December 21, 2023

December 21, 2023 By
0 Comments

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian  perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, Eleventh Topic: The Law of God, Seventh Question: The First Commandment), in which he addresses the communion of saints, including the invocation and veneration of saints. I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated.  All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

*****

Is God alone to be worshipped and invoked? Or is it lawful to invoke and religiously worship deceased saints? We affirm the former and deny the latter against the papists.

As Turretin was well aware, Catholics distinguish between adoration, reserved for God, and veneration, which is more or less honoring the saints. “Worship” has a range of meaning in English. So, for example, in the ceremony of matrimony in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer (Anglican), are the words, “With this ring I thee wed: with my body I thee worship . . .”

I. By the first precept “thou shalt have no other gods before me,” the true object of religious worship is sanctioned.

Yes, of course. Christians are to be monotheists and adore God alone and accept or believe in no other (nonexistent) gods. Since there is no disagreement here, Turretin, in the final analysis, presupposes that any veneration collapses into (or at best “interferes” with) adoration meant for God alone. But this is untrue and is the fundamental error in play. It’s part and parcel of one of the most basic and repeated errors of Protestantism (especially Calvinism): its relentless “either/or” false dichotomies. In this instance, the mentality is seen in the belief that “if we worship God we can’t even honor or venerate anyone else, lest they become an idol. And we can’t invoke anyone but God.” I’ll be more than happy, as we proceed, to explain, with support from the Bible, why these premises are untrue.

Turretin shortly after brings up Galatians 4:8 (“. . . you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods”). Again, this is rank idolatry: making that which is not God in effect function as or replace God in ones religious practice, or as Turretin describes it: “what is not God is esteemed and served as God.” But the Catholic communion of saints is not the same thing as this blasphemous idolatry, because we simply aren’t replacing God with anyone or anything else. He mentions the “faith, adoration, and invocation due to God alone.” We agree that the first two are for God alone, but we deny that He is the only one who can be invoked, because the Bible teaches otherwise. Turretin assumes that this is the case, but what is his biblical proof for it? Perhaps later he attempts to produce that. I am answering as I read.

The papists sin in many ways about this: by the religious worship of creatures, angels, saints, relics, the host of the Mass, and of the pope himself. Thus they are guilty of not one kind of idolatry.

Where to start?! We don’t worship (in the sense he means: adoration) any of these persons or things, except for the consecrated host, which we believe to be Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus being God (as both sides agree), that’s not idolatry — it can’t possibly be idolatry — , because it’s directed at God Himself. So the argument there comes down to whether Jesus is truly, substantially present in the consecrated host and thus properly worshiped via the host as an image to focus attention on.

Even if the truth of the matter (assuming for the sake of argument) is that Jesus is not present in the consecrated host, it’s still not idolatry, because that sin has to do with the interior intentions of a person. He or she must be intending to place someone or something in the place of the true God. The Mass is not doing that at all. We’re not worshiping bread and wine. The whole point for us is that they miraculously transform into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. No Catholic who knows anything ever intended to, or actually did, worship a piece of mere bread or a cup of mere wine as God, which would indeed be idolatry.

Thus, this entire line of argument, insofar as it is applied to the Catholic Mass, is wrongheaded and a complete straw man. The statement above is a non sequitur, because the non-host items are never idolatrously worshiped by Catholics as God. Turretin seems confused about the very definition of idolatry. And this is elementary, so I must say that we appear to see an irrational and unbiblical bias affecting his thought processes. As so often with anti-Catholics, he is more so overreacting to Catholicism and its falsely alleged errors than arguing from the actual Bible.

Nor is eucharistic realism or adoration solely Catholic, by any stretch of the imagination. Martin Luther believed in the eucharistic real presence and even adoration of the consecrated host (he would bow before it), and regarded those who denied it, like Zwingli (and by logical extension, Calvinists and Turretin himself) as non-Christians and damned (e.g., “blasphemers and enemies of Christ”: Luther’s Works, Vol. 39, 302). This is why Calvin once referred to him as “half-papist,” and why Luther stated, “sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood” (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 37, 317).

II. The question is not whether the saints piously dying in the Lord are to be held in any respect and honor. We do not deny that they are to be honored by us according to the degree of their excellence, both by thinking highly of them as servants of God most happy and admitted into the fellowship of the Lord and by cherishing their memory with a grateful and pleasant recollection (Lk. 1:48; Mk. 14:9), extolling their conflicts and victories, preserving their doctrine, celebrating and imitating their virtues (Heb. 12:1), praising God in and for them and giving him thanks for raising up such for the good of his church. Rather the question is whether they are to be reverenced with religious worship properly so called.

Here we see a classic methodological and presuppositional error of anti-Catholics that I have observed a thousand times. They will accurately describe what we actually believe (the above virtually is a definition of Catholic veneration of saints), and then without missing a beat go on to falsely describe what they vainly imagine “Catholic beliefs” to be, and pretend that our actual beliefs are not what they are. In other words, they prefer to war against a straw man. It’s almost as if they want there to be more differences than there actually are, and to refuse to admit common ground when it exists. So they quixotically battle against fictional windmills of their own making. It gets very tiresome as an apologist having to deal with such nonsense over and over, even from very sharp and learned men like Turretin, but the good news is that it fully and decisively demonstrates the great weakness of the anti-Catholic polemic and enterprise.

. . . we think that care should be diligently taken that they be not worshipped to the injury of God.

No disagreement there. What we differ on is the definition of “injury of God.” We say that honoring God’s creatures is, in fact, ultimately honoring Him as their Creator and enabler — by His grace — of every good thing that they do. The praising of a masterpiece of art is the same as praising its creator. If we praise the Mona Lisa, we praise da Vinci, etc. But Protestant “either/or” thinking can’t comprehend this Or rather, precludes it), oddly enough.

Nay, we think grievous injury is done to them by those who turn them into idols and abuse the friends of God to provoke him to jealousy.

He’s assuming what he needs to prove. I await such proof as I read on, but doubt that I will see it. I’ve been through this routine many times before. Anti-Catholic polemics is usually like an onion. One keeps peeling it, hoping to get to a core, only to find out that there is none. Catholic apologetics has a core, like an apple. The anti-Catholic slings around the word “idolatry” so ubiquitously, yet often neglects proving what he asserts by rational argument and example. He knows his readers will accept without question any accusation levied against the Catholic Church, and this is a large part of the problem. Not enough critical feedback is received or interacted with. Consequently, the methodology and the thinking become very sloppy, and is, therefore, easily refuted.
*
The question is whether they are to be reverenced, not with that respect of love and fellowship exhibited to holy men of God in this life on account of imitation, but with a sacred worship of piety on account of religion . . . 
*
Turretin refers to “the sacrifices and invocations presented to” saints and then cites St. Augustine, from Contra Faustus, Book XX, 21. If we take a look at that, we see that Augustine is a good Catholic, as always (even though Calvinists invariably pretend that he is “one of them”).
*
Augustine states that Catholics are “paying honor to the memory of the martyrs” over against “the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them.” Faustus is arguing just as Protestants do. The heretic is analogous to Protestants, as Newman famously argued in his Apologia pro vita sua. Turretin claimed that Catholics make “sacrifices . . . to“ the saints. Augustine refutes this false accusation:
It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints’ burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to you, O Peter! Or O Paul! Or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, . . .
Augustine then distinguishes between adoration and worship of God and the veneration of saints:
What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution. For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone.
[T]he question is whether they are to be invoked as our mediators and intercessors. Nor only as intercessors who may obtain for us by their prayers and merits the blessings asked from them; but as the bestowers of them . . . 
*
This gets into the massive scriptural motif of the prayers of righteous men having greater power (Jas 5:14-18), which I examined at great length. This is why we ask saints in heaven to intercede, because their prayers to God have a far greater effect or efficacy than ours do. I summarized the biblical data as follows:
We conclude that it’s best to “go straight to God” in prayer, unless there happens to be a person more righteous than we are, who is willing to make the same prayer request. Then the Bible recommends that we ask them to intercede for us or any righteous cause, rather than asking God directly.
Turretin questions whether anyone but God can be involved. The Bible contains a very clear, undeniable example of this, straight from the mouth of Jesus. It’s in the story (not parable) of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16). It presents the rich man making two petitionary requests to Abraham, not God. I recently summarized what is to be concluded from the information we have in this remarkable passage, and it is very unProtestant indeed:

Luke 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’

Abraham says no (16:25-26), just as God will say no to a prayer not according to His will. He asks him again, begging (16:27-28). Abraham refuses again, saying (16:29): “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’” He asks a third time (16:30), and Abraham refuses again, reiterating the reason why (16:31).

How this supposedly does not support the principle of saints interceding and being able to intercede is a mystery to me. If we were not supposed to ask saints to pray for us, I think this story would be almost the very last way to make that supposed point. Abraham would simply have said, “you shouldn’t be asking me for anything; ask God!” In the same way, analogously, angels refuse worship when it is offered, because only God can be worshiped [I cited Rev 19:9-10 and 22:8-9].

St. Peter did the same thing [Acts 10:25-26]. So did St Paul and Barnabas [Acts 14:11-15]. If the true theology is that Abraham cannot be asked an intercessory request, then Abraham would have noted this and refused to even hear it. But instead he heard the request and said no. Jesus couldn’t possibly have taught a false principle.

Game, set, match, right in the Bible, from Jesus Himself. . . .

It’s not that Abraham couldn’t intercede (if that were true, he would have said so and Jesus would have made it clear), but that he wouldn’t intercede in this instance (i.e., he refused to answer the request). Refusing a request is not the same thing as not being able to grant the request. Otherwise, we would have to say that God is unable to answer a prayer request when He refuses one. . . .

Luke 16 (from Jesus) clearly teaches them. Hence lies the dilemma. It matters not if both men are dead; the rich man still can’t do what he did, according to Protestant categories of thought and theology.

Whether Dives [the “rich man”] was dead or not is irrelevant, since standard Protestant theology holds that no one can make such a request to anyone but God. He’s asking Abraham to send Lazarus to him, and then to his brothers, to prevent them from going to hell. That is very much prayer: asking for supernatural aid from those who have left the earthly life and attained sainthood and perfection, with God. . . .

Jesus told this story, and in the story is a guy praying to a dead man, to request things that the dead man appears to be able to fulfill by his own powers. That is quite sufficient to prove the point. . . .

In fact, God is never mentioned in the entire story (!!!) . . .

So why did Jesus teach in this fashion? Why did He teach that Dives was asking Abraham to do things that Protestant theology would hold that only God can do? And why is the whole story about him asking Abraham for requests, rather than going directly to God and asking Him: which would seem to be required by [Protestant] theology? . . .

This just isn’t how it’s supposed to be, from a Protestant perspective. All the emphases are wrong, and there are serous theological errors, committed by Jesus Himself (i.e., from the erroneous Protestant perspective).

In another similar paper, I described the import of this story as follows:
Abraham is not supposed to be able to fulfill intercessory requests in the manner of Jesus, according to Protestant theology.

Why, then, does Jesus describe Dives praying to Abraham for precisely that? Note also that Abraham in turn never rebukes Dives, nor tells him that he shouldn’t be praying to him; that he should only pray to God. He merely turns down his request (which in turn proves that he had the power to do it but chose not to). Otherwise, he would or should have said (it seems to me), “I can’t do that; only God can” or “pray only to God, not to me.”

Turretin brought up his objection, and I just refuted it. I would give up a lot if it were possible to bring back Turretin for an hour and persuade him to try to refute what I just wrote. Protestants rarely do that because they simply ignore most of our best counter-arguments against their endless criticisms of Catholicism. So, by and large, we don’t know how they would answer. They love to throw out accusations. They do not like at all having to deal with the best Catholic apologists’ replies to same. That’s not part of the plan. It doesn’t work that way. It sure doesn’t. Their anti-Catholic and anti-traditional arguments are weak and easily refuted, and from Scripture, as I just did (or the Church fathers, as the case may be). Protestants don’t own Scripture or biblical argumentation and exegesis. Often, their exegesis is quite shallow, especially when it comes to what I have called the “Catholic verses.”
*
Turretin makes reference to the “hope of salvation . . . placed in” saints and states, “Thus they are invoked, not only as intercessors, but also as protectors from evil and bestowers both of grace and glory.” This is eminently scriptural as well. But thus far, Turretin has not many many scriptural arguments. He simply rails about what he seems to think is self-evidently false (no biblical proofs needed, I guess . . .). The Bible refers to others besides God spreading His grace. In Revelation 1:4, grace is said to come from God and also “from the seven spirits who are before his throne.” God gives us partial credit for spreading His grace:

2 Corinthians 4:15 For it [his many sufferings: 4:8-12, 17] is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

Ephesians 3:2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you . . .

Ephesians 4:29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

Yet Turretin denies that anyone besides God can distribute His grace. Why? Was he unfamiliar with the above passages? Or did he choose to ignore them, since they are so unProtestant? How about creatures assisting others in being saved, though? That’s quite biblical as well:

Romans 11:13-14 . . . I magnify my ministry [14] in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them.

1 Corinthians 1:21 . . . it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 3:5 What then is Apol’los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, . . .

1 Corinthians 7:16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; . . .

1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

James 5:19-20 My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, [20] let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives

That’s ten biblical passages. Was Turretin unfamiliar with all of them, too? If men on earth can help in bestowing God’s gift of salvation, how much more can saints, who are perfected in heaven and without sin, do so, because their prayers are unimaginably effective, per James 5. Turretin then mentions two Catholic prayers:
Thus invocation is directed to all the saints: “Also ye happy hosts of souls in heaven; Let present, past and future ills from us be driven” (cf. “Festa Novembris: Ad Vesperas,” in Breviarium Romanum [1884], 2:817). And to the apostles: “O happy apostles, deliver me from sin, Defend, comfort and lead me into the kingdom of heaven” (Hortulus Animae [1602], pp. 450–51).”
Yeah, that’s biblical too. Moses was able to do that:
Exodus 32:30 On the morrow Moses said to the people, “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”
*
Numbers 11:1-2 And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. [2] Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated.
Numbers 14:13, 19-20 But Moses said to the LORD, . . . [19] “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” [20] Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your word;
Numbers 21:7-9 And the people came to Moses, and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.” So Moses prayed for the people. [8] And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” [9] So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
He can do this by the power and will of God, but no one in heaven can? That makes no sense. Of course they can do so. We ask them to pray for our deliverance from sin, and their powerful prayers help make it possible. This is how God designed things. Otherwise, all of these “Catholic verses” simply wouldn’t be in the Bible in the first place. Turretin doesn’t refute them; he ignores them.
*
Moses’ brother Aaron atoned for his people and stopped a plague (Num 16:46-48). Phinehas likewise atoned and prevented God’s wrath from “consum[ing] the people of Israel” (Num 25:11-13). But Turretin denies that this could happen (these are his false premises, before he even gets to saints in heaven), and appears to think that only God can do these things. God says otherwise in His revelation!
*
Also: “I seek to be saved by you in the last judgment.”
*
Ho hum. Paul casually noted at least four times that he “saved” people (Rom 11:14; 1 Cor 9:22; 2 Cor 1:6; 2 Tim 2:10: all seen above). James wrote that “whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way” will do the same (Jas 5:20). Paul told Timothy that he could “save” his “hearers” (1 Tim 4:16). These Catholic prayers are to be understood in the same sense: a biblical sense. It’s not rocket science. Turretin is the one being unbiblical, in denying clear biblical affirmations.
*
To Peter: “O Shepherd Peter, mild and good, receive My prayers—from bonds of sin my soul relieve; By that great power which unto thee was given Who by thy word dost open and shut the gate of heaven” (“Festa Junii: SS. Petri et Pauli,” in Breviarium Romanum [1884], 2:499).
*
The apostles (including Peter: Mt 16:19) were given the power to forgive sins and relieve people of their sins (what we call absolution):

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 20:21-23 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

This was later delegated to the “elders of the church”:

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; [15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
Where’s the beef? All of this stuff is so eminently biblical that no Christians should have to argue about it at all. But because Protestants ignore or seek to rationalize away all of this Scripture (and it’s a lot, as we see above), we have to engage in these should-be-unnecessary conflicts, in order that the Bible doesn’t get trampled underfoot and neglected: ironically by those who always claim to be its exemplary expositors and champions.
*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo credit: Landauer Altar (1511), by Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: As part of my series of replies to Calvinist expositor Francois Turretin, I address the topic of the communion of saints, particularly their powerful intercession.

December 11, 2023

December 11, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 14 (pp. 401-426) of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains 2,051 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few (indented) clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY / ANALOGY TO CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Genesis 2:18-25 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. 

The Song of Solomon  (the entire book is regarded by most commentators as a parable of God and His Church).

Isaiah 61:10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Isaiah 62:4-5 You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called My delight is in her, and your land Married; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Jeremiah 2:2 Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD, I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown.

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maiden forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

Matthew 25:10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut.

Luke 5:34 And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?” (cf. Mk 2:19-20; Mt 9:15; Jn 2:1-11)

Luke 12:36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks.

John 3:27-29 John answered, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full.”

1 Corinthians 7:2, 7, 17 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. . . . each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. . . . Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:38  So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.

Ephesians 5:22-32 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; (cf. 1 Pet 3:1-9)

1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage . . .

Revelation 19:7-9 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed with fine linen, bright and pure — for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.”

Revelation 21:2, 9 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; . . .Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let him who hears say, “Come.” And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price. 

DIVORCE AND THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE 

Exodus 20:14 You shall not commit adultery. (cf. Deut 5:18; Lev 20:10; Mt 19:18; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20; Rom 13:9; James 2:11)

Proverbs 6:32 He who commits adultery has no sense; he who does it destroys himself. (cf. 6:26; 30:20)

Jeremiah 3:1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? . . .

Jeremiah 7:9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba’al, and go after other gods that you have not known, (cf. 9:2)

Ezekiel 44:22 They shall not marry a widow, or a divorced woman, but only a virgin of the stock of the house of Israel, or a widow who is the widow of a priest.

Hosea 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with harlots, and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin.

Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.

Malachi 3:5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.

Wisdom 14:26 confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, pollution of souls, sex perversion, disorder in marriage, adultery, and debauchery.

Sirach 23:23 For first of all, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has committed an offense against her husband; and third, she has committed adultery through harlotry and brought forth children by another man. (cf. 25:2)

Matthew 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:31-32 It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

Matthew 19:3-11 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”

The Greek word for unchastity in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is porneia: defined in standard Greek lexicons as “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Jesus is contrasting a true marriage, with a cohabitation, concubinage or some other illicit union (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1). If there is not truly a marriage present, then a separation can take place, but it is no “divorce” because it was no marriage to begin with.

These passages can’t be used to justify divorce as a result of an occurrence of adultery of the partner, because the usual Greek word for adultery (moicheia) is not used, as it is in many other places (thirty-five times in one of its forms).

The Greek word porneia and its cognates are never translated in the KJV New Testament as “adultery” but as “fornication” or “fornicator” (thirty-nine times), “harlot” (eight times), “whore” (four), and “whoremonger” (five). Likewise, every variant of the English fornication in the KJV is always a translation of some form of porneia.

The same holds true for adultery and its variants; they are always translations of some form of moicheia (and these are never translated as anything other than “adultery”). We also find the two Greek words distinguished from each other in the same verse (Mt. 5:19; Mk 7:21; Gal. 5:19).

Mark 10:2-12 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18 Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Romans 2:22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?

Romans 7:1-3 Do you not know, brethren — for I am speaking to those who know the law — that the law is binding on a person only during his life? Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

1 Corinthians 7:3-5, 10-15 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. . . . To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) — and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

1 Corinthians 7:27, 39 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. . . . A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Hebrews 13:4  Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.

2 Peter 2:14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 

PREMARITAL SEX AND COHABITATION 

Exodus 22:16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife.

Leviticus 21:13-15 And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, that he may not profane his children among his people; for I am the LORD who sanctify him.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

Hosea 4:14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with harlots, and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin.

Sirach 23:17-19 To a fornicator all bread tastes sweet; he will never cease until he dies. A man who breaks his marriage vows says to himself, “Who sees me? Darkness surrounds me, and the walls hide me, and no one sees me. Why should I fear? The Most High will not take notice of my sins.” His fear is confined to the eyes of men, and he does not realize that the eyes of the Lord are ten thousand times brighter than the sun; they look upon all the ways of men, and perceive even the hidden places.

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,

1 Corinthians 6:18  Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 9 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. . . . But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry — it is no sin.

1 Corinthians 10:8 We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.

2 Corinthians 12:21 I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned before and have not repented of the impurity, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,

Ephesians 5:3, 5 But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Colossians 3:5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

1 Timothy 1:10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 9:21 nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.

Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

ANNULMENTS

An annulment is not a “Catholic divorce.” It’s a declaration by the Church that a valid, sacramental marriage was never present (because several necessary conditions were not met: for example, insufficiently free will, truthfulness of both parties, mental health, deliberate decision not to bear children, etc.). A similar distinction is found in civil law in many countries. The Old Testament dichotomy between a concubine and a wife is similar to the distinction between civil and sacramental marriage:

Genesis 21:10, 14 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” . . . So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. . . .

Judges 8:31 And his concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, . . .

Likewise, in Ezra, we read that many Israelites “sent away” the “foreign women” they had married, not simply because they were foreigners, but because they caused them to become corrupted by false religions and idolatry. This was essentially an annulment, as opposed to a divorce:

Ezra 9:14 shall we break thy commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? . . . (cf. 9:1-2)

Ezra 10:2-3, 10-14, 19 . . . We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. . . . And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the LORD the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. . . . we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let our officials stand for the whole assembly; let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, till the fierce wrath of our God over this matter be averted from us.” . . . They pledged themselves to put away their wives, and their guilt offering was a ram of the flock for their guilt.

Nehemiah 13:26-27 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless foreign women made even him to sin. Shall we then listen to you and do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?

Matthew 5:32 But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.

The preceding two verses also apply to annulment situations, insofar as it is determined that a marriage never existed, and it was a state of immoral fornication instead; thus making it a situation having nothing to do with divorce, since no true sacramental marriage is involved. One can even become “one flesh” with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:16), but obviously that does not constitute a marriage, let alone a sacramental one.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

The “Pauline privilege” is an example of a situation that precisely fits a certain type of annulment (and the Church has always accepted it because it is so clearly taught in Holy Scripture, here).

HOMOSEXUALITY

Genesis 19:4-7 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.”

Leviticus 18:20-30 And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor’s wife, and defile yourself with her. You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is perversion. “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled); lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.” 

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no cult prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a cult prostitute of the sons of Israel.

Judges 19:22-23 . . . behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing.”

1 Kings 14:24 and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.

1 Kings 15:11-12 And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as David his father had done. He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. (cf. 2 Ki 23:7)

1 Kings 22:42-43, 46 Jehosh’aphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, . . . He walked in all the way of Asa his father; he did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD; yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places. . . . And the remnant of the male cult prostitutes who remained in the days of his father Asa, he exterminated from the land.

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

2 Peter 2:4-8 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor’rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds),

Jude 1:7: just as Sodom and Gomor’rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

God doesn’t change. If He states that something is sinful and never permissible, then that prohibition applies at all times. Secondly, it isn’t true that the Bible only condemns homosexual rape and not such acts by mutual consent (as is often argued today). Most of the passages above (more than enough!) condemn consensual homosexual acts. Jude 7 mentions “unnatural lust” and 2 Peter 2:4-10 states similarly. Therefore, this objection collapses.

As for the desire itself, Catholics don’t believe it is inherently sinful, as long as it isn’t acted upon (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2358-59), just as heterosexual lust, fornication, and adultery must be rejected in the will, by God’s grace, in order to avoid sin. Everyone has more than enough temptations to resist and overcome.

St. Paul in Romans 1 makes an explicit argument against homosexuality, as an unnatural practice; he also presents a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, by stating that excessive appetite for sex (and also food?) amounts to being “enslaved” (6:12). There is a created reality and natural order beyond mere physical pleasure, which must not be violated. Certain things are wrong by their very nature. Sex outside of marriage — whether heterosexual or homosexual — belongs to that category (6:18-20). Paul casually assumes that sodomy is intrinsically wrong in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, as he does in Romans 1:24-27: “dishonorable passions,” “unnatural [relations],” “men committing shameless acts with men,” etc.

There is also indirect indication of Jesus’ acceptance of the traditional Jewish prohibition of homosexual acts, or sodomy, in His approval of the judgment of Sodom (Mt 10:15; 11:23-24; Lk 10:12; 17:29). And what did Jesus think of the Mosaic Law?:

Matthew 5:17-19 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (cf. Mt 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:17)

Matthew 23:2-3 The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (cf. Mt 23:23)

Jesus observed the Law in its entirety. He worshiped in synagogues and the Temple; He observed the Jewish feasts (the Last Supper was a Passover dinner: Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-15). He casually made reference to the authority of Moses over His own disciples (Mt 8:4; Mk 1:44; 7:8-13; Lk 16:31; 24:44; Jn 5:46; 7:19-23). There is no indication that He disputed any of these received laws. Therefore, He accepted as part of the whole, the injunctions against homosexual acts.

CONTRACEPTION

Genesis 38:8-10 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

This involved what is known as the “levirate law”: the duty to produce offspring with the wife of a dead brother. But this is not why God killed Onan, since the penalty for that was public humiliation and shunning, not death (Deut 25:5-10). Context also supports this interpretation, since immediately after this (Gen. 38:11-26), is the story of Onan’s father Judah refusing to enforce the law and allow his other son, Shelah to produce a child with Tamar, his daughter-in-law. He was afraid that Shelah would be killed like Onan and his other wicked son, Er (38:7, 11). Judah acknowledges his sin in 38:26: “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” He wasn’t killed, so it is unreasonable to contend that Onan was judged and killed by God for the very same sin that Judah committed (in the same passage). Onan was judged for contraception (sex with the deliberate intent to unnaturally prevent procreation).

There are a host of other biblical passages which exalt fertility and the blessing of many children, and the curse of none. Married couples are to “be fruitful and multiply”; this is a blessing:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, . . .” (cf. 9:1,7)

Genesis 28:3 God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples.

Genesis 35:11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you.” (cf. Dan 3:35-36)

Deuteronomy 7:13-14 he will love you, bless you, and multiply you; he will also bless the fruit of your body and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the young of your flock, in the land which he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples; there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

Psalm 107:38 By his blessing they multiply greatly; . . . (cf. Is 48:18-19; Jer 29:6; 30:19-20; 33:22; Ezek 36:10-12; Bar 2:34)

Psalm 115:14 May the LORD give you increase, you and your children! (cf. 105:24)

Psalm 128:3-4 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. Lo, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.

Proverbs 17:6 Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of sons is their fathers. (cf. 11:30; Sir 44:13, 21)

Barrenness is contrary to blessing and “glory”:

Exodus 23:25-26 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you. None shall cast her young or be barren in your land; . . .

Jeremiah 18:21 Therefore deliver up their children to famine; give them over to the power of the sword, let their wives become childless and widowed. . . .

Hosea 9:11 E’phraim’s glory shall fly away like a bird — no birth, no pregnancy, no conception!

Procreation is central to marriage:

Malachi 2:14-15 You ask, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth.

Childbearing is so sacred that women are even said to be “saved” by it:

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

It is God Who opens and closes wombs and causes a conception to occur:

Genesis 20:17-18 Then Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abim’elech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children. For the LORD had closed all the wombs of the house of Abim’elech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.

Genesis 29:31 When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

Genesis 30:2, 22-24 Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” . . . Then God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her and opened her womb. She conceived and bore a son, and said, “God has taken away my reproach”; and she called his name Joseph, saying, “May the LORD add to me another son!”

Exodus 1:21 And because the midwives feared God he gave them families.

Joshua 24:3 Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River and led him through all the land of Canaan, and made his offspring many. I gave him Isaac;

Ruth 4:13 So Bo’az took Ruth and she became his wife; and he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

1 Samuel 1:5 and, although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah only one portion, because the LORD had closed her womb.

Job 10:8, 11 Thy hands fashioned and made me; and now thou dost turn about and destroy me. . . . Thou didst clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. (cf. 12:10)

Job 31:15 Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?

Psalm 113:9 He gives the barren woman a home, making her the joyous mother of children. Praise the LORD!

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.

Isaiah 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: . . . (cf. 44:24; 54:1-3; Ezek 36:37; 2 Mac 7:22-23)

Children are a gift from God and a blessing:

Genesis 17:16, 20 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her . . . As for Ish’mael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. (cf. Deut 30:9, 15-16; Is 51:2)

Genesis 29:32-33 And Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, “Because the LORD has looked upon my affliction; surely now my husband will love me.” She conceived again and bore a son, and said, “Because the LORD has heard that I am hated, he has given me this son also”; and she called his name Simeon.

Genesis 33:5 And when Esau raised his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, “Who are these with you?” Jacob said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.”

1 Chronicles 25:5 “All these were the sons of Heman the king’s seer, according to the promise of God to exalt him; for God had given Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.”

Psalm 127:3-5 Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! . . . (cf. 72:16; 113:9)

Tobit 4:12 . . . Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. (cf. Sir 25:7)

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: OlcayErtem (9-7-21) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

***

Summary: Ch. 14 of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009)

December 10, 2023

December 10, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 10 (pp. 305-349) of my book, Bible Truths for Catholic Truths: A Source Book for Apologists and Inquirers (Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2009); the paperback is now out-of-print. This book could also be known as Dave’s Topical Bible, and contains 2,051 Bible passages, categorized under 115 thematic headings. I am now offering it online for free.
*
In these blog posts I use — for readers’ convenience — the original RSV of the manuscript (© 1971 by Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America), rather than KJV, which was mostly used in the paperback, due to copyright law. This book is all Bible, except for a few (indented) clarifying comments here and there. Subtitles sometimes differ from the published version. They are my own original titles.

*****

“VAIN REPETITION” CHARGE (MASS, ROSARY, ETC.) / FORMAL, “LITURGICAL”  WORSHIP 

Psalm 136:1-5 O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever. [2] O give thanks to the God of gods, for his steadfast love endures for ever. [3] O give thanks to the Lord of lords, for his steadfast love endures for ever; [4] to him who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures for ever; [5] to him who by understanding made the heavens, for his steadfast love endures for ever;

The same exact phrase is repeated in 26 straight verses, for the entire Psalm. Obviously, then, God is not opposed to all repetition whatsoever. Repetition is a device used throughout the Psalms and also in Proverbs and the prophets. For example, in Psalm 29 “voice of the Lord” is repeated seven times in as many verses. “Thou hast” is repeated in six straight verses in Psalm 44:9-14.

Instructions concerning the Mosaic Law in the first five books are extremely repetitious. Elaborate, painstaking Instructions for the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:1-22), the tabernacle (Ex 25:23-40; chapters 26-27), and the Temple (1 Kings, chapters 6-7) illustrate the highly ritualistic nature of Hebrew worship (see also Leviticus 23:37-38 and 24:5-8). The four gospels often repeat each other’s sayings. Many other examples could be cited.

Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases [KJV: “vain repetitions”] as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Jesus is discussing “empty phrases”. The Greek battalogeo here means “to repeat idly,” or “meaningless and mechanically repeated phrases.” So the Lord is condemning prayers uttered without the proper reverence or respect for God.

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

God is concerned with the inner dispositions and righteousness of the worshiper, and adherence to His commands (e.g., Is 56:6-7; Jer 17:24-26; Mal 1:11), not with outward appearance or how often something is repeated (which is contradicted by Psalm 136 and the passage above). This is a common theme in Scripture, and is seen in the following passages:

Isaiah 1:13-17 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Jeremiah 6:19-20 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Amos 5:11-14, 21-24: Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (cf. Prov 15:8; 21:27; Mal 1:6-14)

Matthew 15:7-9 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” (cf. Mk 7:6-7)

Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

James 1:26-27: If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Ritualistic, formal worship of God is described as taking place in heaven (Rev 4:8-11; 5:8-14), complete with repetitious prayer (Rev 4:8 above), and repeated chants or hymns (4:11, 5:9-10).

HOLY WATER

Exodus 23:25 You shall serve the LORD your God, and I will bless your bread and your water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

Numbers 5:17 and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.

Numbers 19:9, 13-20 And a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and deposit them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept for the congregation of the people of Israel for the water for impurity, for the removal of sin. . . . Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him. This is the law when a man dies in a tent: every one who comes into the tent, and every one who is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which has no cover fastened upon it, is unclean. . . . Whoever in the open field touches one who is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. For the unclean they shall take some ashes of the burnt sin offering, and running water shall be added in a vessel; then a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the furnishings, and upon the persons who were there, and upon him who touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean. But the man who is unclean and does not cleanse himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, since he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; because the water for impurity has not been thrown upon him, he is unclean.  

2 Kings 2:19-22 Now the men of the city said to Eli’sha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him.
Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the LORD, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Eli’sha spoke.

2 Kings 5:13-14 But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, if the prophet had commanded you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much rather, then, when he says to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?” So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.  

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Water in Scripture is utilized for cleansing (Lev 14:8-9, 50-52; 15:5-27; 17:15; Num 8:7; 19:12, 18-19; 2 Ki 5:12; Ps 51:7; Ezek 16:4; 36:25) and purifying (Ex 29:4; 40:12, 30-32; Lev 11:32; 16:4, 24, 26, 28; 22:6; Num 19:7-8; 31:23; Deut 23:10-11; 1 Ki 18:33-34; Jn 2:6; Heb 9:19).

CANDLES AND INCENSE

Incense or burning sacrifices, as an image of prayer or offering, along with the metaphorical smelling of the offering by God, is a common biblical motif:

Genesis 8:20-21 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.”

Leviticus 2:9 And the priest shall take from the cereal offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD.

Leviticus 6:15, 21 And one shall take from it a handful of the fine flour of the cereal offering with its oil and all the frankincense which is on the cereal offering, and burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a pleasing odor to the LORD. . . . It shall be made with oil on a griddle; you shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a cereal offering, and offer it for a pleasing odor to the LORD.

Psalm 141:2 Let my prayer be counted as incense before thee, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice!

Luke 1:9-10 according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.

The Bible even uses the symbolism of fragrance for the gospel, Jesus’ redemptive sacrifice on the cross, and charitable giving:

2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.

Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Philippians 4:18 I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphrodi’tus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Explicit evidence for candles in the Bible is seen in the form of “lamps”. The classic form of this is the menorah, or seven-branched lampstand, which has often been used as a symbol of Judaism. The King James Bible often uses candle or candlestick in these passages and others (as did the American Standard Version of 1901). But the Greek lychnos and lychnia describe (technically) oil lamps, not candles per se (made of wax: as we know them today). These were containers filled with olive oil, with a wick of flax or hemp.

Exodus 25:31-38 And you shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The base and the shaft of the lampstand shall be made of hammered work; its cups, its capitals, and its flowers shall be of one piece with it; and there shall be six branches going out of its sides, three branches of the lampstand out of one side of it and three branches of the lampstand out of the other side of it; three cups made like almonds, each with capital and flower, on one branch, and three cups made like almonds, each with capital and flower, on the other branch — so for the six branches going out of the lampstand; and on the lampstand itself four cups made like almonds, with their capitals and flowers, and a capital of one piece with it under each pair of the six branches going out from the lampstand. Their capitals and their branches shall be of one piece with it, the whole of it one piece of hammered work of pure gold. And you shall make the seven lamps for it; and the lamps shall be set up so as to give light upon the space in front of it. Its snuffers and their trays shall be of pure gold. (cf. 26:35; Num 3:31; 4:9; 8:2-4; 1 Sam 3:3; 1 Ki 7:49; 1 Chron 28:15; 2 Chron 4:7,20-21; Jer 52:19; Zech 4:2, 11)

Exodus 27:19-20 All the utensils of the tabernacle for every use, and all its pegs and all the pegs of the court, shall be of bronze. And you shall command the people of Israel that they bring to you pure beaten olive oil for the light, that a lamp may be set up to burn continually. (cf. Lev 24:2-4)

Exodus 30:7-8 And Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it; every morning when he dresses the lamps he shall burn it, and when Aaron sets up the lamps in the evening, he shall burn it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. (cf. 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17-23; 39:37; 40:4)

Exodus 40:24-25 And he put the lampstand in the tent of meeting, opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle, and set up the lamps before the LORD; as the LORD had commanded Moses.

2 Chronicles 13:11 They offer to the LORD every morning and every evening burnt offerings and incense of sweet spices, set out the showbread on the table of pure gold, and care for the golden lampstand that its lamps may burn every evening; for we keep the charge of the LORD our God, but you have forsaken him.

2 Chronicles 29:7 They also shut the doors of the vestibule and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense or offered burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel.

1 Maccabees 4:49-50 They made new holy vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the table into the temple. Then they burned incense on the altar and lighted the lamps on the lampstand, and these gave light in the temple.

2 Maccabees 10:3 They purified the sanctuary, and made another altar of sacrifice; then, striking fire out of flint, they offered sacrifices, after a lapse of two years, and they burned incense and lighted lamps and set out the bread of the Presence.

Hebrews 9:2 For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place.

Revelation 1:12-13, 20 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; . . . As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Revelation 2:1, 5 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: “The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands. . . . Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.”

Revelation 4:5 From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God;

FASTING AND ABSTINENCE  AND LENT (50 PASSAGES) 

Exodus 24:18 And Moses entered the cloud, and went up on the mountain. And Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Leviticus 10:9 Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.

Numbers 6:1-4 And the LORD said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink, and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.”

Deuteronomy 9:9 When I went up the mountain to receive the tables of stone, the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water.

Deuteronomy 9:25 So I lay prostrate before the LORD for these forty days and forty nights, because the LORD had said he would destroy you.

Deuteronomy 29:5-6 I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out upon you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet; you have not eaten bread, and you have not drunk wine or strong drink; that you may know that I am the LORD your God.

Judges 13:3-5 And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have no children; but you shall conceive and bear a son [Samson]. Therefore beware, and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for lo, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from birth; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (cf. 13:14)

1 Samuel 1:15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman sorely troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD.

1 Samuel 31:13 And they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

2 Samuel 1:12 and they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.

2 Samuel 12:16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. (cf. 12:21-23)

1 Kings 19:8 And he [Elijah] arose, and ate and drank, and went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights to Horeb the mount of God.

1 Chronicles 10:12 And they buried their bones under the oak in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.

2 Chronicles 20:3 Then Jehosh’aphat feared, and set himself to seek the LORD, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.

Ezra 8:21, 23 Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river Aha’va, that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek from him a straight way for ourselves, our children, and all our goods. . . . So we fasted and besought our God for this, and he listened to our entreaty. (cf. 9:5)

Nehemiah 1:4 When I heard these words I sat down and wept, and mourned for days; and I continued fasting and praying before the God of heaven.

Nehemiah 9:1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:3 And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Esther 4:16 Go, gather all the Jews to be found in Susa, and hold a fast on my behalf, and neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will also fast as you do. Then I will go to the king, though it is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.

Esther 9:31 that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as Mor’decai the Jew and Queen Esther enjoined upon the Jews, and as they had laid down for themselves and for their descendants, with regard to their fasts and their lamenting.

Psalm 35:13 But I, when they were sick — I wore sackcloth, I afflicted myself with fasting. I prayed with head bowed on my bosom,

Psalm 69:10 . . . I humbled my soul with fasting, . . .

Psalm 109:24 My knees are weak through fasting; my body has become gaunt.

Jeremiah 36:9 In the fifth year of Jehoi’akim the son of Josi’ah, king of Judah, in the ninth month, all the people in Jerusalem and all the people who came from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem proclaimed a fast before the LORD.

Ezekiel 4:4-12 Then lie upon your left side, and I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you; for the number of the days that you lie upon it, you shall bear their punishment. For I assign to you a number of days, three hundred and ninety days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment; so long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah; forty days I assign you, a day for each year. And you shall set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem, with your arm bared; and you shall prophesy against the city. And, behold, I will put cords upon you, so that you cannot turn from one side to the other, till you have completed the days of your siege. And you, take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt, and put them into a single vessel, and make bread of them. During the number of days that you lie upon your side, three hundred and ninety days, you shall eat it. And the food which you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; once a day you shall eat it. And water you shall drink by measure, the sixth part of a hin; once a day you shall drink. And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.

Daniel 6:18 Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

Daniel 9:3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Joel 1:14 Sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly. . . . (cf. 2:15)

Joel 2:12 “Yet even now,” says the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;”

Jonah 3:5 And the people of Nin’eveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.

Zechariah 8:19 Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love truth and peace. (cf. 7:3, 5)

Tobit 12:8 Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold.

Judith 4:9, 13 And every man of Israel cried out to God with great fervor, and they humbled themselves with much fasting. . . . So the Lord heard their prayers and looked upon their affliction; for the people fasted many days throughout Judea and in Jerusalem before the sanctuary of the Lord Almighty.

Judith 8:6 She fasted all the days of her widowhood, except the day before the sabbath and the sabbath itself, the day before the new moon and the day of the new moon, and the feasts and days of rejoicing of the house of Israel.

Sirach 34:26 So if a man fasts for his sins, and goes again and does the same things, who will listen to his prayer? And what has he gained by humbling himself?

2 Maccabees 13:12 . . . they . . . besought the merciful Lord with weeping and fasting and lying prostrate for three days without ceasing,. . . (cf, 1 Macc 3:47; Baruch 1:5)

Matthew 4:2 And he [Jesus] fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry.

Matthew 6:16-18 And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (cf. Mk 2:18-20; Lk 5:33-35; 18:12)

Luke 2:37 . . . She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, “He has a demon.” (cf. Mt 11:18; Lk 1:15)

Acts 13:2-3 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:20 . . . abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:29 . . . abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. . . . (cf. 21:25)

Romans 14:3 Let not him who eats despise him who abstains, and let not him who abstains pass judgment on him who eats; for God has welcomed him.

Romans 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Romans 14:15, 21 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. . . . it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall. (cf. 2 Cor 6:4-5; 11:27)

The forty days of Lenten observance have several forty day parallels in Scripture (all listed above): Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).

ASHES ON ASH WEDNESDAY 

Genesis 2:7 then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Genesis 18:27 Abraham answered, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.”

2 Samuel 13:19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent the long robe which she wore; and she laid her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud as she went.

Nehemiah 9:1 Now on the twenty-fourth day of this month the people of Israel were assembled with fasting and in sackcloth, and with earth upon their heads.

Esther 4:1, 3 When Mor’decai learned all that had been done, Mor’decai rent his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, wailing with a loud and bitter cry; . . . And in every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes.

Job 2:8 And he took a potsherd with which to scrape himself, and sat among the ashes.

Job 34:15 all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust.

Job 42:6 therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

Psalm 90:3 Thou turnest man back to the dust, . . .

Isaiah 58:5 Is such the fast that I choose, a day for a man to humble himself? Is it to bow down his head like a rush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the LORD?

Jeremiah 6:26 O daughter of my people, gird on sackcloth, and roll in ashes; make mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation; for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us.

Jeremiah 25:34 Wail, you shepherds, and cry, and roll in ashes, . . .

Ezekiel 27:30 and wail aloud over you, and cry bitterly. They cast dust on their heads and wallow in ashes;

Daniel 9:3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

Jonah 3:6 Then tidings reached the king of Nin’eveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, and covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

Judith 4:11, 15 And all the men and women of Israel, and their children, living at Jerusalem, prostrated themselves before the temple and put ashes on their heads and spread out their sackcloth before the Lord. . . . With ashes upon their turbans, they cried out to the Lord with all their might to look with favor upon the whole house of Israel.

Sirach 17:32 He marshals the host of the height of heaven; but all men are dust and ashes.

Sirach 40:3 from the man who sits on a splendid throne to the one who is humbled in dust and ashes, 

1 Maccabees 3:47 They fasted that day, put on sackcloth and sprinkled ashes on their heads, and rent their clothes. (cf. 4:39)

Matthew 11:21 Woe to you, Chora’zin! woe to you, Beth-sa’ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (cf. Lk 10:13)

1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. (cf. 15:48-49)

Revelation 18:19 And they threw dust on their heads, as they wept and mourned, . . . 

EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

This sort of self-examination (usually prior to confession) is sometimes critiqued and scorned as “uncertainty of salvation,” as if it were a bondage or something undesirable, or altogether lacking in the hope and joy and peace that we have in Christ. It’s not that at all. St. Paul clearly had a robust confidence in God’s mercy and of the moral assurance of salvation. But he was also very aware of human sin and self-delusion.

The Greek word in 1 Corinthians 11:28 and 2 Corinthians 13:5 (“test” in the latter) is dokimazo. In KJV it is translated variously as examine, discern, prove, try, and approve. “Examine” in 2 Corinthians 13:5 is a different word: pirazo: usually translated as tempt or tempted. Dokimazo appears elsewhere in the New Testament in similar fashion:

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

2 Corinthians 8:7-8 Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine.

2 Corinthians 8:22 And with them we are sending our brother whom we have often tested and found earnest in many matters, but who is now more earnest than ever because of his great confidence in you.

Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good,

1 Timothy 3:10 And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons. 

ALMSGIVING: BEYOND MERELY TITHING 

Luke 3:11 And he answered them, “He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.”

Luke 19:8-9 And Zacchae’us stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

Acts 2:44-45 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

Acts 4:34-37 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 10:2 a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms liberally to the people, and prayed constantly to God.

Acts 11:29 And the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brethren who lived in Judea

Romans 12:8  he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now concerning the contribution for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come.

2 Corinthians 8:3-14 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints — and this, not as we expected, but first they gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God. Accordingly we have urged Titus that as he had already made a beginning, he should also complete among you this gracious work. Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also. I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich. And in this matter I give my advice: it is best for you now to complete what a year ago you began not only to do but to desire, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a man has, not according to what he has not. I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of equality your abundance at the present time should supply their want, so that their abundance may supply your want, that there may be equality.

2 Corinthians 9:6-8 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.

1 Timothy 6:17-18 As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous,

Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

GENUFLECTION AND KNEELING IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD

Genesis 18:1-2 And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth,

Genesis 24:52 When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the earth before the LORD.

1 Kings 8:54 Now as Solomon finished offering all this prayer and supplication to the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven;

2 Chronicles 6:13 Solomon had made a bronze platform five cubits long, five cubits wide, and three cubits high, and had set it in the court; and he stood upon it. Then he knelt upon his knees in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven; 

2 Chronicles 7:3 When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.”

2 Chronicles 20:18 Then Jehosh’aphat bowed his head with his face to the ground, and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell down before the LORD, worshiping the LORD.

Ezra 9:5 And at the evening sacrifice I rose from my fasting, with my garments and my mantle rent, and fell upon my knees and spread out my hands to the LORD my God,

Nehemiah 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, “Amen, Amen,” lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!

Ezekiel 11:13 And it came to pass, while I was prophesying, that Pelati’ah the son of Benai’ah died. Then I fell down upon my face, and cried with a loud voice, and said, “Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou make a full end of the remnant of Israel?”

Daniel 6:10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously.

Judith 13:17 All the people were greatly astonished, and bowed down and worshiped God, and said with one accord, “Blessed art thou, our God, who hast brought into contempt this day the enemies of thy people.”

Sirach 50:17 Then all the people together made haste and fell to the ground upon their faces to worship their Lord, the Almighty, God Most High.

2 Maccabees 3:15 The priests prostrated themselves before the altar in their priestly garments and called toward heaven upon him who had given the law about deposits, that he should keep them safe for those who had deposited them.

2 Maccabees 10:4 And when they had done this, they fell prostrate and besought the Lord that they might never again fall into such misfortunes, . . . 

Matthew 2:11 and going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 8:2 and behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”

Matthew 9:18 While he was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, “My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”

Matthew 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Hail!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

Mark 1:40 And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.”

Romans 14:11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.”

Ephesians 3:14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

Philippians 2:10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Revelation 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,”

Revelation 5:14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshiped. 

Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round the throne and round the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,

Revelation 11:16 And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God,

Revelation 19:4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who is seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!”

PRIESTLY BLESSINGS

Exodus 39:43 And Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the LORD had commanded, so had they done it. And Moses blessed them. (cf. Gen 27:28-30; 28:1-6; 31:55; 47:7, 10; 48:14-20; 49:26, 28; Num 24:10; 2 Sam 19:39)

Leviticus 9:22-23 Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them; and he came down from offering the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings. And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting; and when they came out they blessed the people, and the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

Deuteronomy 33:1 This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. (cf. 33:13, 20, 24)

Joshua 14:13 Then Joshua blessed him; and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephun’neh for an inheritance. (cf. 22:6-7)

1 Kings 8:14 Then the king faced about, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, while all the assembly of Israel stood. (cf. 8:55)

1 Chronicles 16:2 And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD,

2 Chronicles 6:3 Then the king faced about, and blessed all the assembly of Israel, while all the assembly of Israel stood.

2 Chronicles 30:27 Then the priests and the Levites arose and blessed the people, and their voice was heard, and their prayer came to his holy habitation in heaven.

Sirach 3:9 For a father’s blessing strengthens the houses of the children, but a mother’s curse uproots their foundations.

Sirach 36:17 Hearken, O Lord, to the prayer of thy servants, according to the blessing of Aaron for thy people, . . . 

Sirach 50:19-21 And the people besought the Lord Most High in prayer before him who is merciful, till the order of worship of the Lord was ended; so they completed his service. Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name; and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Luke 24:50-51 Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven.

Romans 4:6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: (cf. 4:9; Acts 13:34)

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchiz’edek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him;

Hebrews 11:20-21 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.

Hebrews 12:17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

RELICS 

Exodus 29:37 Seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and consecrate it, and the altar shall be most holy; whatever touches the altar shall become holy.

Exodus 30:28-29 . . . the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils and the laver and its base; you shall consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy.

Leviticus 6:27 Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy; . . . (cf. 6:18)

2 Kings 2:11-14 And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it and he cried, ‘My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!’ And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces. And he took up the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him, and struck the water, saying, ‘Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?’ And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other; and Elisha went over.

Elijah’s mantle is an example of a “second-class” relic: items that have power because they were connected with a holy person.

2 Kings 13:20-21 So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood on his feet.

The bones or relics of Elisha had so much supernatural power or “grace” in them that they could even cause a man to be raised from the dead. His bones were a “first-class” relic: from the person himself or herself.

Mark 5:25-30 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.” And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?”

Luke 8:43-48 And a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years and could not be healed by any one, came up behind him, and touched the fringe of his garment; and immediately her flow of blood ceased. And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the multitudes surround you and press upon you!” But Jesus said, “Some one touched me; for I perceive that power has gone forth from me.” And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”

Jesus did say also that her faith was what made her well, but the point is that it was also with the aid of a physical object that was in contact with Jesus: as indicated precisely by its effect of causing “power” to go “forth from him.” God used the physical object for spiritual (and supernatural physical) purposes: a healing. We see it again, when Jesus heals the blind man:

John 9:6-7 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo’am” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Jesus could have simply declared him healed, with no material object used. But, interestingly enough, Jesus didn’t do that. He used a bodily fluid (his own), and also clay, or dirt, and then the water of the pool, and rubbed the man’s eyes, to effect the miracle (two liquids, solid matter, and physical anointing action of fingers). The Bible thus teaches that physical things related to a holy person in some fashion, can be instrumental in bringing about miracles. This is exactly how Catholics view relics.

Acts 5:15-16 . . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. [16] The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

St. Peter’s shadow is another example of a “second-class” relic. Jesus’ garments and saliva are also in this category.

Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. (cf. Mt 9:20-22)

This is a third-class relic: a thing that has merely touched a holy person or first-class relic (St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons).

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: JoeJ10 (3-14-21); traditional use of incense in a Roman Catholic Mass, with a Thurible [Wikipedia / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Summary: I provide the biblical basis for Catholic sacramentals, liturgy, devotions, Lent, relics, physical objects in worship, holy water, candles and incense, genuflection, etc.

December 7, 2023

December 7, 2023 By
0 Comments

Non-Literal Biblical Descriptions of God and His Attributes

Appendix of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****

Anthropopathism is a fancy word for the attribution of non-physical human emotions and passions to God. The related term, anthropomorphism, is the attribution of physical human properties (or animal properties such as wings) to God. Historic Christian theology recognized the metaphorical nature of the many anthropomorphisms in Scripture since it held that God the Father is a spirit. The overwhelming consensus of Christian theology through the centuries has been that God is immutable (always the same; without any change), so that it would be impossible for him to “repent” or “change his mind.” This is also inconsistent with omniscience, or possessing all knowledge (see Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17).

God “condescends” to the limited understanding of human beings, by expressing many truths about himself analogically (as compared to human actions and emotions) so that we are able to understand him. Otherwise, we would not be able to comprehend a Being so startlingly different and distinct from us, and infinitely “higher” than we are (Isa. 55:8-9; Rom. 11:33-34). Thus, the passages (in this framework) that say he doesn’t and cannot change are to be interpreted literally, while the ones stating the opposite (Exod. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:35; Jer. 26:13, 19; Amos 7:3, 6; Jon. 3:10) are to be interpreted figuratively or metaphorically, in light of the understanding of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism as common Hebrew idioms.

Many atheists (I know this firsthand from hundreds of debates) are predisposed to think that the Bible writers (especially the authors of the Old Testament books) were primitive Bronze Age and Iron Age nomadic troglodytes who didn’t know a thing about history, logic, or literature. The truth of the matter is far more complex. The Bible is an extraordinarily sophisticated collective work of literature, and the Hebrew language and culture was very rich in non-literal figurative idioms and linguistic expressions. The ignorance of atheists, other Bible skeptics, and sadly, also many Christians who believe that the Bible is inspired and infallible and inerrant, in this regard, has led to many gross misinterpretations of lots of biblical texts: dead-wrong and as far from the truth as it can get.

Anglican Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) catalogued “over 200 distinct figures [in the Bible], several of them with from 30 to 40 varieties”: as he stated in the Introduction to his 1104-page volume, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). He devotes 27 pages (pp. 871-897) to “Anthropopatheia; or, Condescension”: with scores and scores of examples. He wrote in his introduction to this section:

The Ascribing of Human Attributes, etc., to God.

An-thrôp´-o-path-ei´-a. Greek, ἀνθρωποπάθεια, from ἄνθρωπος (anthropos), man, and πάθος (pathos), affections and feelings, etc. (from πάσχειν, paschein), to suffer).

This figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions, or attributes to God.

The Hebrews had a name for this figure, and called it דֶרֶךְ בְנֵי אָדָם (Derech Benai Adam), the way of the sons of man.

The Greeks had another name for it: SYNCATABASIS (Syn´-cat-ab´-a-sis), from σύν (syn), together with, κατά (kata), down, and βαίνειν (bainein), to go: a going down together with: i.e., God, by using this figure, condescends to the ignorance and infirmity of man.

Hence, the Latin name for it was CONDESCENSIO, condescension. (p. 871)

James Strong and John McClintock, in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Harper and Brothers; New York: 1880, “Anthropomorphism”) provided a very helpful analysis:

The term is also used to denote that figure of speech by which the sacred writers attribute to God parts, actions, and affections which properly belong to man; as when they speak of the eyes of God, his hand, etc. Anthropomorphism (ἀνθρωπόμορφος) differs from anthropopathy (ἀνθρωποπαθής) in this: the first is the attributing to God any thing whatever which, strictly speaking, is applicable to man only; the second is the act of attributing to God passions which belong to man’s nature.

Instances of both are found in the Scriptures, by which they adapt themselves to human modes of speaking, and to the limited capacities of men . . . These anthropopathies we must, however, interpret in a manner suitable to the majesty of the Divine nature. Thus, when the members of a human body are ascribed to God, we must understand by them those perfections of which such members are in us the instruments. The eye, for instance, represents God’s knowledge and watchful care; the arm his power and strength; his ear the regard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery, etc. Farther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so interpret them as to imply no imperfection, such as perturbed feeling, in him. When God is said to repent, the antecedent, by a frequent figure of speech, is put for the consequent; and in this case we are to understand an altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the effect of repenting. . . .

A rational being, who receives impressions through the senses, can form conceptions of the Deity only by a consideration of his own powers and properties . . . Anthropomorphitic modes of thought are therefore unavoidable in the religion of mankind; and although they can furnish no other than corporeal or sensible representations of the Deity, they are nevertheless true and just when we guard against transferring to God qualities pertaining to the human senses. It is, for instance, a proper expression to assert that God knows all things; it is improper, that is, tropical or anthropomorphitic, to say that he sees all things. Anthropomorphism is thus a species of accommodation (q.v.), inasmuch as by these representations the Deity, as it were, lowers himself to the comprehension of men. We can only think of God as the archetype of our own spirit, and the idea of God can no longer be retained if we lose sight of this analogy.

Another classic in Christian literature is Nave’s Topical Bible (New York: Thomas Nelson: 1897), compiled by Methodist theologian Orville J. Nave (1841-1917). He included a helpful list of Anthropomorphisms in the Bible. Here is much of that (my abbreviation). He utilizes the King James Version (1611), but also sometimes the Revised Version (1885):

Genesis 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

Genesis 11:5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Genesis 18:17-19 And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Genesis 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Genesis 18:33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

Genesis 19:29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Genesis 28:13 And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

Genesis 35:13 And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.

Exodus 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Exodus 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 14:24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Exodus 32:14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 11:25 And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

Judges 2:18 And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

1 Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite.

1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Psalm 31:2 Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 35:1-3 Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.

Psalm 36:7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

Psalm 57:1 Be merciful unto me, O God, be merciful unto me: for my soul trusteth in thee: yea, in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge, until these calamities be overpast.

Psalm 68:17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.

Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

Psalm 121:4 Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep.

Isaiah 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

Ezekiel 1:24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings.

Ezekiel 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

Habakkuk 1:13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

Walking

Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Leviticus 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

Deuteronomy 23:14 For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.

Job 22:14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, that he seeth not; and he walketh in the circuit of heaven.

Habakkuk 3:15 Thou didst walk through the sea with thine horses, through the heap of great waters.

Resting

Genesis 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Deuteronomy 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.

Hebrews 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Hebrews 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

Does not faint

Isaiah 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

Amazement

Isaiah 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

Isaiah 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

Mark 6:6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

Laughing

Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psalm 37:13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.

Psalm 59:8 But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

Proverbs 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

Sleeping

Psalm 44:23 Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever. Psalm 78:61 And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand.

In light of the fact that there are so very many instances of this figure of speech in the Bible, I have not dealt with them individually, as I would simply be repeating the same thing over and over, “This is an anthropomorphism and not to be taken literally . . .” etc. That makes for very boring and tedious reading. Instead, I thought it best to include this appendix, so that Bible readers and Christians seeking to defend the Bible from irrational and unfounded attacks would have an understanding of how to approach passages of this sort.

I did, however, take the opportunity to explain anthropomorphism in one section, “How can God regret or change his mind about what he has done (Gen. 6:6-7; 1 Sam. 15:10-11, 35), if he is omniscient and knows all things?” (# ???). And I did so by explaining it in light of a comparison of relevant Bible passages on the same topic: some literal and some figurative. In other words, I employed the well-known hermeneutical (interpretational) principle of “explaining the harder to understand biblical passages by easier to understand ones on the same topic.”

To illustrate how pervasive is the atheist misuse / misrepresentation / misunderstanding of these passages in the attempt to present a supposedly overwhelming “biblical cluelessness,” In one typical atheist list of alleged direct contradictions in Holy Scripture, I found fifteen entries that were based on not understanding this aspect:

Does God have a body?

Does God repent?

Can God be seen?

Does God ever tire?

Did Moses see God face to face?

How long does God’s anger last?

Is it OK to test (or tempt) God?

Does God dwell in darkness or in light?

Does God dwell in temples?

Where does God dwell?

Does God sleep?

Does God ever get furious?

Does God work on the Sabbath?

Has anyone ever heard God’s voice?

Did the Israelites see God face to face on Mount Horeb?

This happens very often. If I had a dime for every time I have personally encountered it in my apologetics discussions over the last 41 years, I’d be rich as Croesus. Ignorance of the massive use of non-figurative idiom in the Bible is sadly very widespread. All we can do is try to educate folks. If we Christians don’t understand the very nature of biblical literature; how to properly interpret it and to know when non-literal idiom is being employed, then we will clearly be out to sea and unsuccessful before we even begin, when we attempt to defend the Bible from skeptical attacks.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: God the Father (c. 1635-1640), by Guercino (1591-1666) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Appendix of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines the vastly misunderstood literary forms of biblical anthropomorphism and anthropopathism.

December 7, 2023

December 7, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 9 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****
  1. How could Jesus be killed on a Friday and rise from the dead on Sunday, when Matthew 12:40 states: “so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”?

In Hebrew idiom, the phrase “one day and one night” meant a day, even when only a part of a day was indicated. We see this, for example, in 1 Samuel 30:12-13 (cf. Gen. 42:17-18). We know that Jesus was crucified on a Friday because Scripture tells us that the Sabbath (Saturday) as approaching (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31). The “day of preparation” is Friday, the day before the Sabbath: Saturday, and the Sabbath was considered to begin on sundown on Friday, as with Jews to this day. We also know from the biblical data that the discovery of his Resurrection was on a Sunday (Mark 16:1-2, 9; Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1). And we know that “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40) is synonymous in the Hebrew mind and the Bible with “after three days” (Mark 8:31) and “on the third day” (Matt. 16:21; 1 Cor. 15:4). Most references to the Resurrection say that it happened on the third day. In John 2:19-22, Jesus said that he would be raised up in three days (not on the fourth day). It would be like saying, “This is the third day I’ve been working on painting this room.” I could have started painting late Friday and made this remark on early Sunday.

For both the ancient Jews (6 PM to 6 PM days) and Romans (who reckoned days from midnight to midnight), the way to refer to three separate 24-hour days (in whole or in part) was to say, “days and nights.” We speak similarly in English idiom – just without adding the “nights” part. For example, we will say that we are off for a long weekend vacation, of “three days of fun” (Friday through Sunday or Saturday through Monday). But it is understood that this is not three full 24-hour days. Chances are we will depart part way through the first day and return before the third day ends. For a Saturday through Monday vacation, then, if we leave at 8 AM on Saturday and return at 10 PM on Monday night, literally that is less than three full days (it would be two 24-hour days and 14 more hours: ten short of three full days). Yet we speak of a “three-day vacation” and that we returned “after three days” or “on the third day.” Such descriptions are casually understood as non-literal. The ancient Jews and Romans simply added the clause “and nights” to such utterances, but understood them in the same way, as referring to any part of a whole 24-hour day. Thus the supposed “problem” or so-called “biblical contradiction” vanishes.

  1. Was a great stone rolled in front of the tomb (Matt. 27:60; Mark 15:46), or was there no such stone (Luke 23:55; John 19:41)?

There was no stone yet in Luke 23:55 because this referred to the time when Jesus was placed in the tomb (see 23:53-54). When women went back two days later, they found the stone rolled away (24:1-2). John 19:41 simply doesn’t mention the stone, but in John 20:1 we learn that there was one, which was rolled away. Therefore, all four Gospels — taken together — note that the tomb had a stone in front of it, which was rolled away. This is not contradiction; rather, it’s complete harmony.

  1. Who witnessed this meeting (Matt. 27:62-66) when guards were sent to secure the tomb?

All it takes is one person, who communicated it to one or more of the evangelists or to oral traditions that helped formulate the Gospels. Two prime candidates were Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both Pharisees and followers of, or sympathetic to Jesus. The meeting included “the Pharisees,” after all. Simply because we can’t determine this with certainty from the texts alone, doesn’t mean or logically follow that there were none, or that this person or persons could not have communicated it. All it would take is one person at the meeting who was a follower of Jesus, or later converted to Christianity. This is not at all implausible.

  1. Was a guard placed at Christ’s tomb the day after his burial (Matt. 27:65-66), or was there no guard (Mark 15:44-47; Luke 23:52-56; John 19:38-42)?

The argument from silence doesn’t prove anything, and saying nothing about a particular event can’t possibly be contradictory to statements about said event because it has no content. Mark, Luke, and John would have to state something like “no guard was ever placed at the tomb” for this to be a real contradiction. And of course, they do no such thing. Therefore, it’s yet another pseudo-, bogus “contradiction.” One would think that logic (like fresh air, cute puppies, and the joy of ice cream) is something where Christians and atheists could readily agree with each other. But sadly, that’s not the case: at least not in the “1001 biblical contradictions” sub-group of anti-theist atheists.

  1. Did the two Marys visit the tomb (Matt 28:1), or both Marys and Salome (Mark 16:1), or several women (Luke 24:10), or only Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)?

Matthew didn’t mention Salome. So what? That’s of no relevance. In light of Luke, we can conclude that several women (more than the two Marys) saw the empty tomb (though not necessarily the risen Jesus). None of this is inexorably contradictory. Mary Magdalene could have told these other women about the tomb and also the fact that she had seen the risen Jesus. This implies repeated trips to witness the empty tomb, which was easy because it was right outside of town. As for John, he may be describing an earlier, initial visit by Mary Magdalene alone: perhaps indicated by “while it was still dark.” Then she went again with others. The text never states that “only Mary” went to the tomb, or that “Mary alone and no other woman” did so. Those are the sorts of words that would be required for an actual contradiction to be present.  As it is, no contradiction has been established.

  1. Was it dawn when Mary went to the tomb (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2) or dark (John 20:1)?

Quite obviously, Mary Magdalene made an earlier pre-dawn visit, which appears to be the very first visit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Later on, several other women visited, along with her. But many skeptics seem to have the odd, inexplicable view that no one could have possibly visited Jesus’ tomb (where the greatest miracle in history had just occurred) more than once.

  1. Was the stone still in place when women visited Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:1-2), or had it already been removed (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1)?

It is readily observed also that the women saw the stone already rolled away when they arrived, as reported in Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2, and John 20:1. So how does the believer in biblical inspiration explain away what seems at first glance to be a glaring contradiction in Matthew’s account? Well, as is often the case and necessity, one has to examine the Greek word(s) involved and also the tense. Matthew employs an aorist participle, translated in some English versions in the English past perfect tense. For example, Weymouth states that an angel “had come and rolled back the stone”; Young’s Literal Translation has “having come, did roll away the stone.” New American Standard Bible / Amplified Bible: “earthquake had occurred”; Williams: “Now there had been a great earthquake”; Wuest: “an angel of the Lord having descended out of heaven and having come . . .” It’s true that this is a minority of translations, but it’s significant, and shows that such a rendering is quite possible and permissible, according to the informed and educated judgment of these language scholars / translators. Moreover, the translations of Young, Wuest, and the Amplified Bible were specifically designed to bring out the precise and exact meaning of the Greek, including the sense of tense.

  1. Was an angel sitting on the stone at the entrance of the tomb (Matt. 28:2) or was a man sitting inside the tomb (Mark 16:5)?

There were two angels (they are often called “men” in Holy Scripture) or more present in or near the tomb: as specifically affirmed in Luke 24:3-4 and John 20:12. Or Matthew was referring to the specific time when the stone was actually rolled away. As explained over and over in this book, different accounts do not contradict unless they explicitly rule out any other event than what they describe. In this instance, there could have been one angel inside the tomb, and later, two; the same for outside the tomb, or one angel could be seen in the tomb and a second hidden from the observer, etc. Any number of scenarios are logically possible, and logical inconsistency cannot be proven.

  1. Did the eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus run to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8), or tell the eleven and all the rest (Luke 24:9), or say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8)?

Matthew and Luke are non-contradictory.  The third statement is a well-known atheist canard, but it presupposes that Mark ends with that verse. It does not. It continues on to verse 20. Mark 16:9-20 is a disputed text among many Christians. That discussion is too complex and involved to delve into here, but if one accepts the arguments for the canonicity of Mark 16:9-20, then it’s consistent with the other Gospels and doesn’t contradict them. Even the words “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid” (16:8) suggested only a temporary state, out of initial fear.

  1. Could Jesus be touched after his Resurrection (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:39) or not (John 20:17)?

John 20:17 in KJV, which this particular atheist skeptic utilizes, has the phrase “Touch me not”. But that’s an unfortunate translation. RSV has “Do not hold me.” Baptist linguist A. T. Robertson, in his volume, Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930) explains it:

Touch me not (mh mou aptou). Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning “cease clinging to me” rather than “Do not touch me.” Jesus allowed the women to take hold of his feet (ekrathsan) and worship (prosekunhsan) as we read in Matthew 28:9.

Hence, almost all modern English translations have “hold” or “cling” or suchlike. And with this clarification, the supposed contradiction vanishes.

  1. How does Matthew 28:10 not contradict Luke 24:49, regarding Jesus’ instructions about what they should do when he rose from the dead?

In Matthew 28:10, Jesus tells his disciples to “go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.” The disciples did see Jesus in Galilee after he was risen (Matt. 28:16-17; John 21:1). In Luke 24:49 Jesus told them to “stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” This is “apples and oranges.” Matthew is talking about post-Resurrection appearances. Luke’s passage, on the other hand, which describes what occurred after what Matthew described, has to do with the Day of Pentecost, when the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which happened right in Jerusalem. It’s described by the same writer, Luke, in Acts 2:1-4 (cf. language of Luke 1:35; 9:1; see also the related passage Acts 1:8). In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascends to heaven. Likewise, in Luke 24:51, He ascends to heaven. Both passages describe the same event, and are written by the same author. Matthew and Luke + Acts, then, refer to completely different things. But it’s fascinating that this couplet is somehow thought to be a contradiction, isn’t it?

  1. How could the disciples doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matt. 28:17), while the Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible (Matt. 27:62-66)?

“Some [not all] doubted” (as Matt. 28:17 states), and for a time, yes. It was the typical human skepticism regarding miracles, among “some” of the disciples. The enemies of Jesus believed no such thing. They called Jesus an “impostor” (Matt. 27:63) and the gospel and Christianity a “fraud” (27:64). They were worried that the disciples would “go and steal him away” (27:64) and fake his Resurrection, which is why they asked for a guard in front of the tomb. I search in vain for any “contradiction” here. It’s literally impossible for it to be a contradiction because this is referring to two completely different groups of men. What it actually is (if the challenge were actually accurate: which it isn’t) is a failed attempt to establish a significant oddity or anomaly (Pharisees believing in Jesus while his own disciples doubted him). The problem is that it does so by making a false blanket statement about the disciples and an equally untrue description of the Pharisees and their allies. This won’t do. It’s lousy, if not outright dishonest, argumentation. Seeking in vain to embarrass Christians and to mock the Bible, they only embarrass themselves, which is only poetic justice, from where we sit.

  1. Did Joseph of Arimathea boldly ask for the body of Jesus (Mark 15:43) or do so secretly (John 19:38)?

The two attributes aren’t mutually exclusive. One can be both bold and operate in secret. Every special forces raid is of such a nature, as is every clandestine espionage assignment. It was “bold” to ask Pilate (not the nicest guy) this, whether it was in secret or not. This is a classic example of a desperate, trumped-up alleged “contradiction.” But I can assure everyone that it’s authentic. Some skeptic came up with this. I didn’t invent it.

  1. Was Jesus laid in a nearby tomb (Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41) or in Joseph’s new tomb (Matt. 27:59-60)?

These things aren’t mutually exclusive. Matthew merely adds the information that it was Joseph’s own planned tomb. Someone not asserting a thing consistent with what it does assert, doesn’t contradict another asserting that same thing.

  1. How could the women expect to persuade the Roman guards to let them anoint Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1)?

This presupposes that the women knew there was a guard. They had observed Jesus being placed in the tomb on Friday (Mark 15:46-47; Matt. 27:57-61), but the guard was not posted till Saturday, the “next day” (Matt. 27:62).

  1. Did the women who saw the risen Jesus tell the disciples? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark 16:8 states, “they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.” Is this not contradictory?

In Mark 16:8, the risen Jesus had not yet been seen. But Mark 16:9-10 asserts: “he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him.” Elsewhere I argued that Mary Magdalene first saw the risen Jesus earlier in the morning on Sunday. Matthew doesn’t declare that the women “immediately” told the disciples. It states, “they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples” (28:8). Therefore, a gap in time is possible that is harmonious with the data of Mark 16:8-10 and an earlier visit by Mary Magdalene. Likewise, Luke 24:10 reports that they “told this to the apostles” with no indication that it was “immediate.” No undeniable contradiction can be asserted, based on the false premise in the charge regarding Mark’s account, and the fact that all three accounts imply, prima facie, in my opinion, that the disciples were told fairly soon.

  1. Did the Ascension take place while the disciples were seated at a table (Mark 16:14-19), or outdoors at Bethany (Luke 24:50-51), or outdoors on the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:9-12)?

The account in Mark is an example of what is called “compression” or “telescoping”: literary techniques which were common, especially in ancient literature, and sometimes appear in the Bible. The text simply “jumps” to a future occurrence. It’s obvious that the disciples weren’t indoors watching the Ascension, for how could they see Jesus being “taken up into heaven” if so (Mark 16:19)? The present-day Bethany is located on the Mount of Olives, a little less than a mile from the Chapel of the Ascension. But Bible commentators note that it was the district of Bethany being referred to in Luke 24:50, which included the Mount of Olives. There was both a town and a district, just as is the case of my own present town in Michigan, which has a township around it with the same name. It was a system of toparchies, dating from the reign of Solomon We know this from the Old Testament, which contains (in RSV) the word “district” eighteen times in four different books (1 Kings; 2 Chron., Neh., Ezek.), including “district of Jerusalem” (Neh. 3:9, 12). Of particular note is Ezekiel 45:7, which refers to “the land on both sides of the holy district and the property of the city . . .” And in the New Testament, references to “district” (in Israel) occur six times in Matthew and Luke (e.g., “district of Caesarea Philippi”: Matt. 16:13). Mark 8:27 also references the “villages of Caesarea Philippi.”

  1. How could Luke know about Jesus talking to Herod during his trial (Luke 23:7-12)? And these speeches seem to have been remarkably well-preserved.

What an odd choice of example, since “chief priests and the scribes stood by” (Luke 23:10) as did Herod’s “soldiers” (Luke 23:11). All it would take was one or two of these (perhaps one who was a Christian or later became one) to report about this encounter, which entered into either oral tradition or directly into one of the Gospels. But as it is, Luke records not a single word that Herod said (so much for an absurdly alleged “remarkably well-preserved” verbal account); he only notes that “he questioned him at some length” (Luke 23:9). Since only Luke reports this incident, there was no secret or “miraculous” knowledge involved. All that is reported is that Herod questioned Jesus. We’re supposed to believe that no follower of Jesus could have possibly known that that happened? It’s ridiculous. It took only one follower to follow the irate persecuting crowds with Jesus from a distance and see them enter into Herod’s palace.

  1. Did the women buy burial materials before the Sabbath (Luke 23:56) or after (Mark 16:1)?

Luke 23:56 doesn’t assert this. It says they “returned [back home], and prepared spices and ointments.” Then they brought them to the tomb on Sunday (Luke 24:1; Mark 16:1). Pondering this sterling example, one wonders whether this biblical skeptic even read the passages in his or her zealous rush to find a “gotcha!” contradiction to embarrass Christians with. This one abysmally fails as an objection, and so do all the others detailed in this book.

  1. Were the disciples frightened when they saw Jesus (Luke 24:36-37) or glad when they first saw him (John 20:20)?

In Luke it was because they (just two of them, not “the disciples”) “supposed that they saw a spirit”: an event which almost always causes fear in recorded instances in Scripture. Then Jesus showed them his hands and feet (24:39) and they settled down. The text gives no indication of this being the first time they saw the risen Jesus. In John (a different incident, and seemingly the first time, in context) they were glad for the same reason: because he “showed them his hands and his side”: quickly proving that he was Jesus, so they wouldn’t be afraid. The text informs us: “Then the disciples were glad . . .” No contradiction exists, once the texts are actually analyzed and examined more closely (which the atheist skeptics, alas, never seem to have the time and/or desire to do).

  1. Was Jesus’ body anointed (John 19:39-40) or not (Mark 15:46 to 16:1; Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?

Mark and Luke don’t deny that Jesus’ body was anointed. If they don’t, there is no necessary contradiction. I submit that the women simply weren’t aware that at least some spices had been applied (as indicated in John 19:39-40). In any event, no contradiction has been proven.

  1. Did Nicodemus prepare Jesus’ body with spices (John 19:39-40) or, failing to notice this, did the women bring spices later (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55-56)?

What happened is (humorously) explained right in the challenge! The women failed to see that Jesus’ body was prepared with spices, because the Sabbath was quickly approaching (John 19:42) — during which time this work would be disallowed –, so that they probably concluded that there hadn’t been enough time for such preparation. The women saw that Jesus was laid out with a linen shroud (Luke 23:53-55), but wouldn’t necessarily know if he had been anointed with spices. Therefore, they prepared the spices and ointments (23:56) and returned after the Sabbath to apply them (24:1).

  1. If Mary’s tomb visit (John 20:1) was earlier than the visit described in Matthew, why did she not encounter any guards?

Because, as the same passage states, she “saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” An angel had already removed the stone and as a result, “the guards trembled and became like dead men” (Matt. 28:4). Presumably they also fled as a result (likely for fear of their lives, for the penalty for not properly guarding something was death in Roman law); therefore, Mary didn’t see them.

  1. Did Peter did go into the tomb, while another disciple stooped and looked inside (John 20:3-6), or did he not enter the tomb and only stoop to look inside (Luke 24:12)?

Luke 24:12 is a disputed verse, not found in the earliest manuscripts, which is why RSV doesn’t even include it. In other words, it can’t be considered as part of the New Testament. Therefore, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of consistency of accounts or reputed lack thereof.

  1. Did the women stay outside the tomb (John 20:11) or enter it (Mark 16:5; Luke 24:3)?

John refers to Mary’s pre-dawn visit alone, and doesn’t refer to multiple “women” (the alleged charge is incorrect in that way), but only to Mary Magdalene. Mark and Luke refer to another visit of Mary Magdalene with other women (Mary the mother of James, and Salome: Mark 16:1, and “Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them”: Luke 24:10), when (unlike Mary’s first visit) they did enter the tomb. It’s different things happening at different times and hence, no contradiction. I know it must be frustrating for the skeptic (who is convinced of massive biblical “contradictions” yet can never find an undeniable one), but logic is what it is. I didn’t make it up.

  1. Did Mary Magdalene first see the risen Jesus at the tomb (John 20:11-15) or on her way home (Matt. 28:8-10)?

I propose that John records a pre-dawn Sunday visit by Mary Magdalene, which was the first recorded post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus to anyone. She returned later with other women and they all saw him. But the text in Matthew doesn’t claim that this was the first time she saw the risen Jesus.

  1. Was Jesus’ first Resurrection appearance right at the tomb (John 20:12-14) or fairly near the tomb (Matt. 28:8-9) or on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-16)?

Mark doesn’t say one way or the other. The others don’t indicate that their account was the “first” appearance, so different harmonious chronologies are entirely possible to construct (and a “contradiction” impossible to undeniably construct).

  1. Did Mary Magdalene recognize the risen Jesus? Of course she would! She’d known him for years. Matthew says that she did. But John (20:14-15) makes clear that she didn’t. How can this be?

John also makes it clear that it was “early, while it was still dark” (20:1). The same “dark” scenario is described in 21:4: “Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus.”

  1. Why was the stone rolled away if Jesus could enter locked rooms (John 20:19)?

It wasn’t rolled away so Jesus could “get out,” but rather, to be a graphic visual demonstration that he rose from the dead.

  1. Were there, at the time of the Ascension, about 120 Christian brethren (Acts 1:15) or about 500 (1 Cor. 15:6)?

Acts doesn’t claim that that is the entire number of Christians in the world; only the amount in that place, who were living together. It’s sheer speculation to assert otherwise. Jesus appeared for forty days after he rose again (Acts 1:3), and so 500 Christians could have easily existed by the end of that period, seeing how wildly enthusiastic the early Christians were to spread the Good News of his Resurrection. 500 doesn’t contradict 120, as long as the latter is not stated to be the sum total of all Christians. Paul doesn’t say 500 is the grand total, either.

  1. Did twelve disciples see the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), or eleven: Thomas not being present (Matt. 28:16-17; John 20:19-25)?

In 1 Corinthians, either it was after the departed (and dead) Judas’ replacement with Matthias (Acts 1:20-26), so there were again twelve, or the title “twelve” was being used as a description of the group, which is done several times in the New Testament (including in John 20:24). Matthew 28 describes a time right before Jesus’ Ascension, before Judas had been replaced. Hence, “eleven” is used in the text (including Thomas). John uses “twelve” as the group title, even though Judas had by then departed, and there would have been literally eleven disciples, and ten without Thomas (John 20:24 again). No problem here (as always). In English usage, we also sometimes describe groups with a certain number, which isn’t literal. For example, the Big Ten Conference in NCAA (college) football actually has fourteen members. It began with ten. Yet it continues to be called “Big Ten” and not “Big Fourteen.” Is that a “contradiction”? No; it’s not literal, figurative usage, and non-literal language in a well-known established title. And so it was like this with the disciples in some passages, because they were first (and famously) numbered twelve.

  1. How come Paul only mentions that Jesus was “buried” (1 Cor. 15:4) and doesn’t mention an empty tomb?

This is one of the more bizarre charges (and, like all of these, was actually brought up by a real, live atheist (whose name shall be kept secret for the sake of charity). Right after Paul noted that Jesus was buried, he added, “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time . . .” (1 Cor, 15:4-6). In Colossians 2:12 he states that “God, . . . raised him from the dead.” That is an empty tomb. He already mentioned that he was buried. In order to rise from the dead and to appear to others in many different places, the tomb necessarily (by virtue of logic) had to be empty. In Acts 13:29-31 Paul wrote: “they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem . . .” There’s the tomb: specifically mentioned. And if Jesus appeared risen in Galilee, he could hardly have still been in his tomb, could he? This is an exceedingly odd objection. There are many many more references to Jesus’ Resurrection in Paul’s writings (Acts 17:2-3, 30-31; 26:22-23; Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:3-8, 12-17, 20; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; 1 Thess 1:10; 2 Tim 2:8).

  1. Was Jesus first seen by Cephas (Peter), then the other ten disciples (1 Cor. 15:5), or by the two Marys (Matt. 28:1, 8-9), or by Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9; John 20:1, 14-15), or Cleopas and others (Luke 24:17-18), or the disciples as a group (Acts 10:40-41)?

1 Corinthians doesn’t claim that he “first” appeared to Cephas, but that he appeared to him before he appeared to the other disciples: a completely different proposition. Peter is singled out as a witness not because he was the absolutely first person to see the risen Jesus, but rather, because he was the leader of the disciples and the early church (see the first half of the book of Acts). Mark 16:9 actually does expressly affirm that Mary Magdalene was the “first.” And so she was. John’s account is consistent with that notion. Does Matthew contradict this because of the second Mary? Not necessarily. Many scenarios can be easily imagined that instantly harmonize the passages. For example, maybe “the other Mary” happened to be looking away when the risen Jesus suddenly “met them”, so that Mary Magdalene was, technically, the first to see Him. Or Jesus met Mary Magdalene with no other women around, and then Matthew 28:9 records a second instance of his appearing to her, except with another woman, too. Luke 24 has the story of the two men on the road to Emmaus. Nothing definitely indicates they were the first; indeed, they could not have been because other Gospels record Mary Magdalene and the other Mary seeing Jesus early in the morning on the first Easter Sunday, whereas in this account it is said that the time was “toward evening” with the day being “far spent” (24:29). Acts states that the disciples were in the select group to whom Jesus appeared, as opposed to “all the people.” But it doesn’t say they were absolutely the first, and doesn’t therefore rule out Mary Magdalene being the first person, which is expressly stated in Mark. Conclusion?: all of these passages are perfectly harmonious and pose no problem for biblical infallibility or self-consistent accuracy and trustworthiness.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: Resurrection of Christ, by Agnolo Bronzino (1503-1572) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license]

***

Summary: Ch. 9 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

December 6, 2023

December 6, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 8 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****
  1. Was money Judas’ motive for betraying Jesus (Matt. 26:14-15) or not (Mark 14:10-11)?

The claim here is that Mark doesn’t mention money as Judas’ motive. He proposed a betrayal to the “chief priests” and then they “promised to give him money.” But in Matthew’s account, the demand for money is seemingly mentioned by Judas upfront: “What will you give me if I deliver him to you?”  Mark records that he “went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them” (Mark 14:10), but this doesn’t exclude a possibility that he said at the same time what Matthew records. Mark simply didn’t record that part. But that means it is only the usual weak “argument from silence” in the rush to find a biblical “contradiction” under every rock and to set Mark against Matthew in this regard. Whatever Judas said (and he must have said something), the chief priests were “glad, and promised to give him money” (Mark 14:11). Nothing in Mark’s text makes it impossible for filthy lucre to have been Judas’ motivation, and when Matthew makes this explicit, it merely complements Mark’s story (in a non-contradictory fashion). There are only so many reasons and motives for immoral people to do what they do. Usually they come down to very few (pride, envy, revenge, financial gain, etc.). That Judas’ motive was financial is not only indicated (most explicitly) by Matthew, but also by John’s report: “he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it” (John 12:6).

  1. According to Matthew 26:15, the chief priests gave “thirty pieces of silver” to Judas. But how is that possible, since there were no silver coins used as currency in Jesus’ time, and there had not been any for about 300 years?

This is untrue. The shekel was made of silver, and was in use in Israel in the first century A.D. In the same book of Matthew, “the half-shekel tax” was referred to in 17:24. If atheists won’t accept that because it’s from the Bible (a most irrational attitude, given the Bible’s proven historical accuracy, again and again), then we can submit the Jewish first century historian Josephus, who referred to the half-shekel Temple tribute (Wars of the Jews, VII, ch. 6. Sec. 6). Moreover, at Horvat ‘Ethry in Israel (22 miles southwest of Jerusalem), between 1999 and 2001, Boaz Zissu and Amir Ganor of the Israeli Antiquities Authority discovered a half-Shekel coin from the 2nd century A.D., with the words “Half-Shekel” in paleo-Hebrew on it. It had a silver content of 6.87 grams. But there is more. Smithsonian Magazine, in an article dated September 16, 2022, noted that an ancient Jewish silver quarter-shekel, dated 69 A.D., had been found at an auction in Denver. So much for this atheist objection . . . I feel like I just crushed a grape with a sledgehammer.

  1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke state that Jesus was taken directly to the high priest (Matt. 26:57; Mark 14:53; Luke 22:54) after his arrest, but John reports that Jesus was taken to Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest (John 18:13) who, after an indeterminate period of time, sent Jesus to the high priest (John 18:24). And John mentions only the high priest questioning Jesus. How is all this harmonized?

John reports “So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him. First they led him to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year” (John 18:12-13), who “questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching ” (John 18:19). Note that this account specifically indicates sequence, by use of the word “first.” None of the Synoptic accounts have the word “first” or anything regarding sequence or chronology. Because of this use of “first” in John, there is no contradiction, and a synthesis is easily envisioned. John continues: “Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (18:24). Then “they [implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]” (18:28). And “They answered him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over” (18:30). Note that Caiaphas was present at the judgment and “monkey trial” of the Sanhedrin, as indicated by Matthew 26:57, 62, Mark (not named, but mentioned as the “high priest”: 14:53-54, 60, 63, 66), and Luke (“high priest”: 22:54). Therefore, it’s seen that it’s all the same overall story, told by four storytellers, with the expected differences in detail and emphases that we would expect in any four different accounts of the same incident. Matthew and John refer directly to Caiphas the high priest as being involved (Matthew mentions also the assembly, whereas John doesn’t: not directly), but still indicates their presence by the two uses of “they” in describing the Jewish leaders leading Jesus to Pilate. Mark and Luke don’t name him, but note that the “high priest” was involved, which is no contradiction. Nice try, but no cigar, I’m afraid.

  1. Was Jesus struck during his trial before (Matt. 26:67-68) or after (Luke 22:63-65) Peter denied Christ, and who struck him?

Clearly, both Matthew and Luke believe that Peter’s denial occurred at roughly the same time as this “beating” incident (during a portion of Jesus’ kangaroo court trial). Neither specifically note that the Peter incident was before or after the other in time, so there is no undeniable contradiction. Nor is it necessary to even know that detail. Witnesses (or Peter’s own report) wouldn’t have known exactly what was happening inside the building or when any given thing happened, since they were outside of it. Chronology in the Bible, in any event, was not viewed in a strictly linear fashion, like we do today (that’s much more of  Greek thing than a Hebrew / Semitic thing). Topical similarities are relatively more important.

Some Bible critics claim that there is a contradiction between guards beating Jesus in one account, and the Sanhedrin doing so in the other, and in the two chronologies presented. But is there, really? Luke describes them as “the men who were holding Jesus.” But earlier in his text, he reveals that the same men were “the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him” (Luke 22:52), who “seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house” (Luke 22:54). Therefore, they weren’t merely “guards” (we know for sure). Matthew is less specific in the immediate context: “those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas” (Matt. 26:57). But earlier he, too, identifies them as, specifically, “the chief priests and the elders” (Matt. 26:47). Matthew mentions, in harmony with Luke, that there were “elders” (Matt. 26:57) and “chief priests” (Matt. 26:59) at the trial. Luke likewise mentions those two categories of people at the trial (Luke 22:66). Everything is exactly the same except that Luke added the non-contradictory additional category of “officers of the temple” among those who seized Jesus. Neither uses the word “guard.” That’s merely a guess. But granted, these people were “holding” Jesus, and so that is guarding him. In any event, it’s the same groups of people in both accounts: those who were part of the council.

The harmonization of the two accounts seems clear and obvious: some of the “elders” and chief priests” who were among those present at the trial went out to seize Jesus, having obtained information as to his whereabouts from Judas. Matthew states that Judas “went to the chief priests” (Matt. 26:14) to betray Jesus. Luke reports that “he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them” (Luke 22:4). And so he noted that “chief priests and officers” (acting on this information) seized Jesus (Luke 22:52, 54).

We find the same in Mark. Judas went to the “chief priests” (Mark 14:10), and the ones who seized Jesus were “from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (Mark 14:43): the same three groups of people who were in the assembly (Mark 14:53). Mark does say that “guards” struck Jesus (Mark 14:65), but there is no reason to not believe that they were from among the assembly. Furthermore, John states that Judas came with “a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees” (John 18:3; cf. 18:12). The same people were guarding him — were close to him — during the trial (while they were part of  the deliberations) and struck him in mockery and hatred. They were part and parcel of the council. Thus, no inexorable contradiction whatsoever is present. Yet some atheists are quick to claim “contradiction!” They almost always offer a superficial analysis (nothing like what I have just provided). They don’t demonstrate or prove how they can’t possibly be harmonious accounts. Such analyses lack logical rigor.

  1. Was Jesus silent (not a single word) during his interrogation before Pilate (Matt. 27:12-14; Mark 15:3-5), or did he speak many words on his own behalf (John 18:33-37)?

Jesus was not totally silent before Pontius Pilate in the books of Matthew and Mark. In both cases, the atheist ignored the verse immediately before the ones he cited showing that Jesus was silent the whole time:

Matthew 27:11 Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You have said so.”

Mark 15:2 And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.” (cf. Luke 23:3)

Jesus’ answers had the same meaning in Jewish idiom as saying, “yes” or “you have spoken the truth, and what I would say.” Mark even adds, “Jesus made no further answer” (15:5). So how is it that the atheist can ignore Mark 15:5 and 15:2 and make the claim that Jesus said “not a single word” before Pontius Pilate? One can only shake one’s head in befuddlement at such a lack of comprehension of a Bible passage and plain English. But bias can do strange things to even the most brilliant minds. The many words in John’s account could have happened a little later or earlier or in a separate encounter, but in any event there is no undeniable contradiction present. 

  1. Pontius Pilate’s “custom” of releasing a prisoner at Passover (Matt. 27:15-26) is a pure invention. Roman governors were only allowed to postpone execution until after a religious festival, and release was out of the question. So why is this myth in the Bible?

To the contrary, a Roman official releasing a prisoner based on the desire of the people occurs in the Papyrus Florentinus 61:59 ff. It records the Roman governor of Egypt, G. Septimus Vegetus, saying to Phybion, the accused, in 85 A.D.: “You would have deserved to be scourged, . . . but I am granting you to the multitude.” Moreover, Lucceius Albinus, Roman Procurator of Judea from 62 until 64, was described as doing something like this by the Jewish historian Josephus: “Albinus . . . was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; . . . as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; . . .” (Antiquities, XX, ch. 9, sec. 5).

  1. Was Jesus given a scarlet robe (Matt. 27:28) or a purple one (Mark 15:17; John 19:2)?

According to Bible scholar A. T. Robertson (in his Word Pictures in the New Testament), various shades of purple and scarlet were available in the first century, and it was not always easy to distinguish them. I’ve gotten into friendly disputes several times with my daughter about what color something was. We simply saw it differently. The Gospel writers were human like the rest of us. Color can be a very subjective thing. But there is also an interesting Greco-Roman history of these color terms. Matthew 27:28 uses the term chlamys or paludamentum, which was military garb worn by emperors in their role as military leaders, and by other officers (Pliny, xxii. 2, 3). Two Evangelists call it “purple” but the ancients often called this color “crimson” or described as “purple” any color with red in it. Moreover, Latin writers used “purple” to describe any bright color. The English “purple” comes from the Latin purpura, which in turn derived from the Greek word porphura, which specifically referred to mollusks that produced a crimson dye.

  1. Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 state that Jesus was crucified between two robbers, but it’s a historical fact that the Romans didn’t crucify robbers. How do Christians respond to that?

The online Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906, “Crucifixion”), notes that “highway robbery” and “piracy” (which involves theft or robbery) were punished by crucifixion. Encyclopedia Britannica (“Crucifixion”) also states that “pirates” were crucified. If atheists demand contemporary proof, that’s easy to find. First century Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Felix, Procurator of Judea from 52-60 A.D., who was appointed by Nero, and who presided over Paul’s trial for a time (Acts 24:24-27): “as to the number of the robbers whom he caused to be crucified, . . . whom he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated” (Wars of the Jews, II, ch. 13, sec. 2). One wonders where this atheist came up with his alleged facts? Is he unable to search Josephus? I found this reference on Google in about a minute; maybe less.

  1. Did both thieves mock Jesus on the cross (Matt. 27:44; Mark15:32) or only one (Luke 23:39-41)?

It could have been that the two reviled him initially, and in the course of doing that, one of them thought the other was too harsh on Jesus, and reconsidered and started defending him (and/or what Jesus may have said — unrecorded — persuaded him otherwise). Such a thing sometimes happens in arguments and discussions. Human beings can change their minds. Matthew and Mark don’t say they reviled Him “the entire time” or never ceased doing so, etc., so the possibility for a change of heart and mind exists, and seems to be a perfectly plausible explanation. In any event, no contradiction is unarguably established.

  1. Were the last recorded words of Jesus: “Eli, Eli …My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46), or “Eloi, Eloi…My God, My God why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34), or “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46), or “It is finished” (John 19:30)?

Matthew doesn’t present these as Jesus’ last words, because four verses later it states: “And Jesus cried again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit” (27:50). Luke provides the actual words he said when He “yielded up his spirit”: and we know that those were his last words because in the same verse (Lk 23:46) it immediately adds: “And having said this he breathed his last.” Mark adds in 15:37: “And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed his last.” This is perfectly harmonious with Luke 23:46 as well, which also noted that Jesus was “crying with a loud voice.” All three Synoptics have Jesus talking loud and then dying. Luke provides the actual words. This is not a contradiction! John reads: “When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, ‘It is finished’; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” Here all we need do is note that Jesus said one more thing before He “gave up his spirit”: as all the Synoptics agree. Luke’s “having said this” strongly indicates that He died right after having said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” The absence of these words in three Gospels is not contradictory. They’re all harmonious. Our beloved critic could have figured all this out if he did the slightest amount of analysis of all these passages. This isn’t calculus or nuclear physics.

  1. Topography versus Matthew: the centurion could not have seen the tearing of the veil of the Temple (Matt. 27:50).

Matthew never claims that the centurion saw the temple veil tearing. Matthew 27:54 states that he “saw the earthquake and what took place . . .” The Temple veil was mentioned four verses earlier. “What took place” doesn’t have to refer to absolutely everything. It simply means (in what I submit is the obvious, straightforward, common-sense interpretation) what the centurion saw in front of him, including an earthquake and “darkness over all the land” (27:45). That’s more than enough for him to think that divine signs were occurring. This is quite a desperate argument, like so many of these charges. 

  1. Did the Roman centurion at the crucifixion say, “Truly this was the son of God” (Matt. 27:54) or “Truly this man was the son of God” (Mark 15:39) or “Certainly, this was a righteous man” (Luke 23:47), or did no centurion say this at the cross (John 19:31-37)?

The centurion could have said all those things. The Synoptics simply report them a little differently, as we routinely expect from different reports of the same thing; this is actually a mark of truthfulness and trustworthiness, not inaccuracy. Mark adds just one word to Matthew’s description, and the two are clearly referring to the same thing. But the four texts are harmonious and not contradictory. We must always keep in mind the logical principle of “the silence of some verses is not the same thing as a denial.” John’s not mentioning a centurion who said this is no evidence that it didn’t happen. It’s only evidence that either: 1) he didn’t recall it, or 2) his sources were not aware of it or 3) he decided not to include it, if he knew of it, for whatever reason. But it doesn’t annihilate the report of the other three Gospels, because it doesn’t deny their report, which would actually be a contradiction.

  1. Did the women observe Jesus on the cross from “afar” (Matt. 27:55; Mark 15:40; Luke 23:49), or from very close by (John 19:25)?

We have some possible clues about the time of each described observance. In terms of the order of things mentioned in the text, Mark refers to the female onlookers three verses (15:40) after he notes Jesus’ death (15:37), which is an indication that they were there at the time of his death. Matthew utilizes the same order of report: Jesus’ death (27:50) / description of the women (27:55-56). It’s the same again in Luke: Jesus’ death (23:46) and noting the women and other “acquaintances” present (23:49). John, on the other hand, seems to place his scene shortly after Jesus was nailed to the cross, since he talks about the soldiers dividing up Jesus’ garments: “When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts” (19:23) and right after mentioning that, he describes “his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” who were “standing by the cross” (19:25). Where there is overlap of mentioned women (present near the cross and at a “distance”), it’s still not undeniably contradictory, since that would require variant assertions of a person being in two different places at a given particular time or the entire time.  For example, Mary Magdalene was mentioned as being close to the cross with Mary the mother of Jesus, and further off (in Matthew and Mark). She could simply have moved (possibly being forced to move by the Roman soldiers) from one place to the other: perhaps earlier by the cross and later (up to the time of Jesus’ death) at a distance. Two different things were being recorded: observance from afar, and observance much closer to the cross. And even overlap of the women mentioned is not a contradiction unless the claims contradict and are incoherent and confused with regard to the specific times and locations involved.

  1. Mark 14:50, contradicting other Gospels, reports that the only people present at the death of Jesus were several women.

Wrong. Mark 14:50 contains nothing about the crucifixion at all. It records that the disciples “forsook him, and fled” at the time of the arrest of Jesus.

  1. Matthew and Mark [14:64] record that Jesus was both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin. According to Luke, wasn’t sentenced by them. In John’s account, Jesus doesn’t appear before the Sanhedrin at all.

The ultimate sentence of crucifixion could not have been made by the Jews in any event. Only the Romans could put a man to death in that place at that time (see John 18:31). Thus Matthew records that the Sanhedrin concluded that Jesus “deserves death” (26:66), but they couldn’t and didn’t sentence him. They had to send him to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (Matt. 27:1-2), who “delivered him to be crucified” (27:26). Atheists who claim otherwise are dead wrong in their assessment of what Matthew taught in this regard. The story in Mark is precisely the same. The Sanhedrin unanimously “condemned him as deserving death” (14:64), sent him to Pilate (15:1), who alone could sentence him, and Pilate “delivered him to be crucified” (15:15). Luke is no different. The Sanhedrin judged him (as supposedly a blasphemer) in effect by saying, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips” (Luke 22:71). They “brought him before Pilate” (23:1), and we see them still trying to get him killed (23:2, 5, 10, 14, 18, 21, 23). But Pilate decided (23:24-25). No essential difference whatsoever exists in the three accounts, and certainly no contradiction. But then atheists try to find a contradiction over against the Gospel of John, which reports that Annas: “the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year” (John 18:13), “questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching”  (John 18:19). Annas “then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (18:24). Then “they [strongly implied: the Sanhedrin] led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the praetorium [where Pilate was]” (18:28). And “They answered him, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over” (18:30). This disposes of the false contention that John didn’t mention Jesus before the Sanhedrin. A for effort, but E for results . . .

  1. Was Jesus crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25) or was he still before Pilate at the sixth hour (John 19:13-14)?

Mark and John were using a different time system. John followed Roman time, where a day ran from midnight to midnight. Mark utilized the Jewish conception of time, in which a day began at 6 PM and the morning of that day at 6 AM. Thus, Mark was expressing the thought that Jesus was crucified at 9 AM. John was communicating to his readers that Jesus’ trial included the time of 6 AM, before his crucifixion.

  1. Did Satan enter into Judas before the Last Supper (Luke 22:3) or during it (John 13:26-27)?

Those who make this argument do so presumably in part because of the KJV rendering of John 13:2: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” The unfortunate rendering there is the word “now.” Modern translations (KJV derives from 1611 and utilized inferior ancient manuscripts) virtually unanimously agree that the event had happened earlier: “the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas” (RSV, NRSV, ESV; my italics); “already . . .” (NIV, NASB, Amplified, ASV, Young’s Literal Translation, NEB, REB, Barclay, NAB, Phillips, Beck, Wuest). With this clarification, the alleged “contradiction” vanishes. Jesus also confirmed before the Last Supper: “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70).

  1. Luke reported the story of the repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), which is found in neither Mark nor Matthew. Where then did Luke obtain his material?

It could have been from any number of sources: from Jesus’ mother, who was present at the crucifixion, Mary, mother of James and Joseph, Mary, mother of the sons of Zebedee, Salome, or Mary Clopas. All these women were present at the cross. Or he could have gotten the information from, say, a Roman centurion eyewitness and earwitness who later became a Christian, or from any number of onlookers, who were willing to talk about what they saw and heard (not necessarily all Christians). Or he got it from an oral tradition passed down. There could have even been a tradition based on things Jesus taught during his post-Resurrection appearances. His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus alone appears to have lasted several hours: all likely taken up in theological / spiritual conversation (Luke 24:13-31). Luke in Acts (1:3) says that these appearances of the risen Jesus lasted “forty days” and Paul says Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time” (1 Cor. 15:6). All of these things are possible.

  1. The Friday during which Jesus was crucified was a holy day, or Yom Tov: the first of Passover that year, and so work regarding burial preparations (Luke 23:50-56) would have been forbidden.

But purchases that were proper for necessities could be obtained on the Sabbath and holy days. We know this from the Jewish talmudic source, Mishnah Shabbath 23.4[:] “One may await the dusk at the limits of the techoom, to furnish what is necessary . . . for a corpse, and to bring a coffin and shrouds for the latter.” A techoom was a distance of 7,500 feet, which a man was allowed to travel on the Sabbath or holy day. Burial preparation is precisely this type of work which is exceptional and permitted even within Mosaic Law. 

  1. How could John know that blood and water exited Jesus’ body (John 19:34)?

He could do so (as could anyone) by simple observation. He saw what has been verified by medical science; and this is an excellent verification of the trustworthiness and accuracy and (we also say) inspiration of Holy Scripture. Jesus, after he died, had a hemothorax, which is a collection of blood in the space between the chest wall and the lung (the pleural cavity). This came about as a result of the severe flagellation that he endured. In a dead body, blood separates into two layers, with the heavier red cells on the bottom and a light watery plasma above. A spear wound would have resulted in the red cells (blood) pouring out, followed by plasma (mostly water). It’s the consecutive, non-simultaneous draining of the blood first, then water, that made it easy to identify by a “lay” onlooker (with the clear fluid being accurately identified as “water”).

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: Christ Crucified (c. 1632), by Diego Velázquez (1599-1660) [public domain / Wikipedia]

Summary: Ch. 8 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

December 5, 2023

December 5, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 6 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****
  1. How can God regret or change his mind about what he has done (Gen. 6:6-7; 1 Sam. 15:10-11, 35), if he is omniscient and knows all things?

What does it mean for God to say, “I regret”? Can God change his mind? Is God ignorant about the future? Is he just like us in that he makes honest mistakes and sometimes look back at his decisions and says, “I wish I could do that one over again”? It seems as if the Bible teaches that God makes mistakes. And yet, we know this is not the right way to understand God’s “regret” because of what we read from the prophet Samuel, in 1 Samuel 15:29: “the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (cf. Num. 23:19). The Bible teaches that God cannot change (what is called in theology “immutability”): see Malachi 3:6 (“I the Lord do not change”); James 1:17 (“with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change”); and Hebrews 13:8 (“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever”). How do we reconcile and harmonize all of this? The figurative scriptural expression of the “repentance” of God is an alternate, graphic way of expressing God’s mercy or judgment. Jeremiah 18:7-10 (God speaking to and through the prophet Jeremiah) is very instructive in understanding this Hebrew poetic expression in reference to the nature of God:

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.

This is simply a poetic, partially non-literal way of expressing the same notion that occurs many times in the Old Testament: conditional blessings or curses / judgment, depending on whether a person or nation decides to obey God’s commands or not. Instead of saying, “if that nation turns from its evil, I will bless it” (literal), he expresses it in the converse or “negative” sense: “I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it” (a non-literal, figurative statement in terms of the immutable God, but literal in its overall essence: the nation won’t be judged and will be blessed). Likewise, instead of saying, “if it does evil in my sight. I will judge and forsake it,” God says, “if it does evil in my sight . . . I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it.” Elsewhere in Jeremiah, and many many times in the Old Testament (the “norm” so to speak), the same sentiment (“if . . . then” conditional prophecies or warnings) is expressed literally, which in turn provides the interpretation of the figurative passages expressing the same thing:

Jeremiah 7:5-7 For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly execute justice one with another, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever. (expressed in the opposite fashion in 7:13-15)

Jeremiah 12:17 But if any nation will not listen, then I will utterly pluck it up and destroy it, says the Lord.

Jeremiah 15:19 . . . If you return, I will restore you, . . .

Jeremiah 17:27 But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and not to bear a burden and enter by the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched. (cf. 22:5; 26:4-6; 27:8)

Our conclusion, then, based on all of this data understood as a whole, is that God is indeed immutable. When he is described as seemingly changing his mind, it’s merely a figurative way of expressing literal truths (what is known in theology by the 50-cent words, anthropomorphism or anthropopathism), as explained by example above. In so doing, God “condescends” to human beings so that they will be able to understand him in their own terms, according to the limits of human knowledge. We change our minds all the time, so God acts as if he does so, when in fact he does not, so that we can relate to him. We have a very difficult time comprehending an omniscient and immutable Being, which is why God employed these methods in Holy Scripture.

  1. Can God do anything (Gen. 18:14; Jer. 32:27; Matt. 19:26; Luke 18:27; Rev. 19:6) or are there some things he can’t do, such as defeating iron chariots (Judg. 1:19)?

Judges 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron.

Granted, it’s a bit hard to tell at first, but the one who couldn’t drive out the inhabitants due to iron chariots was Judah, not God. How can we be sure? We can by consulting good old context, as so often. The expressions “took possession” and “drove out” are the keys. In other verses in the same chapter they are always used in relation to people, not God: “Judah also took Gaza with its territory, . . .” (1:18); “the men of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it” (1:8); “And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it [Kiriathsepher: v. 12]” (1:13); “ But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites . . .” (1:21); “Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean . . .” (1:27); compare 1:29-33 (five times). It’s also clear from the progression, that Judah was being referred to:

Judges 1:18-19 Judah also took Gaza with its territory, [and two other cities] . . . And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, . . .

It was the Lord being “with Judah” that enabled him to do these things. The progression of (paraphrasing) “Judah did x, and the Lord was with him, helping him to do x [the same thing]” is decisive in determining who was unable to win a military victory against iron chariots. As the Bible repeatedly teaches (even the atheist knows it), God is omnipotent (i.e., all-powerful or able to do anything that is possible to do).

  1. Did God harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exod. 4:21; 7:3; 10:1, 20, 27, etc.) or did Pharaoh harden his own heart (8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34-35)?

To express the notion that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” is a typically pungent Hebraism for God allowing something to happen in his Providence. It really all hinges on human free will. Human beings are given a choice by God: “If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good” (Josh. 24:20; cf. 1 Chron. 28:9; 2 Chron. 7:17-20; 15:2). In a sense, to say that “God did so-and-so” when he simply allowed it to take place, is an assertion of God’s overall Providence. God is asserting that he is in control. There is also a strong sarcastic element in this sort of biblical concept (that we see in Job and often in the prophets), as if God were saying, “okay; you don’t want to follow me and do what is best for you? You know better than I do about that? Very well, then, I’ll let you become blind and deluded. See how well off you’ll be then.”

  1. How is it not unjust for God to “visit” the “iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation” (Exod. 20:5; cf. 34:7; Num. 14:18)?

This passage and its erroneous interpretation are old chestnuts of anti-Christian and anti-biblical polemics. But at least the confusion is understandable, because this is a somewhat complex concept to fully understand. Bible passages of this sort exaggerate God’s traits in a non-literal way in order to make him more understandable to us. We must recognize that the Bible also contains many passages (to be taken literally) referring to human beings being judged for their own sins, not that of another. 2 Kings 14:6 states that “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, or the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin” (cf. Jer. 31:30). Ezekiel 18:20 concurs: “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, . . .  the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” And 1 Peter 1:17 proclaims that God “judges each one impartially according to his deeds.”

The context of two passages cited in the title suggests that punishment “to the third and fourth generations” applies only to children who deliberately choose to follow the sinful ways of their parents, and not in any absolute sense that would preclude individual pardon, as indicated by the phrases close by: “a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod. 34:6-7) and “‘Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.’ Then the Lord said, ‘I have pardoned . . .’”  (Num. 14:19-20). Jeremiah shows in one passage that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive:

Jeremiah 32:17-19 Ah Lord God! . . .  who showest steadfast love to thousands, but dost requite the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God whose name is the Lord of hosts, great in counsel and mighty indeed; whose eyes are open to all the ways of men, rewarding every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings;

Lastly, if we are to make much of God talking about punishment over three or four generations (setting aside how to interpret that, for a moment), then we ought to also notice two passages that strikingly highlight God’s extraordinary mercy down through generations:

Deuteronomy 7:9 . . . the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

1 Chronicles 16:15 He is mindful of his covenant for ever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Thus the “good stuff” and the mercy are described as lasting for “a thousand generations,” and the “bad stuff” for only four (and even that is adequately explained as limited and non-problematic by the above considerations, in my opinion). That’s 250 times longer for the good things, compared to the bad. But in the final analysis, these are to be understood in their essence as Hebraic exaggerations and hyperbole. The literal biblical teaching in this regard is that, ultimately, every person is responsible and will be judged for his or her own sin, not someone else’s. If they don’t repent, they’ll be judged, and it won’t be God’s fault at all (or their ancestors’ fault), but rather, totally their own.

  1. “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Deut. 6:5). This makes God seem like an insecure monarch; top-heavy with ego. How is it not colossal cosmic narcissism? What sense does it make for God to demand and command and get off on human adoration?

Nice melodramatic histrionics there (all of my examples come from actual atheists or other biblical skeptics). The Bible teaches that God is in need of nothing (Acts 17:25). That’s not the purpose of his commanding us to worship him. He’s all-sufficient and self-sufficient (what is called aseity in theology). I searched “demand worship” and “God demand(s)” in my online RSV Bible and they never appear. God does say in the Ten Commandments: “You shall have no other gods before me. . . . you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Exod. 20:3, 5). It is the purpose and nature of such worship that atheists are not grasping. It’s for our good, not God’s. Why does God give his commands, which include monotheism and worship of him alone? That’s explained many times. We are to keep his commandments, including worship of him alone, so that “it may go well with” us (Deut. 4:40; 5:33; 6:18; 12:28 all repeat that phrase). God wants to bless his people:

Deuteronomy 28:1 And if you obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.

All the blessings God will give to his followers are then listed in 28:2-14. It’s always the same, and this is the constant story of the Old Testament and the ancient Jews. God urges – virtually pleads with — them to follow his laws and commands, so that everything will be completely wonderful for them. Then they decide not to and to rebel against God and it goes terribly, just as God said it would. Then these same men (and atheists today who think like them) blame God rather than their own stupidity and stubbornness. But if we sum up what God wants, as expressed in the Bible, he “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Atheists are simply projecting excessive, sinful sorts of human emotions onto God, as if he is some sort of high maintenance drama queen who needs constant attention. Atheists love this theme because they can caricature God and make him look like a mad maniac. But it’s certainly not what the Bible or Christianity teach. It’s a myth from the atheist fictional imagination. God knows that we are most happy and fulfilled living as he intended it to be: in as close of a union with him as possible. Likewise, parents know that their children will be happier if they accept both their love and correction. If they reject both, they will likely have problems in their lives. God also praises human beings (Rom. 2:29; 1 Cor. 4:5) and shares his glory with us (Isa. 60:1-2, 4; John 17:22; Rom. 2:10; 5:2; 9:23; 2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Pet. 4:14; 5:1, 4; 2 Pet. 1:3-4). The Christian outlook is: “We love, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Because we are “grateful” for all God has done, and is, we “offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe” (Heb. 12:28).

We’re saying that God is inherently infinitely greater than we are. He created the universe. He gave us life. He loves us and blesses us in so many ways. So we praise him and worship him for who he is. Another analogy would be how we act towards those we are in love with. If we look at any love poems we find rapturous praise, lavish, over-the-top compliments, placing this loved one at the very center of our existence and the meaningfulness of our life and indeed our happiness and fulfillment. So we praise and compliment in the most extravagant ways. Yet when it comes to God, atheists can’t comprehend that we praise and worship him because of what we believe his loving, all-benevolent nature is; because he created us and fulfills us when we serve him, and due to all the wonderful things he has done or made possible for us to do, and because he “is love.” But if atheists redefine what God is like (the arbitrary, capricious, vicious tyrant of the atheist imagination), then yes, I can see why they couldn’t comprehend worship of a Being like that. The question then becomes: “what is God really like?” Since the answers are polar opposites, we act differently towards this God. We Christians love and worship him for all he is and has done, and they mock him and pretend that he doesn’t exist (all the while being irrationally furious about all the supposed negative characteristics of what they think is an imaginary myth). Go figure . . .

  1. Who Caused Job to Suffer — God (Job 42:11) or Satan (2:7)?

This is a very clear and straightforward example of God permitting a thing (God’s permissive will, as opposed to his perfect will), while the Bible says that he did it; see also Job 2:3: “. . . you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.”  It’s the Hebraic expression of God’s Providence. If we want to discover the literal truth of what was going on at a far deeper spiritual level, the beginning of the book explains it, in its narrative. God permitted Satan to afflict Job:

Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand.”

Job 2:6 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life.”

Again: sometimes the Bible states that “God did x,” but what it really means at a deeper level is that “God did not will x, but rather, permitted it in his omniscient providence, for a deeper purpose.” An analogous example is God being described as killing King Saul (1 Chron. 10:13-14), when in fact Saul committed suicide (1 Sam. 31:4). In neither case is a contradiction present, once these factors about Hebrew idiom are understood.

  1. How could Jesus say that he was meek and lowly (Matt. 11:29), but then make whips and drive the moneychangers out of the temple (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15-16; John 2:15)?

Jesus was meek and lowly and humble. It doesn’t follow, however, that he could never express righteous indignation. The most “meek and mild” father will become a roaring lion if someone tries to kidnap his son or daughter. And this is entirely proper. Likewise, if a judge gives a life sentence to a proven-guilty murderer, we don’t say that the judge failed to be personally “meek and mild.” He was doing his duty and protecting society. Likewise, Jesus (who was God) was disgusted that money-grubbing merchants had turned the temple into “a den of robbers” (Matt. 21:13). It was a time for righteous indignation and God’s wrath, and Jesus acted accordingly. I’ve done further study on exactly what scholars think these moneychangers were doing. It would scandalize anyone who has a caring, compassionate concern for the poor being treated fairly and not being taken advantage of for monetary gain: and in a holy place at that.

  1. Matthew, Mark and Luke all contain passages in which Jesus argues that the Messiah need not to be a son of David (Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; all quoting Psalm 110:1). This contradicts many Old Testament passages indicating that the Messiah will be a descendant of David, as well as Peter, who asserts the same (Acts 2:30-36).

The Messiah (Jesus) was indeed the Son of David, which is why he accepted this title for himself, and never rebuked or denied it (Matt. 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 18:38-39), and why Peter repeated this truth. The falsehood involved here is thinking that the three passages first listed contradict this understanding. They do not, because they record a certain kind of socratic rhetoric that Jesus frequently used; not intended as a denial at all. Rather, Jesus is pressing the Pharisees to recognize the teaching in Psalm 110:1 that the Messiah is Lord and the Son of God (in His Divine Nature) as well as David’s (in his human nature). He said to them: “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matt. 22:43-45). English Baptist pastor John Gill wrote on this passage in his Exposition on the Entire Bible in 1763:

Had they understood and owned the proper divinity of the Messiah, they might have answered, that as he was God, he was David’s Lord, his maker, and his king; and, as man, was David’s son, and so both his root and offspring [cf. Rev. 22:16]; and this our Lord meant to bring them to a confession of, or put them to confusion and silence, which was the consequence.

Again, Jesus was not denying that the Messiah (himself) was a son of David; he was asserting that he was also (and most importantly) the Son of God. Hence, when the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” . . . Jesus said, “I am; . . .” (Mark 14:61-62). Once all of this scriptural data is taken together and understood, the challenge demolishes, since it is based on a demonstrably and dramatically false premise.

  1. Why does the Bible teach that Jesus (Mark 4:11-12) and God the Father (2 Thess. 2:11-12) are sometimes responsible for unbelief (Mark 4:11-12), but also claim that the devil causes it (Luke 8:12)?

God never causes unbelief. Note (regarding one of these passages in context) that it was human rebellion that brought it about: “those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10). Mark 4:11-12 is an instance of sarcasm: very common in the Bible. Jesus was telling parables at first, because he knew they would be understood by those who want to understand (“for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven.”) and not understood by those who don’t (hence the sarcasm). It was a matter of the will and being open (Matt. 7:7-8). Jesus always wants any and all of us to believe (Matt. 23:37) and to be saved (Luke 19:10; John 12:47). So does God the Father (1 Tim. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Yes, the devil – not God! — will cause unbelief and try to tempt us and get us to fall, but only if we let him. The late great comic Flip Wilson had an ongoing joke based on that: “the devil made me do it.” People laughed at that. Why? Well, it’s because we instinctively know that that mentality is a cop-out: that the devil can only “make” us do what we choose to do by our free will. Ultimately, we are responsible for our actions. We stand before God in the end to give account for ourselves, and “the devil made me do it” won’t cut it when the game is up at that time.

  1. How can Christians believe that Jesus was sinless, in light of Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19?

Mark 10:18 reads: “And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’” (Lk 18:19 is almost identical). This was merely a rhetorical retort by Jesus: employing socratic method, as he often did. It has no implication that he himself was sinful. Besides, here he’s saying that God is uniquely good (knowing that this person didn’t think or believe that he was God), while massively asserting many other times that he himself is God: and this includes many instances in the Synoptic Gospels, too. Jesus states in John 8:46: “Which of you convicts me of sin?” In Hebrews 4:15 he is described as “without sin.” Being called the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29, 36; cf. 1 Cor. 5:7; “the Lamb” many times in Revelation) is also an assertion that he is without blemish (sin: 1 Pet. 1:19).

  1. What would Paul have said about whether the Holy Spirit was part of the Godhead? Did it even cross his mind [Acts 28:25-27]?

Paul cites an Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 6:8-10) in Acts 28:25-27, but with one important language difference. The Old Testament passage says that “I heard the voice of the Lord saying . . .” (Isa. 6:8). But when Paul cites it, he introduces it as follows: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet” (Acts 28:25). This is a direct (logical) unarguable equation of the Holy Spirit with God. He makes the same equation in the following passages:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?  If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are. (cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16)

1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 11 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;  and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. . . . All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

  1. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 states that “God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false.” Does this mean that we have no free will and are subject to the arbitrary whims of God?

The statement has to be understood and interpreted in context. This action of God comes only after human beings have decided in their free will to reject God. Hence, the verse before refers to “those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” And the verse after reiterates: “so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” God merely pronounces judgment upon people who made up their own mind which way to go: with God and his moral laws, or against both. In Romans 1, the same dynamic is present: “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity” (Rom. 1:24), and he “gave them up” to “dishonorable passions” (1:26) and “a base mind and to improper conduct” (1:28). But did God predetermine or predestine all that? No. Human beings chose to reject his truth, as the chapter (context, again!) repeatedly affirms, by referring to “men who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18),  and those who “became futile in their thinking,” whose “senseless minds were darkened” (1:21), who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (1:25), and who “did not see fit to acknowledge God” (1:28). Their rebellion is aptly summed up in Romans 1:32: “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.” To blame God for pronouncing judgment on such rebels and ingrates, who had every chance to repent and receive god’s free offer of grace and salvation, is like blaming a human judge for sentencing a serial killer to life in prison. Whose fault brought about that result? 

  1. Is there is one God (1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19) or three (1 John 5:7)?

Indeed, there is one God. The “traditional” 1 John 5:7 is a verse that isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, so those who place a high priority on accurate manuscripts say that it’s simply not part of the biblical canon (therefore, not inspired). But let’s accept the view that it is in the Bible for the sake of argument. The King James version of the disputed verse reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This doesn’t state that there are three gods. The chapter refers to the one “God” over and over; not to “gods.” 5:7 affirms that there are three [implied, Persons] and that “these three are one” [implied, God]. The Holy Trinity is the belief that the one God subsists in three Divine Persons (trinitarian monotheism), not that there are three gods (tri-theism).

  1. Is God “love” (1 John 4:8, 16) and “forbearing . . . not wishing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9) or does he “respect no one” (Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 1:17)?

The long list supposed utter lack of respect for persons came (as with all my examples of objections to the Bible) from an atheist source. Most of them are based on a rather elementary and inexcusable idiom with a completely different meaning: the notion of “not being a respecter of persons.” This doesn’t mean, “don’t respect anyone”; rather, it means, as most English dictionaries will confirm, “treat all people in the same way.” This particular atheist “laundry list” of  falsely alleged “contradictions” utilizes the KJV, from 1611. The English language has evolved a great deal in 400 years. KJV states (Deut. 10:17) that God “regardeth not persons.” The atheist skeptic takes this, literally, to mean that he has no regard for anyone, but of course, it’s idiomatic expression, meaning “not being a respecter of persons.” But even granting that archaic language can understandably be misunderstood, there is still no excuse for ignoring context. The context of this passage in the KJV proves that, far from regarding no one, God loves: “the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them” (10:15); “He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment” (10:18). RSV at Deuteronomy 10:17 provides a literal rendering: God “is not partial.” “No respect of persons” in the meaning clarified above (idiomatic for “impartial”) is the correct interpretation for all the other verses listed, too, save for the different expression in Galatians 2:6, which in KJV partially reads: “God accepteth no man’s person.” Again, RSV changes the outdated idiom to “God shows no partiality” (cf. ESV), in line with many other modern translations: “God does not show favoritism” (NIV); “God shows no favoritism” (NASB); “God shows personal favoritism to no man” (NKJV), etc. Context (the same chapter) again proves that it’s outrageously unjust and unfair to characterize God as God as having no respect for anyone (in the bad sense), since it refers to (still in KJV): “the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (2:20). The love of God for us is beautifully expressed in chapter 4:

Galatians 4:3-7 (KJV) Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: Clandestino (4-22-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Ch. 6 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

December 4, 2023

December 4, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 5 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****
  1. Did Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10) or John the Baptist (John 1:32) see the Holy Spirit descending like a dove at his baptism?

They both saw the same thing. So what? If my wife and I both see a meteor lighting up the night sky, that’s somehow a “contradiction”?! Remember, that’s what all of these are supposed to be, according to our never-ending critics. A real contradiction would be, for example, Matthew and Mark saying that only Jesus saw this, and John stating that only John the Baptist did.

  1. Did Satan tempt Jesus (Matt. 4:1-10; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1-2) or have no interest in him at all (John 14:30)?

This is ridiculous. Jesus merely notes in John that the devil had “no power over” him. This has nothing to do with whether Satan would try to tempt him or not. He would and did because he is stupid, and doesn’t know that he’s completely out of his league, in trying to manipulate Jesus. Any being who is present with God in heaven and chooses to rebel and leave “for better things” has to be absolutely the dumbest and most clueless and tragic creature imaginable.

  1. Did the devil take Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top (Matt. 4:5-8) or the other way around (Luke 4:5-9)?

Matthew doesn’t specify sequence. He writes: “Again [as opposed to “later” or “afterwards”], the devil took him to a very high mountain . . .” (4:8). Nor does Luke indicate sequence. He says, “And he took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple . . . ” (4:9). Therefore, a contradiction of sequence cannot occur, since sequence isn’t specified in the first place. Accounts mentioning multiple events in a single setting don’t always indicate the order in which they occurred (nor are they obliged to). For example, if I say, “I went to Burger King and I also went to the grocery store,” this is not necessarily a declaration of exact sequence. But if I specified an exact time for each visit and mixed them up in two different recollections, that would be an actual logical contradiction.

  1. Did Jesus teach that good works should be seen (Matt. 5:16) or not seen (Matt. 6:1-4)?

Matthew 5:16 lays out the principle that good works are good in and of themselves and are a witness to Christianity; therefore, it’s good that they are seen, so that people can “give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 6:1-4, on the other hand, refers to a more specific, internal thing: the mentality of pridefulness and doing works not simply because it is the right thing to do, but “in order to be seen” (6:1); in other words, an outlook of “look how wonderful I am, since I am doing all this good stuff. Come and praise me!” In the first scenario, the intention is to glorify God; in the second, it is one’s own inflated ego and pride. In Matthew 6:2 Jesus gives the example of people sounding trumpets when they give alms “that they may be praised by men.” That’s what he’s talking about in that instance: pride when doing good works; being sure to be noticed and seen, out of a prideful motivation; not that good works should never be seen at all. It’s two different topics, and so according to the laws of logic, it’s no contradiction.

  1. How can Jesus command us to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44), yet approve of destroying enemies (Luke 19:27)?

Luke 19:27 is a parable about the final judgment (which is God’s sole prerogative). As such it has nothing directly to do with how we should approach enemies in this life, with a loving and forgiving spirit. We’re not anyone else’s Creator or Ultimate Judge.

  1. Was the Lord’s Prayer taught to many during the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:9), or only to the disciples at another time (Luke 11:1)?

It looks like Jesus simply repeated the prayer (no law against that!): seeing what importance it would have in the history of the Church, as the collective Christian prayer: the most well-known of all. Repetition is a great teacher. In Luke, he taught it to his disciples in a shorter version. Luke 11:1-4 never states that he did so only with them at this time. That is wrongly read into the passage by the skeptic who came up with this. Then Jesus expanded the Our Father prayer and taught it to the “crowds” (Matt. 5:1; 7:28) in the Sermon on the Mount. None of this is implausible or unlikely to the slightest degree, and it certainly isn’t a “contradiction.”

  1. Are we to not worry at all about tomorrow, because God will take care of us (Matt. 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-31), or is a man who does not provide for his family worse than an infidel (1 Tim. 5:8)?

Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke is a parallel passage) is about anxiety, and how God provides our basic needs, and it’s very good, practical advice: especially “Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day” (Matt. 6:34). In other words: “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” or “one day at a time.” We can’t worry about all the “what ifs”. That will drive us crazy. It’s not a denial that we should be responsible in providing a living for ourselves and our families. “Don’t worry” is not the same thought as “don’t provide” or “don’t work and be a lazy bum.” Therefore, it’s one of innumerable cases of “apples and oranges”: as so many of these are. They have nothing to do with each other. It has to be the same subject matter to possibly be a contradiction. The first two passages simply don’t disagree with the third, and Paul is quite firm about the wrongness of sloth and able-bodied people not working (2 Thess. 3:6-12).

  1. Why did Jesus say that salvation was only for the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24; John 4:22; Rom. 11:26-27), while Paul wrote that it was also for the Gentiles (Acts 13:47-48)?

Jesus and the disciples first concentrated on the Jews, because they were God’s chosen people, who had carried the message of his salvation for the previous 1700 or so years: since at least Abraham (and they were all Jews as well). Then the plan was for the gospel to be preached to all and sundry (Matt. 24:14; 28:19; Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:9-16; 2 Pet. 3:9). But instructions to preach to the Jews only in one place and time (Matt. 10:5-6) are not logically antithetical to a later outreach to the Gentiles. And Jesus saying that he was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24) doesn’t preclude or exclude his disciples later doing otherwise. Jesus in John 4:22 says, “salvation is from the Jews”: which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Historically, it was indeed from the Jews, as God’s chosen people. But that’s a non sequitur in relation to this attempted claim of contradiction. Moreover, Romans 11:26 states that “all Israel will be saved.” The problem for our skeptic is that this is not to the exclusion of the Gentiles, since the previous verse stated, “until the full number of the Gentiles come in” (i.e., are saved). This entire miserably failed attempt is shot-through with shoddy, sloppy, illogical thinking, as shown.

  1. Why was Jesus thankful that some things are hidden (Matt. 11:25; Mark 4:11-12) in light of his saying that all things should be made known (Mark 4:22)?

In Matthew 11:25 Jesus states: “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes.” Mark 4:11-12 is about Jesus’ use of parables. He deliberately used them, knowing that those who don’t want to know the truth won’t grasp them. Then he sarcastically decried the notion of their freely chosen obstinacy: “that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven” (Mark 4:12). In Mark 4:22, on the other hand, Jesus teaches that the state of affairs just described will not be permanent; that one day “there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” Thus, a temporary, limited “hiddenness” simply isn’t contrary to the idea that things won’t always be this way.

  1. Did Jesus heal two blind men (Matt. 20:29-30) or only one (Mark 10:46-52)?

I tend to believe in an instance like this that there were two similar traditions in existence about one event (just as eyewitnesses in a court trial will differ on some details): one of them had one blind man and the other had two. But as far as contradictoriness goes, what we know about this incident doesn’t establish it, according to the laws of logic.  Mark 10:46 and also parallel verse Luke 18:35 do indeed state that one blind man was healed.  But neither claim that “only one” was (which would be required for a contradiction). “One” doesn’t logically exclude a possible second man. “Only one” does. Elementary logical errors of this sort are annoyingly common in “atheist laundry lists” of alleged contradictions. If atheists want to keep making these silly and embarrassing mistakes, apologists like myself will be all too happy to correct them. But it would be better for all if they would attempt to be rigorously logical and not so sloppy in their analyses. I’m actually offering constructive advice for their future critiques throughout this book.

  1. Did Jesus go to Bethphage and the Mount of Olives, then to Bethany (Matt. 21:1, 17), or to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives (Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29), or to Bethany and then Jerusalem (John 12:1, 12)?

Bethany and Bethphage are both located on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives. They are only 2.8 miles from each other. In Matthew, it’s reported that Jesus came through Bethphage, then down the western slope of the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. That night (Palm Sunday), he went back up the mountain to lodge in Bethany. Mark adds that he also went through Bethany on his way to Jerusalem (which is not a contradiction), and agrees that he stayed in Bethany overnight (11:11-12). So far so good. Luke agrees with how Mark describes the journey: Jesus went through both Bethany and Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, but doesn’t include the detail of his staying in Bethany that night. None of this is contradictory in the slightest. Not every Gospel includes every detail of a story (or is logically required to). John’s account mentions that Jesus went through Bethany en route to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, without also mentioning Bethphage, or the night spent in Bethany after he was in Jerusalem. But of course, this is not contradictory, either. All of the accounts complement each other. A true contradiction would be something like, “Jesus went only through Bethphage on the way to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday” according to one account, and another Gospel saying “Jesus went only through Bethany on the way to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday”. That‘s a contradiction, but nothing like that is in the four Gospel stories of the same broad events. So, no dice. Sorry, skeptics! You try so hard . . . A for effort, E for your conclusion.

  1. Why did Jesus curse the fig tree so that it wouldn’t bear fruit (Matt. 21:19; Mark 11:14), when it wasn’t time to bear fruit (Mark 11:13)?

To note that it wasn’t the season for figs (Mark 11:13) is different from Jesus saying, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” (Matt. 21:19) and “May no one ever eat fruit from you again” (Mark 11:14); therefore, this is no contradiction. This objection is what is known in logic as a non sequitur (Literally, “it doesn’t follow”).

  1. Did the fig tree wither immediately, amazing the disciples (Matt. 21:19-20), or did they first notice that it was withered the next day Mark 11:20-21)?

The objection itself doesn’t accurately describe what these passages assert. Mark doesn’t indicate when the fig tree withered, but informs us that the disciples saw it withered on the next day. Matthew, on the other hand, notes that it withered immediately, but doesn’t specify exactly when the disciples saw it. It provides no reference to time span. Therefore, we have no indisputable logical contradiction in this instance. It would be an example of “apples and oranges” (or should I say, “apples and figs”?).

  1. Was the kingdom of God prepared from the beginning (Matt. 25:34), or was it prepared by Jesus after he died (John 14:2-3)?

It was “from the beginning” in the sense that God knew all about it and ordained it: being out of time and knowing all things. To “prepare something” when it is about to be implemented is not the same thing as having known about the thing for a long time beforehand. So, for example, one of my two granddaughters is having her first birthday party tomorrow. Her parents are busy preparing for it. They have known that there would be such a party (for whatever children they had) from the time even before she was born (and we knew it, too). It’s not “contradictory” to prepare for it when the time arrives. Another example would be King Charles III of England. He has known from birth that he would likely be king, and hence was “prepared” for that from the early 1950s. But now as I write he’s actually preparing for it more specifically and tangibly in his upcoming coronation.

  1. Will the righteous have eternal life (Matt. 25:46) or are they barely saved (1 Pet. 4:18)?

I see no conflict here at all (apples and oranges). The proposed “contradiction” isn’t even coherent. It makes no sense, and reeks of desperation. The ones who persevere in good works (as a general proposition) will have eternal life, according to the context of Matthew 25. At the same time, salvation is difficult to attain (another general proposition).

  1. Did Peter deny Jesus before the cock crowed once (Matt. 26:34, 74; Luke 22:34; John 13:38) or twice (Mark 14:30, 72)?

Note that Mark’s second crow is after a first one, with a gap of time. This is key to understanding the non-contradiction. RSV doesn’t indicate when the first crow occurred, but KJV, utilizing a different (later, inferior) manuscript, has it after the first denial (14:68). Then after his third denial, the Gospel of Mark reads “And immediately the cock crowed a second time” (14:72). This alleviates any supposed difficulty, because it’s not a matter of “one crow only” vs. “two crows in a row at one time” (after the third denial). Rather, we must note what each Gospel was specifically referring to. Matthew, Luke, and John all refer to what Mark states is the second crow: that occurred after Peter’s third denial. But none of the three states that this particular crow is the “only” one. Therefore, it’s not contradictory. Nor does it become one simply because three Gospels didn’t mention an additional earlier crow made after the first denial (argument from silence).

  1. How do we harmonize texts asserting that Peter’s second denial was to another maid (Matt. 26:71-72), the same maid (Mark 14:69-70), to a man (Luke 22:58), and to more than one person (John 18:25), and that his third denial was to several bystanders (Matt. 26:73-74; Mark 14:69-70), to one person (Luke 22:59-60) and to a servant (John 18:26-27)?

Matthew specifies “another maid” (26:71), and “bystanders” (26:73). In the latter instance, a direct quote is given, so it is likely from just one of them, as they would not — obviously — all say in unison exactly the same words. In Mark it is “the maid . . . began again to say” (14:69), and “the bystanders” (14:70), again with a direct quote for the latter, suggesting that only one person said it. The only possible difference with Matthew is whether it was the same maid or a second one in the second instance. “Again” may have the meaning of “in addition to the first maid.” Luke says it was “some one else” (22:58), and “still another” (22:59). That’s perfectly consistent with both Mark and Luke, provided my explanation for the “second maid” in Mark is accepted. John has “They” (with an exact quotation: 18:25), which can be an unspecified second maid (per Matthew and Mark), and “One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off” (18:26). This is a specified person, which is consistent with a “bystander” (Matthew and Mark) and “still another” (Luke). No undeniable inconsistency exists across the four accounts. Some descriptions are merely more vague. If I’m called by four different people, “a man”, “a Catholic apologist”, “Dave”, and “a guy raised in Detroit” this is not contradictory at all, as all four descriptions are true statements. The one point that might be suspected to be a contradiction (Mk 14:69) has a perfectly plausible explanation.

  1. Did Jesus refuse to answer any of the charges against him (Matt. 27:12-14; Luke 23:9), some of them (Mark 14:61-62), or all of them (John 18:33-37)?

In Matthew 27:11, right before the passage above, Jesus answered Pilate’s question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” by saying, “You have said so”: which was another way of saying “yes”. Matthew 27 dealt with Jesus’ second appearance before the high priest, scribes, and elders: on the morning of the day of his crucifixion. The previous meeting / monkey trial was the night before, and he definitely answered the question of the high priest (Matt. 26:63-64). But in the second meeting, he didn’t answer them (27:12). Why bother? They had already concluded He was a blasphemer, worthy of death, the night before. There was nothing left to talk about, from Jesus’ perspective. Jesus had already said what he needed to say, to bear witness to himself. In Luke 23:9, we learn that Jesus didn’t answer Herod. Mark 14:61-62 records Jesus giving essentially the same answer to the high priest that Matthew records in 26:64. Thus far, no contradiction at all.  John 18 is about Jesus’ replies to Pontius Pilate. He responded with a rhetorical question regarding being King of the Jews, and then two “straight answers” about the same thing, which are perfectly harmonious with Matthew 27:11. Where, then, is the contradiction?

  1. Did the chief priests and elders persuade the people to ask for the release of Barabbas (Matt. 27:20), or only the chief priests (Mark 15:11), or did the chief priests and the people persuade themselves (Luke 23:13-23)?

Mark doesn’t claim that “only the chief priests” persuaded the people. Thus the above characterization is a misrepresentation of the biblical text. Mark wrote that “the chief priests stirred up the crowd”. Yes they did; so did the elders. The lack of an exclusive term like “only” in Mark accounts for the difference between a contradiction and two complementary statements. This is an example of the latter. Reading the three stories side-by-side, we see that the priests and elders seek to persuade the people to release Barabbas. Mark mentions only one (so what?: it’s an argument from silence). After that, (in Luke) Pilate calls them and the common people together to find out who they want released. It’s all perfectly harmonious. Logic 0101.

  1. Were James and John with Jesus when he healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-31) or not (Luke 4:38-39; 5:10-11)?

Mark mentions that James and John were present, and so they were. Luke doesn’t mention that tidbit, but also doesn’t deny it. He doesn’t write something like, “Jesus alone entered . . .”: which would be an actual, authentic contradiction. Hence, this is another always-lousy argument from silence, and in no way, shape, or form proven to be a logical contradiction.

  1. The scribes who put together the Gospel of Mark included two versions of the same story of Jesus miraculously feeding crowds of people (Mark 6:32-44 and 8:1-10). This is more proof that Mark wasn’t an eyewitness.

This is untrue, and easily shown to be so. The two events took place in two entirely different locations, as the text states. The feeding of the 5,000 was near Bethsaida, which was on the north side of the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:45; cf. Luke 9:10-17). The feeding of the 4,000, however, was a completely different story that occurred in a different place, in “the region of the Decapolis” (Mark 7:31), which was east of the Sea of Galilee, and included the town of Hippos. There is evidence that the place where the feeding of the 4,000 occurred was near the archaeological site of Kursi. Immediately after the miracle, according to Matthew 15:39, the parallel verse, Jesus “got into the boat and went to the region of Magadan” (another name for Magdala, where Mary Magdalene was from). That would have been directly across the Sea of Galilee. In any event, it’s clearly two entirely different places being described in the stories of the two feedings. They are perfectly harmonious and non-contradictory (just as my eating breakfast at home and lunch at a restaurant is not a “contradiction”).

  1. How did Mark know what Jesus said in his private prayer in Mark 14:32-36? Jesus specifically goes out of his way to leave the disciples behind, taking only James, John and Peter with him.

Jesus could have simply communicated what he was praying to Peter, who passed it on to Mark. One long conversation in one evening by Jesus would contain far more words, by far, than all of his words recorded in Scripture. And he was constantly with the disciples for three years, day and night. Mark 6:34 notes in one instance, even with the crowds, not just the disciples: “he began to teach them many things.” None of them are recorded. Mark 4:34 adds: “privately to his own disciples he explained everything.” Some of this “everything” could have easily been what Jesus prayed. All Jesus had to do was tell Peter, “last night I prayed [so-and-so]” (maybe in response to the ever-zealous Peter asking him) just as we see instances where he revealed what he prayed in Scripture: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:32; spoken to Peter). Then Peter could tell Mark about one of these prayers, or it could have entered oral tradition and eventually reached Mark. It’s not rocket science to envision such a scenario, and absolutely not impossible. Much ado about nothing . . .

  1. Did Peter make his first denial only to a maid (Mark 14:66-68; Luke 22:55-57; John18:17-18) or to a maid and some others (Matt. 26:69-70)?

Matthew has him answering the maid, while others nearby also hear. We would expect this, since it was within a group of people, including “bystanders” (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70) and “servants and officers” (John 18:18). He wasn’t responding to them, but to the maid. If I was talking to my wife (say about some car repairs) and one or more of my four children (or now, grandchildren) are also listening, no one would say that I was replying — or talking to — to all of them, when I was responding only to my wife. Nor if I were riding a bus with a friend and rather vehemently stated, “I’m not a Democrat!” others will also hear, but nevertheless, it’s silly to think that I was replying to them. That’s how foolish and desperate this so-called “contradiction” is. But in fact, Mark, Luke, and John also make it apparent that others heard, too (while they weren’t being replied to). They all mention that Peter was by a fire warming himself, with others, when he replied to the first maid. Obviously, then, the others around the fire would also have heard his reply. Matthew is the only one that didn’t mention the fire. But none of this is a contradiction in the slightest. Much ado about nothing.

  1. Did Jesus begin his ministry before (Jn 3:22-24) or after (Mark 1:13-14) John the Baptist’s arrest?

John writes, “Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea” (3:22) and specifies that “John had not yet been put in prison” (3:24). Mark simply doesn’t state that he began his ministry in his first chapter. He says, rather, “after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God” (1:14). The emphasis was on location. This claim is a bare assumption made about what simply isn’t in the text: an argument from silence. Apples and oranges; no “contradiction.”

  1. Were the people very impressed with the feeding of the multitude (John 6:14) or not impressed (Mark 6:52)?

It’s not “the people” referred to in Mark, but rather, the disciples (see 6:45, 51-52). They “did not understand” the miracle of loaves and fish because “their hearts were hardened” (Mark 6:52). But John 6:14 refers to the crowds (“the people”) being impressed and believing that Jesus was a “prophet.” Therefore, because it’s two different sets of people being referred to in these two passages, no contradiction exists.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: soundlessname (9-16-23) [Deviant Art / Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License]

Summary: Ch. 5 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

December 1, 2023

December 1, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 2 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 191 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****

1.Why did Matthew take the very unusual step of including four women (Matt. 1:3, 5-6) in Joseph’s genealogy? Isn’t that a contradiction over against other biblical genealogies? 

The four women were Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. But this is not “very unusual” in the Bible. 1 Chronicles refers to more than fifty women in its genealogies (see, e.g., 2:1, 4, 16-17, 46; 3:2, 5; 4:18; 8:8-11).  

  1. Were there 28 generations (Matt. 1:17) or 43 generations (Luke 3:23-31) from David to Jesus?

Scholars familiar with biblical genealogies inform us that they routinely abbreviate and omit names considered to be unimportant according to their immediate purpose. No genealogy should be assumed to be literally continuous unless external evidence is brought to bear which proves it to be so.

  1. Does God lead us into temptation (Matt. 6:13) or tempt no one (James 1:13)?

This is another understandable, “respectable” objection. James 1:13 is literally true. The difficulty is interpreting Matthew 6:13, which seems to contradict it. “Lead us not into temptation” from the Lord’s Prayer or “Our Father” can be understood as a poetic, rhetorical way of expressing the notion: “keep us from temptation” or “we know (in faith) that you won’t lead us into temptation.” Hence, lovers will say to each other, “don’t break my heart”: which usually means, literally, “I believe you won’t break my heart like those others have.” In other words, the literal “won’t” is changed to the rhetorical, more emotional, “don’t.” Instead of saying, “please do this [good thing]” we change it to requesting the person to “please don’t do [the opposite bad thing]”. The poetic Psalms, which are usually first person pleas or praise to God, offer many analogical parallels (Ps. 38:21; 40:11: “Do not thou, O Lord, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me!” [both senses in one verse]; 44:23; 70:5; 138:8; 140:8).

  1. Are we to not judge at all (Matt. 7:1-2), or judge when it is necessary (1 John 4:1-3)?

Matthew 7:1-2 is one of many scriptural proverbial statements, that allows and presupposes exceptions. Matthew is expressing a sort of “reverse golden rule.” If we judge harshly, unfairly, uncharitably, then chances are such judgment will come back to us at some point. It doesn’t follow, however, that no one can ever rightly judge at any time. 1 John 4:1-3 is actually about spiritual discernment, so it’s a non sequitur and no contradiction by the same token. In any event, there are many verses about perfectly justifiable and righteous non-sinful judging (Luke 11:19, 31-32; 12:57; 22:30; John 7:24; 1 Cor. 10:15; 11:13).

  1. Is it true that we can “Ask and it shall be given. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you” (Matt. 7:7-8; Luke 11:9-10), or that if we “ask” we’ll be refused and won’t find, and will be refused entrance (Luke 13:24-27)?

The first statement provides utterances from Jesus that are general, proverbial truths: qualified elsewhere in Scripture, in literal passages. For example: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions” (James 4:3); “if we ask anything according to his will he hears us” (1 John 5:14). Luke 13:24-27 is very different, and is specifically about those who are reprobate or damned. They had every chance to repent during their lives and be saved, but now it is too late; it’s time to be judged; the game’s up for them, so at that point they can’t seek any more. No conflict here . . .

  1. Was Peter’s mission to preach to the Jews (Matt. 10:2, 5-6; Gal. 2:7) or to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7)?

At first, the mission of Jesus and His disciples was to preach to their fellow Jews, as Matthew makes clear.  Later, St. Peter’s emphasis (but not exclusively) was still to the Jews but his overall mission expanded and included Gentiles, as Acts 15:7 indicates. Indeed, the entirety of Acts chapter 10 as about the opening of the gospel to the Gentiles, led by Peter (as Paul had just recently become a Christian). Likewise, Paul’s emphasis was on the Gentiles: though not exclusively in his case, either, as he regularly debated in the synagogues (Acts 9:20; 13:5, 43; 14:1; 17:1-4, 10-12, 17) and otherwise with Jews (9:22; 19:10, 17; 20:21), proclaiming the gospel. So both reached out to both groups, but emphasized one group (more or less a “division of labor”). Emphases and expansions of missions and goals of this sort are simply not contradictions. It’s not contradictory for Peter to exclusively preach to the Jews and first and then “branch out” to include the Gentiles. It’s this wooden “either/or” mentality of the skeptic that makes them falsely believe contradictions are occurring. And rank ignorance of scriptural teachings and motifs are constantly in play as well.

  1. Why did Jesus say that John the Baptist was the prophet Elijah (Matt. 11:9; 17:12-13), whereas John the Baptist said that he was not the prophet Elijah (John 1:21)?

The passages in Matthew are in the sense of prototype: John the Baptist was a type of Elijah; the last prophet, who had the same role as he did: to cause Israel to repent. Luke 1:17 makes this clear. An angel says about John: “he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah”. The repeated New Testament use of “son of David” for Jesus is an instance of the same thing, because David was a prototype of the Messiah. Jeremiah proclaimed, some 400 years after David’s death: “But they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them” (Jer. 30:9; cf. 33:15; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos. 3:5). John the Baptist himself spoke literally in John 1:21, in denying that he was Elijah, returned from the dead. Since these are instances of both metaphorical and literal expression, it’s no contradiction.

  1. If all people come into judgment (Matt. 12:36; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27; 1 Pet. 1:17; Jude 14-15; Rev. 20:12-13) how can believers not come into judgment (John 5:24)?

John 5:24 means that a believer will be saved (“has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life”). “Judgment” there has the specific meaning of “judged as worthy of damnation” or more broadly, “conviction” in a legal sense. But everyone will be judged in the wider sense of having to give account before God, Who then declares if we are saved or not. John 5:24 doesn’t conflict with that at all, so this is much ado about nothing.

  1. Must we forgive seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22), or is forgiveness not possible in cases of renewed sin (Heb. 6:4-6)?

Yes, human beings must always be willing to forgive: to have that spirit, because all of us have been forgiven by God. But God is not obliged to forgive forever. He provides enough grace for anyone to be saved, but if they reject it, that’s their choice, and they make forgiveness impossible to grant, because it must be preceded by acceptance and repentance. That’s what Hebrews 6 addresses: those who have received this grace and who were on the road to salvation, but then rejected it. It’s then impossible, as long as they continue rebelling and rejecting God and His grace.

  1. Why would we pray that we don’t enter into temptation (Matt. 26:41) if temptation is a joy (James 1:2)?

James 1:2 refers not to temptation (hence, this is “apples and oranges” again), but to “trials”. The “joy” that comes through trials is spelled out: “the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:3-4). This “testing” need not be a temptation at all. I could have a rock fall on my head from an avalanche. That would be a “test” of my faith, but not a temptation. Temptation is allowing ourselves to fall into being led astray by sexual immorality (lust), greed, gluttony, etc. It proceeds from the inside: in our soul. The Bible never teaches that temptation is a joy. That’s proven by a Bible search of both words together.

  1. How come Jesus told his followers to go and baptize (Matt. 28:19), yet Paul said he was not sent to baptize (1 Cor. 1:17), and did nevertheless baptize, at least in one instance (1 Cor.1:16)?

This is division of labor. Paul’s specialty was evangelism and dealing with hard-nosed unbelievers. He could assign others to baptize new converts (just as Jesus himself had done). It’s not difficult to do. No biggie and no contradiction. Paul baptized one household, as an exception to his rule, and couldn’t remember baptizing anyone else.

  1. Did Jesus cure Peter’s mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper (Mark 1:30-42; Luke 4:38 to 5:13) or after (Matt. 8:1-15)?

None of the Synoptic authors are concerned with always presenting events in a chronological sequence. They have different emphases. Matthew mostly organizes by topic (like an encyclopedia). Luke emphasizes geography as his arranging method (like an atlas). Mark borrows from both of them, sometimes following one order and sometimes another (similar to recounting stories from memory). The evangelists did not write or think exactly as we do today. Their stories are not literal travelogues or chronological biographies, but rather, collections of the sayings of Jesus and events in his life that they deemed to be the most important to the specific audiences they had in mind. We don’t know the exact sequence of events pertaining to the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, because the Synoptic Gospels simply were relatively unconcerned with strictly chronological order. Once we understand this, it’s plain that this is not an issue at all, let alone a supposed “contradiction.”

  1. Is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit an unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29) or are all sins forgivable (Acts 13:39; Col. 2:13; 1 John 1:9)?

Generally speaking, yes: all sins are forgivable. But as in most things, there is an exception. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of God altogether, which in a sense is not “forgivable” because the person hasn’t repented and asked to be forgiven, by the definition of having rejected God. In that sense, it can’t be forgiven, because “it takes two.” One could say, as an analogy, “all horses are able to drink from the stream. But I can’t force my horse to do so if it doesn’t want to or choose to do so. I can only bring it to the stream. There are things that are made impossible by the contrary will of the creature involved. God can offer the free gift of grace and salvation to all, but we have to accept it. Once free will is present, rebellion is always possible and can’t be altogether avoided.

  1. Mark represents a more Gentile attitude in quoting the Old Testament as “Moses said” (Mark 7:10) rather than “God said” (Matt. 15:4). All Jews would agree with the latter practice. Matthew, a Jew, would never have attributed the Ten Commandments to Moses.

Mark is also widely believed to be derived mostly from Peter: quite Jewish. This is much ado about nothing. The Hebrews thought in “both/and” terms (St. Paul’s writings often reflect this). For them, the Law of Moses or Mosaic law was God’s Law.  The two are identical. It was dictated by God to Moses, who delivered it to the ancient Hebrews. The context of Mark 7:10 clearly shows this. While 7:10 has Jesus referring to “Moses said” while referring to the Ten Commandments, both 7:8 and 7:9 use the terminology “the commandment of God” in referring to the same thing. 7:10 refers to the prior notions by starting with the connecting word “For.” 7:13 also references “the word of God” in discussing the same general topic. Nor is the converse true about Matthew, who makes references to Moses’ teachings and his (God’s) Law as well:

Matthew 8:4 [Jesus – also a Jewish man — speaking] . . . offer the gift that Moses commanded . . .

Matthew 19:8 He [Jesus] said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”

The parallel passage in Mark about divorce has Jesus saying:

Mark 10:3-5 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?”  They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.”  But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”

Both books make reference to Moses commanding that which was God’s Law given to him. They both do both things. It’s not one vs. the other. St. Paul continues the “both/and” practice in his epistles, since he refers to the “law of Moses” twice (Acts 13:39; 1 Cor. 9:9) and the synonymous “law of God” twice (Rom. 7:22, 25). Moreover, in the Old Testament (not including the Deuterocanon), “law of Moses” is used 13 times, and “law of God” four times, as well as the similar “law of the Lord” another 18 times. We must conclude, then, that this point of argument is a false dichotomy. Context and cross-referencing demolish it.

  1. Did Jesus desire that no sign should be given (Mark 8:12), or that none would be except for that of Jonah (Matt. 12:39; Luke 11:29), or
    that many signs should take place (John 20:30; Acts 2:22)?

The difference of “strategy” has to do with willingness to believe vs. unwillingness. Jesus knew who would accept His signs and miracles and who would not. With people who did not and would not (usually the “scribes and Pharisees”), he refused to do miracles and signs. This is made clear in the Bible (Mark 8:11-12; Matt. 12:39; 16:4). In Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:27-31), he explains why sometimes it does no good to perform miracles. This also foretold the widespread rejection of the miracle of his own Resurrection. Belief or willingness to accept the evidence of a miracle is also tied to Jesus’ willingness to perform miracles (Matt. 13:58: “he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief”). With the common folk, it was entirely different, and so we also see a verse like John 6:2 (“And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.”). Because the atheist hyper-critic refuses to acknowledge or understand these simple distinctions, all of a sudden we have yet another trumped-up, so-called “contradiction” where there is none at all. E for [futile] effort, though . . .

  1. Mark 10:19 misquotes the Ten Commandments and inserts an extra commandment: “Do not defraud.”

This is just silly. Jesus is adding nothing. He lists the five famous “thou shalt nots”: murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and then says “do not defraud” instead of “do not covet.” It’s essentially the same thing. Merriam-Webster defines defraud as “to deprive of something by deception.” This is what comes as a result of covetousness. The same source defines covet as “to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably.” Jesus is always forward-looking in his application of the Jewish Law. This is similar to his teaching on the Sermon on the Mount: always going deeper: “You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28). I think a similar “deeper analysis / getting to the heart or root of the matter” is going on here, as if Jesus is saying (by strong implication): “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not defraud’ [see, e.g., Lev. 19:13] But I say to you that every one who covets has already committed defrauding in his heart.” Thus, “defraud not” is not “an extra commandment”: it’s an application of one or more existing ones, just as Jesus taught that lust was a variant — and indeed precursor — of adultery. He wanted to convey the heart-level roots of sin; not just the outward observance of moral laws.

  1. Mark 11:10 refers to “the kingdom of our father David.” No Jew would have said that. The father of the nation was Abraham. Not all Jews were sons of David.

Nonsense. There is Jewish / Hebrew precedent. In 2 Kings 16:2 (cf. 2 Chron. 28:1) refers to “his father David” in relation to King Ahaz, who reigned some 250 years after David. Acts 4:25 (Peter speaking) also references “our father David.”  “Your father Abraham” only appears once in the Old Testament. “Father Abraham” appears seven times in the New Testament, including four times from the Gentile Luke. The writers of 2nd Kings (Jewish tradition held that it was Jeremiah) and 2nd Chronicles (Jewish and Christian tradition say it was Ezra) did, and so did St. Peter (all Jews). Therefore, Mark can do so. He’s simply following that Jewish tradition. Besides, Mark uses the phrase in the context of Palm Sunday, where the people saying this thought the messianic kingdom might be arising (Mark 11:10), and it is well known that David is also the prominent prototype of the Messiah in the Old Testament (” ‘What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?’ They said to him, ‘The son of David’ “: Matt. 22:42). “Son of David” (in this vein) is applied to Jesus 16 times in the Gospels: ten of these in Matthew, including his description: “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). Yet we are to believe that Mark is somehow expressing himself in a non-Jewish way, by referring to “our father David”? It just isn’t so.

  1. Mark 12:31-34 subordinates the Torah to love, and to the kingdom, in contrast to Matthew 22:36-40, where Matthew, as a Jew, put a far greater emphasis on the Law.

I don’t see much difference at all. After all, in the passage from Matthew above, Jesus doesn’t even cite the Ten Commandments. Rather, He cites a portion of the Law that sums up “all the law and the prophets” (22:40): “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (22:37). Then he stresses love: “a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (22:39). He does similarly in another passage: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt. 23:23). That’s certainly putting the emphasis on love, rather than merely legal transactions. Is Mark really much different than this? Mark 12:31-34 is basically the same as Matthew 22:37-39 above, and then Jesus adds: “to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). The Law was meant to focus on love all along, and this is explicitly taught in the Old Testament, too. If it’s thought that Mark is denigrating the Old Testament sacrificial system, he is saying nothing that hasn’t already been taught under the old covenant. So, for example:

Amos 5:21-24 I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Jeremiah 6:20 . . . Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Proverbs 21:27 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.

When His people obeyed his commands, however, then God was pleased with the same sacrifices (Isa. 56:6-7: “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar”; Jer. 17:24-26: “But if you listen to me . . .”; Mal. 1:11: “a pure offering”; many others). Therefore, we see nothing “new” here in Mark, which is no different than Matthew. These themes had been present in Judaism and the existing Bible for many hundreds of years.

  1. Mark 14:13 states that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water, whom they would follow in order to obtain a “guest room” for the Passover meal (14:13-14). Matthew 26:18 disagrees with the idea that a Jewish man would do a woman’s work.

Luke 22:10 also indicates a man carrying water. Matthew simply doesn’t mention it. Omission of a matter is not logically the same as a contradiction. Indeed, it was customary in ancient Israel for women to carry water jugs on their heads. But men were not forbidden to do so. Hence, Deuteronomy 29:11 refers to “he who draws your water.” In the Jewish sect of the Essenes, men carried water on their heads. They had a community on Jerusalem, and one of Jerusalem’s gates was called “the Gate of the Essenes”. Jesus knew that if the disciples saw one of these Essene men and followed him through the streets of the city, that they would find a guest room; especially since the Essenes followed a different calendar for the Jewish feasts. That would mean that a room would be more readily available in their region of Jerusalem. Thus, what seems to be a trivial detail, actually was a very practical suggestion.

  1. How could the Holy Spirit be with John the Baptist before he was born (Luke 1:15, 41), and with his mother Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zechariah (Luke 1:67), and Simeon (Luke 2:25); indeed to anyone for the asking (Luke 11:13), whereas the Bible also teaches that the Holy Spirit didn’t come into the world until after Jesus had departed (John 7:39; 16:7; Acts 1:3-8)?

The Bible has many passages about the Holy Spirit being especially present with holy and especially “chosen” people, in both Testaments. That explains the first four instances. Anyone can search “Holy Spirit” in the Bible and find many more. In Luke, Jesus was referring to that and also anticipating what was to come: which was every Christian believer being indwelt with the Holy Spirit as a matter of course: from the time of baptism (John 3:5-6; Acts 2:38; 9:17-18; 1 Cor. 12:13; Titus 3:5). Acts 1 and 2 are about the Day of Pentecost: the beginning of the Christian Church and the ability of every Christian to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That’s the difference: not that no one ever had the Spirit before, but that all Christians could henceforth. This was what John 7:39 and 16:7 were referring to. When the former verse refers to “as yet the Spirit had not been given,” it doesn’t mean that the Spirit never was given to anyone before, but that all believers would soon receive it, as indicated by its words, “the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive.” It’s developing Christian theology. Developments are not contradictory because they always build on what went before.

  1. If Jesus said that all men will be saved (John 3:17), why is it stated that only 144,000 virgin men will be (Rev. 14:1-4)?

Jesus says no such thing. The meaning of the words in John 3:17 (not Jesus’ words, but the narrator John’s) is universal atonement: that all who wish to be — who are willing to be disciples of Jesus with all that that entails — can be saved. This is biblical teaching. In context it’s crystal clear that neither he nor John is saying all men will be saved, but rather, those who believe in Jesus. Jesus said, referring to himself: “whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:15). John adds that “whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (3:16) and “he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (3:18). Revelation 14 never asserts that this was the sum total of all who are saved. It specifically calls them the “first fruits” (14:4); in other words, there are many more to come and these are only the “first batch.” The claim that this is all the saved is simply read into the passage (eisegesis) without warrant by this skeptic. This is a very incompetent, embarrassing, and almost inexcusable proposed “contradiction.”

  1. How is it that Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him (John 6:37), yet also said that many who come to him will be cast aside (Matt. 7:21-23)?

In John 6:37, Jesus refers to “All that the Father gives me will come to me”: in other words, this refers to predestination and election, which is in conjunction with our free will acceptance, repentance, and cooperation. The latter part of the verse is conditional upon this prerequisite. These are the ones who will be saved in the final analysis and go to heaven. Jesus (being God and therefore omniscient) knows this, so of course he won’t cast them out. Christianity doesn’t teach universalism (all are saved); it teaches universal atonement (God’s mercy and grace are available for all who repent and accept them as a free gift, and continually cooperate through good works and sanctification). Matthew 7:21-23, on the other hand, refers to false, deceitful supposed “followers” of Christ who really aren’t. They haven’t repented and allowed God to transform them in grace, and so they simply mouth the words, “Lord, Lord” and “Jesus.” They “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” as we Christians say. But God knows his own (John 10:14) and he knows who is faking it. God knows men’s hearts. We can’t fool Him with our games and pretensions and outrageous hypocrisies. That’s what this is about. The biblical teaching is that Jesus accepts all who are sincerely repentant and willing to follow Him as disciples, and who persevere and don’t fall away till the end. One must understand the biblical teaching on grace and salvation. Once they do, they see that these sorts of supposedly contradictory couplets aren’t “contradictions” at all. They are misguided, uninformed false speculations, exhibiting an ignorance of the teaching of the Bible. We all have to learn about any given subject. Theology is no different. It requires diligent study. I’ve been studying the Bible for 45 years, and I literally learn something new every time I study it more and write about it. Atheists are often exceedingly ignorant: many – as they themselves note — having been former fundamentalist or nominal Christians, and insufficiently instructed in the faith.

  1. Why did Jesus say that in him we would find peace (John 16:33), but also that he did not come to bring peace (Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:51)?

John 16:33 refers to personal / soul level peace and fulfillment (“in me you may have peace”). He makes the meaning absolutely clear in the similar passage, Matthew 11:28-29: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” The other passages, in contrast, have to do with those in one’s family not liking the fact that one is a follower of Jesus; thereby bringing about division, which Jesus expressed with Hebraic hyperbolic exaggeration as “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). In Luke 12:51, Jesus uses the literal description, “division.” It’s a social dynamic, as opposed to individual and personal. Another way of expressing the same dynamic was to say (with exaggeration of degree): “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Matt. 10:22).

  1. How can Jesus come into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37) if the truth had always been evident (Rom. 1:18-20)?

The second thing is true, but the same passage notes how men deliberately reject what they know to be true. So Jesus had to come to offer more evidence for the truth and to bear witness to the character of God. That goes beyond what Romans 1 was addressing: which was only “his eternal power and deity” as evident “in the things that have been made” (1:20). Jesus revealed much more than that. Some truth about God has always been evident in His creation; Jesus brought a much fuller revelation of spiritual truth.

  1. How can Luke state that all was written about Jesus (Acts.1:1), while John asserts that the world could not contain all that could be written about him (John 21:25)?

Acts 1:1 is a general and non-literal statement. Luke was saying that his Gospel dealt with “all that Jesus began to do and teach” in a broad sense. We do this all the time in how we use language today. We might say, for example, “I’ve been all over the world.” No doubt there are several dozen countries where we haven’t been. This is understood by the hearers, who know that it is a broad, generalized statement. Or a woman says, “I’ve been unhappy all of my life.” Are we to understand that literally for every second she was unhappy? No. It’s understood that it means, “unhappiness is a recurrent problem and dominant theme in my life that I can’t seem to shake off or resolve.” When Luke explained his reason for writing his Gospel, he wrote that he had “followed all things closely” (Luke 1:3). Are we to conclude that this included absolutely everything about Jesus? It couldn’t possibly, because the Gospels record, for example, that Jesus went off to be alone many times. They wouldn’t have known what he did then. Note Luke’s undeniable use of “all” four times in a non-literal sense, in two verses: “And fear came on all their neighbors. And all these things were talked about through all the hill country of Judea; and all who heard them laid them up in their hearts, . . .” (Luke 1:65-66). Many more such examples could easily be found. John 21:25 exaggerates to make the point that “there is a lot more material out there about Jesus than what I have recorded.” There is no conflict here, once the different use of language is understood, just as we do all the time in life in interpreting people using literal or non-literal language. Usually, context helps us understand which is being employed. It’s the same in the Bible.

  1. Is repentance necessary (Acts 3:19; Luke 3:3) or not necessary (Rom. 11:29)?

Of course it’s necessary. Romans 11:29 has nothing to do with repentance. It simply states: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” This alleged “contradiction seems to have antinomianism in its thinking: the notion that once you are saved, you can do anything and it’s fine and dandy: no need for continuous sanctification and good works (or an extreme “faith alone / eternal security” view). This isn’t true, and is a gross caricature of biblical salvation. The Bible (and Paul) teach sanctification and the necessity of good works all through the Christian life. Paul in Scripture refers to repentance ten times, sanctification twelve times, and holiness eight times. All of this requires repeated repentance, because we fail and fall and have to be restored to a right relationship with God through repentance. Confession of sins (after one becomes a Christian) is also referred to in James 5:16 and 1 John 1:9. That is part and parcel with repentance as well.

  1. If the Holy Spirit forbade Paul from preaching in Asia (Acts 16:6), why did – or how could — he preach in Asia anyway (Acts 19:8-10)?

Acts 16:6 never indicates that this was a prohibition for all time. It was only for that particular time, as indicated by Acts 16:9 (“And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing beseeching him and saying, ‘Come over to Macedonia and help us’”). This is a case of one passage not being specific enough to establish beyond all doubt or argument, a contradiction with another passage. If 16:6 had read, “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia forever” then a clear contradiction would be present, but alas . . . foiled again!

  1. Did God condemn the world (Rom. 5:18) or not (John 3:17)?

Jesus did not talk in John 3:17. It was John or whoever wrote the Gospel bearing his name. Nor did the narrator make this blanket statement. Rather, he said something more specific: “For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” It was specifically about why God the Father sent Jesus. Paul sort of says this in Romans 5:18, but the leading thought is that the fall of man and our rebellion was our fault, not God’s, just as a convicted murderer’s wicked act is his fault, not that of the judge who sentences him. In light of all this, no contradiction can be drawn from the above passages.

  1. Are all who call on the Lord saved (Rom. 10:13; Acts 2:21), or only those predestined to be saved (Acts 2:47; 13:48; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thess. 2:13)?

Predestination is very deep theological waters: among the two or three most misunderstood and mysterious aspects of theology. The unbeliever will never grasp it, according to 1 Corinthians 2:14: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” It is true that most Christians (including my own affiliation: Catholicism) believe that those who are saved were indeed predestined to be saved: but that’s because we believe that God knows all things and is outside of time. He knows, therefore, who will exercise their free will, soaked in his grace, and receive his mercy, grace, and salvation. In other words, none of this is without their free will cooperation. This cooperation with God’s grace (and with his predestination) is seen in many biblical passages (Rom. 15:17-18; 1 Cor. 15:10, 57-58; Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 2:13; 1 Pet. 4:10). Once all of these things are understood, it is seen that there are no contradictions. God predestines us, but he does so knowing that we would cooperate in our free will (that he gave us) with his grace and do our part of the equation. Many Christians misunderstand this, so (again) I don’t expect many unbelievers to grasp it. It’s too deep and complex, and spiritually discerned. But I have done my best to summarize it and to show that the attempted alleged contradiction is not one at all.

  1. Can non-believers obtain mercy (Rom. 11:32), or only believers (John 3:36; Rom. 14:23), or only baptized believers (Mark 16:16)?

Romans 11:32 teaches that God’s mercy is available to all. He wants all to be saved, but they have a free will, so many reject his free offer of mercy and salvation, and his moral precepts that go along with being saved. John 3:36 doesn’t say this at all. It states: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.” The Bible doesn’t teach universal salvation to all, regardless of how they act. We all have free will to accept or reject God’s free gift of mercy, grace, and salvation. Some people reject that, but it isn’t due to a lack of God’s mercy. They refuse to repent and to follow God’s guidance. They would rather rebel against Him. The famous “gospel” passage John 3:16 laid out God’s free gift: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Romans 14:23 is about conscience (the whole chapter is about that) and proper foods to eat and has nothing to do with mercy. It’s a non sequitur in this discussion. Mark 16:16 reiterates the teaching of John 3. One who refuses to believe in Jesus and Christianity — who deliberately rejects it, knowing full well what it is — cannot be saved. This doesn’t deny God’s mercy, which is always there for everyone. But they must reform their sinful ways and repent. God being merciful doesn’t mean that He saves everyone whatsoever, regardless of what they do. We have to repent and cooperate with his grace. We want what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace” without cost or responsibility. And this alleged “contradiction” exhibits that stunted mentality. None of this proves that there are contradictory teachings in Scripture regarding God’s mercy. That teaching is crystal-clear (Psalm 103:2-4, 8; 116:5; Luke 6:36; Acts 10:43; Eph. 1:7; 2:4; Col. 1:14; 2:13; 3:13). I see no inexorable contradiction established here at all. What I see, in the way the alleged “contradiction” is laid out, is a profound ignorance of biblical soteriology (the theology of salvation). That calls for humility and a willingness to learn, not issuing challenges concerning supposed inconsistencies in things the person knows little about in the first place (which is annoyingly presumptuous).

  1. Paul indirectly admits (1 Cor. 1:22-23) that he knew of no miracles performed by Jesus. His Jesus is not the miracle worker that we see in the Jesus of the gospels.

This atheist refuted himself (a not uncommon occurrence), because he wrote in the same article that “Paul mentions” Jesus’ Resurrection “14 times.” Is that not a miracle? Indeed, it is Jesus’ greatest miracle: the conquering of death, and showing that there is an afterlife. The Gospels teach that Jesus raised himself (i.e., it was his own miracle), just as he had raised Lazarus (John 2:18-22; 10:17-18). Note that Jesus thought his Resurrection was the “sign” that the Jews demanded (2:18). He reiterates this elsewhere in comparing his resurrection to the “sign of Jonah” (Mt 16:1-4; Lk 11:29-30): that is, his emerging from the whale (metaphor for his tomb) after three days. The citing of 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 proves nothing that is claimed for it. Paul’s simply saying that the crucifixion was loathsome to the Jews, and made it harder for them to accept Christianity. In the same book he mentions the Resurrection of Jesus nine times: in 6:14 and eight more times in chapter 15. Moreover, when Paul recalls the story of his conversion to Christ, he mentions miraculous occurrences caused by “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 22:8): namely, “a great light from heaven” (22:6, 11), “brighter than the sun” (26:13), and “a voice” [of Jesus] from heaven (22:7; 26:14), which the others around him couldn’t hear (22:9). That was all miraculous and supernatural. It was a “heavenly vision” (26:19).

  1. It is better that young widows should remarry (1 Tim. 5:11-14) or not (1 Cor. 7:8)?

Paul in the overall context of 1 Corinthians 7:8 also recommends remarriage, since 7:9 states: “if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” Thus, both passages are consistent, not contradictory. The supposed “contradiction” comes from 1 Corinthians 7:8: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” To say that singleness is a preferable state to being married is not to forbid marriage or say that it is a bad thing. In the larger section, Paul teaches that singleness is better in order to avoid “worldly troubles” (7:28), to “be free from anxieties” (7:32), and to secure “undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35). Paul is also very pro-marriage: “each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (7:2). Bottom line: Paul in this chapter teaches that everyone should live as God has called them to live (7:7. 17. 24). That could be either single or married. No contradictions are present, once Paul’s teaching is fully understood. 

  1. Are backsliders condemned (2 Pet. 2:20) or saved, regardless (John 10:27-29)?

Yes, it’s bad news “if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them” (2 Pet. 2:20; the entire chapter should be read, for context and completeness). John 10:27-29 doesn’t teach what described above. Rather, it asserts that the elect and predestined; the ones who will make it to heaven (whom Jesus knows about in his omniscience) will never be lost. It’s simply saying a=a (“those who are saved in the end are saved” or “the elect are saved” or “the predestined are saved”).

  1. John teaches that whoever hates his brother is a murderer (1 John 3:15) and that if anyone claims to love God but hates his brother, he is a liar (1 John 4:20), so why did Jesus teach that no one could be his disciple unless he hated his brother (Luke 14:26)?

1 John 3:15 expresses the principle (stressed in the Sermon on the Mount) that murder and every other sin have to start in our heart first”; in our thoughts and intentions. Secular law recognizes this based on degrees of guilt, based in turn on how premeditated and “voluntary” it was. 1 John 4:20 is about rank hypocrisy. One can’t love God and hate other people, because loving God includes obedience to his command to love all people, even our enemies. Luke 14:26, on the other hand, is an instance of exaggeration or hyperbole: the typically Hebraic way of expressing contrast. Literally it means “if you love your brother more than me [God] you can’t follow me” (since that would be idolatry). In fact, Jesus did express what we contend he was stating non-literally in Luke 14:26, in a literal fashion elsewhere (this is following the important hermeneutical principle of “interpret less clear or obvious passages by more clear related passages”): “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:37). The same scenario of “figurative ‘hate’ defined literally as ‘degrees of love’” occurs again in Genesis 29:30-33. This understood, the supposed “contradiction” vanishes into thin air.

  1. Jude 14 contains a prophecy of Enoch. Thus, if the Book of Jude is the Word of God, then the writings of “Enoch” from which Jude quotes, are also the Word of God, right?

The fallacy here is to think that because the Bible cites something, it, too (the complete work containing the citation), must be the “Word of God.” This simply isn’t true, since the Bible cites several non-canonical works or aspects of various traditions without implying that they are canonical. Paul, for example, in speaking to the philosophical Athenians (Acts 17:22-28), cited  the Greek poet Aratus: (c. 315-240 B.C.) and philosopher-poet Epimenides (6th c. B.C.): both referring to Zeus. Paul used two Greek pagan poet-philosophers, talking about a false god (Zeus) and “Christianized” their thoughts: applying them to the true God. He also cited the Greek dramatist  Menander (c. 342-291 B.C.) at 1 Corinthians 15:33: “bad company ruins good morals”.

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***

Photo Credit: clubraf (4-18-08) [Deviant Art / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License]

Summary: Portion of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 191 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

November 27, 2023

November 27, 2023 By
0 Comments

Chapter 15 (pp. 129-140) of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised second edition: 17 August 2013; slightly revised again in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version). Anyone who reads this book should first read the following three introductory articles, in order to fully understand the definitions and sociological categories I am employing:

Introduction (on the book page)

Definitions: Radical Catholic Reactionaries, Mainstream “Traditionalists,” and Supposed “Neo-Catholics” [revised 8-6-13]

Radical Catholic Reactionaries: What They Are Not [9-28-21]

If you’re still confused and unclear as to my meanings and intent after that, read one or more of these articles:

Rationales for My Self-Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionaries” [8-6-13]

My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary”: Clarifications [10-5-17]

Clarifying My Coined Term, “Radical Catholic Reactionary” [4-3-20]

This book is modeled after the method and structure of the French mathematician and Catholic apologist Blaise Pascal’s classic, Pensées (“thoughts”). Catholic apologist and philosopher Peter Kreeft described this masterpiece as “raw pearls” and “more like ‘sayings’ than a book . . . ‘Sayings’ reflect and approximate the higher, the mode of Christ and Socrates and Buddha. That’s why Socrates is the greatest philosopher, according to St. Thomas (S.T. III, 42, 4).”

I am not intending to compare myself or my own “thoughts” or their cogency or import in any way, shape, or form, to those of Pascal, let alone to Socrates or our Lord Jesus! I am merely utilizing the unconventional structure of the Pensées, which  harmonizes well, I believe, with the approach that I have taken with regard to the present subject. I have sought to analyze (minus proper names, a la Trent) the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological “bottom lines” and (in a word), the spirit of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive sociological sub-group of Catholics.

*****

  1. Radical Catholic reactionaries falsely claim that Pope St. John Paul II’s teachings contradict the Bible, past papal encyclicals, and councils. Apparently they think that it is a small thing for laymen to routinely and “authoritatively” accuse the pope of material and (by implication) even formal heresy. Apart from the unseemly and impious nature of such a charge, made wrongheadedly and slanderously (as it is objectively false to begin with), it is yet another instance where reactionaries want to have their cake and eat it, too. They don’t want to say “without horns” that the pope is a formal heretic (as most Catholic theologians and historians have believed that no pope was ever a formal heretic — many also hold that it couldn’t even possibly happen, as a function of the indefectibility of the Church). They want to have it both ways: create the implication, qualify it, yet proceed in the argument as if it were likely true. In other words, ambiguous language and argumentation is hypocritically used, rather in the fashion that they claim to detest as typical of Vatican II documents.
  1. Reactionaries maintain that Pope St. John Paul II ambiguously states Catholic truths, thus opening them up to modernist interpretations. But they rarely offer proof for such a charge. It is a circular argument — good only for the one who already accepts it as an axiom. And how can one disprove such a charge, itself extremely ambiguous and subjective?
  1. Reactionaries contend that Pope St. John Paul II interprets Catholic teaching according to un-Catholic and foreign philosophies. But who determines what school is “foreign” or “un-Catholic”? Is it anything besides Thomism? Some Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the whole of “Latin” Catholic theology as an “alien” philosophical construct. But this is fundamentally silly. The Church has always adopted current philosophies (insofar as they express truth) in order to defend the gospel, whether it was the platonism of St. Augustine, the “baptized” aristotelianism of Aquinas, or the phenomenology of John Paul II. In so doing, they did nothing more than St. Paul did, when he cited pagan poets and philosophers at Mars Hill in Athens, during the course of an explicit presentation of the gospel (Acts 17:16-32).
  1. Reactionaries maintain that Pope St. John Paul II has a malicious intent to introduce false dogma into the Church. But the reactionary will often equivocate, make an accusation, state a suspicion, even while decrying such judgments of motive and intent (concerning the pope) elsewhere. They qualify, in order to soothe their conscience, cover themselves, and to maintain the illusion that they are being obedient Catholics. But when it comes down to brass tacks, some (particularly the even more radical sedevacantists) actually believe the above calumny.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II is not a “theological pluralist” because “both St. Therese of Lisieux and Hans Kung are allowed in the same Church.” If he were, on this account, how then, would one explain Judas as one of the apostles (he truly was one)? Jesus selected him! Hans Kung is no longer officially a Catholic theologian. The mere presence of dissenters does not prove that Pope St. John Paul II is a “pluralist,” for any number of reasons, any more than the presence of de Lubac, von Balthasar, Rahner, Ratzinger, Wojtyla, the earlier, more orthodox Kung, or Congar in the Church of Ven. Pope Pius XII proved that he was a “pluralist,” or any more than his decision to not denounce Nazism officially “proved” that he was a Nazi sympathizer, or anti-Semite (a clear case of Ven. Pope Pius XII prudentially considering the results of a proclamation, as I have argued with regard to dissenters).
  1. If the modernist danger was so apparent (after all, he wrote about it), why didn’t Ven. Pope Pius XII boot these people out, so as to avoid the “disaster”? One might argue, rhetorically, that therefore, he was far more responsible for the virtual shipwreck of the faith (as reactionary alarmist rhetoric would have it) than Pope St. John XXIII, Pope St. Paul VI, or Pope St. John Paul II. He was, in other words (still following the warped reasoning of the reactionary), guilty of the same inaction that Pope St. Paul VI is accused of (and arguably, more culpably and inexplicably). Constant preaching to the choir, as we see, has a way of blunting the logical and critical faculties.
  1. We are told that Pope St. Paul VI and Pope St. John Paul II are the most “unusual popes” ever, and have presided over “the destruction” of the faith. To the contrary; I think the verdict of history will be to deem John Paul II (in addition to being a saint) the “Great” — so magnificent are his accomplishments. History will show that John Paul II was the chief factor in the “destruction” — not of the Church –, but of modernist heterodoxy and apostasy. I dare say that history will take a very dim view of the reactionary movement. If destruction means what it means, this is the belief in defectibility, and it is, of course, extremely impious and uncharitable language for any Catholic to utter. The very statement of it is proof positive that the one uttering it has lost the virtue of supernatural faith.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II is supposedly “doing nothing to alleviate the modernist crisis.” He is dealing with the problems, but it is not according to the reactionary method and timetable. It is with a long view of history, and wisdom and prudence, and care and concern for the entire flock, of which he is the earthly Shepherd. There are certain things he can do, and some things he cannot do (even God can’t do certain things concerning men, if men in their free will won’t let Him). The pope makes judgments and determinations based on rational considerations of the likely response, just as Ven. Pope Pius XII did with regard to the Nazi question. Reactionaries don’t accuse him of complicity, for not speaking out magisterially, yet they have the unmitigated gall to accuse this pope of implicit complicity with the modernists (or claim that he is one himself).
  1. We are supposed to believe that for 27 years, Pope John Paul II has been allowed by God to unleash heterodox poison upon the Church? At least with Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius, their error was short-lived, and not pronounced with any authoritativeness. And if we start with Pope St. John XXIII in 1958, it is now 55 years and running of wholesale “destruction” of Catholic tradition, according to the reactionaries.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Ecclesia Dei:

The extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

The Holy Father is clearly using “new” in the sense in which the New Testament was “new,” or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was “new,” or the inclusion of Gentiles into Christianity was “new.” In none of these cases was the “newness” a corruption of what came before; rather it was a development. And in each case there was much misunderstanding and dissension, and accusations that the “new” doctrine had forsaken the “old” ways. Secondly, Pope John Paul II refers to “points of doctrine,” not “doctrines” per se — which cannot happen, as all dogmatic doctrines are received from the apostles, and cannot be changed. He writes about “the Council’s continuity with Tradition.” He doesn’t see any discontinuity.

  1. The council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) dealt with the Judaizers. There had been some confusion and “ambiguity,” just as with the reception of the teachings of Vatican II. What caused that confusion? The proclamation of the gospel itself? Paul’s preaching? Peter’s preaching? The problem was primarily in the hearers. Misunderstanding requires clarification. That doesn’t prove that the original teaching was faulty or deficient.
  1. Jesus, too, found Himself confronted with opposition from the Pharisees to His teaching, which was an expansion and new application (see Matthew 5:17-20) of what came before (a development), but different enough so that the Pharisees deemed it to be a corruption. He gave the following parable to illustrate the “new” perspective of the new covenant:

“No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it upon an old garment; if he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’ “ (Luke 5:36-39)

  1. Immediately after the parable of the wineskins, in Luke 6:1-5 (the New Testament did not originally have chapters, so there is no break in topic here), Jesus and His disciples were chastised by the Pharisees for eating grain from the fields and “rubbing them in their hands” on the Sabbath. In other words, our Lord was accused of not observing the Law and not understanding it, just as popes and councils today are charged by reactionaries with not knowing Catholic dogma and former practice, and contradicting or subverting it. But Jesus appealed to the practice of David, who did the same thing (see 1 Samuel 21:1-6), and said, “The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” So what was thought of as quite “innovative” and controversial, was shown to be quite old indeed (King David died around 970 B.C.). The same state of affairs occurs with regard to many false reactionary accusations. They often think and act much like the Pharisees, with much excessive legalism, an inability to see the forest for the trees, and frowns upon those who don’t see things exactly as they do.
  1. One can question decisions and decrees and “strategies” of popes to an extent (especially matters of discipline: how to deal with the liberals) within a posture of obedience and deference. Orthodox Catholics object to the flat-out disobedience and overriding characteristic of overwhelming, unedifying and never-ending criticism, which we so often observe in reactionaries.
  1. Reactionaries want to call Pope St. John Paul II a modernist: the very man who has undoubtedly done more than anyone alive to crush the Beast of modernism, through his excellent encyclicals, the Catechism, evangelistic travels, his courageous defense of the male priesthood, preborn children, the oppressed, reason, etc. They lack faith in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of His Church through thick and thin.
  1. The liberal disdains the infallibility and even general authority of the pope, and the Protestant denies it altogether; likewise, many reactionaries s selectively disobey the pope or brand him with the label of “liberal” (just as liberals slander him as a “fundamentalist”); some (sedevacantists) deny that Pope St. John Paul II even is a pope.
  1. There is the “attitudinal problem” among reactionaries and the “factual problem” of determining whether Pope St. John Paul II is some raving heretic, or senile, or lax on doctrine and discipline, etc. I believe he is one of the greatest popes ever, and on that basis in particular, I take a very dim view of all the hyper-criticism taking place about the ecumenical gatherings at Assisi and what-not, not on the fatuous, wrongheaded basis that no pope can ever be criticized. But that is a convenient caricature for many reactionaries to construct, so they milk it for all it’s worth.
  1. Of course most reactionaries acknowledge Pope St. John Paul II as a valid pope, if asked. Yet if he is not given the respect and reverence proper to the office, then that is scarcely different from saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury is who he is. It’s not saying much, when we look at what reactionaries do habitually say about the Holy Father.
  1. Why should I think any given reactionary’s  opinion carries more weight than Pope St. John Paul II’s in the first place? The very premise is ludicrous. A Catholic is supposed to think, “okay; let’s see now, on one hand I have reactionary person X’s and reactionary person Y’s and reactionary group Z’s opinions; on the other I have an ecumenical council, the Holy Father, and Cardinal Ratzinger, etc. Which shall I prefer?” Can reactionaries explain how this scenario, entailed by their opinions (in effect, offering such a “choice”) is not absolutely ridiculous and thoroughly un-Catholic from the get-go?
  1. What makes reactionaries think that they can ascertain that Pope St. John Paul II is some sort of closet liberal (as often insinuated), on the basis of his actions, allegedly imprudent to the point of laxity, compromise, and irresponsibility, or negligent with regard to the disciplining of liberal dissenters? If he is merely imprudent in some instances, then that alone is not a basis for saying he is no longer trustworthy. On the other hand, if some reactionaries think he actually is a modernist (if that is their explanation of his actions), that needs to be established from documentation of his words (and — most importantly — his words in their proper context). Our reactionary friends have become quite adept at “proof-texting” out of context from the pope, to “prove” some negative, cynical point they wish to make; quite as “good” as fundamentalist Protestants are, with their anti-Catholic biblical “proof-texting”.
  1. What makes reactionaries think that they know more about prudence itself, for that matter, and all the intricacies of the internal working of the Church and its problems, than does the pope, whose job it is to preside over the Church (so that they can sit and analyze why he does what he does, giving a negative slant to it, according to their own preferences)? This is a prime example of a certain outrageous presumption that lies behind all so-called reactionaryism. It’s often not the conscious intent of such criticism, but it still stinks to high heaven when analyzed closely, for the rank presumptuousness that it is, objectively speaking.
  1. Of course, prudence itself (by its very nature) is the sort of thing where good men can differ in the first place, so it would be rather difficult to obtain agreement of all on any particular instance of it. Thus I don’t think it can be deemed determinative in an examination of someone’s Catholic orthodoxy or lack thereof. It could be introduced as an aspect of an overall picture, but not all by itself, or as the primary factor. I agree that any pope (or any saint) might be imprudent, rarely or often, just as a pope could conceivably be a heretic. That is not at issue. But the stance that the average Catholic routinely takes towards the leader of their faith, and successor to St. Peter, is the highest level of respect and deference.
  1. Faith and trust in the integrity and holiness of Pope St. John Paul II shouldn’t be confused with reasons given for his “misunderstood” actions, in particular instances. I admire Pope St. John Paul II; he is my hero as well as my Pontiff. That doesn’t mean I can’t give reasons for why I defend him against whatever charges reactionaries wish to throw at him. The two things don’t exclude each other. The circularity resides on the reactionary’s side. They have assumed that the Holy Father is now untrustworthy and perpetually suspect, and that anything he does that hits the usual reactionary “hot buttons” is proof positive that he is deficient. Most people simply fit new ideas into their existing framework or paradigm (things are “plausible” to them to the extent that they mesh with their current opinions). Reactionaries and their critics both do this. Everyone does.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II supposedly “dropped the football” on the 49-yard line, and we can count on the savior-reactionaries to come pick it up and make things right — to get the “weird” pope back to common sense and away from his senile fantasies and flights from reason. Thank God for that. What a mess we would be in without all the armchair quarterbacks out there to constantly correct the player-coach . . .
  1. Protestants think Catholic teaching in general is “contradictory” or “paradoxical.” Reactionaries foolishly apply that to their own pope. The dynamic is the same, just on a different plane. People often disparage what they don’t understand. Reactionaries don’t understand the highest levels of Catholic magisterial teaching, and where the Holy Spirit seems to be leading the Church in the last 150 years or so, as expressed through the teaching of its leaders, in council, and in the person of the vicar of Christ.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II is regarded by thousands of liberal dissidents as the most intolerant, old-fashioned, regressive, backward, “repressed,” judgmental old fuddy-dud there is. At the same time, he is viewed by reactionaries as overly tolerant, prone to introducing outrageous novelties and innovations, “progressive,” inattentive or hostile to precedent, non-judgmental, indifferentist, and modernist. This is a quite radically differing and contradictory summation of one person; rather like the different perceptions of Jesus Christ. The Pharisees viewed Jesus rather similarly to the ways that reactionaries regard Pope St. John Paul II.
  1. It remains true that no pope has ever taught heresy as binding upon the faithful (and that includes the famous trio: Honorius, Liberius, and Vigilius). As far as I know, Pope John XXII is the only one who ever held a heretical opinion even privately (concerning the Beatific Vision), and he retracted it before he died. But even in his case, Catholic historian Warren Carroll thinks senility may have been involved, as the controversy occurred in his 88th-90th years of age. In 1332, John XXII explained that his sermons on this topic were not intended to define doctrine but simply to initiate discussion. He claimed that he was acting as a private theologian, not as the pope. Carroll states that this was “imprudent in the highest degree.” But in any event, the aged pope retracted the heresy on his deathbed – not having defined it, so that infallibility was not involved. So then, no pope has ever been an obstinate heretic, let alone binding the faithful to such error. And yet reactionaries come along and vociferously assert that Pope St. John Paul II is a loose cannon, teaching all sorts of error . . . Amazing . . .
  1. The role of the pope is much different, ecclesiologically and strategically, from the role of a local bishop. Pope St. John Paul II is most definitely effecting positive long-term change by forcefully teaching truth, promulgating the Catechism and various reforms, of schools, of architecture, of moral teaching, Catholic philosophy, etc. The damage of liberalism has been so profound that one must look at cures in terms of decades and generations, not “right now” (as in a certain puritanical and utopian mindset). A major reason (if not the sole one) for this strategy (as stated by Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, among others) is to avoid schism, because schism is generally longer lasting (and arguably, even more damaging) than even heresy.
  1. I think Pope St. John Paul II’s and the Church’s primary concern is for souls. The pope has no easy choice. If one acts with principle but excludes a corresponding prudence or foresight as to result (as Luther and Calvin did), then one barges ahead and slashes away at all the heretics and de facto schismatics. The pope wants the same result that people who ask this question do: how to have an orthodox Church and how to retain as many souls in the Church (and for ultimate salvation) as possible. He thinks it will take a long time. His critics (or those who are simply bewildered) often think the solution is instant and simple: slash and burn! It’s not that simple at all, given the situation in the Catholic Church in America that we have today. De jure schism is even worse than de facto schism. If the former is the almost-certain result, then things will be even worse than they are now. Time is on the side of orthodoxy. That’s what we learn from history.
  1. If people truly want to learn about orthodoxy and tradition, there are plenty of means to do that. Each person still stands alone before God; accountable to Him for their actions. They can crack the door of a library; dust off their Bible from the attic, hit the Internet and find Catholic sites, watch EWTN, go to a Mass, talk about the faith with an educated, committed Catholic friend or relative, or take their life savings and invest $10 for a Catechism. Is the pope at fault for all these people who don’t do these things, too?
  1. Heresy and schism are both extremely grave sins. Schism has the additional characteristic of being a sin against people and charity. The problem here is that if the pope plays a strong hand, he (in all likelihood) gets schism as well as heresy, because the heresy will continue right on within the schism. So, then, two very bad things would be present, and the heresy would have much more chance of lasting for decades, maybe centuries. At least now the Church is held together in some fashion (mostly abstract, in America, Canada, and Europe), and the pope can continue to forcefully assert the truth in his encyclicals, by promulgation of the Catechism, etc. He can bide his time, and let the liberals grow old and die off (which they are doing in big numbers now). History shows that terrible periods in the Church are followed by massive revival.
  1. The pope’s dilemma is twofold: he can’t really be expected to do all that much by himself because liberalism is so absolutely entrenched in many local areas. What do reactionaries who want immediate action want him to do: come to the liberal Catholic universities and magazines with tanks and helicopters? He “inherited” this situation; he didn’t create it. But even if he pulled out all the stops; excommunicated several million dissidents, put the American Church under interdict (as in the old days of the Middle Ages), burned dissident leaders at the stake, that would be far worse.
  1. Pope St. John Paul II is taking the most prudent course. He’s between a rock and a hard place. That’s what reactionaries who habitually bash John Paul II never get, because of their shallow Puritan / Donatist / rigorist / Pharisaical-like social analysis and inability to take the long view of history. What the Holy Father can do is exactly what he has been doing in superb fashion: teaching orthodox, traditional Catholicism in his official documents and a host of speeches, audiences, books, etc. Anyone who knows that the Catholic Church has a leader can get to his writing and learn for themselves what the Church teaches (especially now with the Internet). People have responsibility for their own souls, too. They can’t expect the pope to wipe their noses for them and change their diapers. But the pope can’t do much more than he is doing, without far worse results happening. His hands are tied by the nature of the problem. Until this is clearly understood, the “slowness” or “failure” to discipline or excommunicate dissenters will never be comprehended by reactionaries . The Holy Father knows many things we don’t know, and God has entrusted the leadership of the Church into his hands, not ours.
  1. The Holy Father can continue to write about and preach truth (which is not without effect, and plants many seeds), and there is not a thing the liberals can do about that. They can’t fault him for it because of their claimed belief in free speech and thought. And they can’t totally publicly denigrate the papacy because of their perpetual pipe-dream of getting a “liberal pope.” So some reactionaries think they already got their wish with Pope St. John Paul II? That would be news to the dissenters themselves (as it would be to the pope himself, who has put up with their rank insults and stupid slanders all these years). Whatever myriad deficiencies liberals have; one thing that can be said for them is that they recognize their own. They’re as fond of “Panzer-Cardinal” Ratzinger as they are of John Paul II . . .
  1. A reactionary claimed in a discussion with me that the Holy Father “never” talked about the Catholic Church being the only way of salvation. I had no problem finding contrary words in a matter of a few minutes, in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (I received no reply to that shocking “revelation”).

*

*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Pope St. John Paul II (21 May 1984) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*

Summary: Ch. 15 of my book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries (December 2002; revised in November 2023 for the purpose of the free online version).

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Missouri Executioners: A Warning of Justice...
Jeff Hood
2
ACST Catholic Introduces Revolutionary Service
The Pursuit of Holiness
3
Church Joyfully Welcomes U.S. Navy Chaplain...
The Pursuit of Holiness
4
The “Other” Christians: Re-Examining the Reformation
Formation Matters
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Secularism and the Death of Dialogue
Sensus Fidei: Do the Faithful Share in Infallibility?
The Temple Veil
Pentecost And The Fall
A Concert, a Dance, and Christianity
The BiMillennium of the Catholic Church - An...
view all Catholic blogs