Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s Blog, page 79

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

[image error]PMW 2018-032 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

As Christ’s kingdom advances to greater fulfillment in the world, it will establish a full world and life view. Thus, it will impact the laws of men and nations. One aspect of this advancing endorsement of law is the principle of capital punishment. Though capital punishment is rejected in most European nations and only partly maintained in America, it is important that the Christian understand the obligation to a Bible-based criminal justice system.

In Genesis 9:6 God establishes his covenant with Noah as he disembarks the Ark to repopulate the world. One of the principles he establishes in this covenant is that of capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 reads: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” Thus we have here a justification for one man taking the life of another: because man is in the “image of God” he may therefore act for God on just occasion.

We must remember that God sent the Flood to destroy man because man had become so corrupted in his sin: Genesis 6:5-7 reads: “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. [6] And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. [7] And the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” Thus, God’s covenant in Genesis 9:6 seeks to punish such evil as murder by capital punishment.

The Ten Commandments appear in Exodus 20. The Sixth Commandment commands us: “Thou shalt not kill.” But not all that many verses later Exodus 21:12 demands: “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” Notice that he “shall SURELY be put to death.” The same God who gave the Ten Commandments gave capital punishment legislation as the proper judicial response against anyone guilty of murder.

Regarding capital punishment obligations upon society, God’s law expressly forbids exercising mercy against a murderer. Deut. 19:13 “You shall not pity him, but you shall purge the blood of the innocent from Israel, that it may go well with you.”

[image error]

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Paul the Apostle in the New Testament teaches that it is one of the distinctive duties of the civil magistrate that he shall have the God-given right to wield the sword (Romans capitally punished Roman citizens by beheading). In fact, as he does so, he points out that the civil magistrate is in this act a “minister of God” who must do so. Romans 13:1-4: “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”

Paul offered himself up for capital punishment, if his accusers could demonstrate just cause in his case. Had Paul deemed capital punishment evil, he would not have urged its consideration. Acts 25:1: “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Remember that Jesus upheld the law of God. He was not ashamed or embarrassed by the Mosaic Law calling for capital punishment. Matthew 5:17-19: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Paul also upholds the law of God, even mentioning its usefulness for standing against evil doers (which effectively endorses capital punishment). Interestingly, he does so while declaring that the law is “good,” is a matter of “sound teaching,” and is according to the “gospel.” 1 Tim. 1:8-11 reads: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

LINKING REV 20 AND REV 21

[image error]PMW 2018-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

The Problem before Us

Many Revelation commentators argue that the new creation of Rev. 21–22 follows after the final judgment of Rev. 20:11–15. And it certainly is not unreasonable to hold that John’s statement that “the first heaven and the first earth passed away” (21:1) chronologically “follows on the heels of 20:11, where it is said that ‘heaven and earth fled away from the presence [of God], and no place was found for them’” (Beale 1039). This would suggest that ch 21 follows after the final judgment in 20:11–15.

I would note that Scripture does, in fact, teach a consummate new creation after the final judgment (Ro 8:18–23; 2Pe 3:10–13), which would be the environment suited for our physically resurrected bodies. What is more, much of the imagery in 21:1–22:5 appears to describe a perfect estate beyond the present order. Thus, we could easily hold that “whereas chs. 1–3 focus on the churches’ weaknesses throughout the old age, here John foresees the church in its perfected eternal state” (Beale 1039).

The Resolution of the Problem

Nevertheless, elsewhere I have argued (as have many others) that we may make a strong case that John’s visions in Rev 21:1–22:5 present the church on earth, ideally conceived in terms which anticipate and reflect her consummate eternal glory: “The New Creation in Revelation.”

This interpretation grows out of redemptive-historical preterism with its inaugurated, already/not yet eschatology. This view is further suggested when we recognize Rev’s highly symbolic character, its dramatic presentation, and its conformity with other NT revelation regarding the church.

To properly assess the matter, we must recognize that God’s redemptive work through Christ involves three basic stages of development: the legal, historical, and consummational. That is, salvation is legally accomplished in Christ in the first century, historically unfolded in the history following his earthly ministry, and fully realized in the consummation as the glorious conclusion of his earthly ministry’s goal. The same is true of this new creation / new Jerusalem imagery. “That which is to be absolutely and completely true in eternity is definitively and progressively true now” (Chilton 538). Or as Carrington (334–45) expresses it: “It is the earthly Catholic Church growing in love and holiness, as well as the Church made perfect, regnant in the heavens. It is not now one and now the other, but both at once; for one is the other. The earthly imperfect Church is the heavenly ideal church.”

The Book of Revelation Made Easy

(by Ken Gentry)

Helpful introduction to Revelation presenting keys for interpreting. Also provides studies of basic issues in Revelation’s story-line.|

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Thus, as redemptive-historical preterist Chilton (538) explains: “This vision of the new heaven and earth is not to be interpreted as wholly future. As we shall see repeatedly throughout our study of this chapter, that which is to be absolutely and completely true in eternity is definitively and progressively true now. Our enjoyment of our eternal inheritance will be a continuation and perfection of what is true of the Church in this life.”

Mulholland (1990:316; cp. 1996:115–19) agrees with Chilton’s view: “Obviously the vision has moved back from the portrayal of the final judgment of God to the actualization of that final judgment in ongoing human history. John sees that the action of God in the Cross and Resurrection, which culminates in the final demise of the entire rebellious order, also shapes a renewed order of being in history, which is the firstfruit of its final consummation.”

Caird (263) expresses the matter well: “This is a future which interpenetrates and informs the present. The holy city is described as coming down out of heaven from God because this is the essential quality it already has in the anticipatory experience of the church.” Lightfoot (1822: 3:366) comments that John is presenting “the spiritual Jerusalem” at the first-century “coming in of the gospel, when all things are made new; a new people, new ordinances, new economy, and the old world of Israel dissolved.” Other commentators holding this view include: Glasgow (519–24), Terry (459–61), Carrington (335), Kik (243–44), Rissi (37), Krodel (330), Gundry (1987: 254–64), and Rowland (1995:154–55).

Since a final, literal new creation will actually come, John’s vision takes on an inaugural prospect (as per the frequent NT already/not yet theological tension). Though “history must have a real end, temporarily as well as teleologically” (Caird 262), John presents the ultimate new creation’s spiritual presence in new covenant Christianity, which finally comes to full and perfect expression at the end of history (cp. 2Pe 3:10–13).[1] Thus, John’s presentation speaks to contemporary realities while it anticipates the ultimate, eternal new creation. Mulholland (1996:119) explains it well: “the vision portrays the fact that something of the consummation of God’s victory flows back into the ongoing history of the redeemed order.” He notes that the new Jerusalem does not mean only the “consummation of God’s victory,” but “also the reality that shapes the lives of God’s people in the midst of history.” We shall see how John presents this glorious, historical reality as his vision unfolds.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation[image error]

(ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Much of the confusion regarding the recapitulation of the millennium in the vision of the new creation, results from the literary linking of the final judgment in Rev. 20 with the new creation imagery in Rev. 21. According to Scripture, the physical universe will be physically transformed through fiery cleansing to make way for the consummate new heavens and new earth (2Pe 3:10–12; cp. Ps 102:25–27; Isa 51:6; Mt 5:18; 24:35). But again, John does not speak of that consummate, physical re-composition in Rev. 20:11–15.

The Link between Revelation 20 and 21

What then is John saying when he speaks of the fleeing away of the earth and heaven in Rev. 20:11?

Rather than speaking literally, he is speaking literarily. This imagery dramatically presents the “awful impression of the majesty of the judge” (Terry 456), the “terrifying” presence of God (Boxall 289; cp. Beasley-Murray 300), as if “the natural creation shrinks back with awe and seeks to hide itself” (Stuart 2:370). For dramatic effect only, John represents the heavens and the earth as fleeing the scene, leaving only God’s glorious throne to dominate the picture of judgment day: “the great white throne stands alone, with nothing to challenge, to qualify, or even to mediate its sole supremacy” (Caird 258). This is an image of God’s terrifying majesty, an image that ultimately arises from Adam and Eve’s attempt to hide themselves from their offended God in Eden (Ge 3:8).

I would argue this for the following reasons:

(1) This only speaks of the fleeing away of heaven and earth so that “no place was found for them” (20:11b). In a book containing so much fiery catastrophe as Rev, we would expect a more dramatic picture of catastrophic removal if that were John’s intention. In fact, the impression left is that they flee away vainly, for despite their flight “no place was found for them” to hide from God. Elsewhere men hope to escape God’s judgment, but fail (6:16; 9:6). Beale (1032) is surely mistaken when he states: “the climactic nature of the punishment is also expressed by the following cosmic conflagration imagery: ‘from whose face heaven and earth fled, and a place was not found for them.’” But “conflagration” speaks of fiery destruction (L. conflagare: con [with] + flagro [blaze]). No such image appears in 20:11, even though John was not apprehensive about using fire language. In the other two samples Beale cites, while the fleeing away appears in judgment contexts, it seems to magnify the majesty of God who judges: 6:14 (see vv 15–17, where men try to hide from “the presence of Him who sits on the throne”) and 16:20 (see v 19, where Babylon is remembered “before God”). And as I have shown, both of those refer to God’s judgment on Israel in AD 70.

(2) If the heavens and earth disappear at this judgment, heaven would not remain for the great white throne (20:11a), the small and great stand would have no where to stand (20:12), and there would be no sea to give up the dead (20:13a).

(3) John’s attention here is not on the consummate new heavens and new earth brought about through his renovating power. Rather he is highlighting the judgment that befalls the unrighteous. We almost have to strain to recognize believers at this judgment (see below), partly because the passage has such a condemnatory cast. This judgment is being portrayed as so terrifying that the universe seeks to hide from God’s wrath.

Thus, though ultimately the new Jerusalem is a heavenly reality “above” (Gal 4:26; cp. Jn 18:36; Eph 2:6), it is currently operating in history below (Col 3:1; Heb 12:22) — as we would expect from the first-century presence of the new creation (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15). But John is especially linking its coming down with earthly Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. Indeed, “the new Jerusalem presupposes the destruction of the old (which had become Babylon) but nevertheless reproduces it, in all its aspects, even though now on a spiritual plane” (Corsini 389). Regarding the harlot’s judgment “we saw there a symbolic representation of the condemnation and repudiation on the part of God of the old Judaism, corrupt and worldly, now an ally of political authority and, along with it, an instrument of Satan in the assault against Jesus Christ” (Corsini 410).

So then, John links the new creation (Rev. 21) to the final judgment (Rev. 20) in a literary fashion, not in a literal, chronological fashion.

Notes

1. John’s revelation differs from Peter’s, though both feed off of Isa 65:17. John’s not only emphasizes continuing historical realities (as per above argument), but demands temporal nearness (22:6, 10). Whereas Peter’s statement highlights the temporal long run, including mockers arising because of Christ’s delay (2Pe 3:3–5), God “reserving” the world for judgment (2Pe 3:7, surely not for just five or six more years), and urging them to think in terms of thousands of years (2Pe 3:8).

[image error]

BIG BANG AND DIVINE CREATION?

[image error]PMW 2018-030 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Many Christians accept the Big Bang model of creation, believing that the sudden creation of the universe comports with the Genesis account of creation. But Big Bang cosmology fails to match up with the biblical view of the origins of the universe. In this brief notice, I will quickly point out four major problems facing the Big Bang model, as viewed from a biblical standpoint.

1. What does the Big Bang entail?

A sudden beginning of the universe, which sounds much like the Gen. 1:1. Unfortunately though, the Big Bang model does not end there. According to this secular viewpoint, the Big Bang is followed by an enormously long period wherein we have the development of stars, then galaxies. This commits the Christian to an unbiblical long ages for creation. The creation account clearly presents a very short, powerful creating of the universe by God in six days.

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

2. To what does the Big Bang model commit us?

In the Big Bang model, the sun and stars are created before the earth, despite Gen. 1:14ff which declares that the earth was created first. The careful, deliberate enumeration of the days of creation in Genesis 1 absolutely forbids the secular order of events, which effectively place stars as creating agents rather than God.

3. Who does the Big Bang contradict?[image error]

The Big Bang viewpoint counters Christ’s teaching that man was created “from the beginning,” not billions of years later (Mark 10:6). A cosmology that contradicts Christ cannot be endorsed by a Christian whose worldview and eternal destiny depend on Christ being the inerrant, authoritative Son of God.

4. What is the Big Bang order of creation?

The Big Bang model necessarily involves a wrong early-history of the universe and the world. In this model the (long, slow) creation process involves chaos and destruction, even of later life arising. It requires the arising and destruction of whole species in a world “red in tooth and claw. This contradicts the original “very good” universe that came from God’s hand (Gen 1:31). It also disputes the later entry of sin as the reason for death in God’s created order (Gen. 3).

The explosion of something from nothing (the Big Bang) cannot account for the orderly universe. Neither can it account for the laws of math, logic, morality, and more. An orderly universe cannot be rooted in disorder.

Genesis and Creation (Set 1: Genesis 1).[image error]

Sermon series by Ken Gentry

An in-depth sermon series on the opening chapters of the Bible from a Six-day Creationist perspective. Offers many insights into the reason Moses wrote the Creation Account, insights little recognized by the average Christian. This is set 1, which covers Genesis 1.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

 

PASSING OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN MATT. 5:17

[image error]PMW 2018-029 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A reader has written to ask me about the implications of Matt. 5:17 for new creation theology. I thought our interaction might be helpful to PostmillennialWorldview readers.

Reader’s question

“I have a question for you that has bothered me off and on. As a partial preterist, I defend the interpretation of “New heavens and Earth” as the figurative establishment of the New Covenant and the passing away of the old heavens and earth as the passing of the Old Covenant. But as a reluctant theonomist, this puts pressure on my understanding of Matt 5:17 (Jesus saying that the Law will not pass away until the heavens and earth pass away). Because that would seem to indicate then that the binding authority of the Mosaic Law DOES pass away with the Old Covenant if we maintain a consistent interpretation of the ‘heavens and earth’ metaphor as covenants. See what I mean? How do you understand this conundrum?”

My reply

The theology of the new heavens / earth parallels that of the resurrection. There is a spiritual dimension that begins in the first century. Then there is the consummate, permanent condition that comes at the end of history. We are spiritually resurrected beginning in the first century; we will be physically resurrected at the end (see John 5:25-29. Likewise there is the spiritual new creation that begins in the first century but that ultimately finds its consummate perfection at the end. Likewise the kingdom came in the first century, and will find consummate perfection at the end.

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This theology is the “now / not yet” theology of historic Reformed orthodoxy. In fact, the very notion of a spiritual resurrection, new creation, kingdom virtually demands a consummate, perfected, permanent resurrection, new creation, kingdom.

We see this now / not yet dimension at work in the victory of Christ. Christ has subdued all things: “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.” Eph 1:22

But in another sense (eschatological, permanent future), this awaits the final subduing of all things as per Heb 2:8: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” Hebrews 2:8

Reader’s follow-up question

“But as I think about this some more, if the old heavens and earth is the old covenant passed away, and Jesus is linking the binding authority of the Mosaic Law to that passing, then does this not discredit the theonomic thesis that the Mosaic Law is still binding except for NT changes? “

My second reply

This approach is not possible. Jesus is not speaking of the passing away of the Old Covenant in this context. Rather he is speaking of the coming of the consummate New Heavens and New Earth in its final condition:

(1) It is unreasonable to think he is teaching: “Do not even begin to think that I have come to destroy the Law or prophets, for I will not do so for three years.”

[image error]

Covenantal Theonomy

(by Ken Gentry)

A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

(2) It cannot be that he connects the passing of the Law with the closing of the old covenant because he expressly mentions that those in the Kingdom of Heaven must teach and keep it (Matt 5:19), and it his ministry that brings in, initiates, starts, establishes the Kingdom of Heaven as a new spiritual (new covenantal) reality that we now dwell in. Note that:

He associates the Law promotion and Law keeping with the Kingdom of Heaven:

“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:19

And note that he is bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven:

“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:20

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 3:2

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17.

(3) In Jesus’ explanation of his teaching after declaring Matt 5:17-19, he goes into great detail showing the intensification and deepening of the Law in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 5:20ff). None of what he teaches there (which requires the Law as an abiding reality) sounds as if it were only temporary for the next three years. It sounds like a permanent call and condition.

(4) In Matt 5:18 the phrase “passing away of H/E” does not stand alone. It parallels the “accomplishing of all things” (i.e., the end of God-ordained history wherein the plan of God is completed. See: Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

(5) Remember that the theonomic argument does not depend on this one passage. See my Covenantal Theonomy, including its citations from Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Other passages demand that the Law of God prevails in the New Covenant era: Rom 3:19, 31; 7:12; 1 Tim 1:8-11. Including the indwelling of the Spirit in the New Covenant age, which indwelling causes us to keep the Law: Rom 8:3-4.[image error]

(6) It leads to absurdity: Will Christ dis-establish the Law of God, including its core, the Ten Commandments? Yet the Ten Commandments (and other specific legislation) is repeatedly promoted in the Epistles. All agree that the Ten Commandments is the core of the Law. If the Law is dis-established, surely its core, central identifying element will pass away, too.

(7) Even the New Covenant itself (Jer 31:31-34) portrays the New Covenant condition as involving the Law of God. The difference in the Old Covenant and New Covenant (in Jer 31 and elsewhere) involves its putting the Law in the heart, at the controlling core of our being, so that it is not merely imprinted on stones.

I hope this is helpful. You might want to survey my Covenantal Theonomy and Bahnsen’s exposition of Matthew 5:17-20 in Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

[image error]

HORRIFIC SUGGESTIONS OF A MODERN ACADEMIC

[image error]PMW 2018-028 by Paul Price (Creation Ministries, Intl.)

Gentry note:

The world needs Christianity, not only for personal salvation but for a moral foundation. Cornelius Van Til spoke of the progress of unbelief in becoming more consistent as an “integration downward into the void.” That is, the more fully thought-out and applied unbelief becomes, the worse its results will be.

Postmillennialist believe Scripture teaches that in the long run (not by the year 2018!), the Christian faith will overwhelm the world, leading to a long era of righteousness, peace, and prosperity. But we also believe there will be ups and downs along the way, such as we are experiencing today as unbelief has gained the upper hand.

Nevertheless, as the real-world implications of unbelief become more obvious, its results will become less appealing. God will use the horror of unbelieving culture to cause a response against it, furthering the Christian faith. The unbelief controlling evolutionary thought will be one of those sparks for the resurgence of the Christian faith. And because of this, there is a way in which we can thank Dr. David Barash for helping us to see the horror of atheism (for those who did not learn it from the French Revolution or Soviet Communism).

THE HUMANZEE

by Paul Price

Dr David P. Barash is an accomplished academic and prolific writer, holding a Ph.D. in zoology. He is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Washington. Dr Barash was included in 2006 on a list of ‘the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America’ by conservative writer David Horowitz.

A heinous experiment

Horowitz’ concern was not unfounded, as we will see shortly. Barash recently published an article in the Darwinist science magazine Nautilus entitled, “It’s Time to Make Human-Chimp Hybrids: The humanzee is both scientifically possible and morally defensible.” His article is an adapted chapter from his upcoming book Through a Glass Brightly, whose very title is a jab against Christians by playing on the King James text of 1 Corinthians 13:12 ( … “For now we see through a glass, darkly”)2

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Reading the article, one cannot help but feel Barash’s seething hatred of the Bible, and so-called ‘fundamentalist’ Christians in particular. For example, he lambasts Christians for their “nonsensical insistence that human beings are uniquely created in God’s image and endowed with a soul.” Is it this hatred alone that motivates Barash’s horrific suggestion to use genetic engineering to cross humans with chimpanzees?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And those who fail to see the poisonous ideas filtering through academia are doomed to be subjected to the consequences of those ideas once they are put into practice.

Learning from past mistakes

This is the situation we are once again facing in the Western world. The 20th century was undoubtedly the bloodiest century yet in world history (save perhaps the time of the Flood!), and it all started with poisonous ideas. Darwin’s theories ‘liberated’ academia from all vestiges of God’s role as Creator, as well as humanity’s role as the only life on Earth made in the image of God. Morality was now without a basis and became very fluid (as we are seeing today more and more). With this acidic ideology in the highest institutions, it was only a matter of time before people, and governments, began to act on these principles. As a result, we saw the atrocities of the Nazi and Soviet regimes, and many others besides.

Today, in the 21st century, we have sadly learned very little from this history. Politicians piously say ‘never again’ when talking about this tragic past, yet they have no idea what caused it to happen in the first place, so there is little chance of them preventing it from repeating.

Barash begins his article by repeating the old and thoroughly-refuted myth that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of their genetics. It is based on this pseudo-science that Barash goes on to giddily imagine the possibility of creating a living hybrid between humans and apes.

Debasing humanity

What is the lofty scientific goal of this project? Why, nothing other than to poke a finger in the eye of God Himself, of course! Barash actually says that creating a monstrosity in this way would somehow invalidate the Christian worldview, proving once and for all that humans are not special. Barash writes:

“I propose that the fundamental take-home message of such creation would be to drive a stake into the heart of that destructive disinformation campaign of discontinuity, of human hegemony over all other living things … How could even the most determinedly homo-centric, animal-denigrating religious fundamentalist maintain that God created us in his image and that we and we alone harbor a spark of the divine, distinct from all other life forms, once confronted with living beings that are indisputably intermediate between human and non-human?”

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

His atheopathic urge to genetically meddle with humanity, however, is nothing new, considering Genesis 6 with its account of the Nephilim (and what God did as a result!)4. Far from disproving the Bible, Barash’s experiment, were it to succeed, would prove nothing except the dangers of wayward thinking in academia. It is unclear what would result—would humanzees be disabled/disfigured humans, or would they be animals? A crude form of this experiment has already been attempted. The Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin instructed his scientists to create a breed of superwarriors by impregnating chimps with human sperm. Of course, it failed.

The question naturally arises: how can it be moral to knowingly create a potentially disabled person or even a creature, especially since he places creatures on an equal footing with mankind? Barash, who ironically has also written extensively on the topic of world peace, had this to say in response to this anticipated objection:

“It is at least arguable that the ultimate benefit of teaching human beings their true nature would be worth the sacrifice paid by a few unfortunates.”

This was likely the type of justification that would have been bandied about by Nazi scientists in the concentration camps who were performing heinous experiments on the Jews. How can this kind of talk be tolerated in our universities? It is a logical consequence of Darwinism, the ‘universal acid’, as atheist Daniel Dennett called it, eating through every aspect of our foundations as a civilization, including morality. And why? . . . .

To continue reading and to see the footnotes: click

WHEN HARRY BECAME SALLY

[image error]PMT 2018-027 by John Stonestreet

What was once unthinkable has become unquestionable. And so, every Christian must know how to engage this transgender moment.

Imagine this scenario: Your 17-year-old daughter tells you she’s trapped in the wrong body, is really a boy, and wants hormone therapy to begin the process of transitioning. As her parent, you love your daughter, but you disagree. You want to look at other options to help her.

She decides to take you to court. Even though she’s a minor under your care, the judge decides your beliefs are a danger to your daughter, and takes her from your custody.

Well, imagine this scenario no more. That’s exactly what happened in Ohio recently.

And we shouldn’t be surprised. As Ryan Anderson, a Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation warns, Americans can expect more cases just like this one.

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

The homosexual movement is one of the leading challenges to the moral stability of American culture and to our Christian influence in culture. In this sermon series Dr. Gentry tackles the homosexual question head on.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Anderson’s in-depth research of the transgender movement and sexual ideology is now available in his new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.” And I don’t say this lightly, this book is one every single Christian needs to read and understand.

This is a movement with considerable momentum—in popular culture, education, and even public policy. It’s an evolving movement. Here’s what I mean: as Anderson points out, gender ideology used to be based on the idea that our sex (in other words our physical natures, including reproductive organs and hormones) was biological, but our gender was socially constructed.

Activists challenged traditional gender roles as being oppressive and too generalized. But today the movement claims that sex is not biological, but assigned at birth. As if the doctor makes a random decision to identify a child as male or female. That’s how, the popular theory goes, boys can be trapped in girl’s bodies, and vice versa.

This is, of course, a scientifically indefensible position, and assumes that deep in some part of one’s brain (though we’re not sure where), our true gender identity is located. The theory is advancing, not on its merits, but on political power and name-calling: that only bigots insist on biological realities.

What Anderson does so well in “When Harry Became Sally” is to articulate how transgender ideology is hopelessly tied up in contradictions. He’ll help you spot those contradictions and articulate them with clarity and kindness to others.

Great Commission and the Christian Worldview

[image error]

Greatness of the Great Commission (by Ken Gentry)

An insightful analysis of the full implications of the great commission. Impacts postmillennialism as well as the whole Christian worldview.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

But even so, many Christians still wonder why they should care about this one. Maybe they are still wearied over the same-sex marriage battle, or like many of us, maybe this is one of those issue that hits a little too close to home.

Well, I think there are at least two reasons we should care. First, Christians have always proclaimed that [image error]our bodies matter. This is no trivial point of Christian theology. Scripture tells us that God made us in His image, male and female. That Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us, and that He was physically resurrected from the dead. We cannot go along with any ideology that denies God’s created order.

And the second reason we should care is, well, the children. Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have victims. Transgender ideology is disproportionately aiming at children, teaching them that they are not the inherently valuable image bearers God created them to be. If we love our neighbors, especially the kids, we cannot remain silent on this one. . . .

To continue reading:  click

[image error]

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement

by Ryan T. Anderson

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment provides thoughtful answers to all of these questions. Drawing on the best insights from biology, psychology, and philosophy, Ryan T. Anderson offers a balanced approach to the policy issues, a nuanced vision of human embodiment, and a sober and honest survey of the human costs of getting human nature wrong.

[image error]

John Stonestreet is a speaker and fellow of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview, as well as the co-host with Eric Metaxas of “Breakpoint“, the Christian worldview radio program founded by Chuck Colson. John is a sought-after speaker at conferences, colleges, and churches on the subjects of theology, apologetics, and faith and culture. He holds degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Bryan College and is the coauthor of Making Sense of Your World.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS AND DEUTERONOMY

[image error]PMT 2018-026 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

A casual reading of Deuteronomy after Deut. 5 appears to present a random collection of laws. Yet a general scholarly consensus discerns a basic organizing principle: these laws follow the order of the ten commandments.

In this, the largest section of Deuteronomy, Moses provides the commandments’ broader implications by offering practical applications (cf. Deut. 1:5). Though the outline is not overtly presented by Moses, given Moses’s orderly mind and compositional skills, along with the outline’s general fit, it is strongly suggested. We must understand also that since the law comes from one God and is unified many overlaps and inter-relationships exist between the commandments.

The first four commandments

The first commandment (Deut. 5:7) highlights God’s unique and absolute authority. It is developed in Deut. 6:1–11:32. This section exhorts love of God (e.g., 6:5) and obedience to him (e.g., 6:6). For example, it warns against testing him (e.g., 6:16), reminds Israel that God is worthy of respect (e.g., 7:6–8), and proclaims God’s blessings for obeying him (Deut. 11:1–32).

[image error]God’s Law Made Easy (by Ken Gentry)

Summary for the case for the continuing relevance of God’s Law. A helpful summary of the argument from Greg L. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The second commandment (Deut. 5:8–10) emphasizes God’s dignity, especially in worship. It is expanded on in Deut. 12:1–32. For example, in discouraging the adoption of Canaanite religious altars and worship practices (12:1–3), Israel must follow God’s priestly system and establish a central, unified sanctuary in the land to protect her worship of the one true God (12:4–32).

The third commandment (Deut. 5:11) presses the importance of God’s name, calling on Israel to be serious in her relationship with him. This is covered in Deut. 13:1–14:21. For example, this section condemns false prophets (13:1–18), which are a test of the Israel’s commitment to God alone. It also reminds her to keep his dietary laws in demonstrating her distinctive commitment to him even in the mundane things of life (14:1–21).

The fourth commandment (Deut. 5:12–15) requires observing the sabbath in demonstrating thanks to God for his deliverance (Deut. 5:15) and for his good gift of creation (Exo. 20:11). It is applied in Deut. 14:22–16:17. For example, this section calls for thanking God by faithfully tithing to him (14:22–29) and keeping sabbath years (15:1–18) and the special national feasts of celebration (16:1–17).

The last six commandments

The fifth commandment (Deut. 5:16) highlights the proper exercise of human authority, requiring that it conform to God’s will. It is covered in Deut. 16:18–18:22. For example, this section highlights various levels of authority beyond its starting point in parental authority. It discusses judges (17:2–7), kings (17:14–20), priests/Levites (18:1–8), and prophets (18:9–22).

[image error]

Standard Bearer: Festschrift for Greg Bahnsen (ed. by Steve Schlissel)

Includes two chapters by Gentry on Revelation and theonomy. Also chapters on apologetics, politics, ecclesiology, covenant, and more.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

The sixth commandment (Deut. 5:17) calls for the respect of life, especially underscoring the dignity of human life. It is treated in Deut. 19:1–22:4. For example, while defending human life and condemning murder, this material distinguishes accidental deaths, explains legal protections for those who have killed someone (19:1–10), and encourages proper judicial proceedings (19:11–13). It also sets apart just war as an example of when life may be taken with immunity (20:1–20) and demands execution for capital felons (21:22–23).

The seventh commandment (Deut. 5:18) warns against sexual sins and immoral intermixing of things which should not be mixed together. It covers 22:5–23:14. This commandment is the most difficult to discern in its section. But given the relative clarity of the ten commandments outline in the remainder of the Deut. 6:4–26:15, it would seem to be required. For example, various types of sexual sins include transvestism (22:5), sexual charges against a wife (22:13–20), adultery and fornication (22:22–24), rape (22:25–29), and incest (22:30), each of which threatens the unity of the family and the community. This law is illustratively reinforced by discouraging the mixing of seeds, animals, and clothing fibers (22:9–11)

The eighth commandment (Deut. 5:19) explains why stealing is immoral. It is covered in Deut. 23:15–24:7. This section enforces ownership rights and encourages respecting others. For example, it covers the problem of escaped foreign slaves (23:15–16) and implies that offspring forced into prostitution steals their self-respect (23:17–18). It continues by prohibiting charging interest on poor loans which robs the poor of their ability to escape debt (23:19–20), and robbing God by refusing to pay vows (23:21–23).

The ninth commandment (Deut. 5:20) requires honesty in one’s witness, promoting confidence in the truth. This is briefly covered in Deut. 24:8–16. For example, this section demonstrates the danger of dishonesty in Miriam’s false charge against Moses (24:8–9), warns about a lack of trust in handling pledges (24:10–13), condemns disrespectfully failing to promptly pay workers (24:14–15), and prohibits criminal witness against innocent family members of criminals (24:16).

The tenth commandment (Deut. 5:21) rebukes covetousness, which is a desire for something that belongs to another. Moses applies this matter to situations denying a person’s rights and privileges regarding his own property and life. This material is found in Deut. 24:17–26:15. For example, this section warns that coveting perverts justice for the weakest members by taking all they have as a loan pledge (24:17–18) or denying them access to the overage from one’s crops (24:19–20).

THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY

[image error]PMT 2018-025 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Postmillennialism expects salvation to overwhelm the world bringing in a long era of righteousness, peace, and prosperity. Thus, postmillennialism is not simply interested in the gospel alone, but in the gospel and what it can accomplish. The gospel can and does change lives. One of the big moral challenges facing the Church today is the homosexual movement.

The Scriptures universally condemn homosexual conduct as a reprehensible (e.g., Gen. 19:5; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24, 26–28; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:8–11; Jude 7). [1] Yet, some scholars argue that the only clear, definitive proscriptions (rather than historical descriptions) against such are found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These show that they involve temporary, old covenant ritual laws.

Transforming Homosexuality[image error]

What the Bible Says about Sexual Orientation and Change

by Denny Burk and Heath Lambert

Is same-sex attraction sinful, even if it is not acted on? Denny Burk and Heath Lambert challenge misconceptions on all sides as they unpack the concepts of same-sex orientation, temptation, and desire.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

That these clear prohibitions occur in Leviticus does not remove their universal moral denunciation.

Context

Lev. 18:22 is found in a context prohibiting incest (18:6–18), adultery (18:20), child sacrifice (18:21), and bestiality (18:23). In this setting the only prohibition touching on a ritual law is 18:19, which rejects intercourse during menstruation. But this law apparently falls under two categories: it was treated earlier as a cleanness law (15:24). Thus, as per the note on 18:19 its appearance here is apparently designed to protect a woman in a time of illness (a moral consideration).

Focus

This denunciation declares homosexual activity in and of itself. It is not condemning a peculiar sort of homosexual conduct as in cult prostitution, for the text would have specifically mentioned such (as in the cult prostitution case in Deut. 23:17–18). Homosexual activity itself is an “abomination” (Heb., toebah, Lev. 18:22; cp. Lev. 20:13). This is a term of extreme revulsion, abhorrence, or repugnance. Though here it is only specifically attached to homosexual actions, the term is used in a summary manner to describe all of these immoral actions listed (see paragraph above) (Lev. 18:26, 27, 29). Thus, its attachment to homosexual conduct in such a vice list is remarkable, highlighting its particular detestation.

[image error]Homosexuality, Transgenderism, and Society

5 downloadable mp3s by Ken Gentry

The homosexual movement is one of the leading challenges to the moral stability of American culture and to our Christian influence in culture. In this sermon series Dr. Gentry tackles the homosexual question head on.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Punishment

In Lev. 20:13 this immoral conduct is assigned capital punishment as its just punishment (cp. Heb. 2:2). In that chapter the only acts given the death penalty are other gross immoralities, child sacrifice (20:2), calling down God’s destructive curse on one’s parents (20:9; see Exo. 21:17 note), adultery (20:10), incest (20:11–12), marrying both a woman and her mother (20:14), and bestiality (20:15–16).

Some scholars note that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 do not mention female homosexual activity, suggesting that the Bible is not condemning intimate same-sex relationships per se. However, nothing in the text informs us as to why lesbian conduct is not mentioned. Nevertheless, Paul does specifically mention it in Rom. 1:26.

As the gospel goes forth in power, it will release people from the bondage of sin. We must proclaim the gospel to those indulging in homosexual practices. We must warn them of God’s condemnation of such activity.

Notes

1. Note that I say the Bible condemns homosexual conduct. Homosexual orientation is a sin condition that can be overcome, like any other sinful tendencies we might have. We can see this from the many examples of people leaving the homosexual lifestyle behind. The Bible condemns homosexual activity, declaring it even a criminal action.

TABERNACLE, CREATION, NEW CREATION

[image error]PMT 2018-024 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Perhaps one more study from Exodus might be helpful in encouraging our reaching out to all creation with God’s salvation. Let us consider the tabernacle and its reflection of creation. Worship and creation belong together, because created the world to bring him glory.

God’s people in God’s world

We must understand that Israel is the continuation of the redemptive seed line begun in Genesis (Gen. 4:26) with Seth and who as a people dominate the Old Testament revelatory record. That seed line continues from Seth through Noah (Gen. 5:4–32) to Shem (Gen. 10:26), then is narrowed to Abraham (Gen. 11:10–12:3). Abraham’s family will carry the redemptive seed through the Old Testament all the way to the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:1; Luke 3:36–38), the Savior (Matt. 1:21) who is “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

God chose Israel to be a witness to the fallen nations of the world (Exo. 19:6). She is to bring salvation the world (Exo. 19:6; Isa. 2:2–4; 49:6). In the midst of a fallen and rebellious creation she is to promote a new creation order, a return to Eden like peace with God. Consequently, her central worship shrine, the tabernacle, will reflect the original creation as we can see from the following.

[image error]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?

Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

God’s tabernacle and God’s creation

The original creation of the world along with the issues surrounding Eden serve as a model for the building of the tabernacle. Recalling that Moses recorded the revelation regarding both the creation and the tabernacle, we see God’s work in both paralleled as the tabernacle intentionally reflects creation. God carefully and meticulously created the main elements of creation like he carefully and meticulously directed the structure of the tabernacle according to his heavenly plan (Exo. 25:9, 40; 26:30; cp. Acts 7:44).

The tabernacle was erected on the first day of the first month in the second year after the exodus (Exo. 40:17). This signifies a new beginning. In fact, the tabernacle revelation echoes the creation week time frame (Exo. 24:16; 29:30; 35, 37; 34:18; Lev. 8:33–36) and employs the seven pattern in the prominent lampstand (Exo. 25:37; 37:23).

We read seven divine speeches from God as he instructs Moses on the building of the tabernacle (Exo 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12), with the seventh speech involving a call to keep the sabbath (Exo. 31:13–17). We hear of seven compliance statements (“just as the LORD had commanded Moses”) in Exo. 40 where the sanctuary is being finished and prepared for worship (Exo. 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32).

Moses finished the tabernacle and blessed the people (Exo. 39:43), which remind us of the original creation where God finished his creative work and blessed the seventh day (Gen. 2:3).

Entrance to Eden and the tabernacle were both in the east (Gen. 3:24; Exo. 27:13–16). Eden’s tree of life (Gen. 2:9) reappears in the golden lampstand which is modeled after a tree (Exo. 25:31–39). The stones in Eden (Gen. 2:12; cp. Eze. 28:13) appear in the high priest’s clothing (Exo. 28:17–20).

[image error]Consider the Lilies

A Plea for Creational Theology

by T. M. Moore

Moore calls us to examine the biblical doctrine of general revelation from the perspective of what he calls creational theology. In this artful introduction to creational theology, Moore helps us develop the skills and disciplines for doing theology as we look upon and interact with the world around us.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

At the end of creation and the building of the tabernacle we discover similar language when we read that “all [Heb., kol]” the “work” [Heb., melakah] was “completed” [Heb. kalah]” (Gen. 2:2–3; Exo. 39:32). Not only so, but both God and Moses “saw/examined [Heb. raah] the completed results and found them acceptable (Gen. 1:31; Exo. 39:43), and even “blessed [Heb., barak]” them (Gen. 2:3; Exo. 39:43).

Adam’s task was to “cultivate [Heb., abad]” and “keep [Heb., shamar]” the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:15), just as were the priests to “serve [Heb., abodah] and “keep [Heb., shamar]” (Num. 3:7–8; 8:26; 18:5–6).

Cherubim appear first in Gen. 3:24. The next time they are mentioned is in the tabernacle (Exo. 25:18–22; 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35; 37:7–8).

The reflection of creation in the tabernacle indicates that the world order is in process of being re-created as God enters the world to dwell in the tabernacle in the midst of the nations (Exo. 25:8; 29:45; 40:34, 35). Thus, after the final seed (Christ, Gal. 3:29) comes, we see the new creation principle fully at work (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).

[image error]

GOD AGAINST THE GODS

[image error]PMT 2018-023 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In my last article I gave a brief exposition of God’s name which was given to Moses to encourage him to lead Israel out of bondage. We saw in that name reason to have hope in this world. Our God is a great God. And I will continue in Exodus by showing that our God is a great God above all gods. I will do this by briefly focusing on the Ten Plagues against Egypt and summarizing their theological purpose.

The ten plagues against Egypt are:

1. The turning of water into blood (Exo. 7:15–25).

2. The swarming of frogs (Exo. 8:3–15).

3. The turning of dust into gnats (Exo. 8:16-19)

4. The swarming of flies (Exo. 8:21–29).

5. The deadly pestilence on livestock (Exo. 9:1-7).

6. The painful boils on beast and man (Exo. 9:8–12).

7. The destructive and deadly storm of hail and fire (Exo. 9:18–35).

8. The catastrophic swarm of locusts (Exo. 10:1-20).

9. The thick darkness for three days (Exo. 10:21-29).

10. The death of the firstborn animals and men (Exo. 11:1–10; 12:29–32).

The Bible shows that the plagues are ultimately directed against the gods of Egypt: “against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments” (Exo. 12:12b; cp. Exo. 15:11; 18:11; Num. 33:4; Jer. 46:25). In this study I will present a collection of evidences for the focus of the plagues.

First plague. By turning the water to blood, God is defeating the god/goddess Hapi who was personified in the Nile River. Some ancient Egyptian texts even call the Nile by the name Hapi, a hermaphroditic god of fertility. Khnum was the god of the source of the Nile. Rather than the Nile bringing life to Egypt, under God’s judgment it pictures (Exo. 7:17, 21) and effects (Exo. 7:18, 20) death.

[image error]

Revelation, God and Man

(24 mp3 lectures by Ken Gentry)

Formal college course on the doctrines of revelation, God, and man.Opens with introduction to the study of systematic theology. Excellent material for personal study or group Bible study. Strongly Reformed and covenantal in orientation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Second plague. By causing the swarming frogs, God is defeating the goddess Hekhet, who was pictured as a female human with a frog’s head. She was supposed to constrain the frogs, but God overwhelms her power and multiplies them.

Third and fourth plagues. These plagues involve swarming insects (gnats and flies). These two plagues seem to be directed at least partly against the god Kheprer who was symbolized by a flying beetle. The god was pictured as a human male with a scarab’s head. His name meant “come into being” and he was the god of creation and rebirth. God overwhelmed this god of creation by creating extreme swarms of pests.

Fifth plague. The pestilence on the livestock is directed at the various bull cults of Egypt, such as Buchis, Apis, and Mneuis. Other gods and goddesses were associated with livestock, such as cows and pigs. The bull particularly represented strength and vitality. These gods were not strong enough to resist the Lord God Almighty (Exo. 6:3).

Sixth plague. The boils appear to serve as a denunciation of Sekhmet, the goddess of healing who could avert plagues. She was the special protector of the Pharaohs. Her healing work proves fruitless against God’s plagues.

[image error]

Sovereignty of God

(7 mp3 Gentry downloadable sermons)

In these seven sermons will be found a practical demonstration of God’s absolute sovereignty.

This series serves as an excellent introduction to this difficult doctrine.

See more study materials at: KennethGentry.com

Seventh plague. Several goddesses are associated with the sky from which the hail and fire fall. Nut was the sky goddess, Shu was the goddess of air, and Tefnut was the goddess of rain. The divine hail and fire falling from the sky demonstrate her powerlessness before God.

Eighth plague. Locusts caused enormous destruction to crops and thus the food supply in Egypt. Therefore the Egyptians worshiped Senehem who protected from locust and other pest swarms. This god also fails before the Lord’s onslaught.

Ninth plague. The god who personified the sun was Amon-Re, the leading god of the Egyptian pantheon. He daily brought sunlight to the world. But he is rendered impotent for three days in the plague of darkness. God is the giver and withholder of light, not Amon-Re.

Tenth plague. Egypt was ruled by a succession of Pharaohs. The tenth plague destroys all the firstborn of the Egyptians, including Pharaoh’s firstborn son (Exo. 11:5; 12:29), disrupting dynastic succession. This plague also strikes out at Anubis, the god of the mummification and the afterlife, as well as the protector of graves. The plague overthrows the power of these god and shows God is the giver and taker of life.

Moses challenged mighty Egypt and their pantheon of gods. And he won a glorious victory for God and his people. Our hope in challenging this dark world lies in God. We must seek God’s power to effect revival and reformation in our world today.

“For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; He also is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens. Splendor and majesty are before Him, Strength and joy are in His place. (1 Chron. 16:25–27)

[image error]

Advertisements