Written by Nicholas T. Batzig |
Friday, September 24, 2021
When we consider the enormity of our sins, and our hearts begin to sink under the weight of a sense of the guilt that we have incurred, we must remember the eternal purposes of God in the everlasting covenant of redemption. When we begin to have hard thoughts of God, we must fix our eyes on the cross and see the infinitely beloved Son of God hanging on the tree out of the divine love of the triune God for sinners. 

One of the most challenging trials for believers during our pilgrimage through this dark and fallen world is to truly believe and rest in the love that God has for us. Sinclair Ferguson once noted that the experience of so many believers is the internalizing of the thought, “He loves me, He loves me not.” Many believers lack the assurance of their salvation precisely because they focus on the enormity of their sin to the exclusion of the enormity of the love of God for sinners. God’s love superabounds to the salvation of sinners. So how should we think about the love of God toward us who believe, while we acknowledge the reality of sin in our lives?
Much can be said about the love of God toward His people. Distinctions and categories must be drawn. God has a general love for His creation, a covenantal love for the visible church, and a eternal redeeming love for the elect. Scripture distinguishes between God’s love of complacency and His love of benevolence. Then, there are marks of God’s love. For instance, the author of the Proverbs and the book of Hebrews tells us that God disciplines those He loves (Heb. 12:3–11). Spiritual discipline is a mark of the love of God for His children–not of His just punishment which He reserves for unbelievers. That being said, here are a few of the foundational, biblical truths about the love that God has for His people:
The Bible places the love of God for His people at the foundation of every blessing that God freely bestows on us in Christ. Scripture tells us that the triune God has loved us with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3), that His love “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5), that He demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8), and that “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13). The love of God leads Him to adopt believers into His divine family, making us sons and daughters of God (1 John 3:1). The Apostle John (the Apostle of love) summarized the principle of the love of God toward His sinful people, when he wrote, “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).
The love of God is something upon which we can never meditate too often. It is the bedrock of our Christian continuance in the faith. If we forget the love that God has for us, we will sink under the weight of the guilt of our consciences and our own desire for legal performance. If we lose sight of the love of God, we will live in servile fear of Him, seeking to gain His approval on the basis of our works. So, what are some ways that we can rightly apprehend the security of the love of God for us, sinful though we be?
Read More

The years between Jesus’ crucifixion and the downfall of Jerusalem witnessed a marked increase in earthquakes both by number and by volume. The same is true for famines that attacked the residents of Rome and threatened to evaporate the people of Judah. But these events are not random. They were prophesied by Jesus and they happened in the lifetime of the disciples just like He said. 

If the Glove Don’t Fit…
Perhaps the most explosive and prolific trial of our lifetime was the OJ Simpson murder trial in the early 1990s. As an eleven-year-old boy at the time, I still remember watching the primetime aerial coverage of a white bronco lazily loafing down the LA freeway with as much agility as a soppy wet sponge. After that, I recall the media frenzy as millions all over the country tuned in with popcorn and rapt attention to watch a kangaroo court deliberating the case with all the panache and showmanship of a Ringling Brothers Circus. But, what stands out as the most memorable moment in the trial, at least in my memory, is when Juice’s dream team head attorney quipped: “If the glove don’t fit, then you must acquit”. Ultimately, the jury did acquit as successive civil cases raged in court for the years to come.
Now, without getting into the weeds of that trial, the point was simple. If the evidence in the case cannot be reconciled to the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, then he must be acquitted of the charges. But, if the glove used in the murder did fit, then getting to a guilty verdict would have been all the more reasonable of a conclusion.
In the case of eschatology, my goal thus far has been to show that most (not all) of the passages that are normally associated with a future-oriented perspective do not fit the glove. They do not align with the evidence presented in the New Testament and do not pass the sniff test to meet any reasonable burden of proof. And, instead, it is the preterist view that offers the most compelling explanation for these passages.
To prove this hypothesis, I have presented line after line of evidence in a systematic way. I began by showing how the eschatology of Malachi looks forward to a first-century judgment coming of Christ against the Jews. You can find that article here. I then conveyed how John the Baptist expected an imminent judgment coming by Christ against the Jews (i.e. the ax was already at the root of the tree) found here. From there, I demonstrated that this was, in fact, the general expectation of Jesus, which is laid out specifically in my post on Matthew 21, Matthew 22, Matthew 23, and in the introduction to Matthew 24. Then, over the last couple of weeks, we have been looking at specific signs that Jesus gave (Such as the Rise of False Messiahs and Wars and Rumors of Wars) that so clearly point to a past fulfillment that the burden of proof has swung almost fully in the favor of the preterist position.
This week we continue through the evidence Jesus presents so that we might have a comprehensive view, so we can see the reasonableness of the position, and so we will not be led into trembling by the end-times prognosticators and tribulation hucksters. Today, we look at Matthew 24 and the end time signs of Earthquakes and Famines that Jesus gave, in order to see if this evidence fits hand in glove for a first century fulfillment as all previous evidence has done.
Covenantal Earthquakes and End-Time Seismic Shifts
Before we look at Matthew 24 and the evidence of earthquakes in the ancient world, I want us to see the New Testament expectation for Jesus’ first-century, earth-shaking, end-time coming. Said plainly, I want you and I to see that when Jesus came to the world, He intended to give it a good last days shaking. Whatever remained would be left for Him to rule. Whatever fell away would be like chaff devoured by the scorching east wind.
For instance, In Hebrews chapter 1, the author tells us plainly that we are living in the last days (Hebrews 1:1-2). To him, the “last days” represent the entire era of New Covenant redemption (i.e. the church age). After he drops that bomb, he describes how the era of priests, temples, and animal sacrifices was rolled up like a scroll to be put on the shelf (Hebrews 1:10-14). That long chapter was finally closed and now the final chapter of human redemption has come through God’s Son.
Near the end of the book, after Christ replaced the Old Testament types and Old Covenant vestiges, the author gives a vivid picture of how Old Testament time will end. Not surprisingly, it ends the same way it begins with a wiggle wobbling and jiggle joggling covenantal shake. In the Old Testament, that happened on the local level, by earthquakes at mount Sinai. In this new covenantal era, the entire world and heaven will need to be shaken in order to welcome God’s eternal Kingdom to this earth (Hebrews 12:18-29). While that shaking is clearly spiritual and covenantal, we shouldn’t be surprised when the rocks cry out and when the fault lines tremble. They often see what is happening more clearly than we do.
The Unleashing of Earthquakes
When modern-day prophecy charlatans read the words of Christ:

“In various places, there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.” – Matthew 24:7-8

… They assume Jesus is talking about phenomena that will necessarily plague the modern world. When this ilk of newspaper scholars spy a random earthquake in California or hear tell of an occasional famine in the Middle East, they are the first ones to dust off their heavenly suitcases and prep their underground bunkers for the inevitable tribulation. It is as if they believe we are the only people in human history who’ve ever felt the earth tremble under our feet or have seen our plants die in the dusty scorcher.
It is important, however, for all of us to remember that Jesus is responding to specific questions, concerning first-century events, that the disciples were asking Him about. They wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed (Matthew 23:38-24:1-2), what would be the signs that this event was drawing near and how would this bring about the end of the Jewish age (Matthew 24:3).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Dr. Lisle |
Thursday, January 6, 2022
The events of Genesis 1-11 are recorded in the same historical narrative style as Genesis 12-50 with its straightforward prose, its attention to detail in names and ages, and the content of the first eleven chapters flowing seamlessly into the remaining chapters.  Genesis is not written as a parable, poem, myth, or fictional story.  Thus, to assert that Genesis is myth (or mytho-historical) is a violation of exegetical principles.  Moreover, there is no evidence that any biblical author thought of Genesis 1-11 as anything other than straightforward history.

We begin with a brief review of our analysis of William Lane Craig’s claims regarding Genesis 1-11 from his recent article on the historical Adam.  We have seen that Genesis 1-11 has all the markers of historical narrative.  Namely, it is written in the same literary style as the other historical books with long chains of the Hebrew waw-consecutive.  It lists details that are not germane to the point of the narrative, such as specific names and ages of persons (even those not involved in the main events) and highly detailed chronologies.  These indicate history and would bog down a fictional/mythical story.  Furthermore, these chronologies flow seamlessly into the historical figures mentioned in Genesis 12-50 – a section of Scripture that even Craig admits is straightforward history.  In contrast, myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh are usually written in poetic form; yet Genesis lacks the key characteristics of Hebrew poetry.  Clearly, Genesis 1-11 matches the literary form and style of Genesis 12-50.
And what about the content?  Contrary to Craig’s claims, the content of the creation account in Genesis is starkly different from the content of Ancient Near Eastern origins myths.  Pagan origins stories generally involve a very old universe that exists in a state of chaos, until a chaos monster is slain which brings about the good world of today.  Genesis starts with God who speaks the universe into existence in six days, each step being good until the final result is “very good.”  Humans introduce death into the world by sinning against God.  The events are recorded with none of the obvious symbolism or analogies present in parables, but rather as literal events.  All other references in Scripture to Genesis 1-11 take the narrative as literally historical.  Furthermore, the Bible states that the events in Genesis 1-11 have repercussions in the world today – something that is only possible if such events literally happened.  And so, if we are going to be rational and take the text as written, we must admit that Genesis 1-11 is straightforward history.
This of course contrasts with the secular claim that the universe began in a big bang billions of years ago, and that life came about as a result of evolution.  Many Christians have been duped into believing that such secular speculations are “science” or at least supported by science.  Nothing could be further from the truth since science is predicated upon the literal historicity of the Bible including biblical creation as we have explored previously.  Therefore, Christians who have mindlessly accepted evolution but still profess to believe the Bible must somehow deal with the fact that Genesis contradicts the secular origins stories.  Rather than admitting that they don’t believe Genesis 1-11, the usual tactic is to say, “I believe it, just not literally.  I don’t interpret the text the way you do.”  This of course could be done with any portion of Scripture that a person doesn’t want to accept.  A person could equally well declare “I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead – just not literally.  The Gospels are written in the form of myth.” However, the Bible does not give us permission to interpret the text any way we like.  We must interpret it according to its context.  And we have seen that Genesis 1-11 lists the events that happened in the world in straightforward, non-poetic narrative, just like Genesis 12-50.  Thus, we must interpret them accordingly.
All other books of the Bible that refer back to Genesis do so as if the events recorded therein actually happened as written.  Yet, William Lane Craig has stated that he believes that Genesis 1-11 is not to be taken as straightforward history.  So, how does he attempt to reconcile the biblical references to the history in Genesis with his belief that Genesis 1-11 is not straightforward history?  We continue to analyze his recent article on The Historical Adam.
Craig: When we turn to the New Testament, we find the figure of Adam widely deployed, most importantly by Paul.
Lisle: It is clear that Paul understood Adam and Eve to be real people, and the events of Genesis 1-11 to be real history with real consequences in the world today.  See for example, Romans 5:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:22-23; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-14.
Craig: Many scholars have attempted to distinguish between the literary Adam and the historical Adam. The literary Adam is a character in a story, specifically the stories of Genesis 2–3. The historical Adam is the person, if such there be, who actually existed—the actual individual whom the stories are allegedly about.
Lisle: It seems that Craig is going to suggest that New Testament references to Adam are not necessarily always asserting the historical reality of the person (the historical Adam), but possibly references to a character in a fictional, allegorical, or embellished story (the literary Adam).
Craig: By way of analogy, the Pompey of Plutarch’s Lives is the literary Pompey, whereas the Roman general who actually lived was the historical Pompey. What we want to know is how closely the literary Pompey of the Lives resembles the historical Pompey. ­Similarly, we want to know how closely the literary ­Adam of Genesis 2–3 resembles the historical Adam, if such there be—or more precisely, whether New Testament authors assert that the literary Adam of Genesis 2–3 closely resembles the historical Adam.
Lisle: Is there any evidence in the New Testament that the authors thought of Adam as merely a literary character in a story rather than a historical person?  Is there any evidence in Scripture that any of its authors thought that the events recorded in Genesis were not real history, but merely a mythical story with useful illustrations?
Quite the opposite.  Most of the biblical references to the events of Genesis would make no sense unless Genesis is real history.  For example, a fictional story cannot have real-world consequences – something that Craig himself concedes later in his article.
Read More