Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P4 Those Who Oppose Mosaic Authorship - Introducing The J.E.D.P Theory (a.k.a "Documentary Hypothesis") and its fruits

 

Introduction:

    In our last post I introduced readers to the opposing school of thought to the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch and its Mosaic authorship. I want to continue from where we left off in that post to deal with the outcome of the Higher Critical view - the so-called "J.E.D.P" theory or Documentary Hypothesis.

Why was the 18th century ripe for the emergence of Higher Criticism of the Bible?

     In the 17th and 18th centuries, the so-called "Age of Reason" or "Age of Enlightenment" was underway in France, Germany, and Europe. The long wars between Protestants and Catholics formed the climate of spiritual fatigue, not to mention Western culture's continuing drift toward deism, agnosticism, and in some pockets atheism. 

    Coupled with political instability in Europe and the eroding confidence in the church lent to the emergence of the notion that human reason, rather than revelation, was ultimately authoritative. For instance, in 1651, philosopher Thomas Hobbes exemplified this changing attitude. He wrote a book called "Leviathan", wherein he proposed that religion was a tool of men to control the masses. His use of the term "religion" no longer meant its historical meaning of "devotion to God" as it was changed to "what men believed they believed about God". 

     Higher Criticism initially attempted to still have a Christianity that could survive in a climate no longer friendly to miracles, prophecy, and the evidence for God's Providence and existence. This theological motivation produced what came to be "theological liberalism", championed by such thinkers as Friedrich Schleiermacher at the end of the 1700s. I'll comment in a moment on the fruits produced by this theological movement as it grew from the seeds of Higher Criticism. What did the Higher Critics develop in their views about Genesis through Deuteronomy?

The Higher Critical School's Bringing Forth of The Documentary Hypothesis

In 1878, a German scholar by the name of Julius Wellhausen (we will call him “Wellhausen”) took all of the above critics and brought them together into a proposal, a “hypothesis”, in which he proposed multiple sources sources for the Pentateuch. Below is a typical diagram illustrating Wellhausen's view.

    According to Wellhausen, Moses was out, and multiple editors were now the responsible parties for the Pentateuch or Torah we have today. He idea “The Documentary Hypothesis”, headlined a school of German theological scholarship known as "source criticism". Source criticism, along with its related discipline of "redaction criticism", which proposed multiple editors as being the authors of the Biblical documents, drove the engine behind the Documentary theory. 

To summarize Wellhausen's view:

1. He claimed that there was a “J” editor (because of the name “Jahweh”), who was big on presenting God as a being more human like, adding his parts to the Pentateuch after King David in 950-850 b.c. (that’s 600 years after Moses lived!) 

2. Wellhausen then proposed a second editor, “E”, because, he claimed, that editor used God’s general name “Elohim” when describing God in spiritual terms. Wellhausen claims that this second editor added his piece in 750 b.c. 

3. Then Wellhausen proposed a third editor, “P”, whom he claimed wrote the “Priestly” details we read of in Leviticus to prove the Jewish priesthood during the reign of King Josiah (around 650 b.c). 

4. Then Wellhausen proposed one final part to his theory, editor “D”, whom he claimed wrote the Book of Deuteronomy during the time of Jewish return from the Babylonian exile in 539 b.c. to argue for the Jews right to the promised land. 

    Based off of the names of the editors he postulated, Higher Critical Scholarship would come to call this the "J.E.D.P" theory. It wasn't that Wellhausen invented the Documentary hypothesis, rather he expressed it in a systematic form that combined insights from previous thinkers in the Higher Critical School. Men such as Eichhorn in the 1780s, DeWitt in 1805, Hupfield in 1853, and Graf in 1866 all had their variations of this general view that was conveyed by Wellhausen. 

    As Higher Criticism picked up steam, in 1805, another German critic by the name of William Martin Lebrect DeWitt proposed that the book of Deuteronomy was written during the reign of King Josiah in 640-609 b.c. Other names could be mentioned, however this gives us a working understanding of the development of the growing opposition to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

    In a lecture on the Documentary Hypothesis at Yale University, Professor Christine Hayes laid out pretty much the narrative I just told above. In her lecture she notes this about the goal of the Documentary Hypothesis:

"The key assumption in the documentary hypothesis is that the sources composing the Pentateuch don't tell us anything of the time or situation of the Israelites or the author(s), but only what they believed."1

    That statement has embedded within it the denial of the possibility of Divine revelation, since the historic Christian position asserts that God has disclosed His will and nature in creation and more fully in the Bible and through the Person of Jesus Christ. 

    The J.E.D.P theory also denies the reality (or the need) of God's existence, the spiritual realm, and the need for salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works. If not denying God's existence completely, the view certainly denies the Bible communicating a unified revelation of the living God. What fruits have Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, and theological liberalism produced?

How Higher-Criticism, The Documentary Hypothesis, and Theological Liberalism has failed in its promises to advance the cause of the Church

    It was once noted by R.C. Sproul that most forms of Biblical compromise emerge out of an attempt to increase the church's relevance in its evangelistic endeavors. Now please hear me, it is not evangelism that is sinful, since after all the Lord Jesus Christ issued the Great Commission to His Apostles and Church to "go into all the world and make disciples" (Matthew 28:19-20). The local church exists to spread the Gospel and call everyone to whom it goes to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" and "repent of their sins and be saved" (Compare Acts 2:36-37; Acts 16:31; Romans 1:16; Romans 10:9). Instead, if our missionary attempts are not grounded in fidelity to the truth of God's Word, we will find ourselves drifting in our message, and missions will die.2 

    The long parade of mainline American denominations who have dwindled and ceased their missionary endeavors is a consequence of the corrosive nature of Higher Criticism and its offspring, theological liberalism. 

Take aways for today

     We have introduced the so-called documentary hypothesis and the philosophical underpinnings of its forebear - Higher Criticism. We also summarized the traditional view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and its presuppositions. Why does this matter? Essentially, questions to ask are these: 

1). Are the first five books of the Bible the by-product of longer, evolutionary, and editorial development by men? 

2). Or are these five books the by-produce of Divine revelation by a Holy God Who through Moses expressed His Covenant commitment to them and plans for the future coming of the Messiah? 

    The answer to this line of questioning is proved important by the fruits we saw of men, churches, institutions, and denominations that adopted Higher Criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis, and the denial of the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch and the remainder of the Bible. 

    In our next post we will wrap up this study of the authorship of the Pentateuch, noting what archaeology, linguistics, and the text of the Pentateuch itself reveals about the authorship of its contents. We will then draw our conclusions to grasp how you can know whether or not you can trust your Bible.

Endnotes:

1. Professor Hayes explains in her lecture how the alleged editors in the J.E.D.P theory portray varied views of God. She notes how the so-called "J" source sees God anthromorphically, using human body parts to describe Him (as in, Jehovah walking in the garden in Genesis 3). Then in her comments on the Elohistic or "E" source, God or Elohim is portrayed as a remote or non-physical entity. In the "D" or Deuteronomistic source behind the Book of Deuteronomy (per the theory), Professor Hayes notes God is viewed as dwelling in a sanctuary. Then finally, the "P" or priestly source in the professor's lecture presents God as concealed in a cloud of glory or light. The Documentary hypothesis presumes the Bible is a fragmented book, rather than a unified body of Divine revelation.

    So why do thinkers who subscribe to the Documentary theory reach the conclusions they do as seen in the excerpt of the above lecture? Religious studies departments in many secular universities typically approach the Bible as a relic of the past that is not Divinely authoritative, but rather a by-product of the human imagination trying to make sense of the world. By having an awareness of such assumptions will help explain why there is such a vigorous effort to oppose Mosaic authorship and the idea of the Bible being Divinely inspired by God.

2 When you study the history of theological liberalism in the 19th and twentieth centuries, you discover that attempts at relevance at the expense of doctrinal fidelity resulted in the death of missions. Higher Critical theories of Scripture led to the departure of every major theological seminary and school that set out to train Pastors (such as Harvard Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary, Yale Divinity School, The University of Chicago, just to name a few). 

    The 19th century liberalism spawned by men like Friedrich Schleiermacher that attempted to align the church with then new theories of origins (Darwinism), age of the Earth (Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology"), and the skepticism growing out of the 18th century produced churches that eventually ceased in their evangelism. 

    In the 20th century, theological liberalism became the movement known as "Modernism". Henry Emerson Fosdick, a leading figure of Modernism, stated how churches needed to preach their Gospel on basis of "the felt-needs" of their hearers, rather than on exactitude to sound doctrine. The Social Gospel emerged, touting the church's main mission to be that of social relief rather than calling for the conversion of souls. In as much as a local church should have a positive impact on its community, to make that the mission is to depart from the reason for local church - fidelity to sound doctrine, making of disciples, and calling for sinners to be born again in saving faith. 

Series: You Can Trust Your Bible: P3 Those Who Oppose Mosaic Authorship - Introducing Higher Criticism

Note: The above picture is from Johann Reuchlin's Hebrew and Latin Bible, depicting Isaiah 57. 

Introduction:

    In our last two posts we provided an outline and overview of the Biblical and traditional view of Moses having composed the first five books of the Bible. We noted the number of Old Testament authors, Jesus, and the Apostles affirming Moses as the author of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Further, we drew the conclusion that to deny Mosaic authorship would make the remainder of the Old Testament, Jesus, and the Apostles to be mistaken or liars. 
Summarizing the assumptions of the traditional view of Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch
The suppositions underlying Mosaic authorship are as follows:

1. Divine Inspiration of the Bible. 

    God divinely inspired the Pentateuch through a legitimate prophet, Moses.

2. Moses was a prophet who predicted future events.

    Moses wrote a number of prophecies in the Torah or Pentateuch, including the prediction of the cosmic battle between Christ and Satan (Genesis 3:15). The coming worldwide flood via Noah (Genesis 6:1-9). The prediction of Abraham's descendants enslaved in Egypt for four generations (Genesis 15). 

    The coming of a future redeemer, who would arise from the tribe of Judah and who would be Moses-like in His miracles, authority, and teaching (Genesis 49:10; Deuteronomy 18). And the prediction of the future dispersions of the Israelites as a consequence of their breaking of the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 28-29). All these prophecies came true in history, certifying the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch.

3. Moses was a historical figure. 
    Moses was a historical figure whom God used to lead the Israelites out of Egypt in the Exodus in the mid-fifteenth century b.c. Moses' knowledge of Egyptian culture, coupled with certain features in the Pentateuch, makes placement of those books in the fifteenth century b.c. far more likely than the current critical view. 
    

The Higher Critical view (which I'll introduce in a moment) makes the Pentateuch a byproduct of several editors or "redactors" stretching from the days after King David (900's b.c.) through the reign of Josiah in Jerusalem (mid-7th century b.c.) to the time after the Jews return from the Babylonian exile (mid-6th century b.c.)

4. The Hebrew Bible, Jesus, and the Apostles affirmed Mosaic Authorship

    One final supposition for the historical view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and that is the combined witness of the remainder of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua through Malachi), Jesus, and the Apostles is why the church historically championed Mosaic authorship for the first 1700 years of its existence. 

    Additionally, the findings of archaeology have provided evidence that lends far greater weight to the traditional view than the Higher-Critical view that Genesis through Deuteronomy was produced by multiple editors (which we will look at in later postings).

    With the traditional, conservative view of the Pentateuch expressed, we will now turn to the viewpoint (or cluster of positions) that offer an alternative explanation in opposition to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 

Those who would rise up to question Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch

    

    For the first 1700 years of Church history (Church history spans from the first century until present, roughly 2,000 years) and all of Jewish history prior agreed with Jesus and the Old Testament authors that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. 
    

    In 1670 a Philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, suggested in his book “Tractatus Theologico-Politicus” that Ezra the Scribe had composed the Pentateuch. Ezra (author of the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and perhaps 1 and 2 Chronicles) lived in the 500-400's b.c. As the proposal goes, Ezra compiled the Pentateuch a 1,000 years after the preported events recorded. One thing that critical views of Mosaic authorship and Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch share is the attempt to make the writing of those books far later than their alleged recorded events. 
     

    Then a French doctor by the name of Jean Astruc (1753) and a German textual critic Johann Eichhorn in 1780-1783 suggested that Genesis could be divided up into different documents, edited by anonymous authors who used different names for God.  When they looked at Genesis 1-2 for instance, they saw the general name for God (“Elohim”, in the Hebrew) in chapter 1, then the Personal name of God (“Jehovah” or “Yahweh” in the Hebrew) in Genesis 2, concluding two different authors had to have written them. 

The dawning of Higher Criticism in Europe

    Thus, as we move from the 17th century into the 18th century, the so-called Higher Critical view is emerging. The reason for it being called "Higher Criticism" is due to it attempting to recover the source or sources of authorship in a given document. The phrase "Higher Criticism" explains what came to be the discipline of discovering the author or authors behind the alleged documents. 

Briefly comparing Higher Criticism to Lower Criticism (a.k.a textual criticism) 

    A parallel and far more legitimate discipline, so-called "Lower-criticism", worked to establish the original wording of a document by comparing existing copies with one another. The church throughout its history has had numerous examples of Bible-believing scholars who studied the existing copies and translations of the Old and New Testaments to establish what were the original words. 

    Such a discipline, also known as "textual criticism", was practiced by earely church fathers like Justin Martyr and Origen (2nd century A.D.), Jerome (4th century), Roman Catholic Scholar such as Cardinal Ximenes and Desiderus Erasmus of the sixteenth century; the great Bible translators John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, and Joahann Reuchlin of the sixteenth century; the Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin of the sixteenth century; Baptist Scholar/Pastors of the 17th century; the great Methodist commentary Adam Clarke of the nineteenth century; Bruce Metzger, Maurice Robinson, and Daniel Wallace of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 

    It's not to say this discipline is not without its share of skeptics and cranks. However, the fruits of labor have been far more friendly and more supportive of Bible conservatives who hold to a high view of Scripture. As to how textual criticism or lower criticism serves the conservative view of the Pentateuch and other portions of Scripture in opposition to Higher Critical skepticism of the Bible, the later Christian theologian and apologist Norman Geisler writes in his "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics":

"The brief time gap and the large number of manuscripts compared to other works of antiquity vouch for the fact that the content of the Biblical texts has been unchanged".

The Assumptions of Higher Criticism

    Higher criticism was fraught with far more philosophical assumptions than its lower-criticism counterpart. Such presuppositions included:

A. Skepticism about either God's existence or intervention in the world.

B. The denial of miracles or their inclusion in the study of history. 

C. The denial of drawing forth objective truths from a specific text. 

D. The denial of the Bible's inerrancy and Divine inspiration.  

E. And the denial of the underlying unity of Scripture. 

More in the next post.

Series: You Can Trust Your Bible - P2 The Biblical Data And Jesus' View On Mosaic Authorship Of The Pentatuech

Introduction:

    In my last post I introduced this series on "You Can Trust Your Bible" here Growing Christian Resources: Series: You Can Trust Your Bible - P1 Why Affirming Mosaic Authorship Of The Pentateuch Is Important. We began to consider how you can know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or first five books of the Bible. I wanted to resume where I left off, and so I'll restate why this subject is vital in our defense of God's Word. Then, we will proceed to consider where we find in Scripture affirmations of Mosaic authorship.

Affirming that Moses wrote Genesis thru Deuteronomy.

    In what will follow, I simply want to point out where we see assertions of Mosaic authorship made in the Biblical text, as well as by Jesus. In later posts, we will offer arguments and evidence that support the Biblical witness. 

A. Moses is affirmed to be the author of the first five books in those books.

    In Exodus 24:4a we are told: “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.”  Numbers 33:2 states “Moses recorded their starting places according to their journeys by the command of the Lord, and these are their journeys according to their starting places.”  Twice more Mosaic authorship is affirmed (Exodus 17:14; Deut 31:9). 

      As the chronology of Moses' life and the Exodus account would stipulate, Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus first, followed by Leviticus, all within the first year of the Exodus out of Egypt. Then, as he led the people of God through their wilderness wanderings for nearly 40 years, He wrote Numbers (known by its Hebrew name "m'dvar" or "in the desert") in the arid setting of the Sinai Peninsula, followed by Deuteronomy as a final set of sermons he preached before his death on the Eastern side of the Jordon on the plains of Moab.   

B. The rest of the Old Testament affirms Moses wrote the first five books.

    What do the authors of the Old Testament have to say about authorship 

of the Pentateuch? Critics will contend that Mosaic authorship was not strongly affirmed after the book of Deuteronomy. However, a scan through the Biblical data suggests the contrary. At least six other Biblical authors affirm Moses wrote these books (Josh 1:8; 2 Kings 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Neh 13:1; Dan 9:11,13; Malachi 4:4). Let me just cite one of these examples, 2 Kings 21:8 

“And I will not make the feet of Israel wander anymore from the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them.”  

    This passage was written during the final years of the wickedest king who reigned in Jerusalem – Manasseh. He ruled from 687-643 b.c. Before he died, the passage tells us how God was going to judge the land for the wicked acts Manasseh had done. In that passage, the first five books are mentioned, written by Moses. We will return to Manasseh later in these posts, since he is the grandfather of King Josiah, who ruled in Jerusalem. I'll only mention this now since critics of Mosaic authorship claim the Book of the Law was compiled mostly during or after the reign of King Josiah. Yet we see just in this short citation that the Torah or Book of the Law existed at least in the days of King Josiah's grandfather (again, more on this in a later post). 

C. Jesus affirmed that Moses wrote the first five books.

    What did Jesus teach about Genesis thru Deuteronomy? When He had healed a leper in Matthew 8:4, he referenced Leviticus 13:49, saying these words: “and Jesus said to him, ‘See that you tell no one; but go, show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’”  Jesus taught Moses wrote Leviticus. 

    Then in Mark 12:26 Jesus affirms Moses wrote Exodus, referencing Exodus 3 in his conversation with the Sadducees: 

“But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” 

    That’s pretty specific, isn’t it? In Matthew 19:6-8 Jesus affirms Moses’ authorship of Deuteronomy. In John 3:14, Jesus affirms the historical existence of Moses lifting up the serpent in Numbers 21, which consequently provides affirmation of his authorship of the book of Numbers.  Over 30 places in the gospel records record Jesus affirming Moses’ authorship or linking the first five books to him. We have ample examples of the Bible claiming Mosaic authorship, including Jesus Himself. 

What is the take away?

    The fact of the matter is this: if Moses did not write the Pentateuch; if the events recorded in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were much-later embellishments by post-exilic Jews trying to account for their claim to the land of Israel (as proposed by the Higher Critics, which we will see in later posts), rather than composed by Moses under the Divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then not only in the Biblical record not the Word of God, but Jesus Himself would be in error at best, and a liar at worse. As we get more into these posts, I hope the reader will feel the weight of importance as to why we must defend the truth of the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. 

Series: You Can Trust Your Bible - P1 Why Affirming Mosaic Authorship Of The Pentateuch Is Important

Introduction:

    Recently I had opportunity to speak to a group of students in our local Christian school about the reliability of the Scriptures. From those messages comes forth this series of posts I plan to entitle: “You Can Trust Your Bible”. In this series, we will explore four major areas of the Bible that have been under constant attack for the last 250 years. Let me mention what those are and then explain the significance of each of them for anyone who is a follower of Jesus Christ.

Genesis Thru Deuteronomy. 

    This provides the foundation of the whole Bible. Critics have denied that Moses wrote it, discredited its details on history, and have dismissed its Divine authority.

Daniel. 

    Daniel’s prophecies give some of the greatest proofs for the Bible’s Divine inspiration. The Book of Daniel has been attacked for its claims, its setting in the 6th century b.c. during the Neo-Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires,  its prophetic predictions, authorship, and history.

The Gospels. 

    These four documents introduce us to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, including His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. These have been opposed as lacking accuracy in history, not representing the actual Jesus, and their authorship.

1,2 Timothy & Titus. 

    Paul the Apostle wrote these three letters to instruct churches on how to conduct themselves and what to teach. These three books, known as the “Pastoral Epistles”, have had doubt cast upon them as written by Paul. Their authority is denied by critics who complain about the teachings found within them.  

A startling statistic

    Summit Ministries, a Christian ministry devoted to training Christians on how to defend their faith, surveyed 18-25 young adults on matters of faith and practice. Here is what they found:

“We talk a lot about young people walking away from the church, abandoning their Christian beliefs. The research is scary – studies show that as many as 70% of Christian students leave the church during college.” 

    The number one reason they cite for why young people leave their faith after high school:

“No Grounding — At best, many young believers don’t know why they believe what they believe. Often, those who think they do have never had their foundation of faith seriously challenged. Worst, many 18- to 25-year-olds have no hold on what Christianity actually teaches at all.”

The Bible is to judge us, rather than we judge the Bible 

   If you ever go off to college or have attended one, you may take what is called a “Philosophy of Religion” course. Such courses are so named because in their definition of "religion", they refer to how human beings respond to what they perceive to be the presence of God and His Divine revelation. In such courses there are oftentimes baked-in assumptions about God, what constitutes reality, and whether or not Divine revelation, miracles, and authoritative Divine revelation are even possible. Philosophy of Religion is a branch of Philosophical study that can have limited value in shedding light on questions raised in the study of theology. Whether the questions it raises and the answers it attempts to give prove helpful is an area of constant debate among its practitioners.

    Systematic Theology (Biblically based theology that is) goes with the assumption that God has revealed Himself in history and through the Bible, most-notably in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. There can be some overlap in philosophy or religion and theology, however either one must be under subjection to the truth of God's Word, the Bible. As with all disciplines, the danger can run where the philosopher of religion or the theologian can come-off as a judge of the Bible (a magisterial or "know-it-all posturing"), rather than letting the Bible judge him or her (which would be a "ministerial" positioning or "I'll admit I don't know everything" point of view).   

    In as much as such courses can raise interesting questions, and even be taught by Godly Christian professors, most of the time such courses promote Higher Critical theories and liberal theological views of the Bible. 

Why our young people need equipped with tools for defending the Bible as God's Word

    Young students and young adults that claim Christ as their Savior and Lord need equipped so that when exposed to criticisms of the Bible, they'll be less likely to succomb to them. If not in a college classroom, many Christians will find criticisms of Divine inspiration and reliability of the Scriptures online, in discussions with co-workers, or sadly, sometimes even in churches that departed long ago from a Biblical worldview. 

     In this opening post I want to lay out for you: “You Can Know Who Wrote Genesis Thru Deuteronomy.” We will begin to consider arguments that affirm the Mosaic authorship of Genesis through Deuteronomy, otherwise known as "The Pentateuch" (meaning "the five", as per the Greek name for the first five Biblical books) or "Torah" (the Hebrew name of these five which means "that which teaches or guides"). 

1. Affirming that Moses wrote Genesis thru Deuteronomy.

    This may not sound like an important topic, since whether Moses, or Bob wrote the Bible shouldn’t matter all that much. Right? Well, it does matter when the man Moses himself, other parts of the Bible, and even Jesus affirm that Moses wrote these five books, which are sometimes called “The Pentateuch” (meaning “The Five”) and other times “The Torah” (meaning “that which guides or teaches”). If Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then anyone else who claims He did would be wrong. That's the main idea as to why the traditional and Biblical view of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch must be defended, as well as why opposing ideas (which I'll get to in future posts) must be answered. 

Next time I'll lay out the case for how we affirm that Moses wrote the Torah, as well as in later posts mention critical views opposing Mosaic authorship, followed by posts that answers such criticisms. 

A Easter Sunrise Service Devotion - Three Early Sunday Mornings

Introduction:

    As we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, I'll be conducting a sunrise service for our church. At that service I plan to deliver a short message I'm entitling "Three Early Sunday Mornings". One may wonder about the title? As you will see in this post, the three Sunday mornings I refer to occurred on each of their respective first days of the week or "Sunday". What I find remarkable is when we align the timing of the landing of Noah's Ark, the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, they all fall on the same day, and what would be the same month! This is intentional on God's part in the revealing of His Scriptures, telegraphing to us important theological truths that point to the meaning of Christ's physical resurrection. Let's look briefly at these three early Sunday mornings.

1. The morning of a new life. 

    Genesis 8:1-4

    We begin with Genesis 8:1-4,

"But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided. 2 Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained; 3 and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased. 4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat."

     The seventeenth day of the tenth month was per the common civil calendar used by Israel and its neighbors all over the Ancient Near East. That date would correspond to the religious calendar of Israel, revealed by God to her in Exodus 12, when the tenth month (called later "Nisan" by the Jews in the Babylonian Exile a millennium after the Exodus) became the first month for the observances of the festivals God revealed to Israel following her Exodus from Egypt. God revealed to His people that even how they reckoned time was going to be different. The Jews would still use the civil calendar (which is the calendar Moses used in explaining the landing of the Ark, with the tenth month corresponding to what would be the first month for the Israelites in their religious calendar. 

    When Noah and his family in the Ark landed on top of Mount Ararat, the world as they knew it was no more. All flesh was destroyed. The physical features of earth were permanently altered. God had in effect begun a new creation. When Noah and his family stepped out of the ark, they were literally beginning a new life, in a new world, so-to-speak. F.B. Meyer notes in his commentary on this passage:

"Through God’s grace Noah stepped out into the new world-the world of resurrection. His first act was the burned-offering of consecration, which was followed immediately by promise."

    When Jesus raised from the dead, He was indicating a new era of human history had broken into this current age. Although the new era is not a full one yet, it indicates that Christ’s return could be at anytime, with His resurrection heralding the forthcoming new creation. Anyone born again in saving faith is spiritually part of the new creation, as Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17 - "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."

2. The morning of a new redemption. Exodus 14:24-31; 15:1-21

    Our next early Sunday morning features the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. We pick up the text in Exodus 14:24-27,

"At the morning watch, the Lord looked down on the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud and brought the army of the Egyptians into confusion. 25 He caused their chariot wheels to swerve, and He made them drive with difficulty; so the Egyptians said, “Let us flee from Israel, for the Lord is fighting for them against the Egyptians.”

"Then the Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may come back over the Egyptians, over their chariots and their horsemen.” 27 So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal state at daybreak, while the Egyptians were fleeing right into it; then the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea."

    You may recall the short discussion earlier about the civil and religious calendars of the Jewish people. In that conversation, we saw how the dates on each shed light on understanding what was going on in the timing of the landing of the Ark and what would be later the religious calendar month of Nisan or March/April. We now see the relevance of that discussion unfold here. 

    The Passover Eve was the Jewish month of Nisan 14 (our March/April). The Jews left Egypt on the 15th crossed the Red Sea on the 16th and saw Pharaoh and their armies around on the morning of the 17th (See Exodus 12, giving us the specific time frame). Moses expounds on this particular order of days in Leviticus. 23:4-6 

“In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.” 

    

     We have Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The day after the Sabbath, the 17th, would be the Feast of First Fruits, as Moses wrote again in Leviticus 23:9-11,

“Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land which I am going to give to you and reap its harvest, then you shall bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.” 

    The whole point of the Exodus and Passover was to convey God's redemptive act. No doubt the Israelites saved out of Egypt were beginning a new life and new era in their history. We see what theologians call a "typological connection", whereby an event, people group, person, or institution in the Old Testament pictures or foreshadows something about Jesus and salvation in the New Testament. Noah and the Ark do this "typological" messaging (compare 1 Peter 3:18-21). The Exodus from Egypt does the same, pointing ahead to Christ's redemptive work on Calvary, as well as His resurrection. 

    We see the Old Testament festivals like First-fruits and Passover used of Jesus in the New Testament. For example, redemption once and for all accomplished is done so by Christ our Passover, as relayed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7, as well as His resurrection from the dead as detailed in the image of Jesus as our first fruit (1 Cor 15:20-23).

3. The morning of a victorious 

    announcement. Matthew 28:1-7

    We've seen our first two Sunday mornings, with the landing of the Ark of Noah on the 17th day of the tenth month, corresponding to the Jewish religious calendar month of Nisan (our March/April) and hence the whole Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread/Feast of First Fruits festivals. The landing of the Ark conveyed the beginning of new life. Then, with the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread/Feast of First Fruits festivals begun in Exodus and Leviticus, we see those festivals, along with the earlier revelation about the Ark telegraphing not only the theme of "new life", but also "redemption". After all, the Exodus is the standout example of a typological or foreshadowing connection to Jesus death and resurrection. We now come to our final early Sunday morning, the main fulfillment of those two earlier ones. 

    I call that first Easter morning "the morning of victorious announcement" because of what we read in Matthew 28:1-7,

“Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. 7 Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

    Notice how the text begins "early on the first day of the week". It is after the Sabbath, which would have been a Saturday of course. Passover began on Thursday evening and carried into Friday according to the Jewish custom of the first century. Jesus was crucified on Friday or at Passover time, fulfilling the typology of the Passover Lamb of the Exodus. He then on Saturday did quite a bit in proclaiming victory and salvation to the fallen angels in Hades (who had by the way been part of rebellion preceding the flood! See 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; 1 Peter 3:18-20).  

    It was then on Sunday, the 17th of Nisan (again our "March/April" time frame) our Lord arose. This 17th day of the month is the same date as the landing of Noah's ark and that of the Israelites setting foot on the other side of the Red Sea.  In other words, this final Sunday morning fulfilled the typology or foreshadowing symbolism of the landing of Noah's Ark and the Exodus. New life. Redemption. The two themes are brought together at the empty tomb! Christ physically raised from the dead. All who by grace through faith trust in Him begin anew and are redeemed. May that be said of you dear reader. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

The Goodness of Good Friday - Reflections From Romans 5

 

Introduction:

    Today is what Christians the world-over call "Good Friday". Why call a day "Good" when the most evil act perpetrated by men - the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - took place? The ultimate cause behind the crucifixion was God Himself (Acts 2:23-24; Acts 4:26-28).

    God the Father sent the Son to become the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth. The Divine Son would live a perfect human life as "The Word made flesh" (John 1:14), to qualify as the "perfect Lamb of God", to die once and for all for sin (1 Peter 1:17-18; 3:18). The goodness achieved that day far outweighed the evil. 

    As we consider this Good Friday, we will look at one of the clearest passages in the Bible on the atoning death of Christ - Romans 5:6-21. What we will discover is the goodness of Good Friday.

1. The Goodness of salvation accomplished.   Romans 5:6-8 (WHAT HAPPENED FOR ME)

Paul writes in Romans 5:6-8 "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 

John Murray, past Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, wrote a classic book in 1975 on the atoning work of Jesus Christ entitled: “Redemption Accomplished And Applied”. I’ve always found the terms he used in that title helpful in wrapping my arms around the Biblical doctrine of Christ's substitutionary atonement. 

The idea of “salvation accomplished” means the historic event of the cross, along with His resurrection from the dead. This is what Jesus Christ did for me or what we could also call "what happened for me". 

    The cross is where sin’s debt was paid; and the empty tomb is where the payment was approved. Murray’s book discusses at length how necessary Christ’s death was on the cross to accomplish salvation. There were no other methods or ways God could had set forth His saving work. 

    For Murray, the plan of God required an absolute effort from Himself to bring His overall saving work to its completion. As it concerns Jesus’ work on the cross, Murray writes: 

“Without it, we lack the elements necessary to make intelligible the meaning of Calvary and the marvel of its supreme love to men.”

Remember, in salvation accomplished, I’m talking about what Christ did for me. This is what had to happen for me, on my behalf. It would require all four Gospels to present what Jesus accomplished "for me" in a span of six hours. Let me mention two verses from the Gospels of Mark and Luke that highlight "salvation accomplished".

A. He bought me from my sin. 

 Mark 10:45 “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” 

    The term “ransom” concerns the price paid to emancipate a slave. In His humanity, Jesus lived a perfect life of 33 years, fulfilling what was required by God’s Law. He offered up a perfect life through His active obedience. 

    For Him to be qualified to accomplish redemption at the cross, He had to live a perfect life prior to it. It was His perfect humanity that provided valid payment for my sins, and it was His deity that provided infinite value in payment for my sins.   

B. He sought me despite my sin. 

Luke 19:10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” 

    Now we have the act of death on the cross. The perfect life offered up in being the ransom for sinners qualified Him to be our Savior leading to the cross. It is here that what He accomplished paid for salvation at the cross. Remember, we have not only a perfect humanity, but the undiminished deity of the Divine Son of God. He paid the ransom to God as man and acted salvation as God. The title “Son of Man” speaks both to His deity and humanity. As man, Jesus Christ sought after Zachaeus. As God, He knew where to find this wee little man. 

    So, we see that the first good of Good Friday was that "salvation was accomplished by Christ", defining what needed to happen for me". But now notice secondly....

2. The Goodness of salvation applied.   Romans 5:9-11 (WHAT HAPPENED TO ME, IN SAVING FAITH)

In salvation accomplished, I understand that something had to happen for me. I could not bring it about. But now in salvation applied, upon the work of saving grace in saving faith, I understand something happens to me. That which “happened for me” is a historical, physical event, acted forth by God, for God, for sinners such as myself. Now what is needed is a connecting heavenly work, done by the Holy Spirit to apply that accomplished work to me. The cross-work of Christ is validated by His resurrection from the dead. It is on that basis that the Holy Spirit takes what Jesus achieved and applies it to those who believe. 

    The historical event becomes the heavenly reality granted "to me" at saving faith. We don’t have time to expound on all the graces that the Holy Spirit works forth in the sinner’s salvation. We know that those whom He calls on the inside of the heart by the Word of God (Romans 10:17), He brings forth that miracle of the New Birth, saving faith, and repentance. John 1:12-13 spells this out, as well as 2 Timothy 2:25. What happens to sinners so drawn, called, and converted by the Spirit through faith in salvation applied?

A. My legal problems with God ended in justification.  Romans 5:9

    Paul writes in Romans 5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." 

    Why God's wrath? Why did the settled opposition of the Divine Father need directed at the Divine incarnate Son on the cross. We read in Deuteronomy 27:26 "Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’" 

    The Law of God was violated originally in the Garden of Eden. When God made man, He placed within his heart the law of God in the form of the human conscience (Romans 2:14-15). 

    This form of God's Law was broken in the treachery of our original parents. Millennia later, that same Law, given to Moses and Israel in inscripturated form, came with a curse for any who violated it. The Apostle Paul comments in Galatians 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Gal 3:24 "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith." 

    Unless Christ bore the curse, I and all descended from Adam would have legal problems with God. Because Christ bore the curse as the New Adam, that meant His perfect life of righteousness could be "imputed" or credited to my otherwise bankrupt spiritual account at saving faith. This is what the Bible calls " justification by faith". But notice also...

B. My spiritual plight with God ended in reconciliation.  Romans 5:10

    We read further in Romans 5:10 "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (see also Romans 3:23). We are spiritually separated from God from conception and birth (Psalm 51). What is needed is reconciliation. 

    Paul explains how bad off we all are in Ephesians 2:12 "remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world."

     When a sinner, so drawn by the Spirit in saving faith, trusts in all that Christ is and has accomplished, the grace of reconciliation is applied. 

C. My relational pain with God ended in adoption. Romans 5:11

    We read on in Romans 5:11 "And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation." How can a reconciled, justified sinner have confidence to exalt in God lest they are also considered as adopted sons and daughters? Paul writes in  Galatians 4:6-7 "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'  7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God." 

    We then read in Ephesians 2:18 "for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father." The argument of Romans 5 follows through into Romans 8, where Paul brings forth the truth of the believer's adoption by God (Romans 8:14-16). 

    These three truths of justification, reconciliation, and adoption comprise the three-braided rope of "salvation applied" at saving faith - a rope that cannot be broken. Then, what we find in Romans 5:12-21 is an introduction to what will be the overall argument that follows in Romans chapters 6,7,8, what I am calling "salvation experienced". 

    We saw in "salvation accomplished" that something happened for me. We observed in "salvation applied" that something happens to me in saving faith. But the Christian life doesn't stop there. Notice....

3. The Goodness of salvation experienced.  Romans 5:12-21 (WHAT IS HAPPENING IN ME, SANCTIFICATION)

As mentioned, Paul is introducing what He will expound upon in Romans 6, namely the experiential union the Christian has with Jesus Christ. To introduce this truth, Paul places side-by-side the first Adam, original Adam, and then of course Jesus Christ, whom Paul calls elsewhere the "New Adam" (see 1 Corinthians 15:45-47). 

    Adrian Rogers has noted that we gain more in Christ than we lost in Adam. The Scriptures bear out that our overall experience and identity is defined by whomever we have union. As I cite the remainder of Romans 5:12-21, I'll insert headings in parenthesis that expound what we can call "the badness of sin experienced in Adam" and "the goodness of what is experienced in Jesus Christ".

A. The badness of sin experienced in Adam.   Romans 5:12-14 

    Romans 5:12-13 (Sin’s consequences) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (sin’s condemnation) for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 

     Romans 5:14 (sin’s corruption) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

B. The goodness of salvation experienced in Jesus.  Romans 5:15-21

    Romans 5:15-21  (imparation of the Son’s consequences) But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 

    Romans 5:17 (the imputation of the Son’s credited righteousness) For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

    Romans 5:18 (the inwardness of the Son’s completed work) So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    The above gives us a taste of the goodness accomplished on the cross, applied in saving faith, and experienced in sanctification.  

    For any reading this post today, let me ask you: have you received by faith all that Jesus accomplished for you? If not, wherever you are at, simply pray and ask God to forgive you of your sins and ask the Lord Jesus Christ to become your Savior, Lord and Treasure. Acknowledge that you trust in His finished work on the cross and that you believe He raised from the dead. You too can then have applied the goodness of Good Friday, and from this day forward experience the goodness of Good Friday worked forth in you by the Holy Spirit. 

Post #7 Concluding our study of original sin

Introduction:

    Over the last six posts, we have explored the doctrine of original sin. We began by noting four fall-like events in the Bible (Satan's Fall, Adam's Fall, The Flood, Tower of Babel). We noted how understanding those four events, especially Adam's Fall, brings about a greater understanding of the state of the world, the human condition, and the glory of salvation in Jesus Christ. 

    As we delved into Adam's Fall, we proposed that the doctrine of original sin explains what took place and why it affected us all. The following is a summary outline that has ran its course through the last six posts. 

1. Defining and illustrating original sin.  1 Cor 15:22; Rom 5:18-19.

 A. Original sin defined.

 B. Original sin illustrated.

2. Adam initiated original sin. Gen 3:1-3, 6; James 4:17.

A. Disobedience in subduing the Serpent. Gen 3:1-3,6.

B. Deception of changing God’s Word. Gen 3:2-4.

    C. Deliberate choice to do what was forbidden. Gen 3:5-7.

    D. Darkness of separation from God. Gen 3:8-10

E. Devastation of the curse. Gen 3:11-14, 16-19.

3. Guilt was imputed by original sin. Job 31:33; Hosea 6:7

4. What good is there in knowing about original sin?

A. To grasp the greatness of God’s love in saving faith.

    B. To grasp Christ’s imputed righteousness in saving faith.

    As we pressed through the posts, we explored further truths.

5. Original sin led to inherited corruption. Romans 5:12-14.

A. The representative head’s practice transferred the corruption. Romans 5:12

B. The representative head’s pattern repeated the corruption. Romans 5:13-14

C. Proving how a representative head can corrupt. 1 Kings 11-23.

6. Original sin brings an inward bent away from God. Rom 3:10-18

   A. Bent to run from God. Romans 3:10-12

   B. Bent to rebel against God. Romans 3:13-14.

  C. Bent to ruin before God. Romans 3:15-18

7. Again, why should we know about original sin?

A. To desire God who call us to salvation. Romans 5:6-8.

B. To depend on Christ’s righteousness for salvation. Romans 5:17.

C. To delight in the new nature promised in salvation. John 1:12-13.

    We defined the doctrine of original sin as follows: original sin is that willful act of Adam that transferred to the human race imputed guilt, inherited corruption, and an inward bent away from God.

     Overall, I put forth four points or truths that follow from this definition, offering Scriptural evidence. As the reader can tell from the above outline followed by the whole series, I attempted to expound four major tenets of the doctrine.

(1). Original sin initiated with Adam.

(2). Original sin imputed guilt.

(3). Original sin led to inherited corruption

(4). Inward bent away from God. 

As we conclude this series, let us remind ourselves about the doctrine of imputation, representative headship, and the value of studying the doctrine of original sin.

    The above slide is taken from one of the sermons I had preached on the doctrine of original sin. The reader will notice two circles. There is Adam, our representative or covenant head, the first circle. All humanity, born in Adam, contract his characteristics from the fall (inherited corruption, imputed guilt, inward bent from God). 

    Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-21, David's remarks about himself in Psalm 51, and many other passages remind us of why it is individual humans sin the way they do, and why they are already declared sinners from conception onward. In other words, we sin because we are sinners, in the likeness of Adam (Genesis 5:3; Hosea 6:7; Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22). 

    But then notice the second circle - the New Adam, Christ. To get into each circle, the members must be "born". All of us are born naturally into Adam's race, he as our representative in the Garden of Eden. Those from Adam's race must be born again in saving faith to be transferred from "Old Adam" into "The Second Adam". In Adam, all died. In Christ, the New Adam, all are made alive as a consequence of His resurrection from the dead and upon reception of Him in saving faith.

    Notice that second circle. My imputed guilt is exchanged for Christ's imputed righteousness. My inherited corruption in Adam is exchanged for a new nature (at least in my heart/spirit), resulting in an instant new nature and a progressive change in sanctification in Christ. 

    On this point of corruption, I still bear the left-overs of the corruption of original sin in my body, my flesh, which is why I have that inward conflict of "spirit" and "flesh". Then, unlike the first circle of having that inward bent away from God, the Holy Spirit comes, awakens my innermost man, and "rips away the veil" from my eyes to desire Christ in faith and repentance (2 Corinthians 3:16-18; 4:1-6).  

    The point of my giving you, the reader, those two circles, is to highlight the doctrine of imputation. Without the doctrine of imputation, or "crediting of one person's work to another", we would not understand why all humanity is guilty before God because of Adam's imputed sin and guilt (as well as each individual's actual sins). 

    Further, we would not grasp what Christ bore in the cross with respect of having our sin and "sins" imputed so as to have Christ treated as a vile sinner (2 Corinthians 5:21), as the cursed one (Galatians 3:10-13), and as the object of wrath on the cross (Romans 5:6-10). 

    Finally, without the doctrine of original sin and the related concept of "imputation", we could not appreciate the doctrine of justification by faith, whereupon by reception of Christ by faith apart from works, I have imputed to my account His perfect life, substitutionary death, and victorious resurrection. 

    It is the awfully bad news of original sin that brings out the glorious good news of our salvation - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although I did not get into the historical development of the doctrine of original sin, as a final remark on that score, most of church history (not just Augustine onward, but earlier church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian) have expressed the awfulness of human sin along the lines of the doctrine of original sin. 

    The indictment of Scripture, time and again, is that we sin because we are sinners, and we are sinners because of the original sinner - Adam. The Biblical authors, and even Jesus Himself, described the human condition as crooked, corrupt, and in need of an inward change from the Holy Spirit in the New Birth (Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 15:18-19; Mark 7:21; Luke 6:45; John 1:12-13). This is why everyone born into this world, in Adam, is commanded to believe, repent, and be saved from their fallen condition and from God's wrath upon the whole of humanity.