Fight the Good Fight of the Faith: Recounting the History of God's Grace

Well, we have made it through the book of Joshua. This Sunday, the sermon posted will look at the final chapter and see how God and Joshua end this wonderful book that teaches us how to fight the good fight of the faith.

In the previous sermon, we saw Joshua's final words to the leaders of Israel that teach them about living by faith. In this final chapter of the book, Joshua leads the people in renewing the covenant with God, which is an act of rededicating themselves to His service before Joshua passes into glory and they are on their own. The way the covenant renewal ceremony is laid out in this passage is very similar to the covenants of the other peoples of the ancient near east surrounding Israel. God chose to make His covenants with them in a way that would be familiar to them (in and of itself and act of grace!).

The ceremonies generally opened with a preamble where the parties making the covenant introduce themselves, and then they go on to a "historical prologue" where the history of the relationship between the parties is recounted (i.e. everything that is leading up to the covenant ceremony). The covenant renewal ceremony in Jos. 24 follows that pattern, and it is the historical prologue that I want to focus on for this devotional. We will talk about it a little Sunday, but we will not be able to go into detail there. So, here are a few theological highlights from the recounting of the history of God and His people to this point (reading Jos. 24:1-13 first would be helpful):

• Unconditional Election: Joshua starts out by reminding them that God took Abraham from Ur while Abraham was still a pagan. And, Abraham was chosen; not his brother Nahor, yet Abraham deserved it no more than Nahor. Abraham was no saint when God found him. He was plunged into pagan worship probably just as much as the Canaanites. Abraham did not become a believer because he was somehow inherently better than his father or brother. Abraham did not deserve it any more than anyone else. No, it was because God "took" him and "led" him. God loved Abraham when he deserved only wrath. The fact that Israel exists at all is simply an act of God's free grace and unconditional election. And, this is consistent with the rest of Scripture. The Bible constantly reminds us of who we were, but it is not to bring us to despair but to show us the incredible grace of God. Francis Schaeffer once wrote:

Whether studying the Old Testament or the New, we are reminded that we are not where we are because of a long, wise, and godly heritage. We come from rebellion. Individually, we are children of wrath. After we are Christians, we must look at others who are still under God's wrath and always say, "I am essentially what you are. If I am in a different place, it is not because I am intrinsically better than you, but simply because God has done something in my life." There is no place for pride.

• Slow growth: Joshua tells us that God multiplied Abraham's seed, but it was really, really slow. He only gave him Isaac. Isaac only had two sons, one of which would not produce people of God (i.e. Esau). Finally, with Jacob's twelve sons, things start to speed up. So, we see from this that God does what He promises, but sometimes it is so gradual that we do not notice until it has been going on for a long time. We need to keep this in mind and walk by faith; not by sight. As one commentator says, "We easily lose sight of what Yahweh has done by demanding too much too soon."
• Rough spots: Joshua also points out that Esau and his people (not God's people) get their inheritance right away but Jacob and his sons (God's people!) go to Egypt and become slaves. What? Why do the covenant people get slavery while the others get their land? Sometimes history seems to conflict with God's design, which is, again, why we have to walk by faith and not by sight. God always accomplishes His design, but sometimes it is not at all when we would expect it (cf. e.g. He. 11:32-38). The Scriptures are realistic about this and do not hide the "rough spots" from us, and that shows God is honest, realistic, and always faithful. God showing us the "rough spots" and confusing parts of history is not to make us relish the difficult aspects of the life to which He has called His people but to show us that He is faithful to hold us in and bring us through the "rough spots."
• God's power: In vv. 5-12, Joshua recounts God's incredible power to deliver His people from Egypt (the greatest power in the world at the time), conquer the kings east of the Jordan, and conquer the Promised Land. Joshua sums it up with telling the people that it was not by their sword or bow that all this was accomplished but by God's mighty power. Time and time again God's people are outnumbered, outgunned, or even completely helpless, and God fights for them by His mighty power. This shows us what Jonah learned in Jon. 2:9: Salvation is of the LORD. Paul also tells us this in 2 Co. 4:7. This is not to say that we just "let go and let God," for God uses our struggles, as we fight by faith, but it does show us that our struggles would be nothing, useless, futile without God's mighty power. (We will talk more about this in the upcoming sermon.)
• God's provision: If we look at vv. 7, 13, Joshua shows us God's provision in necessity and abundance, but also note that His provision is the basic stuff: manna, grain, towns, houses. It, with the exception of the manna, is ordinary stuff that we take for granted every day, but it is all of God's grace. God always provides for His people, but we need to remember too that God isn't some kind of genie that just grants our wishes. He gives us our needs; not necessarily our desires. And, most often He does it through the normal, ordinary means of a job, a family, etc.

You see, Joshua does not recount their history just to show them their past but to show them the great God whom they serve. That is the basis for the rest of the covenant renewal ceremony, which we will talk more about on Sunday. Until then, think about your own history, and I bet if you think long and hard enough, you could find some very similar displays of God's grace, faithfulness, power, and provision even during the rought spots, and if you do that, it will refresh your soul.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Fight the Good Fight of the Faith: Warp Speed Ahead!

We have been proceeding through Joshua at a pretty good pace so far already, but in order to finish the book in eleven sermons (which is how many I had over the summer), we need to speed up even more. We are about to do that at proverbial "warp speed" because in this Friday post and in the next, I am going to cover twelve chapters worth of material, with the noted exception of Jos. 20, which will be the text for the next sermon.

Fortunately, the book of Joshua lends itself to that pace in second half of the book because most of the content of chs. 11-22 is summaries of the final conquests and the dividing up of the land between the tribes. So, this week I am going to cover some historical issues from these chapters, and next week we will look at some theological highlights from that section.

You might not notice historical issues at first when you look just at the book of Joshua itself, but when we get to Judges, some have said that these two books present contradictory views of the conquest of the Promised Land. Voltaire was one of the first to make this claim and use it as a reason not to trust the Bible, and many have attempted to say the same thing since. Voltaire claimed that Joshua describes a period of "unstoppable progress" in taking the land--that the Canaanites were all wiped out and the cities were left empty for settlement. Then, he claimed that the book of Judges makes it appear that the conquest was a gradual process with many setbacks and ultimately incomplete. That, he claimed, is a contradiction. So, from a historical perspective of Scripture, how are we to take this challenge?

First, read more carefully: When you think you have a problem with Scripture, ask for God's help and read more carefully. In Jos. 13:1-6, the LORD tells Joshua, "There remains yet very much land to possess," and Joshua tells the people to go to their allotments and proceed with the gradual, cleanup work of driving out the remaining Canaanites. So, the book of Joshua does not teach that Israel took the entire land with "unstoppable progress." You see, what the first twelve chapters of Joshua describe for us is not a total defeat of the enemy but the cropping of the leadership, the destroying of the strongholds, and the breaking of the back of the enemy. One can think if it kind of like the difference between D-Day and V-Day in WWII. On D-Day outcome of the war was essentially decided, but there was still lots of work to do before V-Day finally arrived. For Israel, once those strongholds were taken and great powers defeated, the land was won for them, but the tribes still had the task of driving out the remaining Canaanites in their areas. (That is what was supposed to happen in the book of Judges, but Israel failed because of their sin.) Voltaire's challenge comes from making unfounded assumptions based on a cursory reading of the books.

Second, the books of Joshua and Judges use language that helps us to see this difference, though it is somewhat hidden in the English language, so let me try to expose it. In Joshua, the verb predominantly used for the defeat of the Canaanites and the taking of the land is lakad, which means "to take, to gain control," which is indicative of what Israel does in the book of Joshua: they delivered the devastating blow against the Canaanites and gained effective control of all the land. In the book of Judges, however, the word dominantly used for what they are commanded to do is yarash, which means "to possess (for yourself), to dispossess (from others), or to drive out." (In fact, this is the verb God uses in Jos. 13:1 where He tells Joshua there is much land "to possess," i.e. what the tribes are now to do in the book of Judges.) And, that is what the tribes are commanded to do in Joshua 13-22 and what they were to do in Judges: to occupy completely the defeated territory and either kill or drive out the Canaanites that still remained in the land they controlled. What has been taken (lakad-ed) may still need to be dispossessed of remaining Canaanites (yarash-ed). The alleged contradiction between these books fades when we expose the careful distinction the authors make between what Israel did under Joshua and what they were supposed to in their own allotments in the book of Judges.

So, again, these books are historically accurate and consistent, and chs. 11-22 give us the details of the taking of the control of the Land and the distributing of the Land to the tribes for the final driving out of the remaining Canaanites, which is what was supposed to happen in  the book of Judges. This is another example of how God's Word is entirely trustworthy in all its assertions, whether theological or historical or scientific.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Sacrificing for the Emperor: Cultural Orthodoxy and God's People

"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." ~ George Orwell, "The Freedom of the Press" (emphasis added)

My friends, this is a post that I have wanted to write for several years now. It has been a part of many conversations that I have had with friends, congregants, family, and many, many others over the past few years. Last year, with the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, my desire to write it has been "amped up," but yet, I have continued to let other things get in the way. One of those things is my perfectionist idolatry: there have been parts of this that I felt I was not prepared to write well and I struggle with idolizing perfection. (My idolatrous perfectionism is actually one of the things that keeps me from writing more, which I know God is working on in me but my progress is slow.) Yet, lately, it has been coming back in full-force through many conversations with graduate students in my church. In fact, I lead a graduate student Bible study on Virginia Tech campus, and we are studying the Old Testament book Daniel, which has brought this back up over and over again. We are about to finish with Daniel 6, and again, I have been reminded of this subject and felt compelled to write, whether or not I am prepared to do it perfectly. So, this post will partially be a study in Daniel 6 and partially my musings on current cultural trends in light of God's Word and history, and then, next week, Lord willing, I will write another talking about how Daniel and other believes have been faithful under harsh times.

It is no secret that our current culture is pushing Christians to capitulate on its views of sexuality and sexual identity. Any Christian who upholds a biblical view of marriage and sexuality is labeled a "bigot" and "hateful," no matter how politely or lovingly they make their stand or even if they hold that view quietly, and any Christian who refuses to use their business to support any agenda of a sexual-progressive movement is sued and most are losing those suits (in this most recent case, even actor and vocal supporter of LGBT issues, Patrick Stuart, is against the ruling). In fact, even teaching the biblical view of sexuality in a Sunday school class might soon be labeled "extremist" and suppressed in the UK. And, some are coming right out and saying that anyone who descents from the culture's view of sexuality should be forced to comply with it. It seems our society is approaching a totalitarian state, where a particular worldview of sexuality is the only one allowed in the public square, which reminds us more of the Brave New World of Huxley or Orwell's 1984 than a democracy where individuals are supposedly given human rights. Now, I am not writing this to talk about the details of this cultural issue itself, transgender ideology, whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal, or anything like that. Others have written on the subject, and many have done a better job than I could. I want to look behind this and ask the question, "What is going on? Why is this happening? Is there anything behind this cultural push?" and hopefully provide some biblical and historical encouragement for Christians to follow Christ instead of culture.

That is why I started with a George Orwell quote. Many of you have probably read Animal Farm, and if you have not, I would be willing to bet you have at least heard of it. What you may not know is that Orwell wrote a preface to it that did not end up in the published work called "The Freedom of the Press," from which I quote above. In it, he talks about what we might call "cultural orthodoxy," which every culture has had, although it has taken many different forms. That cultural orthodoxy is, as Orwell writes, a body of ideas that all "right-thinking" people are assumed to hold, and anyone who descents from them in any way is never given a fair hearing, actively suppressed, and often persecuted. Sound familiar? It should. In Orwell's time, it was communist philosophy. In our time, in the West, it is sexual sovereignty: "I am sovereign over my own body and sexuality, and no one can tell me or believe otherwise." But, I think the real issue is not actually sexuality or really even cultural orthodoxy, per se: it is an issue of highest loyalty. To whom will we give our highest loyalty? The Kingdom of God or some kingdom of man?

Let me start with Daniel. Any Christian who grew up in the Church is familiar with Daniel 6: Daniel and the Lion's Den. It is a popular children's story, but, like almost all popular children's stories, it is often taught wrongly. It is often taught as "If you obey God and do what's right, everything will turn out fine for you." There is a grain of truth to that, but it depends on what we mean by "fine." Often by "fine" people mean that life will be generally comfortable and you will avoid most suffering. But, biblically-speaking, "fine" does not mean we will not suffer in this life; quite the contrary, actually. The biblical "fine" means God will use our suffering for our ultimate good, but we will still suffer. But, even that is not the point of the story. The point of the story comes out in the decree that the king is duped into making: "O King Darius, live forever! All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions." (vv. 6-7)

We look at that and on the surface are tempted to think it is about praying and worship. That is part of it, but ultimately it goes deeper. The ESV gets the translation right because it is about making a petition not just praying. Praying is certainly in that category, but asking a satrap for tax money to fix a road would be as well, which is why they qualify it with "any god or man." So, then what are these enemies of Daniel doing? They are appealing to the vanity of King Darius--to his desire to be the highest dependence and highest loyalty in Babylon. Whatever we depend upon most will be the thing to which we are most loyal--our highest loyalty. In essence, they are saying, "Make a law, King Darius, that for thirty days no one can have a higher loyalty than you; no one can be more dependent on anyone else than you." That would be a tempting prospect to anyone, and, indeed, it is the original temptation: "You will be like God." (Ge. 3:5) They know Darius will love the idea of being everyone's highest loyalty, and they know that Daniel will not give in to that command. That is why in v. 5 his enemies say to one another, "We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God." Thus, they have set the trap: make the highest loyalty someone other than God and watch Daniel maintain his loyalty to God. It is a test of loyalty that they know Daniel will fail.

Such a situation is not unique in the history of God's people. This was also the main issue at stake when it came to the official Roman persecutions of Christians. (You can read my summary of early Church persecutions here.) The Romans were remarkably tolerant of religions, philosophies, worldviews, etc. so long as the Roman State was your highest loyalty. They deeply distrusted and hated anyone who had a higher loyalty than the State. If they ever found out that you had a higher loyalty than the State, you were persecuted, and that was exactly the issue that caused the first empire-wide persecutions of Christians from 250 AD onward. Before 250 AD, the persecutions of Christians were localized to various regions of the Empire, and they were not yet a matter of official Roman policy. Then, Emperior Decius came along. Decius issued a decree that commanded all people under Roman rule to offer a single sacrifice once a year to the Roman gods for the well-being of the emperor by burning incense before the local magistrate. When you did, you were given a libellus (the image above is a surviving libellus), which was your proof of sacrifice. If you could not present a libellus when ask for it, then you were sentenced to death. Do you see what he was doing? He was testing the loyalty of his people. If they were ultimately loyal to Rome, they would sacrifice, even if they also had other gods they served, but if they had a higher loyalty to their God, they would not sacrifice. The ones whose highest loyalty was not to the State could then be identified and erradicated. Rome was fine with your religious beliefs, so long as you were loyalty to it above all else. It was a test of loyalty that Decius knew many Christians would fail.

For Daniel and the early Christians, the test of cultural orthodoxy many have been different, but the underlying issue was the same: Who is your highest loyalty? Whom do you really serve above all else? And, what we are seeing today has the same underlying issue, even though the test of cultural orthodoxy is different. The real issue is not sexual autonomy. That is just a symptom of something deeper: a culture that deeply distrusts those who have a higher loyalty than the culture itself, e.g. Christians.

Our culture is fine with religious beliefs and "spirituality" and even encourages it, so long as those beliefs do not lead you to question the prevailing cultural dogma, so long as you pass the test of cultural orthodoxy. For, if you pass that test, it shows you are more loyal to the culture than you are your religious or spiritual beliefs. If you are willing to compromise on that one belief, it shows your highest loyalty is really to the culture; not the God of the Bible. Last year, Frank Bruni of the NY Times tipped this hand and revealed these cards in his article "Bigotry, the Bible and Lessons from Indiana." There he lays it on the line. He tells us that religious freedom is really "freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity." I added emphasis to show you his bottom line: all people, religious or not, must bow to the "enlightenments of modernity," i.e. all people should be more loyal to the culture than their god, religous text, or spiritual beliefs. It is a test of loyalty: Is our highest loyalty to the culture (the "enlightenments of modernity") or to our God?

You see, friends, what we are seeing in culture is what Christians have experienced in all cultures in all times. It is just that the specifics of the test are different for us. Why do I point this out? For two reasons:

• First, we Christians need to be reminded of this so that we do not begin to think that we are going through something no other Christian community has. We are not. Our struggle is not unique. The true Church of God's people has never been on the "right side" of human history and has always been at odds with cultural orthodoxy. And, in those times where we seemed not to be at odds with the surrounding culture, I would argue that those are the times we have been least faithful to God and His Word. It was not because the test was not there but because we passed it (from the culture's perspective). I will talk more about this in the next post, but we need to remember that because then we can look back on history and see that God sustained His people during all those times and tests, no matter how bad the persecution became. He will do the same today. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18). 
• Second, I want us to realize that whatever the test of cultural orthodoxy is, the issue at the base is always spiritual. The fundamental issue is not sexuality, communism, or petitions. It is always a test of whether or not we will worship God and depend on Him above all else, even if it costs us everything we have in this world. In fact, these were really the issues at stake in devil's temptations of Jesus. And, if we are going to follow Christ through these tests, we need to see them for what they really are: spiritual battles. We need to look past the arguments over sexuality and see what lies behind it: Will we trust God, believe His Word, make use of His means of grace to sustain and train us, and make Him our highest loyalty? That is the question that really matters. It was what mattered for Daniel, the early Church, and all other Christians throughout space and time. 

For now, I leave you with that to ponder. Next week, Lord willing, we will learn from Daniel and a little from Church history how we live as faithful Christians in the midst of these tests of cultural orthodoxy.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Fight the Good Fight of the Faith: Joshua in History

Wow, it has been quite a long time since I have had a chance to write. I apologize for being MIA for so long. It has been quite a busy past few months while my senior pastor has been on sabbatical, and I have barely had enough time to get done what I have needed to get done for my family and church over the past few months, so I have just let writing fall to the wayside. I still do not have a lot of time to write presently, but I have also recently finished a sermon series at my church (GCPC), and it should give me enough for a couple of posts per week for a while.

The sermon series was called "Joshua: Fight the Good Fight of the Faith," and it is the story of the battles of the Christian life from the book of Joshua. Each week I wrote a short devotional that went out as an email to my church, which related to the passage on which the sermon was focused and, of course, preached a sermon from that passage. So, I will put all that up here as the weeks progress

The first weekly devotional for this series was a short summary of the historical debates and issues surrounding the book of Joshua. I argued that it is a reliable source of history that matches up well with what we know of Canaan and the ancient Near East in the second millennium BC. This historical basis is important because if it is just tales, then it does not actually teach us about the true God or tell us what He has done, so there is no reason for us to care about it. Legend does not help us in the Christian life. So, here it is. On Sunday I will post the first sermon entitled, "Be Strong and Courageous."
_______________________________________________

This Sunday we start our summer sermon series, which will go through the book of Joshua. And, any time we take a look at Scripture, particular the books of the Old Testament, it is helpful and even necessary to address the question of the historicity of the book.

Joshua is the book that tells the story of God's people entering the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, after the exodus from Egypt and forty years of wandering in the wilderness under Moses. Yet, the book of Joshua is much more than the story of God's people beginning the conquest of the land of Canaan: it is history and presents itself as history. In fact, as I will talk more about in the sermon posted Sunday, it is prophetic history--historical events recorded not merely to inform us of what happened but to proclaim a message from God Himself to us, a message that has much to teach us about our spiritual battles and the Christian life.

However, like many or even most Old Testament books, the historical truthfulness of the book of Joshua has come under fire in recent times, and since that is the case, it is necessary for us to talk briefly about its history and why we can trust it.

Much of the claim that the book of Joshua is "closer to fiction than it is history" comes from the fact that there is little archaeological evidence and historical documentation to corroborate what Scripture tells us. Now, hidden in this objection is the idea that Scripture itself is not history and therefore cannot be taken as historical evidence in its own right. That is a dubious assumption, to say the least, and it commits the logical fallacy of "begging the question" (i.e. failing to prove what it assumes). Many great books have been written on the historical veracity of Scripture, particularly the Old Testament (e.g. Kingdom of Priests is a good one), so I will not take that up here. It is too broad of a subject to address in this post, but keep in mind that since Scripture presents itself as history, when someone claims it is not, the burden of proof is on them to show that Scripture contradicts established, historical facts. It is not enough to say, "Well, there is no corroborating evidence," for that is an argument from silence or it assumes that historians are in possession of every bit of ancient historical evidence, which, of course, we know they are not. There is still much discovery to be done when it comes to archaeology and ancient history, and saying that there is no or little corroborating evidence to date is not a sufficient objection. The objector must prove that there is well-established, irrefutable evidence that contradicts the Bible before they can say, "Yes, the Bible presents itself as history, but we should not take it that way."

When I preached on Exodus last summer, I wrote about the historical evidence for the exodus from Egypt here, which might be a good place to start for extra reading. In that article, I argued for a date of 1446 BC for the exodus from Egypt, which has been questioned in recent times, and I address those objections to that date in the article, showing why it is biblical and fits the historical evidence from the time.

Given the date of 1446 BC for the exodus and the fact that the Scriptures tell us God's people wandered in the desert for forty years after that, that puts the date of the beginning of the conquest of the land of Canaan at 1406 BC. So, the main question then is: Is there verifiable archaeological and/or historical evidence that contradicts that date? If not, then there is no good reason to believe that what the Bible presents is not true history. A secondary question is: Is there corroborating evidence for this date? So, let's look at those two questions briefly:

In answer to the first (Is there verifiable archaeological and/or historical evidence that contradicts that date?): no, but that is not always the answer some scholars try to give. However, let me give a couple of reasons why the answer to that question is "No, there is no evidence that contradicts that Bible":

• Some scholars have argued that there is no archaeological evidence for a large-scale destruction of Canaanite cities until ca. 1250 BC. Given that, it is argued, the story of Joshua and Israel's conquest of Canaan in Scripture cannot be squared with archaeology, so the book his not historical. However, such an argument flat-out ignores the biblical account of Israel's conquest of Canaan. That argument assumes that the Israelites would have followed traditional conquest patterns of the time (i.e. complete destruction of cities) instead of taking seriously how Scripture describes the conquest:
• Joshua was specifically told by God only to destroy completely Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. The other cities were specifically not to be destroyed so that the Israelites would have places to live when "all was said and done" (cf. e.g. Dt. 6:10-11; 19:1). So, we should not expect there to be any evidence for a large-scale destruction of the cities in Canaan ca. 1406 BC. In fact, the archaeological evidence for a large-scale destruction ca. 1250 BC could easily be attributed to the severe oppression of Israel during the time of Deborah in the book of Judges.
• In addition, renown archaeologist John Garstangs's excavation of Jericho shows that the walls of the city fell outward and that it was probably destroyed ca. 1400 BC (though this date is still debated among archaeologists), both of which fit the biblical data quite well.
• Furthermore, Yigael Yadin's work in the excavation of Hazor (cf. Jos. 11) has shown that it was leveled in also around 1400 BC, which again comports well with the Bible's story and chronology.
• Dating the conquest to 1406 BC does fit what little archaeological and historical evidence in Canaan that we have.
• Furthermore, the biblical story of the conquest of Canaan also fits well with the surround events in the other nations of the ancient Near East (ANE). In fact, when the surrounding history is viewed with an eye that looks for God's providential hand, ca. 1400 BC was the perfect time for the conquest. All of the major powers surrounding Canaan that could have hindered Israel were all preoccupied somehow, which left Canaan ripe for conquest:
• The Hittites (a major power) and Mitannites were at war, and even if the Hittites could have fought on two fronts, they would not press into Canaan for fear of angering Egypt (who had claim to Canaan at the time through treaties with the peoples there).
• Syria was brought under Hittite control during this time, so it posed no threat to Israel in Canaan.
• Assyria and Egypt had entered into a treaty, so Assyria would not risk that treaty by interfering with Canaanites affairs.
• And, even though Egypt had claim to Canaan ca. 1400 BC, it was disinterested in Canaan because Amenhotep III (1417-1379 BC) had turned inward to focus on hunting and arts, and Amenhotep IV (1379-1362 BC) was engaged in religious pursuits and disinterested in Canaan as well. In fact, Burnaburias II of the Kassites wrote a letter to Amenhotep IV (1370 BC) complaining about the shoddy treatment of his messengers that traveled through Canaan (a letter which does not appear to have received a response), and the description in the letter fits the biblical account of the time of the Judges after the conquest.
• As the historian and biblical scholar Eugene H. Merrill says, "The other side of the coin of Egyptian indifference to Canaanite affairs surely has to be the hand of Yahweh, who provided exactly the right circumstances in which His people could possess the land He had promised them."

In answer to the second question: (Is there corroborating evidence for the conquest?): perhaps, though it is not so solid that we can say without a doubt that the documentation of the time refers directly to the Bible's account of the conquest:

• At this time, there was a group of people known as the 'Apiru or Habiru (in the Canaanite language). They do not appear to be an ethnic group (i.e. a race like Hebrews or Hittites) but probably a social class, specifically: mercenaries. There exists a series of letters coming from Canaan to Egypt pleading for help defending against the 'Apiru called the Amarna Letters, and these letters have been dated to ca. 1400-1350 BC. (Egypt did not respond to any of them, by the way, because the Pharaohs described above were disinterested in Canaan and ignored them.) Now, it is clear that these people are not to be fully identified with the Israelites, however, given that their name is remarkably linguistically similar to the word "Hebrew" in Canaanite, it is possible that the Canaanites may have confused the Hebrews with the 'Apiru and perhaps some of the Amarna Letters are really referring to the Hebrews. This would make sense for the Canaanites probably would not have been able to distinguish between peoples attacking them from the outside, especially when their names were so similar.
• There are several Amarna Letters that sound almost exactly like parts of the biblical account of the conquest. Merrill collects several of these together in his book Kingdom of Priests and shows how they fit quite well with the biblical account of the Israelite ownership of Shechem, the defeat of Megiddo, the account of the enslavement of the inhabitants of Gezer by Ephraim of Israel, and the taking of part of Jerusalem by Judah. So, some of the Amarna Letters could very well refer to the Hebrews and not the actual 'Apiru.
• In fact, this possible confusion of the 'Apiru with the Hebrews might explain why the OT very rarely shows the Israelites using "Hebrew" for self-reference--they almost never called themselves "Hebrews." They would not call themselves something that would confuse them with a social class of mercenaries. This confusion also could explain 1 Sa. 13:3, 6-7; 14:21, which distinguish the Hebrews from the Israelites (where these distinguished Hebrews really 'Apiru?).

So, while the 'Apiru cannot be completely identified with the Hebrews, some of the Amarna letters may, in fact, describe the Hebrews (being confused with the 'Apiru). And, even if they do not, they do not contradict the biblical account at all.

As stated above, when one wants to question this historical truthfulness of the book of Joshua, one has to show that it contradicts established, verified archaeological and historical evidence. Hopefully, the above overview shows that it does not, but, in fact, what little extra-biblical data there is for Canaan ca. 1400 BC fits quite well with Scripture and may even offer support for its account of the conquest in the book of Joshua.

On Sunday, we will begin looking at the narrative itself and see how it can fortify us for the Christian life.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Resurrection Resources

This Sunday is Easter Sunday, which means there will be Easter egg hunts, pastel colors, special lunches and dinners, fuller churches, and lots, lots, lots of popular media articles trying to claim that the resurrection of Jesus never happened and possibly even saying something like "there is no historical evidence for it" or some thing like that. Well, since Paul says in 1 Co. 15:14, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain," this is an important subject.

Well, to cut to the chase, the resurrection did happen, there is ample historical evidence for it, and there is good reason to believe in it. Now, since so much good stuff has been written on this subject, I do not feel the need to repeat that process. Instead, here is a short list of some great resources for defending the validity and historicity of the resurrection:

• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach -- This is one of the most scholarly works on the resurrection of Jesus, and even though it is expensive and big, it is worth your money and time. It does have a few issues with it (a few of which are discussed here at a roundtable with the author a few other NT scholars), but overall it is quite good. 
• Challenge: We Can't Know Jesus Rose from the Dead -- This is a quick video interview with Mike Licona (the author of the above book), highlighting the major historical points that show us that we can know that Jesus rose from the dead. 
• Impact 360 Video: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? -- This is a great, short video explaining the major pieces of evidence for the resurrection, and it even addresses the objection: "Science has disproved the resurrection." 
• The Resurrection wad a Real Event in History -- This is an article laying out some of the major evidences for the resurrection. It also briefly counters some of the attempts to offer a "natural" explanation. 
• 4 Reasons to Believe in the Empty Tomb -- This one is not about the resurrection, per se, but it is about why we can believe that Jesus' tomb was empty on that Sunday morning after His crucifixion and why that historical evidence demands an explanation that all other attempts fail to supply.
• Five Strands of Evidence for Jesus Christ’s Resurrection -- Here is another article briefly summarizing the evidence for the resurrection. 
• Jesus’ Family and the Resurrection -- This one looks at James' change of heart in particular and how the best explanation for that is the resurrection. 
• An Elephant in the Resurrection Skeptic’s Room -- This one looks a different line of argumentation: answering a challenge that the disciples were uneducated, so we should not trust their accounts of the resurrection. 
• Addressing Resurrection Alternatives -- This is a six-part series addressing the attempts to explain away the resurrection (part one, part two, part three, part four, part five, part six).
• The Resurrection: Christianity’s Most Dangerous Idea -- This one is not so much an apologetic article but one that talks about why the resurrection is such a dangerous idea to those looking upon the Christian faith with disbelief. 
• Was Jesus Still God in the Tomb? -- Again, not an apologetic article, but it is an important question that Christians should be able to answer. 

If you are a Christian, I hope these help boost your confidence in your Savior and standing before God in Him. If you are not a Christian, I pray these resources will challenge your preconceptions about the Bible and history and lead you to a saving faith in Christ.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Editing the Human Genome, Bioethics, and Human Life

It is election time, and that, of course, brings a lot of debate, media articles, and (to be straightforward) distraction from other important issues going on in the world. Now, I am not saying politics is not important, but I am saying that sometimes we can get so caught up in candidates, debates, and primaries that we miss other events going on in our world that have equally profound and far-reaching ramifications for humanity (if not surpassing importance).

Such an event has been largely missed by the popular media, and I would argue that is has the potential to affect the human race in a way that far out-weighs any single election in the United States. It is that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in the UK has given the Francis Crick Institute the green light to use a gene editing technique called CRISPR to conduct experiments that modify the genome of human embryos.

Yes, you read that correctly: the Francis Crick Institute is going to begin modifying the genome of human embryos with the expressed goal of "understanding the process by which embryos develop... that will help identify causes of miscarriage and infertility." Proponents of the research say that it could help scientists to understand why there is a such a high rate miscarriages, how to eliminate certain diseases, and how to treat infertility more effectively. So, you might ask, "Why is that an issue? Who could be against that?" Well, when we are talking about tampering with the human genome itself, such an endeavor has far-reaching implications that provide quite good reasons to be against it.

I am, of course, not the first person to point this out. In fact, there has been a widespread outcry against these efforts by scientists across the world, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the engineering of the human genome. In an open letter by the Center for Genetics and Society, dozens of scientists across the globe call for such research to be stopped before it does irreparable damage to the human race:

Some suggest that germline modification be allowed for therapeutic purposes but not for “enhancement.”  But the distinction between these applications is subjective and would be difficult or impossible to implement as policy. Permitting germline intervention for any intended purpose would open the door to an era of high-tech consumer eugenics in which affluent parents seek to choose socially preferred qualities for their children. At a time when economic inequality is surging worldwide, heritable genetic modification could inscribe new forms of inequality and discrimination onto the human genome.  

For these reasons, several dozen countries, including most of those with highly developed biotechnology sectors, have explicitly banned human germline modification. The Council of Europe’s binding 1997 Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine also prohibits it. Numerous opinion surveys show that the great majority of Americans and others worldwide believe that heritable genetic modification should be prohibited. 

While we are encouraged by efforts on the part of scientific bodies to move the process of deliberation about acceptable uses of gene editing forward, we are concerned that much of the focus has been on technical issues of safety (implying that if it were safe it would be acceptable), rather than on broader ethical and social implications. We strongly believe that the National Academies’ initiative and international meeting should be considered a very early step of a broadly inclusive program of public discussion. Any recommendations emerging from the meeting or the initiative should make this clear. 

In sum, there is no justification for, and many arguments against, human germline modification for reproductive purposes. We call for a prohibition on such germline modification and a robust and broadly inclusive discussion on the socially responsible uses of this and other emerging genetic technologies. (Emphasis added...)

Check out the open letter yourself to look at the signatures and who is arguing that this is far too dangerous for the human race to attempt. It is not just me or other Christians (and we will get into my reasons in a moment) but scientists from many religious worldviews across the globe. Here we have a group of scientists who understand that just because we have the technology and ability to do something does not mean we should do it. We must think about the implications of our scientific research and weigh that against what good (if any) it might accomplish. In an imperfect world like ours, there are times when we must not pursue some scientific research because whatever good it might accomplish cannot be justified and is far outweighed by the loss of human life, the destruction of human dignity, the unknown affects on the human race, and the implications for human society.

As I alluded above, many Christians have also discussed the ethics and dangers of such an endeavor. In this article, Church and Culture discusses some of the ethical implications of such research. In this one, Anjeanette "AJ" Roberts of Reasons to Believe discusses the implications the image of God has on such research as well as the unknown effects on humanity that such tampering could have. Both of them are worth reading along with the open letter mentioned above, but I would like to add another ethical implication that I have yet to hear discussed: the ethical implications of the process of this scientific research itself.

In a nutshell, this process of research will "deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development." Basically, using CRISPR, the scientists will deactivate genes, allow the embryo to develop, and then see what happens--how the deactivation of that gene helps or hinders the overall development of the human embyro. (Currently, the growth process of the embryo will take place in a lab because it is not yet legal to insert a genetically modified embryo in a human host. Not yet, but that is the next step.) They must use this process because at our current level of technology, it is possible to isolate certain genes that affect or contribute to certain diseases, defects, or developmental stages, but it is generally not known how those genes function in the overall development of a human or affect the overall development of our genome (i.e. genetic makeup). Genes are not so isolated that one gene only has one function. How particular genes contribute to the overall gene expression of a being is largely unpredictable. So, just because a research group might know what genes affect certain developmental outcomes, they do not necessarily know how those genes affect the development of the entire genome of the individual. That means this research must proceed by making targeted changes to the genome of an embryo and then seeing whether or not the embryo develops properly with the desired outcome.

Now, think about that process as a whole: they will deactivate genes, allow the human embryo to develop (i.e. grow), and see what happens. What we are talking about here is taking a human life (a human person from conception, as I argue here), modifying its genome, and then seeing if it dies or not, develops healthily or not, develops unforeseen side effects or not, etc. It is akin to taking a baby, cutting off its leg, and then saying, "Now, let's what happens as it grows." This research goes even beyond current embryonic stem cell research (which is also a deplorable destruction of human life) because it doesn't just take cells from an embryo killing it in the process; it modifies the embryo and allows it to live on just to see how the modification affects its life. This is slavery at its worst, the likes of which our world, unfortunately, has seen in the past. Perhaps a few historical examples will help put some perspective on this research.

During WWII, the Nazi's conducted experiments on Jews at many of their concentration camps, but the majority were performed at Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck. If you have not read about these experiments, they are not for the faint of heart. Nazi doctors performed all sorts of horrific experiments on those who were considered "untermensch" ("sub-human") to see what would happen and/or to see if they could develop medical treatments that would be beneficial to German soldiers. And, after WWII, at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, these doctors were tried and convicted of war crimes against humanity. What they did was absolutely deplorable and deserved to be tried as crimes against humanity, but it is not ethically different from what HFEA has just granted the Francis Crick Institute permission to do: experiment on humans to see what will happen and/or try to development medical treatments that will be beneficial for other humans. Just because these humans are less developed physically they the rest of us, just because they do not have a voice to cry out for help, just because they do not have the ability to try to flee the scientists does not mean they are any less human than you or me (cf. the SLED test for more detail on this).

Perhaps one more example from America history will help. Have you ever heard of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? American physicians studied about 600 black males in Alabama who had syphilis, and they told the men that they were getting "free medical care." What these doctors were really doing was refusing to treat their syphilis so that the doctors could study the progression of untreated syphilis in humans. They let these men suffer and die just to see what would happen--to see how syphilis would progress when untreated. This also was a gross and deplorable misuse of scientific research that cost the lives of hundreds of men, but, again, it is not ethically different from what HFEA has just granted the Francis Crick Institute permission to do.

If the Francis Crick Institute is allowed to continue its research or if others follow suit, then these "left over" human embryos from IVF will become a slave class in our world, kept alive simply for experimentation not unlike what the Nazis did in WWII or what happened in Tuskegee, AL. Yes, the researchers are trying to do good with their experiments, but that does not justify the process. The end does not justify the means--developing treatments for humans by taking human life or, indeed, altering human life and allowing it to develop to see what happens is unacceptable. The end of this research may have profound implications on the human race in the future that we cannot predict, as the above articles and letters show, but even the process of this research itself should be condemned by us.

I hope and pray the outcry of scientists across the globe will bring this research to an end soon, and perhaps this blog post will help in that process. May God have mercy on us for how we treat His images.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Exodus: A Great Salvation -- The Supreme Court, Exodus, and the Gospel

Note: This was written as a devotional for my congregation on June 26, the day the results of Obergefell v. Hodges were announced. So, it is a little behind; yet it still applies today.

So, anyone who has been on Facebook or kept an eye on the news for the past few hours probably knows by now that the Supreme Court ruled that States are required to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. And, of course, since then the Internet has exploded with articles and opinion pieces on this topic, which is not really surprising. So far, Russell Moore has a very good response "Why the church should neither cave nor panic about the decision on gay marriage." And, the Exodus story is relevant to the situation the Church is entering.

We do not need to cave or panic. Yes, this will likely mean more persecution for Christians in America as the ramifications of this decision play themselves out. But, let's sit back and take a historical perspective. Rarely has the true, invisible Church existed in an environment where the culture around them was not hostile to their beliefs (and Jesus warned us of this), and God has continued to sustain, love, and care for His Church in whatever environment they live. The Hebrew people had to learn this in Ex. 1-2, and the Church has learned it ever since. Persecution has never stopped God's people or the spread of the gospel. In fact, it has only served to fuel the spread. We have seen this in Ex. 1, the book of Acts, the Roman persecutions of the early Church, the Reformation, and even today in places like Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. And, this is because the life of the Church is not in our selves, our strength, or anything else from us at all. The life of the Church is the resurrection life of Christ, against which even the gates of hell cannot prevail. As Russell Moore said in the above article, "The Supreme Court can do many things, but the Supreme Court cannot get Jesus back in that tomb." Nothing can stop the Church, and Christ will continue to sustain and protect His Bride until He returns again to take her home.

And, speaking of home, that is another aspect of the Exodus story and our lives as the Church that we need to remember. Yes, this latest decision will likely mean greater persecution for us as a Church and as individuals, but that should remind us that the gospel shows us that this world is not our home. He. 11:26 tells us that Moses "considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." Even Moses knew that the promises of God and the coming Redeemer were greater than all the treasures of Egypt. Why? Because he knew that this world is not his home. The "reward" towards which he was looking is told to us by the author of Hebrews in v. 16: "a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city." Moses and all of God's people have "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" coming--the new heavens and the new earth. Jesus, through His work of redemption, has secured for us a home that far surpasses this world in every category, and while we may suffer here for Christ because we stand with Him against our culture, as the gospel tells us, "The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us." Yes, we may suffer in the future as the implications from today play themselves out, but that suffering should remind us that this world is not our home. We are strangers and foreigners here, exiles as Peter puts it, but that is only for a short time. America is not really our country but simply a place to sojourn for a while on this earth. We have "a better country, that is, a heavenly one" coming. Christ secured it; the gospel displays it.

Now, I know this might worry you, for even though we know that God will not let His Church die and that we have a better country coming, we still have to see our children grow up in a world hostile to the things we teach them. Yet, we must also remember here that to God our children are holy, and He loves them more than we do. Perhaps life will be hard for them--harder than it was for us--but instead of focusing on that hardship that will come, let's display before them confidence in God's sovereignty, and as we do, perhaps it will help us to live more free from worry. Let's show them that we know God has this country in His hands and the He turns the heart of the "king" however He chooses. Let's show them that He loves and cares for all His people, so much so that He knows how many hairs are on our heads and when one falls He knows (a reality for me that becomes more and more vivid with each passing year). Let's show them that Christ loves His Bride and sacrifices everything for her by living marriages that are sacrificial and serving before them. Or, if you are single, our children can still see quite clearly in your life that Jesus is more important and valuable than any relationship in this world, so please, show them that. Let's show them that we are looking forward to a better country and therefore God is not ashamed to be our God, even if our culture is ashamed to have us in it. Let's show them that the gospel is the true hope of every individual in this country and that they will never be satisfied until they drink of Christ, therefore we still need to be lights and salt for Him so that when the sexual revolution has left our culture bankrupt, the gospel is right there waiting for them. And, let's look forward explicitly to the new heavens and new earth, showing them that we long for that world which is our true and eternal home and that the sufferings of Christ are nothing in comparison. Perhaps as we display that in our homes and in our worship at church and fervently pray for the next generation of Christians, the stark contrast between a bankrupt culture and a full, life-giving gospel will sink down into their hearts, so much so that they will be the next generation that carries the spreading of God's kingdom forward, for His glory and our good.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Exodus: A Great Salvation -- History and the Exodus

This past summer I had the pleasure of preaching a series on the first twelve chapters of the book of Exodus--i.e. the story of the exodus of the Hebrew people from Egypt. I have not had a chance to post my devotions and sermons for this series yet, so since the series is now over, I am really behind, but better late than never. Now, since there is a lot of historical debate surrounding this event, I think it might be helpful to talk briefly about some of those issues and explain why the exodus is a historical event.

First, I must confess, I have not yet see the latest movie about the Exodus--Exodus: God and Kings--so I cannot necessarily speak to its accuracy one way or another. However, since the two main characters are Moses and Ramses, and the movie seems to claim that Moses and Ramses were raised as brothers, it is probably not much more accurate than The 10 Commandments. Such a character cast shows that they assume a very late date for the exodus event (in the 13th century BC), which does not fit with or take seriously the biblical evidence. But, hopefully you do not expect much from Hollywood when it comes to historical accuracy of movies made about biblical events. :) So, that being said, what I talk about here is not meant to correct anything in those movies, at least not intentionally. What we need to talk about is some prevailing opinions among scholars surrounding the historicity of this biblical event.

Exodus is much more than a story, for it presents itself as history, so we should interpret as history. Yet, there are many scholars who look at Scripture and Egyptian history and claim, as Baruch Halpern uncharitably stated, "the actual evidence concerning the Exodus resembles the evidence for the unicorn." Now, certainly not all scholars agree with that sentiment, but many do, so it would be helpful for us to overview why the exodus story should be viewed as history and how it fits with exra-biblical evidence.

Much of the claim that the exodus is closer to fiction and that it is history comes from the fact that there is little historical evidence to corroborate what Scripture tells us. Now, hidden in this objection is the idea that Scripture is not history and therefore cannot be taken as historical evidence in its own right. That is a dubious assumption, to say the least, and many great books have been written on the historical veracity of Scripture and particularly the Old Testament (e.g. Kingdom of Priests is a good one), so I will not take that up here. It is too broad of a subject to address in this email, but keep in mind that since Scripture presents itself as history, when someone makes such a claim, the burden of proof is on them to show that Scripture contradicts established, historical facts. It is not enough to say, "Well, there is no corroborating evidence," for that is an argument from silence or assumes that historians are in possession of every bit of ancient historical evidence, which, of course, we know they are not. There is still much discovery to be done when it comes to ancient history, so saying that there is no corroborating evidence to date is not a sufficient objection. The objector must prove that there is well-established, irrefutable evidence that contradicts the Bible before they can say, "Yes, the Bible presents itself as history, but we should not take it that way."

That being said, we do need to address the objection that there is no corroborating evidence. Even though the burden of proof is on the critic, we need to be able to give reasons for why this might appear to be case. So, is it true that there isno corroborating evidence for the Scripture's account of the exodus? It is true that there is little corroborating, extra-biblical evidence for the exodus, but that does not mean there is no evidence. That is overstating the matter. To explain this further, we will look at it in two ways: the Egyptian worldview and why they did not record the events of the exodus; and how the exodus fits the historical data that we do have from ancient Egypt.

First, the Egyptian worldview: Some have claimed that if the exodus was a real, historical event, we would see it in the annals of Egyptian history. That claim is not nearly as strong as it sounds initially for two reasons:

• First, the events of the exodus show the God of the Jews battling against the gods of the Egyptians, and, to put it bluntly, the gods of the Egyptians were decisively defeated. Furthermore, the events of the exodus show a shepherd--Moses--going up against the most powerful man in the world--Pharaoh--and, again to put it bluntly, Pharaoh was decisively defeated. Now, let me ask you: If you were an Egyptian Pharaoh, would you have your historians record that? Perhaps today we in our modern times attempt to be more "dispassionate" about events that occur, but ancient peoples generally did not do that, particularly the Egyptians (the Bible being one of the previous few exceptions). Embarrassing history was generally left out of the records. So, when the God of a rag-tag group of slaves successfully defeats the most powerful nation in the world of the time, common sense tells us that we should not expect that nation to keep that record for all posterity to see.
• Second, the Egyptian worldview in particular would have demanded they not record such a devastating defeat. G. Wheeler has argued quite convincingly that the ancient Egyptian worldview would have found it almost impossible to record for succeeding generations anything about the exodus, the plagues, or any other events that showed the weakness of Egypt and particularly its Pharaoh. The reason for this is that Egyptians believed that writing was an act of the actual creation of reality--that written words actually brought into being the things they recorded. So, from the Egyptian worldview, writing had the power to control the forces of the cosmos, making things become what they recorded. In their worldview, to put the absolutely domination of the God of the Jews over the gods of Egypt into writing, not to mention the killing of the firstborn as well as other plagues, would cement those events into reality and give them power to harm future Egypt. Therefore, we, again, should not expect an Egyptian Pharaoh or his historians to have recorded such devastating events.

Given the events of the Exodus and the Egyptian worldview, it is simply unreasonable to demand that there be large amounts of explicit corroborating evidence in the annals of Egyptian history and to make that the judge of veracity of Scripture's record. Instead, we need to look at how well the Bible's history fits with what is available from Egyptian history.

Second, how the exodus fits in history: While there is little, direct historical evidence outside of Scripture for the exodus, that does not mean there is no evidence or that Scripture is not valid historical evidence in itself. K. Kitchen, a renowned Egyptologist, makes a good historical argument in On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Kitchen argues at length for the historical reasonableness of the biblical stories of how the Israelites got into Egypt, how they lasted there for four centuries, and how they left. His argument is too extensive to reproduce here, so I will just show how the exodus fits what is known of ancient Egypt.

In the Bible's chronology, it is fairly easy to pinpoint the probable date of the exodus. A solid reference point in biblical history comes from 1 Kings 6:1, “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt…” This is how Solomon’s building of the Temple begins, and it is almost universally agreed that this occurred in the year 966 BC. Working backwards, that puts the date of the exodus at 1446 BC, which places it during the reign of Amenhotep II of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. Many things during this period fit quite well with the biblical account:

• If we take this 15th century date for the exodus, the Jews would have serving as slaves under Amenhotep I or Thutmose I (the former died and the latter arose in 1526 BC) when Moses was born (1526 BC), and Egyptian history shows both of them (and later pharaohs during Moses' life) engaging in major building projects in the Nile Delta, which would have required a massive slave-labor force and fits the work commanded by the Pharoah of Ex. 1.
• The daughter of Thutmose I was named Hatshepsut, and she may have been the princess who pulled Moses out of the water. History shows her to be the one princess on record bold enough to defy her father's edict, and it would have taken such a bold princess to adopt Moses.
• Later in Egyptian history, Hatshepsut married Thutmose II (her half brother) whose son was Thutmose III. Since Hatshepsut had no natural sons, if she was the princess who adopted Moses, he would have been a threat to Thutmose III and his right to the throne of Egypt. Furthermore, for some time, Thutmose III and Hatshepsut served as co-regents/co-Pharaohs over Egypt, which would have only heighten the tension between Thutmose III and the threat to his throne--Moses. Such tension fits well with Moses' need to flee Ex. 2:11-15. Since Moses was a member of the royal court, a murder of a random Egyptian would not have been an issue, unless Pharaoh (i.e. Thutmose III) was looking for an excuse to get rid of a threat like Moses. This also fits the timing in Egyptian history because Moses would have fled in 1486 BC, after Egyptian records show that Thutmose III had sole rule and while Hatshepsut was very old and close to death, i.e. without much influence anymore and not able to protect her adopted son.
• Moses was exiled for 40 years which was about the time Thutmose III ruled (dying in 1450 BC, just four years before Moses returned for God). Had Moses even wanted to return, he would not have been able to until after Thutmose III died. And, of all of the Pharaohs on record, his reign is the only one long enough for Moses to have had to stay away for 40 years. So, this also fits well with biblical history.
• Next, as stated above, Amenhotep II was probably the Pharaoh ruling when God freed His people from Egypt, and there is strong evidence Egyptian records for great military decline under Amenhotep II. He had been making aggressive military campaigns into Canaan for years, and then in 1446 BC he abruptly stopped before his conquering of Canaan was complete. The Egyptians records do not record the reason he stopped, but since 1446 BC is the date of the exodus, this fits quite well with the drowning of much of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea (Ex. 14). After such an event, Pharaoh would not have had the manpower to continue any forays into enemy territory.
• And, finally, Amenhotep II did not pass his reign to oldest son but to his second son. This would have only occurred in an Egyptian dynasty if the oldest son had suffered an untimely death. Could this have been the aftermath of the tenth plague? Amenhotep II was likely the Pharaoh ruling during the plagues, and therefore he would have lost his oldest son to the angel of death. So, this also fits quite well with biblical history.

Now, granted, all the the above is a series of circumstantial events, yet it does show that if we take the biblical evidence seriously and compare it to Egyptian history, they fit together quite well. And, given that, as I have argued above, we should not expect direct evidence in the Egyptian records, this is the kind of case that must be made.

So, while biblical historians cannot muster huge amounts of corroborating evidence for the exodus, the evidence that does exist does not contradict biblical history and, in fact, fits quite well with everything that is known about Egyptian history of the 15th century BC. Exodus is history, and as we study it we will see the amazing things that God has done in the history of the Israelites, which is also our history as Christians.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Gospel According to Joseph: The Prequel to Joseph

Wow, it has been quite a long time since I have had a chance to write. I apologize for being MIA for so long. It has been quite a busy past few months, and I have barely had enough time to get done what I have needed to get done for my family and church over the past few months, so I have just let writing fall to the wayside. I still do not have a lot of time to write presently, but I have also started a new sermon series at my church, (GCPC), and it should give me enough for a couple of posts per week.

The sermon series is called "The Gospel According to Joseph," and it is on the story of Joseph, Jacob, and Judah from Ge. 37-50. And, each week I write a short devotional that relates to the passage on which the sermon will focus and, of course, preach a sermon from that passage. So, I will put all that up here as the series progresses. I am actually already three weeks into the series, but I will probably post them a week at a time so as not to give my regular readers information overload.

The first weekly devotional for this series was a short summary of the story of Genesis leading up to the story of Joseph, Jacob, and Judah. The prequel provides important information for understanding this wonderful story. So, here it is. On Sunday I will post the first sermon entitled, "The Gospel and Sin."
_______________________________________________

In Ge. 3, we read about the fall of Adam and Eve that introduced sin into this world and to all of mankind that followed. Their fall created a huge problem for them and for the rest of humanity: how will we ever be able to get back into right relationship with God and have peace with Him? How will we be redeemed from our sin? But, God in His grace doesn't leave us without hope even for a moment. In Ge. 3:15, in the midst of His curse on the serpent, He promises a Redeemer who will crush satan and save His people. That Redeemer will come from Adam and Eve's "offspring" or "seed" (you can read about this covenant in more detail here). Then, the story of Genesis progresses, and the immediate offspring of Adam and Eve are certainly not the promised Redeemer, so we must continue to wait, trusting God's promise.

Then, in Ge. 12, God calls a man named Abraham, and God promises to make him into a great nation and bless "all the families of the earth" through him. And, as Abraham trusts God and follows Him, he gets more information about how God will fulfill this promise in the covenant God makes with him in Ge. 15:8-22; 17:1-14. There, we learn that the "offspring" or "seed" that will Redeem His people promised to Adam and Eve will come specifically through Abraham's line. God promises to make his descendants more than the stars in the sky or the sands on the seashore, and one of those descendants will be the Redeemer (you can read about this covenant in more detail here). And, Paul tells us later that it's through this promise that the Scriptures "preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham," and it is this very promise that Peter says Jesus fulfilled (Ac. 3:25-26; cf. Ga. 3:16). Jesus is the "offspring" or "seed" promised to Adam and Eve and Abraham! He would one day come from the line of Abraham to redeem the world through His life, death, and resurrection.

After God made His covenant with Abraham, the story of Genesis continues and we must continue to wait, trusting that God will fulfill His promise. Abraham sees the seeds of that fulfillment in the miraculous conception of his son Isaac, who will continue the line that would one day produce Jesus. Isaac has two sons--Esau and Jacob--and while Jacob is the younger, God chooses him to be the one through who the Redeemer would come. Jacob gets the covenant God made with Abraham and Isaac confirmed to him in Ge. 35. Yet, we still have to continue to wait, trusting that God will fulfill His promise of a Redeemer.

That brings us to the story of Ge. 37-50, which will be our summer series. In this story, we see that there is a crisis in the family line of Jesus. Jacob's family is a complete mess and there is a famine coming that threatens to wipe them out. Will this messy group of people actually produce the Redeemer who will save them from their sin? Will the line of Abraham continue or will the hope of the "offspring" or "seed" promised to him die with this family as they starve in the famine? We, of course, know that God does save them and Jesus does eventually come, but as we study this story, we'll see God's great providence working to accomplish His promise of the Redeemer and His gospel working in the lives of this messy family to make them faithful followers of Him who live by faith and not by sight (cf. 2 Co. 5:7).

By His Grace,
Taylor

Jesus' Wife? Really?

"Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life." ~ "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'" Michael J. Kruger, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC

I am sure many of you have read the recent articles that have been entitled things like "Jesus said, 'My wife'" or "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife." Somehow discoveries like this seem to get a lot of media hype. I suppose it is because the media cannot get enough alternative versions of Jesus' life and love to give them historical value equal to the NT Gospels. (I have written about this type of discovery and media reaction here.)

Below I am going to give you some resources that go into much more depth than I do, but here are a few things to remember. First, this fragment is from the fourth century AD (Update: recent studies push it back to the eighth or ninth century AD). That means it was written about 300 (Update: 700-800) years after Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. Even if this fragment were to be authenticated, it was written way too late to take seriously. Even Karen King, the scholar who revealed the fragment, gives this caution. Furthermore, we have no way to identify the genre of literature from which this fragment came. We have no idea whether the original author was even claiming to record history. Given its date and the lack of information about its genre, giving this fragment historical weight is somewhat analogous to a historian fifteen-hundred years from now discovering fragments of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and publishing a paper entitled "Ancient US President Lincoln May Have Slayed More Than Just Slavery," even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. There is no reason to give credence to this fragment when the full NT Gospels (dated to the first century!) and all other earlier historical evidence all indicate the contrary.

If you want more detailed information, here are some resources:

• Quote from above: "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'," by Dr. Michael Kruger
• NT Manuscripts
• "Did Jesus have a wife?", RTB Kenneth Samples' Science News Flash
• "An Ancient Manuscript and Jesus’ Wife?", by Dr. Jeffery Gibbs

By His Grace,
Taylor