “I cannot carry all these people by myself; the burden is too heavy for me.” Numbers 11:14 As God led his people Israel through the desert to the land he had promised them, the journey was long and hard. But the Lord always provided for them. Even so, the Israelites often complained about their hardships, saying they had it better in Egypt—even though they had been slaves there. When God disciplined the Israelites because of their rebellion, Moses’ heart was troubled. He cried out to God, “Why have you brought this trouble on your servant? . . . Please go ahead and kill me—if I have found favor in your eyes—and do not let me face my own ruin.” Did Moses make sense? Like Elijah many years later (1 Kings 19:1-5), Moses was praying with a broken heart. He was overburdened by trying to lead a difficult, complaining people through the wilderness. Imagine the pain in his heart that prompted such a prayer. It wasn’t that Moses didn’t have faith to pray. He was expressing his extremely broken heart to God. Imagine also the pain in God’s heart because of the people’s complaints and rebellion. God heard Moses’ prayer and appointed 70 elders to help with the burden of leading the people. God also sent quail so that the people could eat meat. What a miracle that was! God’s power is boundless, and God listens to the prayers of leaders who care for his people. Father God, let us not indulge in greed or complaining. Help us to be satisfied and to live in gratitude for all that you have given us. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

What does this week's Torah portion have in common with Acts 2? Did Moses and the Children of Israel experience a Pentecost before the New Testament? Learn more in the 5 Minute Torah commentary on Parashat Yitro (Exodus 18:1–20:23[26]).

This is a live question and answer time. Is the notion of God absurd?Why preach punishment?Does God reward bad behavior?Are there still prophets today?Is God violent?Is it wrong to do the sign of the cross?Does God still get angry at sin?Does God have literal hands, feet, a body?Did Moses really see God?Support the show (https://www.ccsrv.org/donate)

Did Moses write the first five books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch) OR was it the product of oral traditions passed down for hundreds of years and written by people far removed from the original context? In this video we will examine how critical scholars use the "Form-Critical" method to interpret the Old Testament. We will also ask whether it is valid and see whether the evidence points to Mosaic authorship or some other source.  Full Full Playlist Click here:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9ck3iE_hIE_8tvnCjFs4u_t-Owh7Cf78   Instagram Twitter Facebook Special Thanks to Melissa Baines at MBainesGDP.com for the Logo Design Background picture of thumbnail obtained from the following source:https://www.freepik.com/photos/church Church photo created by wirestock - www.freepik.com

(Sorry for the redundancy, but) an immoral Democrat opened Congress with a pagan prayer closed by an amen and a-woman. Bob picks up where Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh ended. Tune in for the etymology of the word "amen" and find out even more at kgov.com/exodus#amen, kgov.com/homos#princesston, and kgov.com/exodus#moon. Today's Resource: Patterns of Evidence SetGet all three Patterns of Evidence DVDs! We promise you'll love 'em! Save $10 when ordering the set! You will receive Patterns of Evidence: -The Exodus -The Moses Controversy -The Red Sea Miracle Patters of Evidence- The Exodus: Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus award-winning documentary by filmmaker Timothy Mahoney chronicles an archaeological investigation in Egypt as his team corroborates the biblical text. The film explores one fundamental question: Is there evidence that the Exodus story actually happened? Twelve years in the making, this documentary reveals new or rarely seen evidence regarding the Israelites descent into slavery, their Exodus from Egypt, and their ultimate conquest of the Promised Land. Although many scholars and archaeologists deny the validity of the Exodus story for lack of proof, Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus builds a case that sheds new light on this history of the Hebrews. Patterns of Evidence- The Moses Controversy: Did Moses write the first books of the Bible? Many mainstream scholars say NO! But the Bible states YES!  Award-winning filmmaker Timothy Mahoney (Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus) is back again, bringing new evidence to light in the latest documentary: Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy.  What Mahoney's investigation lead to is the groundbreaking discovery that the world's first alphabet actually originated in Egypt. Did the Israelites invent this alphabet in time for Moses to write the Bible? This thought-provoking and controversial film asks hard questions of some of the world's leading experts in Egyptology, ancient Hebrew and early languages. Filmed in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Europe and the USA with stunning cinematography and life-like Biblical recreations, Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy will captivate audiences of all ages.  Patterns of Evidence- The Red Sea Miracle: Tim Mahoney investigates one of the greatest miracles of the Bible. Did a mighty sea split? What secrets will be revealed?  After leaving Egypt, the Bible describes the Israelites crossing a deep sea that was miraculously split with walls of water on their right and left. When the Egyptians and their chariot force pursued, the water came crashing back down to destroy the entire army. Are miracles of this kind even possible? Skeptics contend that no evidence has ever been found for huge numbers of people crossing the wilderness or a mighty sea. Does the lack of evidence at the traditional sites mean the events didn’t happen, or might we have been looking in wrong places all along? Join Timothy Mahoney in the next chapter of the series as he retraces the steps of Moses and the Israelites, looking for answers in Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle Part 1. Hear ideas from all sides of the debate as you journey back to the lands of the Bible in search of answers to one of the Bible’s biggest mysteries; where is the lost sea of the Exodus, and what really happened there? Can a patterns approach help to solve the problem?

Was there really Milk and Honey in the Holy Land?  Did Moses make the Israelites drink a ground-up Gold smoothie in the desert?  Are most folks in bible time vegan? 

View the statue here: https://www.michelangelo-gallery.com/michelangelo-moses.aspx “Did Moses have horns?” Article: https://www.irishcatholic.com/did-moses-%E2%80%A8have-horns/ Spiritual Greatness and the Ten Commandments: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spiritual-greatness-and-the-value-of-the-ten-commandments/id1478743358?i=1000457379232

I Will Show Mercy on Whom I Will Show Mercy Exodus 33:1-18 by William Klock  Last Sunday, as we came to the end of Exodus 32, we left Israel and Moses in a very discouraging spot.  Yes, on one hand, Israel had been spared destruction, but in exchange, the Lord has all but said that he’s ditching the people.  He won’t even refer to them as his people anymore.  No, now they’re the Moses’ people, the people that Moses led out of Egypt. The Lord had just established a covenant with the people.  “I will be your God and you will by my people,” he had said.  He’d given them his law—their end of the covenant—and they’d loudly proclaimed, “All of this we will do!”  But all it took was thinking that Moses had been lost on the mountain and they’ve fallen into idolatry.  Remember from last week, it wasn’t that they had abandoned the Lord and gone after a different God.  It was that they abandoned Moses.  Moses was their mediator with the Lord.  And now, so they thought, he was gone.  So they made the golden calf as a mount—basically a throne—for the Lord.  It was their way to summon him back down the mountain.  Instead of Moses as mediator, it was no going to be some combination of Aaron and the golden calf.  And in that, the calf becomes a parody of the tabernacle, the place where the Lord intended to dwell with and meet with his people—on his terms, not theirs.  It’s an awful scene.  Here are the people, basically on their honeymoon with the Lord and they’re caught in adultery. First the Lord was furious.  He told Moses to get out of the way so that he could destroy the people, but that’s when Moses stepped fully into his role as mediator and pleaded with the Lord.  And, notice, he didn’t plead with the Lord that the Israelites really weren’t so bad.  You know, sure, they’re having an orgy around a golden idol, but otherwise they’re pretty good people—they tithe, they go to church most of the time, they pack a shoebox every year at Christmas and give their change to poor people.  No, Moses doesn’t plead anything like that.  He knows the people deserve destruction.  They’re a grumbling, unfaithful, adulterous lot.  No, Moses pleads the only thing he can: the faithfulness of God.  He pleads for mercy based on the Lord’s covenant with Abraham.  Brothers and Sisters, that’s the nature of grace.  You can’t earn it.  It’s totally undeserved.  That’s what makes it grace.  And so we read in 32:14 that “the Lord relented from the disaster he had spoken of bringing on his people”.  “The Lord relented.”  Think about that phrase as we move into Chapter 33.  The Lord relented.  The Lord chose not to destroy the people, but that doesn’t mean everything’s fine.  The Lord also announced to Moses that the people would be going on to the promised land without him.  The covenant was broken—visibly represented by the smashed stone tablets.  He’d make good on his promise and send an angel to lead the people there, but he would not be going himself.  Israel would no longer be the people in whose midst he would dwell.  That’s where Exodus 33 picks up.  Look at verses 1-3: The Lord said to Moses, “Depart; go up from here, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘To your offspring I will give it.’  I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.  Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, lest I consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people.”   Again, notice that the ground for the Lord’s mercy isn’t that Israel isn’t as bad as they look or that they’ve done something else that merits overturning the death sentence.  The ground for the Lord’s mercy is his covenant with Abraham and his own faithfulness.  The Lord will do what he has promised and he promised Abraham that his descendants would inherit the promised land.  But he will not be going with them.  The covenant with Abraham stands, but Israel has broken their covenant of this new covenant with him.  An angel will, instead, lead the way and the Lord commands them to leave.  They can no longer camp at the base of his mountain. Notice, though, that even as harsh as this sounds, it’s really a mercy.  It can’t be said often enough that the unholy cannot live in the presence of the holy.  This isn’t the first time Israel has sinned against the Lord—it’s the worst—but it isn’t the first time and it won’t be the last and without the covenant, which, critically, provided a means of atonement for the sins of the people—without that they would be in danger in the Lord’s presence.  So this isn’t the Lord being temperamental.  It’s the Lord being merciful and sparing Israel a just punishment.  But that doesn’t mean the people aren’t disappointed.  Look at verses 4-6: When the people heard this disastrous word, they mourned, and no one put on his ornaments.  For the Lord had said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you. So now take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do with you.’”  Therefore the people of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments, from Mount Horeb onward.   The positive thing here is that Israel obviously takes the Lord’s rebuke to heart.  They longed for the Lord’s presence.  Again, remember that the whole point of the golden calf was to summon the Lord into their presence when they thought that Moses was gone.  Moses had been their mediator and they made the calf to fill that role.  They want the Lord. The problem was that they tried to approach him on their terms instead of his—always a dangerous thing to do.  So they mourn the news that they will be going on without the Lord. But Moses isn’t done in his role as mediator.  He’s not done wrestling with the Lord, so to speak.  Look at verses 7-11: Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought the Lord would go out to the tent of meeting, which was outside the camp.  Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people would rise up, and each would stand at his tent door, and watch Moses until he had gone into the tent.  When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses.  And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, each at his tent door.  Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.   Moses moves off some good distance from the main camp and pitches a tent, which we’re told, will be the place where he will meet with the Lord.  It’s far off.  Think again of the adultery imagery of the prophets.  Israel has committed adultery and the Lord will no longer enter her presence, but he’s willing to continue to meet Moses at some distance from the camp.  This “tent of meeting” is basically a substitute for the tabernacle.  The tabernacle was supposed to be the place where the Lord would meet with his people, but since that’s not going to be built—at least for now—Moses pitches a tent where at least he can meet with the Lord.  The writer stresses the nature of Moses relationship with the Lord.  They meet together face to face.  In a similar way, Numbers 12:6-8 says they spoke with each other “mouth to mouth”.  The point is to highlight the uniqueness of Moses as a prophet.  God speaks to him directly.  There’s nothing cryptic or questionable about it.  It’s not a dream or a vision.  Moses never woke up in the morning and had to wonder if the weird dream he’d had was the Lord or too much pizza the night before.  His experience with the Lord was personal and direct. So the Lord descends to the tent in a pillar of cloud as the people anxiously watch from a distance.  And Israel, like the bride trying to get a glimpse of her estranged husband, watches from a distance, no doubt anxious, but I think, still with a measure of hope.  Moses the mediator is back, he’s meeting with the Lord, maybe he can do something to bring restoration between the Lord and his people.  And that’s just what Moses does.  Moses speaks to the Lord: Moses said to the Lord, “See, you say to me, ‘Bring up this people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me.  Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’  Now therefore, if I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”  And he said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”  And he said to him, “If your presence will not go with me, do not bring us up from here.  For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in your going with us, so that we are distinct, I and your people, from every other people on the face of the earth?” (Exodus 33:12-16) “If you’re not going to go with us, Lord, who will you send?”  The Lord had said he would send an angel to guide the people, but Moses wants to know who this angel will be, how’s it going to work.  He appeals to the Lord.  Back when the Lord first met him and called him, he’d said that he knew Moses by name and that he was favoured in his sight.  It’s worth noting that the only other person in the Old Testament of whom the same is said is Noah.  It highlights the uniquely close relationship Moses had with the Lord and on this basis Moses asks the Lord, “Show me your ways.” Things have gone horribly wrong.  It’s not the Lord’s fault.  It’s Israel’s fault.  But, still, Moses wants to understand.  I think there are probably two main things Moses wants to grasp better.  First, he wants to understand what the Lord is about.  Why did he choose this fickle and stiff-necked people Israel?  Moses understands why the Lord is angry, but he wants to better understand it all.  But, second, Moses wants to understand—or maybe we should say to know—the Lord: his ways, his attributes, what guides his actions and dealings with human beings.  Moses knows that the Lord is sovereign, but how does he govern?  Abraham asked the same sort of question back in Genesis when the Lord announced he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.  Abraham asked, “Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25)  Both men knew that the Lord is not like the gods of the pagans.  He’s not capricious or temperamental.  Just the opposite, they knew that the Lord acts justly and that, if we can only know him, we might be able to understand—not fully, of course, but at least in part.  Psalm 103:7-8 is our oldest commentary on this scene between Moses and the Lord.  The Psalmist writes: He made known his ways to Moses,          his acts to the people of Israel. The Lord is merciful and gracious,          slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.   It’s telling in its simplicity.  Brothers and Sisters, do you want to understand the ways of the Lord?  Know that he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.  The Lord is holy and he is just.  He punishes sin and he cannot tolerate the unholy in his presence, but he is at the same time profoundly merciful and gracious with sinners.  He loves his people, he will set us and the rest of creation to rights.  We sometimes get angry and frustrated with God when we see evil in the world or when we’re dealing with our own pain and misery.  Why doesn’t he end all the evil in the world?  Why doesn’t he punish the bad people.  And we forget that we’re part of the problem ourselves.  The Lord has a better plan than ours.  In his mercy and love he’s sent his Son to forgive and to begin the work of new creation and in his patience he has spared us and continues to spare us that the good news about Jesus, the royal summons to the world’s true Lord, will go out to the nations—so that sinners will know mercy rather than destruction. This is the kind of thing Moses wants to understand, but—specifically—he wants to know what will happen to Israel.  He stresses that they are the Lord’s people.  That’s what makes Israel different from the other nations.  If the Lord has disowned them, if he will not go up with them to the promised land, what is to happen to them.  Their fate is bound up with being the Lord’s people.  This mixed multitude that went up from Egypt, what is to bind them together, what is to define them if not the Lord? And the Lord responds in verse 18: And the Lord said to Moses, “This very thing that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name.”   The Lord responds to Moses, he assents to his request, based on his appeal.  The Lord is nothing if not faithful.  If he said that Moses had found favour in his sight, Moses has, indeed, found favour in his sight. Moses said, “Please show me your glory.”  And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.  But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”  And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by.  Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” It’s fascinating to me that Moses has asked the Lord to show him his ways—Moses wants to understand him—and the Lord has agreed, and what does Moses now ask?  “Please show me your glory.”  He doesn’t ask for theology.  He doesn’t ask for philosophy.  He doesn’t ask for ethics.  He asks to see the Lord’s glory.  You see, Moses understood that the Lord’s ways are bound up with his glory.  The Lord does what he does because he is glorious and what the Lord does always bring him glory.  He shows grace to whom he chooses to show grace and he shows mercy to whom he chooses to show mercy and if you want to understand the who and the why of it, you’ve got to understand the glory of the Lord.  I don’t think there’s any easy exposition of this.  Like the cross of Jesus, this is something to meditate on, something to let sink in, and something that we’ll never truly plumb the depths of until, like Moses, we’ve seen the glory of the Lord for ourselves. Brothers and Sisters, the glory of the Lord, we see here, is something none of us can bear.  I think we see here just why the Lord had to give all those rules to the Israelites.  The Lord isn’t out to get Moses here, he wants to show Moses his glory, but even Moses could never bear to see it head-on.  Even Moses has to hide in the cleft of a rock with his face covered by his hands.  The glory of the Lord is a fearful and dreadful thing to behold—and at the same time something that somehow reveals his profound mercy and love. Now, that’s the end of Chapter 33.  As I said last week, we’d ideally look at Chapters 32-34 all at once, but it’s too long to do that, so we’re looking at one chapter a week.  And I also said that I want to focus on three themes here.  Last week I focused on the nature of the Lord’s covenant with Israel.  Next week we’ll look at Moses’ role as mediator between the Lord and his people.  We’ve already seen him taking up that role in these last two chapters and we’ll see more of it next week.  But today I want to look at this question that arises out of Chapters 32 and 33: Does God change his mind?  Again, we read last week that the Lord said he was going to destroy the people.  Moses interceded on their behalf and, the text says, “the Lord relented”.  And, looking forward to what’s going to happen, we see that despite his announcement that he will not be dwelling in Israel’s midst, the Lord will do just that.  Next week we’ll read about the renewal of the covenant. So what’s going on here?  Did the Lord change his mind?  When Moses appeals to him, reminding him of the covenant with Abraham, was Lord like, “Oh, yeah.  I forgot about that.”  Or, “Oh, you’re right Moses, I should always count to ten before striking down my people.”  Did Moses show the Lord a better way?  It raises the question: Is the Lord truly sovereign or not? Our first problem is that the phrase used in Hebrew isn’t easy to translate.  “to relent” or “to repent”, as some translations put it, don’t carry the full meaning.  The Hebrew word also carries the meaning of consolation.  Some have said that the best way to translate it is to say that the Lord had compassion.  That’s not exactly right either, but I think it’s closer.  But if we look at all the instances of this phrase in the Bible (2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21, Psalm 106, Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah 26, Jonah 3 and 4, Amos 7, Numbers 23, 1 Samuel 15, Malachi 3, Romans 11, Hebrews 6, James 1), they all describe a situation in which the Lord has announced a certain course of action and has announced he is reversing it.  But this doesn’t mean that God doesn’t know what he’s doing or that he’s not sovereign.  First, these instances highlight the importance of prayer and repentance.  Prayer and, most of all, repentance matter.  The issue in each case isn’t that God changed.  It’s that the people involved changed.  They repented and came to the Lord in faith to express that repentance. The Lord punishes sin and rebellion; he blesses repentance and belief.  Now, as we saw in our look at Job, it’s more complicated than that, but this is the general trend.  But as the Lord said to Moses, he is slow to anger and steadfast in his love.  He delights to show mercy and, when he does this, it brings him glory.  Israel sinned greatly, but Israel also repented of her sin and the Lord had compassion in response.  This is what he said to the people through the prophet Jeremiah: If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.  And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.  (Jeremiah 18:7-10) This is God’s character, to destroy evil and to bless repentance.  You see, the Lord must announce his wrath and judgement or a people will never know that they need to change course, that they need to repent and turn to the Lord.  So, no, the Lord isn’t changing his mind.  He’s doing what he does and what brings him glory.  He’s showing mercy to those who repent and believe. We see this character, this pattern come to full fruit in Jesus.  The Lord will set his creation to rights.  The Lord will, one day, wipe every last bit of evil, wickedness, rebellion, and corruption from his creation.  But he so delights to show grace and mercy, his steadfast love is so deep, that he humbled himself to be born as one of us and ultimately to die for the sake of his enemies, in order to provide a means of deliverance from that coming destruction.  Think of Jesus and his ministry.  Jesus’ message was both an announcement of God’s coming judgement, but also a call to repentance and faith.  In Jesus we see the living embodiment of God’s delight in showing mercy.  And in that we see the constancy and faithfulness of God, who never changes, of God who keeps his promises, of God who is faithful to the covenant he has established with his people—and in our case, through the perfect work of Jesus his son.  Think on that as you come to the Table this morning.  Reflect on the way in which the cross of Jesus reminds us of the absolute faithfulness of God to his promises and to his unchanging character.  And, Brothers and Sisters, consider that here as we share the bread and wine, as we share in the death and resurrection of Jesus, we, like Moses, are given a glimpse of the glory of God. Let’s pray: Heavenly Father, we give you thanks for revealing to us both your wrath and your compassion.  Without knowing the first, we’d never fully grasp the depth of the second.  You hate sin.  You hate that we have corrupted your cosmos.  You have every right to wipe every last one of us from the face of the earth.  But you also delight, you glory, in showing mercy.  Teach us to reflect on your love, your mercy, and your grace in light of our sinfulness and the punishment we deserve, a punishment for which only your own Son could pay the price, that we might grasp in some greater way each day the depths of your love for us.  Through our Lord Jesus we pray.  Amen.

In our latest episode we tackle the state of Congress and numerous other pressing issues facing the American people.  BONUS EPISODE ATTACHED! Make sure to listen to our extra bonus episode 30 minutes in where we tackle the controversial topic of religion and drugs. Did Moses really speak to God through a burning bush or was under the influence of DMT when he met God? Some call it weed. Some call it the Texas torpedo. We tackle this controversial topic. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/inthemoodeforrealhistory/support

#bible #scripture #genesis Commentary on the Book of Genesis (R&T Bible Commentary Series) Is Genesis part of History? Did the flood in Genesis really happen? Did Moses write the Pentateuch? Were the Nephilim fallen angels? These questions and many more will be explored with Luis Dizon in this first episode of the Reason & Theology […]

Tim Mahoney, the filmmaker of the award-winning Patterns of Evidence series on The Exodus, The Moses Controversy, and The Red Sea Miracle Pt. 1 joins Real Science Radio to discuss Friday's Part 2 conclusion of the extraordinary Exodus trilogy! Get your ticket at patternsofevidence.com to view this on your phone, tablet, computer, or large screen TV, at 7 p.m. Central Time (calculate your own time zone's viewing time) this Friday, July 17th! With the coronavirus shut down delaying the premiere by two months and with Mahoney's Thinking Man Films studio just a few miles from where the George Floyd protests erupted, Tim tells Bob Enyart how current events led to a big change in the film's ending! And as Mahoney mentioned Egyptologist David Rohl, for more about the archaeoastronomy evidence for the New Chronology, check out rsr.org/exodus#astronomy. * List of Evidence for the Exodus: See also right here on our website our list of archaeological evidence for the Exodus at rsr.org/exodus! Much of our bulleted list comes from the work of Egyptologist David Rohl, filmmaker Tim Mahoney, and Brad Sparks' paper in Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective. Also, find our own contributions to this list such as that the Hebrews gave the word "Pharaoh" to the world! Also, our English word "alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph and bet. Then think about the etymology of the word Pharaoh which looks back to the term for the palace of Egypt's king.   * RSR's Google-based Multi-Creation Site Search: As of today, 2,020 times our custom search tool has saved time for our listeners! Just click to check it out. Save time like crazy using this Google creation tool, RSR's Multiple Creation Site Search to simultaneously search CMI, AiG, ICR, CSC, and RSR!  * On the Hebrew word Pharaoh: Chilperic Edwards, one of the first scholars to translate the Code of Hammurabi, stated regarding the non-Egyptian origin of the title of their monarch: "Pharaoh was the name given by Hebrew writers to the king of Egypt." Most Egyptologists reject the historical basis for the Exodus, discounting any significant role for Abraham's descendants in Egypt. Yet language itself, one of the greatest of world treasures, is perhaps our most important historical monument. Thus, Israel's role in Egypt can be rediscovered by recognizing that the Jews gave to the world the Hebrew word Pharaoh, a word that eventually attained to common usage even by the ancient Egyptians themselves. Today's Resource: Patterns of Evidence Set Get all three Patterns of Evidence DVDs! We promise you'll love 'em! Save $10 when ordering the set! You will receive Patterns of Evidence: -The Exodus -The Moses Controversy -The Red Sea Miracle Patters of Evidence- The Exodus: Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus award-winning documentary by filmmaker Timothy Mahoney chronicles an archaeological investigation in Egypt as his team corroborates the biblical text. The film explores one fundamental question: Is there evidence that the Exodus story actually happened? Twelve years in the making, this documentary reveals new or rarely seen evidence regarding the Israelites descent into slavery, their Exodus from Egypt, and their ultimate conquest of the Promised Land. Although many scholars and archaeologists deny the validity of the Exodus story for lack of proof, Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus builds a case that sheds new light on this history of the Hebrews. Patterns of Evidence- The Moses Controversy: Did Moses write the first books of the Bible? Many mainstream scholars say NO! But the Bible states YES!  Award-winning filmmaker Timothy Mahoney (Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus) is back again, bringing new evidence to light in the latest documentary: Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy.  What Mahoney's investigation lead to is the groundbreaking discovery that the world's first alphabet actually originated in Egypt. Did the Israelites invent this alphabet in time for Moses to write the Bible? This thought-provoking and controversial film asks hard questions of some of the world's leading experts in Egyptology, ancient Hebrew and early languages. Filmed in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Europe and the USA with stunning cinematography and life-like Biblical recreations, Patterns of Evidence: The Moses Controversy will captivate audiences of all ages.  Patterns of Evidence- The Red Sea Miracle: Tim Mahoney investigates one of the greatest miracles of the Bible. Did a mighty sea split? What secrets will be revealed?  After leaving Egypt, the Bible describes the Israelites crossing a deep sea that was miraculously split with walls of water on their right and left. When the Egyptians and their chariot force pursued, the water came crashing back down to destroy the entire army. Are miracles of this kind even possible? Skeptics contend that no evidence has ever been found for huge numbers of people crossing the wilderness or a mighty sea. Does the lack of evidence at the traditional sites mean the events didn’t happen, or might we have been looking in wrong places all along? Join Timothy Mahoney in the next chapter of the series as he retraces the steps of Moses and the Israelites, looking for answers in Patterns of Evidence: The Red Sea Miracle Part 1. Hear ideas from all sides of the debate as you journey back to the lands of the Bible in search of answers to one of the Bible’s biggest mysteries; where is the lost sea of the Exodus, and what really happened there? Can a patterns approach help to solve the problem?

Did Moses hand the Sanhedrin? Impale them? Push them off a cliff?

Addressing the Personal and Emotional Needs of Our Community and Answering the Most Pressing Questions of Our Lives -- from the Perspective of Chassidic Thought. Submit your question now at https://www.chassidusapplied.com/ask-rabbi-jacobson/ or email: info@chassidusapplied.com. WEBSITE: https://www.chassidusapplied.com/ EMAIL US: info@chassidusapplied.com SPONSOR A MYLIFE: CHASSIDUS APPLIED EPISODE, OR EXPLORE OTHER GIVING OPPORTUNITIES: https://www.meaningfullife.com/sponsorships THIS WEEK'S TOPICS: • Programs and resources for these trying and unprecedented times 07:07 • Chassidus Applied to 28 Sivan and Shelach 10:25 • What is our attitude to racism? 25:08 • Are there expressions of racism in the Torah? 31:52 • Is dark skin color a result of a punishment? 41:01 • Why do we make a blessing boruch meshaneh ha’briyos? 50:37 • Why did G-d make people so different? 52:20 • Did Moses marry a black woman? 55:56 • Were the Jews who left Egypt black? 59:28 • With all the unrest, should we consider moving to Israel? 01:00:44 MyLife: Chassidus Applied is a weekly video webcast candidly answering questions from the public about all life matters and challenges, covering the entire spectrum of the human experience. The objective of the program is to provide people with inspired guidance and direction, empowering them to deal with any issue they may face. MyLife demonstrates how Chassidus provides us with a comprehensive blueprint of the human psyche as a microcosm of the cosmos, and offers us all the guidance we need to live the healthiest possible life and build nurturing homes and families, bringing up the healthiest possible children, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually. MyLife is brought to you by the Meaningful Life Center as a public service, free of charge.

The series continues!  The guys offer some more answers to the issues raised in Rhett and Link's "anti"-testimonies.  This week's episode deals with the numbers in the Exodus census account.  Did Moses bring 2 or 3 million people out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan?  Does it matter if the numbers aren't 100% accurate by today's standards?  

Welcome to In Your Embrace Daily, a series of short daily reflections on the Gospels from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Today's reading for the Fourth Tuesday of Lent is from the Holy Gospel according to John. John 7:14-31 (DRE) “In that time, about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him. Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee? Jesus answered, and said to them: One work I have done; and you all wonder: Therefore, Moses gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and on the sabbath day you circumcise a man. If a man receive circumcision on the sabbath day, that the law of Moses may not be broken; are you angry at me because I have healed the whole man on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment. Some therefore of Jerusalem said: Is not this he whom they seek to kill? And behold, he speaketh openly, and they say nothing to him. Have the rulers known for a truth, that this is the Christ? But we know this man, whence he is: but when the Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Jesus therefore cried out in the temple, teaching, and saying: You both know me, and you know whence I am: and I am not come of myself; but he that sent me, is true, whom you know not. I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me. They sought therefore to apprehend him: and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. But of the people many believed in him, and said: When the Christ cometh, shall he do more miracles, than these which this man doth?” --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/in-your-embrace/message

Did Moses write Genesis?, Why did Mary need a savior if she was free from sin?, If someone refuses to forgive me, can I still receive Communion?, Why would they remove Holy Water and the Chalice from Churches during this coronavirus outbreak?, and more on today's Open Line Monday with scriptural apologist John Martignoni.

Trivia: What two books of the Bible are named after women? 1. Why are there so many differences in the congregations of Churches of Christ? 2. In the newer movie of the Ten Commandments, Moses told the people that if they didn’t keep the Law God would punish them, but also their children and children’s children. Did Moses really say that? 3. Was it God or Adam that named the Garden of Eden? 4. Do you believe that after one dies you sleep until Jesus comes? 5. Where does it say money is the root of all evil? 6. I have heard “spare the rod spoil the child” means to spank children. I also heard it meant to discipline them. Which is correct? 7. Why did God kill Uzzah? 8. What was the leaven of the Pharisees?

Trivia: What two books of the Bible are named after women? 1. Why are there so many differences in the congregations of Churches of Christ? 2. In the newer movie of the Ten Commandments, Moses told the people that if they didn’t keep the Law God would punish them, but also their children and children’s children. Did Moses really say that? 3. Was it God or Adam that named the Garden of Eden? 4. Do you believe that after one dies you sleep until Jesus comes? 5. Where does it say money is the root of all evil? 6. I have heard “spare the rod spoil the child” means to spank children. I also heard it meant to discipline them. Which is correct? 7. Why did God kill Uzzah? 8. What was the leaven of the Pharisees?

Questions Covered: 03:26 – When was Moses born?  06:19 – Did Moses use hallucinogens to speak to God in the burning bush?  11:54 – I am currently a Lutheran but am contemplating the Catholic faith. Something that is holding me back is the assurance of salvation that I get in the Lutheran Church. How can I better understand this?  23:16 – Does the Catholic Church approve of a woman taking vitamins and teas to help her overcome her infertility?  28:44 – I have recently learned about humans who have two people’s DNA. Would this human being have two souls?  31:27 – I am an atheist. I am not convinced that God exists. How can God exist? If he did, he would be all loving and not allow evil in the world?  43:37 – What is the great apostasy?  48:22 – If you attend a gay wedding, are you accepting that lifestyle? …

Which is more important, small or large acts of kindness? Maybe it doesn’t matter and all acts of kindness are important. Msgr Swetland shares with you a small act of kindness done by a child in wake of hurricane Dorian.   Caller Question – Did Moses ever see the face of God? Caller Question – […] All show notes at Go Ask Your Father September 5th – Acts of Kindness - This podcast produced by Relevant Radio

#DearWhitePeople #Season3 #Chapter8 The gang learns about Muffy’s Revelation, and Reggie has a hard time accepting it. Did Moses do it or did he not? @bennyjadams and @Porchiacarter discuss the serious topic on this episode of “Dear White People.” ABOUT DEAR WHITE PEOPLE: Dear White People is an American satirical television series based on the 2014 film of the same name. Justin Simien returned to write and direct episodes of the series. Ten 30-minute episodes have been ordered by Netflix. The first season was released on April 28, 2017. Follow us on http://www.Twitter.com/AfterBuzzTV "Like" Us on http://www.Facebook.com/AfterBuzzTV Buy Merch at http://shop.spreadshirt.com/AfterbuzzTV/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

#DearWhitePeople #Season3 #Chapter8 The gang learns about Muffy’s Revelation, and Reggie has a hard time accepting it. Did Moses do it or did he not? @bennyjadams and @Porchiacarter discuss the serious topic on this episode of “Dear White People.” ABOUT DEAR WHITE PEOPLE: Dear White People is an American satirical television series based on the 2014 film of the same name. Justin Simien returned to write and direct episodes of the series. Ten 30-minute episodes have been ordered by Netflix. The first season was released on April 28, 2017. Follow us on http://www.Twitter.com/AfterBuzzTV "Like" Us on http://www.Facebook.com/AfterBuzzTV Buy Merch at http://shop.spreadshirt.com/AfterbuzzTV/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Is God the creator of evil? (Q329) Did Moses see God face to face? (Q331) Is it possible to fall from grace? (Q332) Did Moses fear the king? (Q334) Are we punished for the sins of others? (Q355) Did Jesus know everything? (Q362) To judge or not to judge? (Q364) Patrick and Tony cover the third part Chapter 7 of Dr. Jason Lisle's book, Keeping Faith in the Age of Reason (Amazon Link - https://amzn.to/2UqI16I). This chapter deals with supposed opposite yes or no answers The Bible presents. However, we will see that contradictions do not abound. The post Ep. 15 – Keeping Faith In An Age Of Reason – Yes Or No – Part 3 appeared first on Cave To The Cross Apologetics.

Shalam (Peace) Brothers and Sisters, An interesting phrase that comes up in the Bible is the “Law of Moses”. But what does it exactly mean? Did Moses make up these laws himself? How do we know the difference between what is God’s law and those that belong to Moses? These questions are important to explore. Hopefully this lesson could establish …

This episode continues our series on the development of the character of God in the Bible. In this episode, the guys discuss one of the strangest stories in the Bible: Israel and the golden calf in Exodus 32. In part one (00:00-09:45), the guys review the idea that God primarily interacts with the world through a human mediator. Understanding how God interacted with Israel through Moses is key to understanding this important theme in the Bible. Tim points out that in the Old Testament, the two most important personal portraits to understand are David and Moses. They are the two people who get the most page length in the Old Testament. Tim says that Moses' story should be creating a role, an expectation that the world would be a better place if there were more Moses-like characters who are intimately tied with Yahweh. In part two (09:45-21:20), the guys talk about the story of the golden calf in Exodus 32. Moses represents Israel to God and he represents God to Israel. Tim points out a strange detail of the story. God says he wants to destroy Israel, but then it seems as though God changes his mind after Moses implored him to reconsider. Tim says this story has puzzled all Bible readers over thousands of years. Does God change his mind based on human input? Tim quotes from biblical scholar Christopher Wright's commentary on Deuteronomy: “This story explores the mystery about prayer in general and intercession in particular, and raises questions: Was God really serious in this declared threat? If Moses had not interceded, would God have carried out the destruction of Israel? If God was not really planning to destroy the people (10:10b), did God only “pretend” to listen to Moses’ prayer? Did Moses actually change God’s mind? It seems important first of all to say that there is not much point in wrestling with alternative hypothetical scenarios posed by such questions. Asking “what if” serves little theological purpose. Both God and Moses appear to be behaving straightforwardly. There is nothing in the text to suggest that God’s anger was overdone for mere effect; no suggestion that God’s threat was a bluff intended to secure a hasty repentance. The threat of destruction was real. Likewise, Moses’ reaction to the divine wrath was not a patronizing dismissal of authority, like saying, “You can’t be serious!” Rather, Moses recognized that this was a sincere threat that could be countered only with appeal to prior words and actions of the same God. The paradox is that in appealing to God to change, he was actually appealing to God to be consistent —which may be a significant clue to the dynamic of all genuine intercessory prayer. Yet perhaps there is a hint of the divine intention in God’s fascinating words, Leave me alone… (v. 14). The discussion of this line in Jewish scholarship has sensed deep meaning here. After all, God need not have spoken such words, or indeed any words at all, to Moses. In wrath God could have acted “immediately” without informing or consulting Moses in any way. God pauses and makes the divine will “vulnerable” to human challenge. The fact is that, far from human intercession being an irritating but occasionally successful intrusion upon divinely prefabricated blueprints for history, Moses’ prayer becomes an integral part of the way God’s sovereignty in history is exercised. That does not totally solve the mystery, but it puts it in its proper biblical perspective. God not only allows human intercession, God invites it and builds it into the decision-making processes of the heavenly council in ways we can never fathom. “God takes Moses’ contribution with utmost seriousness; God’s acquiescence to the arguments indicates that God treats the conversation with Moses with integrity and honors the human insight as an important ingredient for the shaping of the future” Intercessory prayer, then, flows primarily not from human anxiety about God but from God’s commitment to covenant relationship with human beings…. Moses was not so much arguing against God, as participating in an argument within God. Such prayer, therefore, not only participates in the pain of God in history, but is actually invited to do so for God’s sake as well as ours. This is a measure of the infinite value to God of commitment to persons in covenant relationship. The Point: The figure of Moses in the Torah creates a portrait of the kind of figure necessary for God and humanity to exist together in successful covenant relationship. Moses’ eventual failure in the wilderness (Numbers ch. 21) disqualifies him for the role he filled. His story creates a “Help Wanted” sign in the biblical narrative.” In part three (21:20-33:30), the guys continue to discuss the story of the golden calf. Jon summarizes Tim’s position. Tim draws another parallel to the story of the great flood in Genesis. God destroys all of humanity except for Noah and his family. Then God says that “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil, from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). This is a paradox; God has just pronounced mankind as evil, but he refuses to destroy them or break relationship with them. Tim says that the Hebrew Bible is pointing forward to a person who they want to be a “better Moses.” In part four (33:30-39:50), Tim shares a quote from The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis. “One must face the fact that all the talk about His love for men, and His service being perfect freedom, is not (as one would gladly believe) mere propaganda, but an appalling truth. He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself—creatures, whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food. He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself: the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct.” In part five (39:50-end), Tim shares the evolution of the portrait of Moses in the book of Isaiah. Isaiah says that the hoped for figure who can save Israel is a mashup between the best characteristics of David and Moses. Israel needs a priest and a king; this person is Jesus. But Jon makes a point that if the idea is that Israel only needs an “exalted human” to save them, then theology like a Jehovah’s Witness that claims that Jesus was only an exalted human begins to form. Tim sees this point. Many people throughout history have thought that Jesus was only an “exalted human,” but the apostles and authors of the New Testament believed that Jesus was also divine. For example in 2 Corinthians 3-4 and the book of Hebrews, the claim is that Jesus was not just “another Moses,” he was greater than Moses. Tim says that the New Testament author's claims that Jesus is divine can sometimes be hard to see to modern readers because they make the claims in very Jewish ways. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2 that Jesus is “the wisdom of God.” This sounds nice to modern readers, but to an ancient Hebrew rabbi, it would be blasphemous because claiming to be his wisdom is equivalent to claiming to be one with God. Ancient Jews would have no problem claiming that Jesus was a mediator “like” Moses, but saying he was greater eventually leads to the split between the Messianic Jews and other Jewish communities. Thank you to all of our supporters! Next week is a big episode for us. It’s our 100th episode!!!! To celebrate, we’re going to do a live Q+R at our studio in Portland. Want to participate? Send us your question and it might be read during the show. The show will stream live on our YouTube channel starting at 7pm (PST) on Thursday September 6th. You can watch it live by going to youtube.com/thebibleproject/live We’ll release the show right here on our podcast feed the following week. We want to say thank you to all our listeners of the past 99 episodes. Thank you for your wonderful questions, support, and encouraging words. We love reading the reviews and hearing your thoughts. It has been such a wonderful ride, and we’re looking forward to the next 100 episodes. Thanks for being a part of this with us. Send your questions to: info@jointhebibleproject.com Show Resources: The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis Deuteronomy (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), Christopher J. H. Wright Check out all our resources for free at www.thebibleproject.com. Show Music: Defender Instrumental, Tents Another Chance, Tae the Producer Faith, Tae the Producer In the Distance, Tae the Producer Show Produced By: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins, Matthew Halbert-Howen

Molly tells us about some sad news and how it's affecting her thinking, but thankfully that's just the first few minutes! After that it's JUST LAUGHTER. Molly and Amanda sit down with Molly's folks, Penny and Bill Hawkey to find out how they feel about Molly's adventure and to figure out how she got here. And how did they enjoy 5 pregnancies? What was it like to be a working mom and a stay at home dad? Exactly how old was Molly when she started using the word "fuck"? Did Moses really say that!? Plus, Amanda gives Molly some guidance. Become a Patreon subscriber for extra content! patreon.com/spermcastGot questions? Call 323-741-1818 or email molly at spermcast@gmail.comFollow SpermCast here: Instagram // Twitter // Facebook // SpermCastPod.comFollow Molly here: Instagram // Twitter Follow Amanda here: Instagram // Twitter // The Big OnesAnd here's Penny's Coca Cola Mean Joe spot! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

One of our forum members relates that in their memorial talk the speaker broke out that old chestnut, "If you are asking yourself if you should partake or not, it means you have not been chosen and so do not partake." This member came up with some excellent reasoning showing the flaw in this common statement often made by those trying to dissuade sincere Christians from obeying Jesus' instructions on partaking. (Note: While the premise for the above statement is flawed from the get-go, it can be helpful to accept an opponent's premise as valid, and then take it to its logical conclusion to see if it holds water.) Moses got a direct call from God. Nothing could be clearer.  He heard God's voice directly, recognized who was calling, and got the message of his appointment. But what was his reaction? He displayed doubt. He told God about his unqualified status, his impediment.  He asked God to send someone else. He asked for signs, which God gave him. When he brought up the issue of his speech defect, it seems God got a little angry, telling him he is the one who made the dumb, the speechless, the blind, then He assured Moses, "I will be with you". Did Moses self-doubt disqualify him? Gideon, who served in collaboration with Judge Deborah, was sent by God.  Yet, he asked for a sign.  When told that he would be the one to deliver Israel, Gideon modestly spoke of his own insignificance. (Judges 6:11-22)  At another occasion, to confirm God was with him, he asked for a sign and then another (the reverse) as proof. Did his doubts disqualify him? Jeremiah, when appointed by God, replied, "I am but a boy". Did this self-doubt disqualify him? Samuel was called by God.  He did not know who was calling him.  It took Eli to discern, after three such incidents, that it was God calling to Samuel for an assignment. An unfaithful high priest helping one called by God.  Did that disqualify him? Isn't that a nice bit of scriptural reasoning?  So even if we accept the premise of a special individual calling—which I know most of us, including this contributing member, do not—we still have to acknowledge that self-doubt is not a reason not to partake. Now to examine the premise for that Kingdom hall speaker's line of reasoning.  It comes from an eisegetical reading of Romans 8:16: "The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children." Rutherford came up with the "Other Sheep" doctrine in 1934[i] using the now-disavowed antitypical application of the Israelite cities of refuge.[ii]  At some point, in search of scriptural support, the Organization settled on Romans 8:16.  They needed a scripture that seemed to support their view that only a tiny remnant should partake, and this is the best they could come up with.  Of course, reading the entire chapter is something they avoid, for fear that the Bible might interpret itself in a way contrary to the interpretation of men. Romans chapter 8 speaks of two classes of Christian, to be sure, but not of two classes of approved Christian.  (I can call myself a Christian, but that doesn't mean Christ thinks of me as one of his own.) It does not speak of some who are anointed and approved by God and others who, while also approved by God, are not anointed with spirit.  What it speaks of are Christians who are fooling themselves by thinking they are approved while living in accordance with the flesh and its desires.  The flesh leads to death, while the spirit leads to life. “For setting the mind on the flesh means death, but setting the mind on the spirit means life and peace…”  (Romans 8:6) No special midnight calling here!  If we set our mind on the spirit, we have peace with God and life. If we set our mind on the flesh, we have only death in view.  If we have the spirit, we are God’s children—end of story. “For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons.” (Romans 8:14) If the Bible were speaking about a personal calling at Romans 8:16,

We discuss our individual verse by verse projects and why Braxton chose the book of Genesis. Did Moses write it? What's JEDP all about? Has Johnathan showered recently? All these questions will be answered!

Stop and listen to what God is calling you to do.  Afraid you aren't prepared?  Did Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, or Gideon say they were ready? Yet God did amazing things through each of them.  Just say yes to God's call. Click the play button above to listen, or watch the video version.

In this special Christmas episode of the NERDWatch, the “Gurus of Geekdom” get into the Christmas spirit and talk about the best tech toys for Christmas. Did Moses have the strength to take out the Pharaoh and the box office this weekend? Professor Barry gives his review of Exodus: Gods & Kings. Professor Barry also gives his review of the final film in the Hobbit trilogy. Is this the one movie series that rules them all. The crew also gets a bit serious about the threats being hurled at Sony and the public by the cyber terrorists who have taken issue with the new Seth Rogen/James Franco movie, The Interview. They also talk about their favorite Christmas movies for this time of year. They even discuss movies to watch that take place during Christmas , but aren’t necessarily considered Christmas movies. Your latest blu-ray and hd releases for the week. Finally, Collector J and G Money discuss what the heck is going on with the latest in Destiny and much more. All this and so much more only on this special Christmas edition of the NERDWatch podcast.

There is a fine line between arrogance and a keen understanding of the brutal facts; between humility and delusion. Did Moses – the humblest of men – know that he was the Jewish greatest prophet? Is the smartest guy in the room allowed to know that fact without transgressing on the severe sin of גאוה, haughtiness? […]

BOOK NOW:  The UK Reasonable Faith Tour with William Lane Craig is one week away 17-26 Oct http://www.premier.org.uk/craig Peter J Williams is the Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge and a first class scholar of both Old and New Testament. He takes non-Christian listener sceptical questions on the Old Testament. Nazam asks "Did Moses write the Torah?". Norman asks "Hasn't modern archaeology disproved OT stories?". Jim asks "Why do Christians think the 10 commandments are special?". Peter joins William Lane Craig, John Lennox & Gary Habermas for the Bethinking Apologetics Conference in London on Sat 22 Oct http://bit.ly/oF76eG You can order Tyndale House DVDs mentioned here http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=2009dvd For more Christian/non-Christian debate visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the MP3 podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or Via Itunes If you enjoyed this progamme you may also enjoy:Unbelievable? 3 Jan 2009 "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman & Williams Bart Ehrman & Peter Williams - "Misquoting Jesus: Do we have the original writings of the New Testament?"Unbelievable? 19 June 2010 - Does the Bible condone slavery? Bob Price & David Instone-Brewer. Join the discussion at the Premier Community http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable and via Facebook and Twitter

Is the Bible the authentic word of God? Did Moses really write the Pentateuch? Can the New Testament manuscripts be trusted? This episode provides information concerning the legitimacy of the Bible claims. Listeners will also learn how to respond to the Documentary Hypothesis and the new atheism.

Jesus tells the Jewish religious leaders that if they had believed Moses, they would believe Jesus, because Moses wrote about Him. Did Moses write about Jesus? If so, where? We’ll look at one fascinating example from Exodus chapter 15.

"Now don't try to stop me. I am angry with them, and I am going to destroy them" (Exodus 32:9). These were the words of God to Moses about the roughly 2 million people standing around the foot of Mount Sinai. Was God really "this close" to wiping them all off the map? Was God caught off guard by their rebellion? Did Moses, the creature, need to step in to calm down the Creator? Believe it or not, this story is one of the greatest examples in the entire Bible of self-sacrificial agape love. Get the powerpoint slides here - http://www.godscharacter.com/files/ppt/Exodus_32_god_comes_to_kill.ppt