This article first appeared in the Practical Hermeneutics column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 40, number 05 (2017).The full text of this article in PDF format can be obtained by clicking here. For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/
The final chapter in the book of Deuteronomy recounts how Moses ascended Mount Nebo at God’s invitation to view the land of Israel, which the Lord had denied him to enter. It also mentions the place where Moses died and was buried in an undisclosed valley located in the country of Moab (Deut. 34:6). Since there is good evidence that Moses wrote all or most of the first five books of the Bible, what are we to make of the final chapter in the fifth book that records his death? Could he have predicted that this would be his final resting place and that no one would know where he was buried right up to that very day?
The Place of Burial: Was It on Mount Nebo or the Heights of Pisgah? Mount Nebo (Hebrew Har Nevo) is a ridge in the land of present-day Jordan, reaching approximately 2,680 feet above sea level. It provides a panorama of the Holy Land from a site just north of the northern end of the Dead Sea and east of the Jordan River. From that spot, the Lord showed Moses the whole land, including the land from Gilead to the territory of Dan, all of Naphtali, the area of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the Mediterranean Sea, the southern Negev, and the entire area from the Valley of Jericho all the way down to Zoar (Deut. 34:1b–3).1 This was the very same land that the Lord had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with their descendants (34:4).
Moses pleaded with God to allow him to “go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan” (Deut. 3:25), but God was angry with Moses because he presumed to bring water from the rock on the authority of his person and Aaron’s: “Must we bring you water out of this rock?” (Num. 20:10–12, emphasis added). God therefore declined to speak with him about his going into the land of Canaan any further (Deut. 3:26), but instead offered Moses the opportunity to “go up to the top of Pisgah” to view the land before he died (Deut. 3:27). Some declare that Pisgah and Mount Nebo present a contradiction in the Bible, since they are two different names for the same event, but most view these names as two alternative designations for the same site, just as Horeb and Sinai are dual names for the same site. The highest peak on Nebo is Pisgah, usually identified with the peak of Ras es-Siaghah, on the west side of Nebo.
Did Moses Write the Whole Pentateuch? Some have argued that Moses wrote or, in some cases, dictated the entirety of the first five books of the Old Testament — including a prophecy about his own death in Deuteronomy 34. Indeed, both the Jewish sage Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BC–AD 50) and the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (ca. AD 37–100) believed that Moses wrote the account of his own death. Josephus claimed that Moses did this “lest they [the people of Israel] should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God.”2 The Talmud tractate Baba Bathra (14b), however, more plausibly assigns the last eight verses of Deuteronomy 34 to Joshua’s hand.
The argument for Moses composing his own prewritten posthumous notice of death becomes even more complicated, for he would have needed to describe his death as a prophecy, which is not how it is presented in the text. Instead, it is cast as a regular historical account of what happened. Moreover, Moses also would have needed to have known by revelation the added facts of what would take place subsequent to his burial; that is, that no one knew the location of his burial plot even “to this day” (Deut. 34:6). There was also another fact that Moses would have needed to be revealed to him: the number of days the mourning and lamentation for him would extend (34:8). However, Scripture presents both of these facts as if they were straightforward descriptions of what took place. There is no indication that any of these truths came from the hand of the Lord as predictions or prophecies.
Added to this discussion is the realization that several of the expressions make little or no sense if placed in the mouth of Moses as a prose description of what happened. For example, phrases such as “to this day” (Deut. 34:6), “since then no prophet has arisen” (34:10), and “no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel” (34:12) would not be suitable speech for a man as humble as Moses. It is better coming from the lips of someone such as his understudy Joshua. In fact, Moses’ modesty never allowed him to put himself forward. This can be seen in his refusal to take any credit for the dividing of the Red Sea or in the construction of the tabernacle. Self-promotion was not in keeping with Moses’ character or his understanding of God and His works on behalf of Israel.
Therefore, it is for these reasons that the ancient Jews held the view that Joshua, Moses’ understudy, was the one who was authorized by the Spirit of God to add such “post-Mosaica” comments as they appear in this text of Deuteronomy 34. The evidence that is generally cited for such a claim is found in Joshua 24:26: “And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God.” A reference to the Book of the Law is a clear allusion to the work Moses accomplished as he wrote the first five biblical books of Genesis through Deuteronomy.
Moreover, the verb in 34:6 is singular; it does not read “they buried him.” Consequently, it could, perhaps, be translated impersonally: “One buried him”; or, better still, it was “the Lord who buried him.” That the grave was in an unknown location adds more poignancy to the fact that none of Israel’s men were said to go up with Moses on Nebo; nor were they there to dig his grave and see that it was covered over properly. —Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. is President Emeritus and Distinguished Professor of Old Testament and Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Although the Bible teaches that God’s existence is evident from nature, it has become commonplace in modern society for people to doubt or deny that God exists. In this article I contend that six aspects of our lives that all of us take for granted—existence, values, morality, reason, mind, and science—can only be explained adequately on a theistic basis. (1) The existence of contingent things—including humans—ultimately depends on a noncontingent, self-existent God who freely created the universe. (2) Objective value judgments about things within the universe presuppose an absolute standard of goodness that transcends the universe, by which those things can be judged good or bad. (3) Objective moral judgments about human actions presuppose transcendent moral laws that in turn require a transcendent moral lawgiver, as even many atheists concede. (4) Our rational faculties must find their ultimate origin in a rational source; reason cannot come from nonreason, and naturalistic evolutionary explanations of our cognitive faculties are self-defeating. (5) Our possession of conscious minds cannot be explained on an atheistic materialistic basis; naturalistic evolutionary accounts of the emergence of complex conscious minds assume the very thing they purport to explain. (6) Science rests on a host of foundational philosophical presuppositions, including two assumptions that cannot be justified apart from a theistic worldview: (1) the universe is orderly and rational and (2) our minds are well-fitted to comprehend that order and rationality. Insofar as atheists take these six things for granted, they have to depend on God even while they deny His existence.Family, Faith and Father By: Donald Fairbairn
The spectacular success of the Star Wars saga is, among many others things, a testimony to the powerful hold that family exercises on American society. In particular, the longing for father is a common deeply felt need. As Christians, we recognize that this longing is not just for our human father but also for our heavenly Father. At the heart of the gospel is the truth that we become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. But our family relationship with God is not the ultimate truth of Christianity, because it is in turn based on something even more ultimate: God’s eternal relationship with His Son. In the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus links our love for one another to His love for us and the Father’s love for Him. In the High Priestly Prayer, He prays that believers would share love, joy, and oneness with one another just as He has shared love with the Father before the world was created. While the theology of Star Wars is almost all wrong, the longing for a father that it illustrates can be a stepping stone to our understanding of the heart of the gospel. God made us so that He could be our Father in a way that reflects His fatherly relationship to His only Son. And when, through sin, we lost that initial gift, He resolved to give it to us yet again, by sending that only Son to die and make us the sons and daughters of God the Father, and thereby making us brothers and sisters of Christ.A Reconsideration of Romantic Love By: Rob Whitley, Ph.D. Romantic love has always stimulated a brisk trade. Belgian chocolates, vintage claret, redolent bouquets, designer clothes, and weekend getaways have never come cheaply. But contemporary society differs somewhat from times past inasmuch as the search for romantic love has become big business, propelled mostly by young people. In an effort to find Mr. or Miss Right, young people can consume a whole array of dizzying products that promise, in one way or another, invaluable assistance in the quest for romantic love. Dozens of Internet dating services vie for their trade—all shorn of the sadness and stigma that used to pervade the local newspaper’s somewhat seedy lonely hearts column. While conducting one-stop shopping for books or music on amazon.com, the Internet surfer can simultaneously visit the many variants of “www.love.com.” These sites offer an alluring promise of one-stop love. Within minutes you could be talking live to your life partner. If this is not sufficient, why not sign up for one of the burgeoning speed-dating events, where instant intimacy is promised at the ring of a bell? The enduring and expanding nature of these dating services is a testament to their popular appeal in the twenty-first century.
On today’s Bible Answer Man broadcast, Hank tells the tragic story of Nathan Verhelst. Nathan was born as a girl in Belgium, and at some point, she decided that she would be better off if she were a he. After hormone therapy and several surgeries to transition from female to male; Nathan tells of looking into a mirror and being disgusted. A year following the last sex-change procedure, Verhelst was euthanized. And so, the Belgian health service tried to turn a woman into a man, had failed, and then killed her. The trans train has roared into town in record time—far faster than the “L,” the “G,” and the “B” in LGBTQ+. Time Magazine referred to the trans movement as the next civil rights movement. If you so much as suggest that a trans woman is not the same as a biological woman, your career is in danger. It is incumbent on us to stand for truth no matter the cost—but to do that we must be informed, and we need the love and care that was demonstrated by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In the second segment, Hank revisits a question he ran out of time with on yesterday’s broadcast—In Revelation, what does John mean in saying that Satan will be bound for a thousand years and then set free for a short period of time?
Hank also answers the following questions:
I’ve heard you correct people that misinterpret Romans 4:17 as saying that we can call things into existence; but in John 14:12, Jesus says that if we believe in him, we will do the same things he does or even greater things. Can you clarify this for me?
How could God create ex nihilo (out of nothing)?All Sermons by Hank Hanegraaff