Catholicism = Unbiblical Idolatrous Worship?

Last updated on: May 21, 2024 at 10:10 am By Dave Armstrong

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

I am critiquing Lecture XII (pp. 299-320) in the book, Errors and Persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church, published in 1881 by J. H. Chambers & Co. (St. Louis), which is entitled, “The Charge of Idolatrous Worship made against the Roman Church: Is it True?” It was written by a Presbyterian: Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D. (1838-1915). He was a chaplain during the Civil War, a pastor, and moderator at the 1872 meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Detroit. The organization of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) owes its success largely to his influence and perseverance. Dr. Niccolls was selected to receive special honors by Princeton University in its Sesquicentennial Celebration in 1896. His words will be in blue.

***

Protestants, ever since the time of the Reformation, have asserted that the worship of the church of Rome is idolatrous in its nature and tendencies. This charge constitutes one of the chief reasons of their opposition to that church. They claim that the usages of worship which prevail in it, are not only contrary to the practice of the primitive church, but that they are in direct contradiction to the positive commands of the Word of God.

On the other hand, the adherents of the church of Rome have most strenuously denied this charge as slanderous in the extreme; they have complained that they have been misrepresented in this matter, and that their true belief is the very reverse of what has been charged against them. . . .

If it is not true, one party is a slanderer of the church of God, and a chief reason for its existence turns out to be a lie.

Very true!

If it is true, the other against whom the accusation is made, is branded with guilt and dishonor.

Yes, if true. The key word is if.

It is proposed to set the facts of this controversy plainly and fairly before the intelligent reader, that he may judge for himself.

Fair enough! Let’s see what he can come up with.

First of all, in order to reach a right decision, it is necessary to know what constitutes idolatry. Both Protestants and Romanists are agreed that it is a most heinous sin; that the word of God condemns it; and that idolatrous worship is hateful in the sight of God. But what is idolatry? What are the characteristics of an idolatrous worship? These questions are to be answered by the Scriptures, and by them alone.

The Bible is what we both revere as God’s inspired revelation, so it’s where the “battle” must be fought.

The internal act of worship consists in giving to God the supreme reverence, love and confidence of our hearts. Whatever usurps His place in the soul of man, is an idol, a false god; . . .

The external act of idolatry consists in worshipping false gods, or in giving to other objects than God that homage and worship which are due to Him alone. Any form of worship which robs God of the supreme homage due Him, by ascribing divine attributes and offices to creatures; or which sets before the worshipper as the object of his trust and adoration, a being who is not God, is plainly idolatrous. It is a violation of the first commandment.

We agree.

But it is also taught in the Scriptures that God must not be worshipped by the use of images or pictures.

This is where we start to disagree.

The second commandment clearly forbids this, and stamps such worship as idolatrous. The precise thing forbidden by it, is the making of images or pictures as objects of worship, and bowing down to them and serving them, that is, performing acts of religious worship before them.

The “graven image” of Exodus 20:4 has to do with God’s forbidding of idolatry: making a stone or block of wood or a mere image God, and worshiping it. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV).

Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV), or “serve” them as if they were literally God (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9). In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood (“them”) are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God:

Revelation 9:20 (RSV) The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk;

This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of worshiping the true God with the help of a visual aid, as I will show in due course. Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God. We don’t always need an image to have an idol. Most idols today are non-visual: money, lust for power, convenience, our own pride or intellects; there are all sorts of idols. Anything that replaces God as the most important thing in our life and the universe, is an idol.

The Hebrew word translated ”serve” includes all kinds of external homage, such as burning incense, making offerings, and kissing in token of subjection.

I’ll take his word for that, but the point is to what or to Whom these acts are directed. This still doesn’t absolutely preclude all images and religious objects, properly used.

. . . terrible judgments . . . fell upon the people whenever they attempted to worship God by images. When in the wilderness the people demanded of Aaron that he should introduce image- worship among them, their purpose was not to renounce Jehovah as their God; they only asked a symbol of Him, as the heathen had their symbols.

I don’t think the text teaches this at all. They weren’t trying to worship the true God via an image. Aaron and the mob were after something entirely different:

Exodus 32:1, 4, 7-8 When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, “Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; . . .” [4] And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt! . . .” [7] And the LORD said to Moses, “Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; [8] they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it . . .”

That’s not only rank idolatry and blasphemy, but polytheism as well. Dr. Niccolls completely misrepresents the nature of what was going on there. God said that He would “blot out of” His “book” (Ex 32:33) whoever engaged in this idolatry, and He “sent a plague” to judge them (Ex 33:35. This was not just using an image improperly in worship; it was much more serious: pretending that a golden calf was actually a “god” who had brought them out of Egypt. Dr. Niccolls vainly tries to force-fit this into a scenario that would include all religious images, and it just doesn’t fly.

. . . one essential mark of the true worship of Jehovah, as contrasted with idolatrous worship, was that in it no images or visible objects representing the invisible object of worship were to be used. The Jews from the time of Moses until now, have always considered the worship of the true God by images as much an act of idolatry as the worship of false gods . . . Indeed, the scriptures make little or no difference between the worshipping of God by images, and the worshipping of false gods. Both are idolatrous.

This simply isn’t true. Moses had worshiped God in the burning bush on Mt. Sinai (Ex 3:2-6). It was not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. The wandering Hebrews worshiped Him in the pillars of fire and cloud: all images of God, by God’s own design. One of the most striking and undeniable passages about such worship-of God-through-an-image appears in the very next chapter:

Exodus 33:10 And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Note that the pillar of cloud is:

1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The Bible mentions a pillar of cloud and also a pillar of fire (by night), representing God (see: Ex 13:21-22; 14:24; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19). The Bible specifically makes it clear that God was “in” the two pillars:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud . . . and by night in a pillar of fire . . .

Exodus 14:24 . . . the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians . . .

Exodus 33:9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses.

Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent . . .

Numbers 14:14 . . . thou, O LORD, art in the midst of this people; for thou, O LORD, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over them and thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.

Deuteronomy 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .

Psalm 99:7 He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud;

This represented God, and His people worshiped Him in the cloud, which we know with certainty from Exodus 33:10. It doesn’t always state that the people worshiped God through the supernatural image-pillars, but we know from Exodus 33:8-10 that it was entirely permissible to do so (no hint of condemnation in the biblical text); certainly not “idolatry.” Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” God as represented by fire — or God in the fire — in an additional way:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4 When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [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.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

God Himself expressly sanctions such images (cloud and fire), and worship in conjunction with them. Therefore, not all images of God are idolatrous. Case closed. Game, set, match . . .

God made Himself specially present in or near material objects, too. He states repeatedly that He is present above the “mercy seat” on the ark of the covenant, between the two carved cherubim (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kg 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5). Therefore, we are informed that the Jews would bow before the ark to pray or worship:

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening . . . [proceeds to pray in 7:7-8]

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.

Some of the early Calvinists were so fanatical that they smashed not only statues of saints, but also organs, stained glass, even statues of Jesus Christ and crucifixes. They ignored all the distinctions that the Bible plainly makes. We reject such clear biblical teaching at our peril. Iconoclasm (opposition to images) is a false tradition of men that was officially condemned by the Church long ago.

If, then, we find any church which in its teachings or practice, gives to men, or saints, or angels, the homage and praise which are due to God alone, we are right in calling it idolatrous;

Indeed. The mistake, however, is in claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that creatures should receive the same “homage and praise” as God. This is a damnable lie. You’ll notice that Dr. Niccolls produces no official magisterial text along these lines, to back himself up. There’s a good reason for that: there are none. So on what does he base his charge in the first place? Just because that’s what he wants to project onto Catholic worship, as if he can read our hearts and conjure up some supposed teaching of ours that is nonexistent? That‘s all he has?

or if we find a church which claims to worship the living God alone, and yet uses images or symbols to represent Him, and bows down to them, and serves them, we have a right to say, that such worship is idolatrous.

No we do not, if God is being worshiped in the same way as He is in the Bible, through the symbols of cloud and fire. Those are “images and symbols,” too, after all. We go by the Bible on this score. Dr. Niccolls and his Presbyterians do not. We’re much more biblical. They ignore things in the Bible that don’t conform to their unbiblical traditions of men.

There are, in general, four things taught and practised by the church of Rome against which Protestants bring the charge of idolatry. These are the invocation of saints and angels; the worship of the Virgin Mary; the use of images in the worship of God; and the adoration of the Host.

None of these charges succeed, as I will proceed to show, as he addresses each one in turn. I’ve already disposed of the third one from clear and undeniable biblical teaching.

As to the first — the invocation of saints — the doctrine of the Roman church, as declared by the council of Trent, is as follows: ”That the saints who reign together with Christ, offer to God their prayers for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers, help, and assistance, on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.”

None of those involve worship or idolatry. It’s simply asking the saints to pray for us, just as we ask each other on earth to do so. This is expressly sanctioned by Jesus in his story of the rich man petitioning Abraham (Luke 16:19-31). We’re not placing anyone in God’s position. As Niccolls’ own citation from Trent states, it’s “on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s not idolatry! It’s shoddy, incoherent, woefully insufficient “logic” that claims that it is idolatry.

Saints and angels are confessedly the objects of worship in the Roman church; but a distinction is made between the worship offered to them, and to God. The worship of douleia is due to saints and angels, while that of latreia belongs to God alone. It is on this distinction that the Romanist relies to defend himself from the charge of idolatry. It has, however, been well remarked by a distinguished theologian, that this distinction is of little use.

This is laughably ridiculous. Having declared that the Catholic Church is idolatrous, he then immediately dismisses the crucial distinctions we make, — which prevent the charge from possibly being made –, as if they don’t matter. After all, some “distinguished theologian” said it made no difference! See how it works? The anti-Catholic critic can’t prove that we endorse rank idolatry, so he goes after our distinction between adoration of God and veneration of saints, which ought to altogether solve the problem that they have with us, by making crystal clear that it is not idolatry at all.

But in the nick of time the absurd charge is salvaged by merely proclaiming that we are — bottom line — lying through our teeth and that, in fact, there is no distinction. It’s desperation, folks. Know lousy arguments when you see them. As a veteran of probably 1500 written debates by now, believe me, I know ’em when I see ’em: and right away, too.

Any homage, internal or external, which involves the ascription of divine attributes to its object, if that object be a creature, is idolatrous.

*
We agree. We completely disagree that anything in our teaching espouses this. We don’t teach that any saint isn’t a creature, or is omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent, or immutable, or answers prayers on their own without God, etc. It’s a lie; a bum rap. And where do these people get off making these claims; thinking that they don’t have to document them from our own theology and our official “books”?

It is easy to say that the saints are not to be honored as God is honored, but this does not alter the case, if the homage rendered them assumes that they possess the attributes of God . . .

We don’t teach this. That’s all that matters. Any layman can potentially practice it in a way that doesn’t conform to the teaching. That is not the teaching itself. Heresies and cults and theologically uneducated or miseducated people butcher the Bible itself (to use but one example of countless ones) all the time. Does it follow that the Bible is to blame for that? No, of course not. Nor is our teaching to blame for those who distort it. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. One bad apple doesn’t make all the apples in the cart bad or destroy the ideal or concept of the apple itself.

The facts are, as can readily be learned from the books of devotion in common and authorized use in the Roman church, that blessings are sought from the saints, which God alone can bestow, and that they are relied upon to obtain these blessings for their worshippers

Really? Again, we don’t worship them; we honor them. I again cite Dr. Niccoll’s own citation from rent, as to where the answers to prayer and the blessings come from: “benefits [are] obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.” This is presupposed in all such prayers or petitions.

All blessings, temporal and spiritual, are sought for at the hands of the saints.

Basically, he is attacking the concept of “patron saints.” But a biblical argument can be made for it. Protestants object that certain saints have special or particular influence with God, and more efficacious prayers in specific area. I don’t see why. The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18).

From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (there is much Pauline teaching on that). I don’t see why this should be either controversial or objectionable. It’s usually objected to because of observed excesses, while an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made.

The fact remains that “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). In the larger context of that passage, James states:

James 5:17-18 Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn’t someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the “patron saint of meteorological petitions.” We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, for example, if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to God for her.

I don’t see any intrinsic difficulty here. Catholics don’t ever deny anyone the ability to “go straight to God.” But we assert with James that certain prayers of certain people have more power (also with regard to certain specificities); therefore it is sensible to go to them as intermediaries. And this includes those in heaven, of whom Jesus said that they were more alive than we are. The Bible massively teaches that we can and should go to the most holy person we know and ask them to pray to God for us or for some cause. So once again, we are being more biblical than our Protestant critics.

Thus the saints are asked to give that which God alone can bestow,

We don’t ask them to bestow the answer, but rather, to ask God to do so; to intercede.

and as they are addressed by their worshippers from every part of the earth,

We don’t worship them.

and by many thousands at the same hour, the mind of the worshipper must clothe them with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence.

This doesn’t follow, either. See:

Is All Prayer Necessarily Worship? (vs. Jordan Cooper): Including the Non-Worship Biblical Usage of “I Pray You” (RSV) / “I Pray Thee” (KJV) [3-20-24]

Saints Can Hear “Millions” Of Prayers? (Vs. Jordan Cooper): Including a Summary of the Extraordinary, Unfathomable Characteristics of Redeemed Human Beings in Heaven [3-20-24]

The second ground for the charge of idolatry is the worship of the Virgin Mary. . . . as the spirituality of the church declined, this feeling degenerated into a superstitious regard, and at last culminated in her worship as an object of divine honors. . . . the deification of the Virgin . . .

The burden of this slanderer (and we must conclude that he is that by now) is to prove it from our documents. Needless to say, he doesn’t. He merely assumes that everyone knows this. It needs no proof. Why should I even bother arguing it if he gives no evidence that the Catholic Church actually teaches this in the first place? Some ignorant people may do it — even many –, but that’s not the Church, and it’s irrelevant to comparative theology and practice.

. . . the first step was the declaration of her “perpetual virginity,”

Which Luther and Calvin and virtually all of the early Protestant founders and leaders believed . . . So did John Wesley, the founder of Dr. Niccoll’s denomination:

I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)

Were they all filthy idolaters, t00?

the last act in the series was to declare her “immaculate conception”

How is that making her like God? The belief is that God performed a special miracle at her conception, to make her free or original sin. That doesn’t make her like God at all. It makes her like Eve before the fall of man: sinless, and like all of the angels that didn’t fall and rebel against God. Angels aren’t God, either. They are creatures. Martin Luther believed in this, too, until he modified it a bit later in life (still thinking she was sinless). Was he an idolater as well?

She was, according to this dogma, born without the least stain of original sin, and is thus placed, as to complete sinlessness, on an equality with her adorable Son.

This is cluelessly stupid and grossly unbiblical. As I just noted, if this were true, Adam and Eve before the fall and all of the unfallen angels would be equal to Jesus, too.

Dr. Niccolls then goes on to recite the usual litany of prayers addressed to Mary for her intercession, that sound horrible to Protestant ears because they are uniformly and essentially misunderstood. I’ve dealt with this several times:

St. Alphonsus de Liguori: Mary-Worshiper & Idolater? [8-9-02]

Was St. Louis de Montfort a Blasphemous Mariolater? (cf. abridged, National Catholic Register version) [2009]

Maximilian Kolbe’s “Flowery” Marian Veneration & the Bible [2010]

Defense of Allegedly “Idolatrous” Marian Devotions [1-11-13]

The doctrine of the council of Trent on this point [the Mass] is, that the bread and wine are changed by the power of God into Christ’s body and blood. They do not represent, but they actually become the real Christ, and remain so. The consecrated wafer becomes the whole Christ — body, soul and divinity. . . . This worship is given in the belief that, as the bread has been changed into the true body of Christ,
*

How, then, can it possibly be idolatry, if we are worshiping God Himself and not wafers or wine? It can’t be, by definition, because that would require replacing God with something else, whereas we believe that the bread and wine are God after consecration. Therefore, we are consciously worshiping God in the consecrated elements. I did so yesterday at church. Martin Luther also believed in the Real Presence and in adoration of the consecrated host.

If such a change has indeed taken place, and the whole Christ is locally present in the wafer, then indeed the worship would be proper.
*

Exactly! And that is the bottom line. We believe in the miracle; so did Luther. Therefore it can’t possibly be idolatry, precisely because we believe it to be God, not mere bread and wine, and idolatry always resides in the heart and interior disposition. If one doesn’t believe in the miracle of transubstantiation or something similar (like Luther), then (obviously) they think it is bread-worship, but that can’t be the case for Catholics who believe in it, by definition.

When men place before themselves a piece of bread — a wafer made of flour — and give to it the homage due to God alone, as the Romanist confessedly does,

This is asinine! We do not do that, and what he already wrote shows that he knows this. So why does he now go back and claim that we “confessedly” and supposedly give a “piece of bread” the “homage due to God alone”? It’s dishonest and deceitful! And it’s an utterly incoherent argument.

The arguments which are drawn from the Scriptures to defend the Romish doctrine of the Mass are contradictory, unsatisfactory, and in positive violation of well known and established laws of interpretation.

Easy to say. I provide extensive biblical arguments on my Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass web page.

The notion that the Lord’s Supper is a true sacrifice ”offered up for the living and the dead,” is in plain violation of the teachings of the New Testament, which declare that Christ’s once offering up himself a sacrifice, has made a complete atonement, and “by one offering he hath perfected forever those that are sanctified.” It is a remembrance, a memorial of a sacrifice already made once for all, and not a repetition of that sacrifice.
*

We don’t believe that it is a new sacrifice every Mass, but rather, a miracle by which the one historical sacrifice of Christ on the cross is supernaturally made present at each Mass.

It is also an insuperable objection to this doctrine, that it involves impossibilities and contradictions. It requires us to believe that a material object should be completely changed, and at the same time not changed. The bread remains bread, and the wine — wine; and yet we are required to believe that they are something else. It requires us to disbelieve and set aside the well authenticated evidences of our senses.

See:
*

The Eucharist: This is My Body[3-8-92; rev. May 1996]

Transubstantiation: A Philosophical & Rational Defense [1996]

“Is This God?” (Treatise on the Eucharist) [January 2000, Envoy Magazine cover story]

The Eucharist: A Different Kind of Miracle? [Seton Magazine, 7-2-14]

Transubstantiation, John 6, Faith and Rebellion [National Catholic Register, 12-3-17]

Transubstantiation is No More Inscrutable Than Many Doctrines [National Catholic Register, 9-26-18]
*

Refuting Jason Engwer’s “Real Absence” Argument (Including Biblical Evidence of Analogous Miracles of a Supernatural Change of a Substance Minus Outward Physical Evidence) [11-18-21]

If You Believe in Miracles, You Should Believe in the Real Presence [National Catholic Register, 12-31-21]

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ 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: [email protected]. 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: sketch of Samuel J. Nichols. Source: Alfred Nevin, David Robert Bruce Nevin, editors, Encyclopaedia of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Encyclopaedia Publishing Co., 1884), 576. [Find a Grave website]

Summary: I respond to the anti-Catholic arguments of the Presbyterian Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D. (1838-1915), concerning alleged idolatrous worship & piety in Catholicism.

St. Augustine (354-430) vs. “Faith Alone”

Last updated on: April 26, 2024 at 10:34 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

[relevant sections from my book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (Sep. 2012, 245 pages). To verify sources (standard Schaff edition of the Fathers), see the St. Augustine section on the New Advent web page, “The Fathers of the Church”]

***

INDIVIDUAL WORKS (BY ABBREVIATION)

Bapt. On Baptism, Against the Donatists (De baptismo) 400 / 401
Believ. On the Usefulness of Believing (De utilitate credendi) 391
C.Ep.Pel. Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum) 420
C.Faust. Against Faustus the Manichee (Contra Faustum Manichaeum) 397-398
C.Fortun. Disputation Against Fortunatus 392
C.Fund.M Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti) 397
C.Pet. Against the Letters of Petilian the Donatist (Contra litteras Petiliani) 401 / 405
Cat.Creed Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 393
Cat.U. On Catechizing the Uninstructed (De catechizandis rudibus) 400
City City of God (De civitate Dei) 413-427
Conf. The Confessions (Confessiones) 397-401
Confl. On the Christian Conflict (De agone christiano) 396
Dead On the Care of the Dead (De cura pro mortuis gerenda) 420-422
Doctr. On Christian Doctrine (De doctrina christiana) 396-426
E.Ps. Explanations of the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos) 396-420
Ench. Enchiridion: Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love (Enchiridion ad Laurentium) 421-422
Ep.[#] Letters (Epistulae) 386-429
F.Creed Of Faith and the Creed (De fide et symbolo) 393
F.Works On Faith and Works (De fide et operibus) 412 / 413
Good On the Nature of Good (De natura boni) 399
Grace.Free On Grace and Free Will (De gratia et libero arbitrio) 426 / 427
Grace.Orig. On the Grace of Christ and on Original Sin (De gratia Christi et de peccato originali) 418
H.1Jn Homilies on the First Epistle of John (Tractatus in epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos) 407 / 409
Harm.G. Harmony of the Gospels (De consensu evangelistarum) 400
L.John Lectures on the Gospel of John (In euangelium Ioannis tractatus) 406-430
M.Concup. On Marriage and Concupiscence (De nuptiis et concupiscentia) 419 / 420
Marr. On the Good of Marriage (De bono coniugale) 401
Monks On the Work of Monks (De opere monachorum) 400
Mor.C On the Morals of the Catholic Church (De moribus ecclesiae catholicae) 387 / 389
Mor.M On the Morals of the Manichaeans (De moribus Manichaeorum) 387 / 389
Nat. On Nature and Grace (De natura et gratia) 414 / 415
P.Pel. On the Proceedings of Pelagius (De gestis Pelagii) 417
Perf. On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness (De perfectione iustitiae) 415 / 416
Persev. On the Gift of Perseverance (De dono perseverantiae) 428 / 429
Pred. On the Predestination of the Saints (De praedestinatione sanctorum) 428 / 429
Reb.Gr. On Rebuke and Grace (De correptione et gratia) 426 / 427
S.Mount On the Sermon on the Mount (De sermone Domini in monte) 393 / 394
Serm. Sermons on the New Testament 393-430
Sin.I.Bapt. On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and on Infant Baptism (De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum) 412
Sol. The Soliloquies (Soliloquiorum) 386-387
Soul.c.M Of Two Souls, Against the Manichees (De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos) 392 / 393
Sp.L On the Spirit and the Letter (De spiritu et littera) 412
Trin. On the Trinity (De trinitate) 399-419
Virg. On Holy Virginity (De sancta virginate) 401

Baptism and Being “Born Again”

. . . born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever. (E.Ps., 135:13 [135, 11] )

As regards the question of baptism, that our being born again, cleansed, justified by the grace of God, should not be ascribed to the man who administered the sacrament, . . . (C.Pet., iii, 50, 62)

Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, “Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” [John 3:3] Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 43 [XXVII] )

. . . that life of the Spirit, in the newness of which they who are baptized are through God’s grace born again . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 45 [XXVIII])

For all persons run to church with their infants for no other reason in the world than that the original sin which is contracted in them by their first and natural birth may be cleansed by the regeneration of their second birth. (M.Concup. ii, 4)

Baptism and Justification

. . . the question of baptism, . . . justified by the grace of God, . . . (C.Pet., iii, 50, 62)

Baptism and Salvation

By all these considerations it is proved that the sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but that man’s salvation is made complete through the two together. (Bapt., iv, 25, 33)

The form of the sacrament is given through baptism, the form of righteousness through the gospel. Neither one without the other leads to the kingdom of heaven. (C.Pet., iii, 56, 68)

. . . that sacrament, namely, of baptism, which brings salvation . . . (Ep. 98 [1]: to Boniface [408] )

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than life. . . . For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration?” [Titus 3:5] or from Peter’s statement: “The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us?” [1 Peter 3:21] (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 34 [XXIV] )

. . . being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 39 [XXVI] )

. . . the baptism of infants . . . is given to them not only for entrance into the kingdom of God, but also for attaining salvation and eternal life, which none can have without the kingdom of God, or without that union with the Saviour Christ, wherein He has redeemed us by His blood. (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 1 [I] )

For if any one should ask of me whether we have been saved by baptism, I shall not be able to deny it, since the apostle says, “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” [Titus 3:5] But if he should ask whether by the same washing He has already absolutely in every way saved us, I shall answer: It is not so. Because the same apostle also says, “For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, we with patience wait for it.” [Romans 8:24-25] Therefore the salvation of man is effected in baptism, because whatever sin he has derived from his parents is remitted, or whatever, moreover, he himself has sinned on his own account before baptism; but his salvation will hereafter be such that he cannot sin at all. (C.Ep.Pel. iii, 5)

Baptismal Regeneration

“Forgiveness of sins.” You have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when you receive Baptism. (Cat.Creed, 15)

. . . my initiation and washing by Your life-giving sacraments, confessing You, O Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. So my cleansing was deferred, . . . (Conf. i, 11, 17)

But hast not Thou, O most merciful Lord, pardoned and remitted this sin also, with my others, so horrible and deadly, in the holy water? (Conf. ix, 2, 4)

. . . our conversion and regeneration by Your baptism, . . . (Conf. ix, 3, 6)

And what is regeneration in baptism, except the being renovated from the corruption of the old man? . . . since we say that he has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate. (Bapt., i, 11, 16)

But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the sacred rite, is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. . . . By the water, therefore, which holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness [reconcilians bonum naturæ;], the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone. (Ep. 98 [2]: to Boniface [408] )

. . . in infants original sin is remitted through baptism, . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 9 [IX] )

Now, inasmuch as infants are not held bound by any sins of their own actual life, it is the guilt of original sin which is healed in them by the grace of Him who saves them by the laver of regeneration. (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 24 [XIX] )

. . . the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration . . . (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 43 [XXVII] )

. . . that which has secured the adhesion of the universal Church from the earliest times— that believing infants have obtained through the baptism of Christ the remission of original sin. (Sin.I.Bapt. iii, 9)

“Who forgives all your iniquities”: this is done in the sacrament of baptism. (Sp.L, 59)

. . . those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out . . . (City xiii, 7)

. . . there are two regenerations, . . . the one according to faith, and which takes place in the present life by means of baptism; the other according to the flesh, and which shall be accomplished in its incorruption and immortality by means of the great and final judgment (City xx, 6)

. . . that bath of regeneration, which they might have received and through which they might have been saved . . . (Nat., 4 [IV] )

. . . no man is justified unless he believes in Christ and is cleansed by His baptism. (Nat., 48 [XLI] )

And this is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism which is solemnized among us, that all who attain to this grace should die to sin, as He is said to have died to sin, because He died in the flesh, which is the likeness of sin; and rising from the font regenerate, as He arose alive from the grave, should begin a new life in the Spirit, . . . (Ench., 42)

. . . the grace of baptism, which is given as an antidote to original sin, so that what our birth imposes upon us, our new birth relieves us from (this grace, however, takes away all the actual sins also that have been committed in thought, word, and deed): . . . in which all our guilt, both original and actual, is washed away, (Ench., 64)

Live consistently, especially ye candidates of Christ, recently baptized, just regenerated, . . . (Serm., 96, 2 [CXLVI] )

Eucharist and Salvation

But what is to receive the cup of salvation, but to imitate the Passion of our Lord? I will receive the cup of Christ, I will drink of our Lord’s Passion. (E.Ps., 103:2 [103, 3] )

For such now also profess: Jesus has come near to them, has made salvation in them; for He said, “Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him.” [John 6:54] (L.John, 11, 4)

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that . . . the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” . . . And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” [John 6:51] and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” [John 6:51] and “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you?” [John 6:53] (Sin.I.Bapt. i, 34 [XXIV] )

Is there anything, again, ambiguous in this: “Except men eat the flesh of the Son of man,” that is, become partakers of His body, “they shall not have life”? (Sin.I.Bapt. iii, 8)

If, however, Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath— in a word, from punishment— except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ. (Nat., 2 [II] )

Faith Alone (Falsity of)

. . . we should not . . . be deceived by the name of Christ, by means of those who have the name and have not the deeds . . . (S.Mount ii, 25, 84)

And wherefore did our Lord Himself judge it necessary not only to say, “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” [Matthew 13:43] which shall come to pass after the end of the world, but also to exclaim, “Woe unto the world because of offenses!” [Matthew 18:7] if not to prevent us from flattering ourselves with the idea that we can reach the mansions of eternal felicity, unless we have overcome the temptation to yield when exercised by the afflictions of time? Why was it necessary for Him to say, “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold,” if not in order that those of whom He spoke in the next sentence, “but he that shall endure to the end shall be saved,” [Matthew 24:12-13] . . . (Ep. 78 [1]: to the Church at Hippo [404] )

Who is he that believes not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe”: but faith without works saves not. Now the work of faith is Love, . . . (H.1Jn, 10, 1)

But, they say, of that unbelief alone, whereby they believed not in Christ, he willed them to repent. Wonderful presumption! (I would not give it a heavier name,) when, upon that being heard which was said, Repent ye, it is said to have been of unbelief alone, whereas the evangelic teaching delivered a change of life from the old unto the new, wherein certainly that also is contained which the Apostle lays down in that sentence, Let him that stole, steal no more; and the rest, wherein he follows out what it is to lay aside the old man, and to put on the new. . . . Now therefore, if they will, let them endeavour to maintain, that he saves himself from this perverse generation, who only believes in Christ, although he continue in what scandalous sins soever he will, even unto the making profession of adultery. Which if it be impious to assert, let them who are to be baptized hear, not only what they ought to believe, but also how they may save themselves from this perverse generation. For in that case it is necessary that they hear how, believing, they ought to walk, . . . (F.Works, 13)

What the Lord Himself, to pass over other things, when that rich man sought of Him, what good thing he should do, that he might attain life eternal, let them call to mind what He answered; If thou wilt come, said He, unto life, keep the Commandments. [Matthew 19:17] But he said, What? Then the Lord made mention of the Commandments of the Law, Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not commit adultery, and the rest. Whereupon when he had made answer that he had performed these from his youth, He added also a Commandment of perfection, that he should sell all that he had, and give in alms unto the poor, and have treasure in heaven, and follow the same Lord. Let them then see that it was not said unto him that he should believe and be baptized, by the aid of which alone those men think that a man comes unto life; but commandments of morals were given unto the man, which certainly without faith cannot be guarded and observed. Neither, however, because in this place the Lord appears to have been silent as to the suggestion of faith, do we lay down and contend, that we are to state commandments of morals alone to men who desire to attain unto life. For both are connected the one with the other, as I said before; because neither can the love of God exist in a man who loveth not his neighbour, nor the love of his neighbour in him who loveth not God. And so at times we find that Scripture makes mention of the one without the other, either this or that, in place of the full doctrine, so that even in this way we may understand that the one cannot exist without the other: because both he who believes in God ought to do what God commands; and he who therefore does it because God commands it, must of necessity believe in God. (F.Works, 20)

But, say they, the Catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: “If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?” [James 2:14] (City xxi, 26)

The Lord then did not utter the words, “If you forgive men their trespasses, your Father will also forgive you your trespasses,” [Matthew 6:14] in order that we might contract from this petition such confidence as should enable us to sin securely from day to day, either putting ourselves above the fear of human laws, or craftily deceiving men concerning our conduct, but in order that we might thus learn not to suppose that we are without sins, . . . While, then, those who seek occasion from this petition to indulge in habitual sin maintain that the Lord meant to include great sins, because He did not say, He will forgive you your small sins, but “your sins,” we, on the other hand, taking into account the character of the persons He was addressing, cannot see our way to interpret the expression “your sins” of anything but small sins, because such persons are no longer guilty of great sins. (City xxi, 27)

It is believed, moreover, by some, that men who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who have been baptized in the Church by His baptism, and who have never been cut off from the Church by any schism or heresy, though they should live in the grossest sin and never either wash it away in penitence nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in it persistently to the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire; that is, that although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lasting for a time proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds, they shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believe this, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be led astray by a kind of benevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, when consulted, gives a very different answer. (Ench., 67)

. . . nor so defend and maintain grace as if, by reason of it, you may love evil works in security and safety,–which may God’s grace itself avert from you! Now it was the words of such as these which the apostle had in view when he said, “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” And to this cavil of erring men, who know nothing about the grace of God, he returned such an answer as he ought in these words: “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Nothing could have been said more succinctly, and yet to the point. For what more useful gift does the grace of God confer upon us, in this present evil world, than our dying unto sin? (Ep. 215 [8]: to Valentinus [426] )

Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” [Romans 3:28] have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed “a vessel of election” by the apostle, who, after declaring that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision,” [Galatians 5:6] adds at once, “but faith which works by love.” (Grace.Free, 18)

And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” [Ephesians 2:8-9] saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” [Ephesians 2:10] . . . Now, hear and understand. “Not of works” is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” (Grace.Free, 20)

If then we desire to see God, whereby shall our eye be purified? For who would not care for, and diligently seek the means of purifying that eye whereby he may see Him whom he longs after with an entire affection? The Divine record has expressly mentioned this when it says, “purifying their hearts by faith.” The faith of God then purifies the heart, the pure heart sees God. But because this faith is sometimes so defined by men who deceive themselves, as though it were enough only to believe (for some promise themselves even the sight of God and the kingdom of heaven, who believe and live evilly); against these, the Apostle James, incensed and indignant as it were with a holy charity, says in his Epistle, “You believe there is one God.” Thou applaudest yourself for your faith, for you mark how that many ungodly men think there are gods many, and you rejoice in yourself because you believe that there is but one God; “You do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” Shall they also see God? They shall see Him who are pure in heart. But who can say that unclean spirits are pure in heart? And yet they also “believe and tremble.” (Serm., 3, 10 [LIII] )

For if he depart not from iniquity, he belongs not to the kingdom of Christ, even though he name the Name of Christ. (Serm., 21, 4 [LXXI] )

Faith and Works

When you have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that you may guard your Baptism even unto the end. (Cat.Creed, 15)

The apostle had in view a spiritual structure, as he says elsewhere, “You are God’s building;” [1 Corinthians 3:9] and in this structure he found both a reason for joy and a reason for exertion. He rejoiced to see part already finished; and the necessity of bringing the edifice to perfection called for exertion. (C.Faust. i, 3)

Let us therefore not flatter the Catholic who is hemmed in with all these vices, nor venture, merely because he is a Catholic Christian, to promise him the impunity which holy Scripture does not promise him; nor, if he has any one of the faults above mentioned, ought we to promise him a partnership in that heavenly land. (Bapt., iv, 19, 27)

. . . He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6] (L.John, 25, 12)

. . . by means of the free-will naturally implanted within him, he enters on the way which is pointed out to him, and by persevering in a just and pious course of life, deserves to attain to the blessedness of eternal life. (Sp.L, 4)

Is it not because those very tables of the law were written by the finger of God, that the Spirit of God by whom we are sanctified is also the finger of God, in order that, living by faith, we may do good works through love? (Sp.L, 28 [XVI] )

Whence, therefore, arises this love—that is to say, this charity,— by which faith works, if not from the source whence faith itself obtained it? For it would not be within us, to what extent soever it is in us, if it were not diffused in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us. [Romans 5:5] (Sp.L, 56)

But in these very words of Peter they have whence they might be admonished, if they would attend diligently. For after that he had said, Repent ye, and he baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For unto us is this promise and unto our children, and unto all who are afar off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call; the writer of the book straightway added and said, And with many other words testified he, saying, Save yourselves from this perverse generation. But they most eagerly caught and received his words, (and believed,) and were baptized; and there were added on that day three thousand souls. Who would not here understand, that in those many other words, on which, by reason of their length, the writer is silent, this was the object of Peter, that they should save themselves from this perverse generation; since the sentence itself is given briefly, in order to persuade to which Peter urged them with many words. The sum and substance, that is to say, was set down, when it was said, Save yourselves from this perverse generation. But, in order that this might be done, Peter with many words testified. Among these words was the condemnation of dead works, which they who love this world work evilly, and the setting forth of a good life, for them to hold and follow, who save themselves from this perverse generation. (F.Works, 13)

When therefore the Apostle says, that he judges that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law; this is not his object, that, after the delivery and profession of faith, works of righteousness be despised, but that each man may know that he can be justified through faith, although the works of the law have not gone before. For they follow after one who is justified, not go before one who shall be justified. . . . Whereas therefore this opinion had at that time arisen, other Apostolic Epistles of Peter, John, James, and Jude, direct their aim chiefly against it, so as with vehemence to maintain that faith without works profiteth not: in like manner as Paul himself hath laid down, that not any faith whatsoever whereby God is believed in, but that whose works proceed of love, is saving, and truly according to the Gospel; And faith, he says, which worketh through love. Whence that faith which seems to some to be sufficient unto salvation, he so asserts to be of no avail, as that he says, If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. But where faithful love worketh, there without doubt is a good life, for love is the fulness of the law. (F.Works, 21)

And lest it should be thought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he adds further: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.” [Eph 2:10] (Ench., 31)

I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love.” [Galatians 5:6] But if it works evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it is dead, being alone.” [James 2:17] The same apostle says again, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” [James 2:14] And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of his faith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when he says, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire;” [1 Corinthians 3:15] then faith without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostle James says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself says in another place: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners; shall inherit the kingdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 6:9-10] For if those who persevere in these wicked courses shall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how can it be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God? (Ench., 67)

Therefore, the apostle having said, “You are saved through faith,” [Ephesians 2:8] added, “And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God.” And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” [Ephesians 2:9] Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that “God renders to every man according to his works” [Romans 2:6]; but because works proceed from faith, and not faith from works. Therefore it is from Him that we have works of righteousness, from whom comes also faith itself . . . (Grace.Free, 17)

But perhaps it may be said: “The apostle distinguishes faith from works; he says, indeed, that grace is not of works, but he does not say that it is not of faith.” This, indeed, is true. But Jesus says that faith itself also is the work of God, and commands us to work it. For the Jews said to Him, “What shall we do that we may work the work of God? Jesus answered, and said unto them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.’” [John 6:28] (Pred., 12 [VII] )

Judgment and Works

Next, in what manner is that true which He will say unto them whom He will set on his left hand, Go ye into everlasting fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels? Whom He rebukes, not because they have not believed in Him, but because they have not done good works. For assuredly, in order that no man may promise unto himself life everlasting, of faith, which without works is dead, therefore said He that He will separate all nations, which were mixed together, and were wont to use the same pastures: that it may be evident, that they will say unto Him, Lord, when saw we Thee suffering this and that, and ministered not unto Thee, who had believed in Him, but had not been careful to do good works, as if of their very dead faith they should attain unto eternal life. What? and will they haply, who have omitted to do works of mercy, go into everlasting fire . . . (F.Works, 25)

He judges, too, not only in the mass, condemning the race of devils and the race of men to be miserable on account of the original sin of these races, but He also judges the voluntary and personal acts of individuals. . . . men are punished by God for their sins often visibly, always secretly, either in this life or after death . . . (City xx, 1)

In another place, again, He tells us that He will come with His angels in His majesty; and before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from another; some He will set on His right hand, and after enumerating their good works, will award to them eternal life; and others on His left hand, whose barrenness in all good works He will expose, will He condemn to everlasting fire. [Matthew 25:33] In two other passages He deals with that wicked and slothful servant, who neglected to trade with His money, [Luke 19:20-24] and with the man who was found at the feast without the wedding garment—and He orders them to be bound hand and foot, and to be cast into outer darkness. [Matthew 22:11-13] And in yet another scripture, after admitting the five virgins who were wise, He shuts the door against the other five foolish ones. [Matthew 25:1-10] Now these descriptions—and there are others which at the instant do not occur to me—are all intended to represent to us the future judgment . . . by the many descriptions which are scattered throughout the Holy Scriptures there is signified to us but one mode of final judgment, which is inscrutable to us—with only the variety of deservings preserved in the rewards and punishments. (P.Pel., 11)

Justification, Imputed (Initial)

. . . through the merciful deliverance of Him who justifies the ungodly, imputing to him a reward according to grace, not according to debt. For among this number is the apostle, who says, “I obtained mercy to be faithful.” [1 Corinthians 7:25] (City xxi, 27)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

For the soul is raised up again by repentance, and the renewing of life is begun in the body still mortal by faith, by which men believe in Him who justifies the ungodly; and it is increased and strengthened by good habits from day to day, as the inner man is renewed more and more. (Trin. iv, 3, 5)

Therein is our true peace and firm bond of union with our Creator, that we should be purified and reconciled through the Mediator of life, as we had been polluted and alienated, and so had departed from Him, through the mediator of death. (Trin. iv, 10, 13)

. . . the mind must be purged by faith, by more and more abstaining from sins, and by doing good works, and by praying with the groaning of holy desires; that by profiting through the divine help, it may both understand and love. (Trin. iv, 21, 31)

Certainly this renewal does not take place in the single moment of conversion itself, as that renewal in baptism takes place in a single moment by the remission of all sins; for not one, be it ever so small, remains unremitted. But as it is one thing to be free from fever, and another to grow strong again from the infirmity which the fever produced; and one thing again to pluck out of the body a weapon thrust into it, and another to heal the wound thereby made by a prosperous cure; so the first cure is to remove the cause of infirmity, and this is wrought by the forgiving of all sins; but the second cure is to heal the infirmity itself, and this takes place gradually by making progress in the renewal of that image: which two things are plainly shown in the Psalm, where we read, Who forgives all your iniquities, which takes place in baptism; and then follows, and heals all your infirmities; and this takes place by daily additions, while this image is being renewed. And the apostle has spoken of this most expressly, saying, And though our outward man perish, yet the inner man is renewed day by day. And it is renewed in the knowledge of God, i.e. in righteousness and true holiness, according to the testimonies of the apostle cited a little before. (Trin. xiv, 17, 23)

But it may be inquired how they were no more of the world, if they were not yet sanctified in the truth; or, if they already were, why He requests that they should be so. Is it not because even those who are sanctified still continue to make progress in the same sanctification, and grow in holiness; and do not so without the aid of God’s grace, but by His sanctifying of their progress, even as He sanctified their outset? And hence the apostle likewise says: “He who has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” [Philippians 1:6] (L.John, 108, 2)

For the man here has had sins: but from the time that he was born of God, he has begun not to have sins. If it were so, there would be no question to embarrass us. For we should say, “We have been sinners, but now we are justified: we have had sin, but now we have none.” (H.1Jn, 5, 1)

But whosoever shall put his trust in Him, and yield himself up to Him, for the forgiveness of all his sins, for the cure of all his corruption, and for the kindling and illumination of his soul by His warmth and light, shall have good works by his grace; and by them he shall be even in his body redeemed from the corruption of death, crowned, satisfied with blessings,— not temporal, but eternal—above what we can ask or understand. (Sp.L, 58)

These are the diseases of a man’s old nature which, however, if we only advance with persevering purpose, are healed by the growth of the new nature day by day, by the faith which operates through love. (Sp.L, 59)

. . . whatever be the quality or extent of the righteousness which we may definitely ascribe to the present life, there is not a man living in it who is absolutely free from all sin; and that it is necessary for every one to give, that it may be given to him; and to forgive, that it may be forgiven him; [Luke 11:4] and whatever righteousness he has, not to presume that he has it of himself, but from the grace of God, who justifies him, and still to go on hungering and thirsting for righteousness [Matthew 5:6] from Him who is the living bread, [John 6:51] and with whom is the fountain of life; who works in His saints, while labouring amidst temptation in this life, their justification in such manner that He may still have somewhat to impart to them liberally when they ask, and something mercifully to forgive them when they confess. (Sp.L, 65)

Let us therefore take diligent heed, by the help of our Lord God, that we cause not in men an evil security, by telling them, that, if they shall have been baptized in Christ, of what nature soever their lives in that faith shall have been, they shall come unto eternal salvation; that we make not Christians in the manner in which the Jews made proselytes, unto whom the Lord says, Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, who compass sea and land to make one proselyte; but after ye have made him, ye make him a child of hell twofold more than yourselves. But let us rather hold the sound doctrine of God our Master in both things; that there be a Christian life in harmony with holy Baptism, and that eternal life be promised to no man, if either be wanting. For He who said, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven; Himself also said, Except your righteousness shall abound above that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Of them it is that He saith, The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; what things they say, do ye; but what they do, do ye not; for they say and do not. Therefore their righteousness is to say and not do; and thus He willed that ours should be abundant above theirs, to say and do; which if it shall not be, there shall be no entrance into the kingdom of heaven. (F.Works, 48)

. . . it is that we may cleave to Him, that we are cleansed from all stain of sins and evil passions, and are consecrated in His name. (City x, 3)

. . . the man Christ Jesus, by whom we are reconciled to God, the cleansing from sin being accomplished. For men are separated from God only by sins, from which we are in this life cleansed not by our own virtue, but by the divine compassion; through His indulgence, not through our own power. For, whatever virtue we call our own is itself bestowed upon us by His goodness. . . . there has been vouchsafed to us, through the Mediator, this grace, that we who are polluted by sinful flesh should be cleansed by the likeness of sinful flesh. (City x, 22)

For in proportion as a man loves what Christ disapproves does he himself abandon Christ. For what does it profit a man that he is baptized, if he is not justified? Did not He who said, “Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God,” [John 3:5] say also, “Unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?” [Matthew 5:20] (City xxi, 27)

As therefore, for example’s sake, a man who is lamed by a wound is cured in order that his step for the future may be direct and strong, its past infirmity being healed, so does the Heavenly Physician cure our maladies, not only that they may cease any longer to exist, but in order that we may ever afterwards be able to walk aright—to which we should be unequal, even after our healing, except by His continued help. . . . For, just as the eye of the body, even when completely sound, is unable to see unless aided by the brightness of light, so also man, even when most fully justified, is unable to lead a holy life, if he be not divinely assisted by the eternal light of righteousness. God, therefore, heals us not only that He may blot out the sin which we have committed, but, furthermore, that He may enable us even to avoid sinning. (Nat., 29 [XXVI] )

. . . it is our duty at once to be thankful for what is already healed within us, and to pray for such further healing as shall enable us to enjoy full liberty, in that most absolute state of health which is incapable of addition, the perfect pleasure of God. For we do not deny that human nature can be without sin; nor ought we by any means to refuse to it the ability to become perfect, since we admit its capacity for progress—by God’s grace, however, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By His assistance we aver that it becomes holy and happy, by whom it was created in order to be so. (Nat., 68 [LVIII] )

If God wished not that man should be without sin, He would not have sent His Son without sin, to heal men of their sins. This takes place in believers who are being renewed day by day, [2 Corinthians 4:16] until their righteousness becomes perfect, like fully restored health. (Perf., 3, 7)

. . . he has kept God’s ways who does not so turn aside as to forsake them, but makes progress by running his course therein; although, weak as he is, he sometimes stumbles or falls, onward, however, he still goes, sinning less and less until he reaches the perfect state in which he will sin no more. For in no other way could he make progress, except by keeping His ways. (Perf., 11, 27)

“And every man that has this hope towards Him purifies himself, even as He is pure,” [1 John 3:3] — purifies himself, not indeed by himself alone, but by believing in Him, and calling on Him who sanctifies His saints; which sanctification, when perfected at last (for it is at present only advancing and growing day by day), shall take away from us for ever all the remains of our infirmity. (Perf., 18, 39)

. . . the unrighteous man is justified, that is, becomes just instead of impious, and begins to possess that good desert which God will crown when the world shall be judged. (Ep. 214 [4]: to Valentinus [426] )

This is the advice of the Apostle Paul, who, after saying that he was not yet perfect, [Philippians 3:12] a little later adds, “Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded,” [Philippians 3:15] — meaning perfect to a certain extent, but not having attained to a perfection sufficient for us . . . (Grace.Free, 1 [I] )

Merit

God, through whom we disapprove the error of those, who think that there are no merits of souls before You. (Sol. i, 3)

A crown of victory is not promised, save to them who strive. (Confl., 1)

And according to the cleanness of My deeds He will recompense Me, who has given Me to do well by bringing Me forth into the broad place of faith. (E.Ps., 18:20 [18:21] )

. . . not only for the breadth of faith, which works by love; but also for the length of perseverance, will the Lord reward Me according to My righteousness. (E.Ps., 18:24 [18:25] )

. . . let me say to every man that is to be born, nothing you are by yourself, on God call thou, your own are sins, merits are God’s: punishment to you is owing, and when reward shall have come, His own gifts He will crown, not your merits. (E.Ps., 71:19 [71, 22] )

. . . cures more frequent by the merits of Martyrs. (E.Ps., 119:157 [119, 155] )

Since those also which are called our deserts, are His gifts. For, that faith may work by love, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. (Trin. xiii, 10, 14)

. . . it was not the sacrament, but the personal merit that was different in the two cases. (C.Pet., ii, 47, 110)

For I would ask whether you use the Lord’s prayer in your devotions? For if you do not use that prayer, which our Lord taught His disciples for their use, where have you learned another, proportioned to your merits, as exceeding the merits of the apostles? (C.Pet., ii, 104, 237)

For if the sanctity of baptism be according to the diversity of merits in them that administer it, then as merits are diverse there will be diverse baptisms; and the recipient will imagine that what he receives is so much the better, the better he appears to be from whom he received it. . . . Therefore if one receive baptism from him, for example, who is a righteous saint, another from another who is of inferior merit with God, of inferior degree, of inferior continence, of inferior life, how notwithstanding is that which they receive one, equal and like . . .? (L.John, 6, 8)

Merit is accumulating now to the believer, and then the reward is paid into the hand of the beholder. . . . As far as each one has been a partaker of You, some less, some more, such will be the diversity of rewards in proportion to the diversity of merits . . . (L.John, 68, 3)

He crowns, therefore, with loving-kindness and tender mercy; but even so according to works. (Sp.L, 59)

. . . the merit which is bestowed upon each man by divine grace. (City xx, 21)

God by nature cannot sin, but the partaker of God receives this inability from God. And in this divine gift there was to be observed this gradation, that man should first receive a free will by which he was able not to sin, and at last a free will by which he was not able to sin—the former being adapted to the acquiring of merit, the latter to the enjoying of the reward. (City xxii, 30)

It is after this life, indeed, that the reward of perfection is bestowed, but only upon those by whom in their present life has been acquired the merit of such a recompense. (Perf., 8, 17)

Their own crown is recompensed to their merits; but your merits are the gifts of God! (P.Pel., 35)

For there are whom these things aid nothing at all, namely, when they are done either for persons whose merits are so evil, that neither by such things are they worthy to be aided; or for persons whose merits are so good, that of such things they have no need as aids. (Dead, 2)

Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demerit is acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man’s sufferings after this life. No one, then, need hope that after he is dead he shall obtain merit with God which he has neglected to secure here. (Ench., 110)

The good, indeed, shall receive their reward according to the merits of their own good-will, but then they received this very good-will through the grace of God . . . (Ep. 215 [1]: to Valentinus [426] )

But it is plain that when it has been given, also our good merits begin to be—yet only by means of it; for, were that only to withdraw itself, man falls, not raised up, but precipitated by free will. Wherefore no man ought, even when he begins to possess good merits, to attribute them to himself, but to God, . . . even after he has become justified by faith, grace should accompany him on his way, and he should lean upon it, lest he fall. (Grace.Free, 13 [VI] )

Let us see what he says when his final sufferings were approaching, writing to Timothy: “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight; I have finished my course; I have kept the faith.” [2 Timothy 4:6-7] He enumerates these as, of course, now his good merits; so that, as after his evil merits he obtained grace, so now, after his good merits, he might receive the crown. Observe, therefore, what follows: “There is henceforth laid up for me,” he says, “a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.” [2 Timothy 4:8] (Grace.Free, 14)

If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts. (Grace.Free, 15)

. . . since even that life eternal itself, which, it is certain, is given as due to good works, is called by so great an apostle the grace of God, although grace is not rendered to works, but is given freely, it must be confessed without any doubt, that eternal life is called grace for the reason that it is rendered to those merits which grace has conferred upon man. (Reb.Gr., 41)

. . . the grace of God is not given according to our merits; because even every one of the merits of the righteous is God’s gift, and is conferred by God’s grace. . . . merits of the saints, then, which are no merits unless they are the gifts of God, . . . (Persev., 4)

. . . “you He crowns with pity and mercy;” and if your own merits have gone before, God says to you, “Examine well your merits, and you shall see that they are My gifts.” (Serm., 81, 8 [CXXXI])

Sacraments and Grace

. . . grace, which is the virtue of the Sacraments, . . . (E.Ps., 78:1 [78, 2] )

Wherefore God gives the sacrament of grace even through the hands of wicked men, but the grace itself only by Himself or through His saints. (Bapt., v, 21, 29)

. . . even when spiritual grace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that One of whom it is said, that “He justifies the ungodly?” [Romans 4:5] (C.Pet., i, 5, 6)

Sacraments and Salvation

The Sacraments of the New Testament give Salvation . . . (E.Ps., [74, 1] )

For salvation is peculiar to the good; but the sacraments are common to the good and bad alike. (Bapt., vii, 33, 65)

. . . the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. (L.John, 120, 2)

Good is it for us that we love not the world, lest the sacraments remain in us unto damnation, not as means of strengthening unto salvation. (H.1Jn, 2, 9)

Suffering, Redemptive (Participation in Christ’s Suffering)

The sufferings therefore of Christ are not in Christ alone; nay, there are not any save in Christ. For if Christ you understand to be Head and Body, the sufferings of Christ are not, save in Christ: but if Christ thou understand of Head alone, the sufferings of Christ are not in Christ alone. For if the sufferings of Christ are in Christ alone, to wit in the Head alone; whence says a certain member of Him, Paul the Apostle, “In order that I may supply what are wanting of the oppressions of Christ in my flesh”? [Colossians 1:24] If therefore in the members of Christ you are, whatsoever man you are that art hearing these words, whosoever you are that dost hear these words (but however, you hear, if in the members of Christ you are): whatsoever thing you suffer from those that are not in the members of Christ, was wanting to the sufferings of Christ. Therefore it is added because it was wanting; you fill up the measure, you cause it not to run over: you suffer so much as was to be contributed out of your sufferings to the whole suffering of Christ, that has suffered in our Head, and does suffer in His members, that is, in our own selves. Unto this our common republic, as it were each of us according to our measure pays that which we owe, and according to the powers which we have, as it were a quota of sufferings we contribute. The storehouse of all men’s sufferings will not be completely made up, save when the world shall have been ended . . . (E.Ps., [62, 2])

For this purpose he briefly sketches in what follows the troubles of Christ’s body. For it is not in the Head alone that they took place, since it is said to Saul too, “Why do you persecute Me?” [Acts 9:4] and Paul himself, as if placed as an elect member in the same body, says, “That I may fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” [Colossians 1:24] (E.Ps., 88:14 [88, 13] )

Synergy: Cooperation with God’s Grace as “Co-Laborers”

We believe also, that On the Third Day He Rose Again from The Dead, the first-begotten for brethren destined to come after Him, whom He has called into the adoption of the sons of God, whom [also] He has deemed it meet to make His own joint-partners and joint-heirs. (F.Creed, 5, 12)

. . . the grace of God, which does work not only remission of sins, but also does make the spirit of man to work together therewith in the work of good deeds, . . . To believe in God therefore is this, in believing to cleave unto God who works good works, in order to work with Him well. (E.Ps., 78:8 [78, 7] )

. . . these same saints shall rest also in Him after all the good works in which they have served Him—which He Himself, indeed, works in them, who calls them, and instructs them, and puts away the offenses that are past, and justifies the man who previously was ungodly. For as, when by His gift they work that which is good, He is Himself rightly said to work (that in them) . . . (Cat.U., 17, 28)

But God crowns in us the gifts of His own mercy; but on condition that we walk with perseverance in that grace which in the first instance we received. (L.John, 3, 10)

But there are also in the heavens, thrones, governments, principalities, powers, archangels, and angels, which are all of them the work of Christ; and is it, then, greater works also than these that he does, who, with Christ working in him, is a co-worker in his own eternal salvation and justification? I dare not call for any hurried decision on such a point: let him who can, understand, and let him who can, judge whether it is a greater work to create righteous beings than to make righteous the ungodly. . . . And it is assuredly something less to preach the words of righteousness, which He did apart from us, than to justify the ungodly, which He does in such a way in us that we also are doing it ourselves. (L.John, 72, 3)

Continue, for He continues: and persevere in walking, that you may reach the goal: for that to which you tend will not remove. See: “And every one that has this hope in Him, purifies himself even as He is pure.” See how he has not taken away free-will, in that he says, “purifies himself.” Who purifies us but God? Yea, but God does not purify you if you be unwilling. Therefore, in that you join your will to God, in that you purify yourself. Thou purifiest yourself, not by yourself, but by Him who comes to inhabit you. Still, because you do somewhat therein by the will, therefore is somewhat attributed to you. (H.1Jn, 4, 7)

God is said to be “our Helper;” but nobody can be helped who does not make some effort of his own accord. For God does not work our salvation in us as if he were working in insensate stones, or in creatures in whom nature has placed neither reason nor will. (Sin.I.Bapt. ii, 6)

. . . to lead a holy life is the gift of God—not only because God has given a free-will to man, without which there is no living ill or well; nor only because He has given him a commandment to teach him how he ought to live; but because through the Holy Ghost He sheds love abroad in the hearts [Romans 7:7] of those whom he foreknew . . . even man’s righteousness must be attributed to the operation of God, although not taking place without man’s will; and we therefore cannot deny that his perfection is possible even in this life, because all things are possible with God, [Mark 10:27] — both those which He accomplishes of His own sole will, and those which He appoints to be done with the cooperation with Himself of His creature’s will. (Sp.L, 7 [V] )

. . . they are justified freely by His grace—not that it is wrought without our will . . . (Sp.L, 15 [IX] )

We must therefore avoid saying, that the way in which God assists us to work righteousness, and “works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure,” [Philippians 2:13] is by externally addressing to our faculties precepts of holiness; for He gives His increase internally, [1 Corinthians 3:7] by shedding love abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us. [Romans 5:5] (Sp.L, 42 [XXV] )

Now this that the apostle says, “It is God that works in you both to will and to do of His own good pleasure,” [Philippians 2:13] belongs already to that grace which faith secures, in order that good works may be within the reach of man—even the good works which faith achieves through the love which is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost which is given to us. (Sp.L, 57 [XXXIII] )

We run, therefore, whenever we make advance; . . . in order that we may be in every respect perfect, without any infirmity of sin whatever—a result which God not only wishes, but even causes and helps us to accomplish. And this God’s grace does, in co-operation with ourselves, through Jesus Christ our Lord, as well by commandments, sacraments, and examples, as by His Holy Spirit also . . . (Perf., 20, 43)

For who indeed could condemn or deny the freedom of the will, when God’s help is associated with it? . . . And our free will can do nothing better for us than to submit itself to be led by Him who can do nothing amiss; and after doing this, not to doubt that it was helped to do it by Him . . . (P.Pel., 4 [II] )

The apostle, however, holds the contrary, when he says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” [Philippians 2:12] And that they might be sure that it was not simply in their being able to work (for this they had already received in nature and in teaching), but in their actual working, that they were divinely assisted, the apostle does not say to them, “For it is God that works in you to be able,” as if they already possessed volition and operation among their own resources, without requiring His assistance in respect of these two; but he says, “For it is God which works in you both to will and to perform of His own good pleasure;” [Philippians 2:13] or, as the reading runs in other copies, especially the Greek, “both to will and to operate.” Consider, now, whether the apostle did not thus long before foresee by the Holy Ghost that there would arise adversaries of the grace of God; and did not therefore declare that God works within us those two very things, even “willing” and “operating,” which this man so determined to be our own, as if they were in no wise assisted by the help of divine grace. (Grace.Orig. i, 6 [V] )

. . . we have now proved by our former testimonies from Holy Scripture that there is in man a free determination of will for living rightly and acting rightly; so now let us see what are the divine testimonies concerning the grace of God, without which we are not able to do any good thing. (Grace.Free, 7)

If he should say in respect of these commandments, I wish to keep them, but am mastered by my concupiscence, then the Scripture responds to his free will, as I have already said: “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” [Romans 12:21] In order, however, that this victory may be gained, grace renders its help . . . the victory in which sin is vanquished is nothing else than the gift of God, who in this contest helps free will. (Grace.Free, 8)

. . . a man is assisted by grace, in order that his will may not be uselessly commanded. (Grace.Free, 9)

And it was while he had this evil merit that a good one was rendered to him instead of the evil; and, therefore, he went on at once to say, “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” [1 Corinthians 15:10] Then, in order to exhibit also his free will, he added in the next clause, “And His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all.” This free will of man he appeals to in the case of others also, as when he says to them, “We beseech you that you receive not the grace of God in vain.” [2 Corinthians 6:1] Now, how could he so enjoin them, if they received God’s grace in such a manner as to lose their own will? Nevertheless, lest the will itself should be deemed capable of doing any good thing without the grace of God, after saying, “His grace within me was not in vain, but I have laboured more abundantly than they all,” he immediately added the qualifying clause, “Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” [1 Corinthians 15:10] In other words, Not I alone, but the grace of God with me. And thus, neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he himself alone, but it was the grace of God with him. (Grace.Free, 12)

It is not, however, to be for a moment supposed, because he said, “It is God that works in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure,” [Philippians 2:13] that free will is taken away. If this, indeed, had been his meaning, he would not have said just before, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” [Philippians 2:12] For when the command is given “to work,” their free will is addressed; and when it is added, “with fear and trembling,” they are warned against boasting of their good deeds as if they were their own, by attributing to themselves the performance of anything good. (Grace.Free, 21 [IX] )

It is certain that it is we that act when we act; but it is He who makes us act, by applying efficacious powers to our will, who has said, “I will make you to walk in my statutes, and to observe my judgments, and to do them.” [Ezekiel 36:27] (Grace.Free, 32 [XVI] )

He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: “It is God which works in you, even to will.” [Philippians 2:13] While of His co-working with us, when we will and act by willing, the apostle says, “We know that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love God.” [Romans 8:28] (Grace.Free, 33 [XVII] )

. . . “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that works in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” [Philippians 2:12-13] We therefore will, but God works in us to will also. We therefore work, but God works in us to work also for His good pleasure. (Pred., 33)

Total Depravity (Falsity of); Human Nature

. . . let them cease to say and to teach that there are two kinds of souls, one of which has nothing of evil, the other nothing of good . . . (Soul.c.M, 14)

. . . every nature, as far as it is nature, is good; since in one and the same thing in which I found something to praise, and he found something to blame, if the good things are taken away, no nature will remain; but if the disagreeable things are taken away, the nature will remain unimpaired. (C.Fund.M, 33, 36)

. . . enough has been said to show that corruption does harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corruption is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not nature, no nature is evil. (C.Fund.M, 35, 39)

. . . God’s image has not been so completely erased in the soul of man by the stain of earthly affections, as to have left remaining there not even the merest lineaments of it . . . what was impressed on their hearts when they were created in the image of God has not been wholly blotted out . . . this writing in the heart is effected by renovation, although it had not been completely blotted out by the old nature. . . . the law of God, which had not been wholly blotted out there by unrighteousness . . . (Sp.L, 48)

. . . no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by vice . . . (City xiv, 6)

. . . evil cannot exist without good, because the natures in which evil exists, in so far as they are natures, are good. (City xiv, 11)

. . . there is, owing to the defects that have entered our nature, not to the constitution of our nature, a certain necessary tendency to sin . . . (Nat., 79 [LXVI] )

And in the same way, just as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, so an evil will cannot produce good works. But from the nature of man, which is good, may spring either a good or an evil will. And certainly there was at first no source from which an evil will could spring, except the nature of angel or of man, which was good. (Ench., 15)

Works, Good (in Grace)

But as regards this point, that those who have been pleased with your good deeds should imitate you, we are to act before the eyes not only of believers, but also of unbelievers, so that by our good works, which are to be praised, they may honour God, and may come to salvation. (S.Mount ii, 2, 6)

. . . in order that good works may follow, faith does precede; and there are not any good works, save those which follow faith preceding . . . (E.Ps., 68:32 [68, 37] )

If the love of the Father abide not in you, you are not born of God. How do you boast to be a Christian? You have the name, and hast not the deeds. But if the work shall follow the name, let any call you pagan, show by deeds that you are a Christian. For if by deeds you do not show yourself a Christian, all men may call you a Christian yet; what does the name profit you where the thing is not forthcoming? (H.1Jn, 5, 12)

When any Christian has begun to live well, to be fervent in good works, and to despise the world; in this newness of his life he is exposed to the animadversions and contradictions of cold Christians. But if he persevere, and get the better of them by his endurance, and faint not in good works; those very same persons who before hindered will now respect him. For they rebuke, and hinder, and withstand him so long as they have any hope that he will yield to them. But if they shall be overcome by their perseverance who make progress, they turn round and begin to say, “He is a great man, a holy man, happy he to whom God has given such grace.” (Serm., 38, 18 [LXXXVIII] )

***

Summary: I compile extensive writings from St. Augustine (354-430): all of which express his opposition to the novel 16th century innovation of “faith alone”.

“Ecclesialism” vs. Sola Scriptura (vs. “The Other Paul”)

Last updated on: March 25, 2024 at 11:07 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

“The Other Paul” is an Australian Anglican in his 20s. He runs a ministry with the same name (see his YouTube channel and website). Paul’s particular areas of interest are “biblical exegesis and the first few centuries of early Church history,” but he also addresses “just about any other topic pertaining to Scripture or history.” He also frequently engages in ecumenical dialogue and debate with other Christian traditions, especially Catholics and Orthodox, and is working towards becoming an Anglican clergyman.

I use RSV for Bible verses unless otherwise indicated. Paul’s words will be in blue.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure and concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

I am responding to the first portion of Paul’s video, “Ecclesialism – A Critique” (7-14-22).

3:21 With ecclesialism the definition is Scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium of the Church . . . [as] the sole infallible rules of faith.

This is correct. We like to call this the “three-legged-stool” concept of the rule of faith, and we submit that this is the view that the Bible teaches. In other words, in following it, we are being quite “biblical.”

3:47 The aim of it is that you can apply any argument of sola Scriptura to ecclesialism in order to see if the one making the argument for ecclesialism is actually being consistent.

Sounds fun! I’m game. Protestants need to get all the help they can get in defending the unbiblical tradition of men known as sola Scriptura, so if Paul has a new approach, more power to him, but I’m pretty sure that it’ll fail, alongside all of the other many failed and futile attempts to bolster up a falsehood. We’ll see! Dialogue and debate are what demonstrate if a position can hold up under scrutiny and close (or “cross-“) examination.

By the way, I call folks by the name that they wish to be known by, just as we do with personal names. The larger term is “Protestant” or one of its sub-groups (which for Paul is Anglicanism). So I call him by his own chosen name. “Romanist” or “papist” is not what any Catholic I know of wishes to be called, or has ever called themselves (other than in a sarcastic manner). We call ourselves “Catholics.” “Roman Catholicism” is tolerable (that’s a separate issue which can be discussed), but the Catholic Church is not only Roman. It also includes Eastern Catholics. What would they be called by someone like Paul? “Easternists”?

4:41 The point of it is simply to say, “look, you have not thought through your objection because it applies to you as well, so now that we have demonstrated that it does apply to your system, given how devoted you are to your system, maybe you will be compelled to exercise some more intellectual humility and charity in analyzing the argument before you apply it to another system.” So that’s the whole point of it: to basically force some introspection on critics from Rome and the East.

I’m willing to listen to any argument. This sounds interesting. If an argument overcomes my own, I grant its superiority, forfeit the argument, and change my mind (as I did in 1990, moving from Arminian evangelicalism to Catholicism). But if I determine that it fails in critiquing my view and establishing itself as superior, then I show why it does (here’s where apologetics comes in), and urge followers of it to adopt the Catholic view, until a better one is proven. And I do all that through use of the Bible, reason, and (if applicable) Church history.

As for “intellectual humility and charity,” well, that works both ways. Protestants have no monopoly on those characteristics. But it’s always charitable to show someone the error of their ways, in cases where they are in fact, in error. Falsehood never did anyone any good. So to persuade someone that they have been sold a bill of goods, or have false premises, leading to false conclusions, is always an act of charity and love. The person will be better off after realizing they have been in error, and having been shown a better way.

By the same token, if I am wrong and am shown that through reason and Scripture and historical argumentation, and have no refutation to offer, then I will change my mind (because I always want to follow truth, to the best of my abilities, with the illumination of God’s grace), as I did in 1990, and in 1977, when I went from practical atheist / occultic practitioner, to evangelical Christian. I’ve also changed my mind on many other social, moral, and political issues through the years. My most recent major change of mind was on the death penalty (in Dec. 2017): I’m now opposed to it.

5:21 So many people accept the same scriptures and yet they disagree on all manner of important things regarding Scripture.

Very true. It’s a shame.

7:15 This is a new argument. I do believe I’m genuinely breaking some new ground in this issue

We’ll see. I am answering as I read, as I always do with this sort of thing, and at this point I think I know the line of argument he will attempt to make. If I’m correct, I have already answered it many times, over some 28 years.

15:49 The disunity argument [is that] people who accept sola Scriptura disagree, therefore Scripture alone is insufficient as the sole infallible rule of faith.

It’s only one problem of many (I wrote a book called, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura), but we don’t even have to frame this objection in that way. We can simply say, “the Protestant system by its very nature produces hundreds of competing sects. There is no such thing as denominationalism in the Bible; nor is there an acceptance of the hundreds of falsehoods necessarily present in Protestantism (contrary to the biblical notion of ‘one truth’), based on the law of contradiction.” It’s the denominationalism that is the unbiblical scandal; however it came about. Again, falsehood never helped anyone. It is massively present in Protestantism (wherever one may locate it), by virtue of the laws of contradictions and of logic. This is not a good thing. And it’s not a biblical thing. See my latest article on the topic.

16:45 you can point to any number of sedevacantists and the anti-pope sects in Roman Catholicism.

It’s clear to one and all that Catholicism is a system that has a pope and that he is the leader of the Church, who should be granted extraordinary reverence as such. That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The sedevacantists and the pope-bashers, therefore, are plainly not in line with the teachings of their own professed Church. They have rejected it, which is possible for anyone in any group: to be dissidents or heterodox (rebels or radicals), as defined by their own professed tradition.

With Protestantism it’s entirely different. Contradictions and differences of opinion are institutionalized. A Zwinglian who denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist is neither dissenting against his own Protestant sub-tradition, nor against Protestantism-at-large. He or she is allowed — indeed, encouraged! — to have this opinion, and it’s perfectly fine! That’s what they find in the Bible. But Lutherans or High Church Anglicans, who believe in the Real Presence, are perfectly in accord with Protestant principles, too. That’s what they find in the Bible. This is how the very core principles of Protestantism lead to ecclesial chaos and theological relativism.

Someone is necessarily wrong here: either the Zwinglian or the Lutherans + Anglicans. Either one is wrong or both are, but they can’t both be right, because the views can’t be harmonized. This is the fundamental difference. Everyone knows that the extremists on the far left and far right of the Catholic Church (i.e., individual Catholics) are out-of-sync with their own Church, and everyone knows what the Catholic Church teaches (a pope, who is to be reverenced). It’s not a one-to-one straight comparison.

18:44 So now since that is a comparable system to sola Scriptura, we can therefore see that there are numerous groups that accept ecclesialism as a system and yet they disagree on a lot, and therefore ecclesialism by the same token of the argument against unity, against sola Scriptura . . . is insufficient as a rule of faith.

It’s not at all. There is no equivalence, I I just showed. There is an essential difference. We can only go by what any given Christian group “officially” teaches: in the “books.” We can’t go by every wacko extremist who was once part of a group and left it; if not formally, then in spirit. And, sure enough, I did know where Paul was going with this. I have exposed its fallacies since at least 1996:

Dissident Catholics: Disproof of Catholic Doctrinal Unity? [6-3-96]

Have Heterodox Catholics Overthrown Official Doctrine? (vs. Eric Svendsen, James White, Phillip Johnson, & Andrew Webb) [6-3-96]

Dialogue on the Logic of Catholic Infallible Authority [6-4-96]

Church Authority & Certainty (The “Infallibility Regress”) [July 2000; some revisions on 12-8-11]

The Protestant “Non-Quest” for Certainty [3-15-06; abridged and links added on 7-12-20]

Ecclesiological Certainty (?) & the “Infallibility Regress” [5-22-03 and 10-7-08]

Glorying in Uncertainty in Modern Protestantism (Dialogue with a Calvinist) [11-11-09]

Does Church Infallibility Require Infallible Catholics? [6-8-10]

Radically Unbiblical Protestant “Quest for Uncertainty” [2-12-14]

St. Paul: Orthodox Catholic or Theological Pluralist? [12-28-18]

Catholicism, Protestantism, and Theological Liberalism [Facebook, 7-28-22]

So, nothing new under the sun; but E for effort!

31:30 In their own paradigms the scale of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, even if they’re less in number, are orders of magnitude more serious because they involve anathema; they involve damnation, whereas even most very serious disagreements between mainstream Protestant dominations they don’t. [The] vast majority of us don’t consider each other to be damned for differences of opinion.

First of all, we don’t consider the Orthodox “damned”. We say that they possess seven valid sacraments; therefore, that they are brothers and sisters in Christ; part of the Body of Christ. That’s as far from “damned” as is imaginable. Protestants are also our brothers in Christ and in the Body of Christ, by virtue of a valid sacrament of baptism. The Council of Trent taught that. Some Orthodox (they have 17 competing jurisdictions) deny that we have valid sacraments or even grace, and some don’t. So they are a mixed bag.

Secondly, an anathema is not the same thing as being damned. See:

Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]

Only Catholics Issue Anathemas Against Dissenters? (vs. James White) [3-12-04]

Do Catholics Excommunicate People to Hell? [2007]

Bible on Authority to Anathematize & Excommunicate [2009]

Did Trent Anathematize All Protestants? + Dialogue on the Definition of “Christian” (Are Catholics Included?) [6-5-10]

Catholicism & Non-Catholic Salvation (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views [2-9-24]

Thirdly, obviously, Protestants generally don’t anathematize other Protestants because they couldn’t care less that they disagree. It’s a matter of indifference among Protestants to disagree (therefore sanction falsehood) on a host of issues. They can’t even come to agreement on whether abortion is murder and whether marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless Paul’s church is one of the Anglican break-off groups, it accepts both things. Abortion is fine and dandy; so is active homosexual sex. So says official Anglicanism (the largest and longest-lasting version of it), supposedly in the name of Christianity and the Bible.

The video at this point became so rambling and incoherent that I couldn’t make out what he was arguing, and after about fifteen minutes of trying to, I gave up. I find it to be pretty much true across the board, that video presentations are far less coherent, sensible, and documented than written material. Form and structure are badly needed.

***

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.

***

Photo credit: PIRO4D (8-1-16) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Anglican “The Other Paul” claims that Catholics are as divided as Protestants. I show how the principles are entirely different, & that Protestantism institutionalizes error.

Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism

Last updated on: December 7, 2023 at 12:03 pm By Dave Armstrong

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

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.

*****
*

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. 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.

Jesus’ Burial & Resurrection: Harmonious Biblical Accounts

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:16 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Chapter 9 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

****

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

*****
*

***

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 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

Jesus’ Passion & Crucifixion: Supposedly Clashing Reports

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:14 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Chapter 8 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

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).

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.

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.

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”).

*****
*

***

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 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

Jesus’ Infancy: Allegedly Contradictory Accounts

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:11 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Chapter 7 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****

135. Why do only Matthew (1:18, 20, 23) and Luke (1:35) know of the virgin birth; shouldn’t we expect other writers to mention this, too?

Arguments from “expectation” or plausibility are not, strictly speaking, the same as establishing a logical contradiction. This is the argument from silence, too, which is always weak in and of itself. Two Gospels mentioning it is more than enough. The other two didn’t. But who cares? Why must all four mention any particular thing? They all have to do with Jesus and his life. That is what anyone should “expect” to see in them. Details and absences and inclusions can differ in innumerable ways.

136. Did Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt during Herod’s slaughter of the innocents (Matt. 2:13-16) or stay in Bethlehem (Luke 2:21-39) for temple rituals (with no such slaughter being mentioned)?

The two passages refer to completely different time-periods, and so, as a result, are not contradictory. Luke 2:21-39 refers to the time when Jesus was between eight and forty days old (when purification rites were done). Matthew 2:13-16, on the other hand, is during the visit of the Wise Men (magi), which is when Jesus was (based on other textual deductions) 1-2 years’ old. This is when Herod ordered the slaughter. Jesus was by then a toddler. The word for child in Matthew 2:8-9 is paidion: which meant in biblical Greek: “young child, perhaps seven years old or younger.” The magi visit a “house” (Matt. 2:11), not a baby in a “manger” (Luke 2:7, 12, 16), in a place which was, in fact, very much a cave (I’ve been there). No angels (Luke 2:9-10, 13-15), shepherds (Luke 2:8, 15-18), or animals are in sight.

137. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or Nazareth? Mark (1:9) seems to indicate that Jesus was born in Nazareth, since it declares: “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee.”

This atheist’s “argument” is that Mark calls him “Jesus of Nazareth” three times (1:24; 10:47; 16:6) and notes that Nazareth was his hometown. So what?! It was his hometown from the age of 1 or 2. It doesn’t follow that he was born there or that Mark’s simply not dealing with his birth means that he denied that Bethlehem was where he was born. This is the well-known “argument from silence” fallacy. Luke also has the phrase “Jesus of Nazareth: three times (4:34; 18:37; 24:19), yet clearly at the same time records that he was born in Bethlehem. In all appearances of “Nazareth” in conjunction with Jesus, never once does it say that he was born there. The Bible says that he “dwelt” there (Matt. 2:23), that he was “from” there (Matt. 21:11; Mark 1:9), that he was “of” Nazareth (Matt. 26:71; Mark 1:24; 10:47; 16:6; Luke 4:34, 18:37; 24:19; John 1:45; 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9), “out of” Nazareth (John 1:46), “brought up” there (Luke 4:16), that Jesus called Nazareth “his own country” (Luke 4:23-24). Not one word about being born in Nazareth occurs in any of those 28 references. It’s talking about his hometown, where he was always known to live, prior to his three-year itinerant ministry. In the Bible, people were generally named after the places where they were from. The Bible states that he was “of” or “from” Nazareth because that was his hometown. And it asserts that he was born in Bethlehem; never that he was born in Nazareth.

138. Why do Luke and Matthew clash as to who first visited Jesus: the shepherds (Luke 2:16) or the wise men (Matt. 2:11), and why doesn’t either account mention the other early witnesses?

Neither Matthew nor Luke claim that the shepherds or the wise men (magi) were the “first” to witness the baby Jesus. Right after Luke reports that Mary gave birth to Jesus (Luke 2:7), it’s reported that angels inform the shepherds of the birth of Jesus on that very night (Luke 2:8-14). Then the shepherds went to see baby Jesus (Luke 2:15-16). We know that this was the night of Jesus’ birth, complete with his lying in the famous “manger” (Luke 2:7). But nothing is said about their being the first visitors. They may have been, but we can’t know for sure from the text. They could have been the first or the fifth, or the only ones on that night. From the text we can’t determine those things. And there is no imaginary obligation for a text to mention any or all other visitors too (it’s absurd to “demand” that). All we know for sure is that they seem to have visited shortly after he was born. The wise men, on the other hand, didn’t visit on the night of Jesus’ birth. When the magi stopped by, Jesus was a toddler. The word for child in Matthew 2:8-9 is paidion: which means “younger child”. “Babe” on the other hand (Lk 2:12, 16 in RSV and KJV) is brephos: which means: “an unborn or a newborn child” and is used of children in the womb in Luke 1:41, 44. In Luke 2, it’s the day of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:7, 11). The magi visit a “house” (Matt. 2:11), not a baby in a “manger” (Luke 2:7, 12, 16), in a place which was, in fact, very much a cave (I’ve been there). There are no angels (Luke 2:9-10, 13-15), shepherds (Luke 2:8, 15-18), or animals are in sight. The star of Bethlehem is a factor in Matthew’s account only. Luke never mentions it. Commentators generally believe that Jesus was two years old or younger when the wise men visited, but in any event, not a newborn. Therefore, we definitely know that the shepherds visited Jesus before the wise men did (and likely were the first visitors). In any event, there is no demonstrable contradiction.

*****
*

***

Photo Credit: portion of the 1622 painting, Adoration Of The Shepherds (Gerard van Honthorst) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Ch. 7 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

Alleged Biblical Factual & Historical Discrepancies

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:04 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Chapter 3 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the Introduction and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”? All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.

*****

Did God create birds from “the waters” (Gen. 1:20) or the ground (2:19)?

Genesis 1:20 in KJV might be reasonably interpreted as saying that birds were created from or out of the water (“Let the waters bring forth . . . fowl”) but it is an unfortunately imprecise and inaccurate translation. “Bring forth” in Hebrew (sharats) means, literally, “swarm” or “abound” or “breed” or “increase”; not “create.” Hence the same word is used in Exodus 8:3: “the Nile shall swarm with frogs” (RSV; cf. Ps. 105:30). Most of the important modern English Bible translations (RSV, NRSV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV) reflect this understanding. These (and Hebrew lexicons) make it abundantly clear that Genesis 1:20 does not claim that God created birds from the water. This annihilates the alleged “contradiction.” The King James Version was produced in 1611. Sometimes (notwithstanding its magnificent style) it has mistakes from faulty manuscripts (not as old as ones we possess now), or poor translation. Its rendering of Genesis 1:20 is clearly an instance of one or the other.

Were Adam and Eve allowed to eat from any tree in the garden of Eden (Gen. 1:29) or all but one (Gen. 2:16-17)?

Genesis 1:29 does not state that every tree could be eaten from, but rather, qualifies it to “every tree with seed in its fruit.” Therefore, the premise in the first portion of this objection is incorrect, and this spells doom for the alleged “contradiction.” All one has to say is that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (whether envisioned as literal or metaphorical: and I favor the latter) was simply not one of the trees that bears seed in its fruit. There are several “seedless” trees, or trees that don’t bear fruit at all, such as several varieties of ash, the “Autumn Gold” maidenhair tree, the “Swan Hill” European olive, and the Fraser photinia. There are even several seedless types of maple trees (no “helicopter” seeds littering lawns!). Someone might retort that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did indeed produce fruit, notoriously eaten by Eve and then Adam (Gen. 3:2-3, 6, 12-13) in disobedience to God’s commands. But this objection overlooks Genesis 1:29 referring to fruit that contains seed. There are many fruits or certain types of individual fruits that grow on trees which do not contain seed in them: such as bananas, oranges, lemons, and limes. Note also that the Bible never proclaims that the forbidden fruit was an apple. That is simply assumed, and has become a strong non-biblical “legend.” The Bible merely describes it as “fruit.” Therefore, it could have been a fruit without seed. Conclusion? No indisputable contradiction at all . . .

How did Cain find a wife (Gen. 4:17) if the only woman in the world was his mother Eve?

This is one of the classic, garden-variety “skeptical” questions, designed to ridicule the Bible and/or the alleged gullibility and incredulity of Christians. But like all the others, it’s not very difficult to refute. Modern man usually thinks in rigidly literalistic, chronological, hyper-logical terms. Ancient Hebrew thought, however, was practical, pastoral, concrete, often non-chronological, and sometimes it compressed events hundreds of years apart, as in some prophecy. Adam and Eve also bore Seth (Gen. 4:25) and “other sons and daughters.” The Bible refers to “the course of time” (4:3) even before Abel was murdered. Then there are other textual indications that other people (probably quite a few) had populated the earth by that time. Obviously, close relatives had to mate in order to increase the population at first. When Cain was driven out of Eden (4:14), he casually assumed that there were other people where he was going (“whoever finds me will slay me”). If he hadn’t known of other people, he wouldn’t have feared for his life. And God himself makes note of these other people, by saying, “If any one slays Cain . . .” and “lest any who came upon him should kill him” (4:15). This proves that an undisclosed length of time had passed, enough for lots of people to be born and continue reproducing. Case solved!

Did Noah take two pairs of every animal (Gen. 6:19-20; 7:8-9) onto the ark, or seven pairs (Gen. 7:2-3)?

Genesis 7:2 stated: “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals . . .” The Jews distinguished between clean and unclean food (the eventual basis of kosher laws and regulations for food). The reason, then, for taking seven pairs of clean animals (not all animals!), was for the purpose of sacrifice of the clean animals: which is the first thing Noah did when he got off of the ark after a year: “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” (Gen. 8:20). Otherwise, if pairs of animals, or one of a single pair had been sacrificed, those animals would have become extinct in the local area. Nor is Genesis 7:8-9 a supposed additional contradiction. It’s simply saying that all the animals went into the ark by pairs, “male and female”; in other words, it was always pairs, with each gender, whether it was two pairs (unclean animals) or seven pairs (clean animals).

Did Noah’s Flood last 40 days and nights (Gen. 7:4, 12, 17), or 150 (7:24; 8:3)?

Of course, the Flood and how many days it rained to create it are two different things. By trying to make both texts refer to “the flood” the atheist foolishly seeks to create a contradiction that is nonexistent. What the relevant texts actually state are the following notions: 1) 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:4, 12, 17); 2) Flood waters “receded” or “abated” after 150 days, which was the point of the “high water mark” or deepest water (8:3); 3) The ark rested on Mt. Ararat in the fifth month after the Flood began (8:4); 4) the waters “continued to abate” after eighth months (8:5); 5) the waters finally “dried” up twelve months after the rain began (8:13). None of this is “contradictory” in the least. If someone wants to say the Flood was 150 days long based on remaining waters (Gen. 8:3), this isn’t true, either, because the Bible still refers to water that “continued to abate” after eight months, and the final drying after twelve months from the onset of the rain. The only “absolute” numbers in this textual sequence are 40 days of rain and a year’s total time before the waters of the Flood dried up.

When did the earth dry after the flood: on the first day of the first month (Gen. 8:13) or the 27th day of the second month (Gen 8:14)?

Three different Hebrew verbs were used in verses 11, 13, and 14, to denote a gradual process of drying up: “the waters had subsided from the earth” (8:11); “the waters were dried from off the earth; . . . the face of the ground was dry” (8:13); “the earth was dry.” The last verse essentially means “thoroughly dry” or the dessication of the ground. It’s the same sort of distinction that ten-year-old boys who want to play baseball, make every March or April: determining if the ground is still wet and mushy after rain or is totally dry (no mud or mushiness). Isaiah 19:5-7 seems to offer a similar “three-stage” drying scenario.

Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah: angels (Gen. 19:13) or God (19:24)?

As the angels themselves stated in 19:13: “the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” Both things are true: primary cause and secondary agents to carry out the will of God, just as the American President may send an ambassador to a particular country, to make his will known. We could say both that the ambassador delivered the message, and that the President did, but the latter is the primary idea. As another analogy, say a grandmother couldn’t attend a birthday party for her grandson, and sent a present, do we say that she didn’t give him a present? No; we say that she gave the present, not the mother who passed it along. We say that generals won a battle, even though they don’t fight, and the soldiers did all the fighting. They followed his will. The same dynamic appears in the burning bush on Mt. Sinai, where God dramatically talked to Moses (which is brought forth as another alleged contradiction by the same person). Exodus 3:4, 6 and Mark 12:26 inform us that God spoke from the burning bush, but Exodus 3:2 states: “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.” So who was it? We don’t have to choose. It’s the same dynamic (“both/and”), and Acts 7:35 explains it: “This Moses . . . God sent as both ruler and deliverer by the hand of the angel that appeared to him in the bush.”

Who made the statement that God was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?: God himself (Exod. 3:6) or Moses (Luke 20:37)?

Now we’re to believe that if two say the same thing (the second saying what the first told him to say), it is somehow a “contradiction”? Luke tells us that Moses used this phrase, and that he did because God used it of himself (Ex 3:6; cf. 4:5). How is this contradictory? Nine verses later we see the solution to this bogus alleged “contradiction”:

Exodus 3:15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” (cf. 3:16)

Both God and Moses said it. Moses learned of it from God himself. Others learned of it from Moses, conveying God’s name for himself: Elijah (1 Kings 18:36), King David (1 Chron. 29:18), couriers in Israel and Judah (2 Chron. 30:6), Jesus (Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:26), Peter (Acts 3:13), and Stephen (Acts 7:32). If I say to someone, “I am Dave, the father of Paul, Michael, and Matthew” and that person says to someone else, “I know Dave, the father of Paul, Michael, and Matthew: that weird apologist guy” it’s not a contradiction. It’s simply using the name that any given person chooses to use for himself or herself.

Did Moses stretch his hand over the Red Sea to part it (Exod. 14:21) or did he hit it with a stick to do so (Exod. 17:5)?

First of all, what Exodus 14:21 described did involve a rod, since Exodus 14:16 (context) stated: “Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it.” 14:21 simply mentions that he raised his hand, without mentioning the rod again (because this was done five verses before), like saying: “The reporter at the press conference raised his hand to ask a question” compared with, “The reporter at the press conference raised his hand (with a pen in it) to ask a question.” This makes a key premise incorrect in the above scenario. But that’s not even the alleged “contradiction.” Exodus 17:5 is cited as supposedly referring back to the Red Sea parting. God, in talking to Moses, makes reference to “the rod with which you struck the Nile” (“river” in the KJV which was used by this atheist; he didn’t even notice that). Now we’re to believe that a “river” or, specifically, the Nile River, is the same thing as the Red Sea? Basic geography and landscape details (as well as rudimentary contextual considerations) are apparently up for grabs, too, in the rush to make fools of Christians and Jews and the writers of the Bible. What Exodus 17:5 was in fact referring to was the Nile turning to blood: one of the famous ten plagues (Exod. 7:19-21), where the passage states: “Moses . . . lifted up the rod and struck the water that was in the Nile . . .” (7:20).

When were the Israelites to begin observing the Passover: In the second year after they left Egypt (Num. 9:1-5) or when they arrived in Israel (Exod. 12:25-27)?

The answer is: when they were in Egypt, at the time that Moses declared that “all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die” (Exod. 11:5); shortly before the exodus out of Egypt. The Exodus 12 passage above is right after that. Moses states:

Exodus 12:2, 6, 14 “This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you. . . . and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, . . . “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.”

That was both the beginning of the observance of it, and also the beginning of the command to perpetually observe it every year. Numbers 9 is simply Moses reiterating what he had taught (repetition being a great teaching tool). The atheist claim in this instance is that Exodus 12 teaches that the holy day would be observed when they got to the promised land Israel), which was forty years later. But that makes no sense because earlier in the chapter he implemented it while they were still in Egypt. All Exodus 12:25 is saying is that they should continue to observe the holy day when they get to Israel / Canaan. The word for “keep” in Hebrew is shamar. It has a wide latitude of meaning, including “guard, protect, attend to, observe, preserve, retain, protect, and reserve”: many of which are perfectly harmonious with what I just explained: a continued observance of Passover in Israel: not the beginning of it.

Were “strangers” (foreigners) allowed to eat the Passover (Num. 9:14) or not (Exod. 12:43)?

Context is the solution and key. It’s quite clear that the overall thought on this issue is: “a stranger who does not abide by our laws may not partake of the Passover, which is specifically our Hebrew / Jewish ritual. But any stranger who decides to join us and abide by our laws and requirements (including circumcision for males), is welcome to partake.” Exodus 12:48-49 (part of the context of one passage above) makes this very clear. Those who are essentially converts to the Jewish faith will be treated no differently. This is utterly evident in the texts. So why, I wonder, are these passages (with seemingly no consideration of context whatsoever) illogically forced into a trumped-up supposed “contradiction”?

Did David kill Goliath with a sling and stone (1 Sam. 17:50) or with a sword (1 Sam. 17:51)?

The words “kill” or “slew” in these two verses are used in different ways. In Hebrew grammar, the Hiphil form denotes primary causation, while the Polel form (here related to “kill”) had the meaning of “finishing off someone who was already mortally wounded.” With this understanding, we see that David’s slingshot killed Goliath in the first sense (as the primary cause), while his sword did in the second sense; hence, no logical contradiction exists. One can find parallel verses. 2 Samuel 1:9-10 is about the death of King Saul, who was mortally wounded in battle and then asked a soldier to kill him, to put him out of his misery. The two instances of “kill” in the passage use the Polel form. Further verses that utilize the Polel form with regard to killing are 1 Samuel 14:13 (“And they fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer killed them after him;”) and Judges 9:54. In the latter instance, a man’s skull was crushed with a big millstone (9:53), but someone thrust a sword into him to kill him (see also 1 Sam. 4:13; 17:51; 2 Sam. 1:9-10, 16).

Is dancing perfectly fine (Ps 149:3; 150:4) or is it a sin (Exod. 32:19-28; Matt. 14:6-8; Gal. 5:19-21)?

Dancing, according to the Bible, is permissible and morally neutral in and of itself, though like anything else (alcohol being a prime example), it can be perverted and warped, and become a conduit to sinful behavior (such as a striptease, or otherwise overtly sexual, vulgar dancing, deliberately intended to incite lust or immoral sexual activity). And that’s what happened in the three counter-examples above. The first had to do with rebellious Israelites dancing around the golden calf, which was a forbidden idol, that they worshiped over against the true God. Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and “saw the calf and the dancing” and his “anger burned hot” (Exod. 32:19). But this is no proof that dancing itself is wrong. They were dancing around an idol that they offered worship and sacrifice to: that was what was wrong: idolatry: not merely moving bodies. The second example is Salome’s dance, that brought about John the Baptist being killed. It “pleased Herod”: with the implication that he was lusting after her (and the dance likely encouraged such lust, and is always portrayed as such in movies about Jesus). Again, this is the wrong kind of dance, which doesn’t prove that all dancing is wrong. The third example is really a stretch. Paul condemns a long list of behaviors, none of which is dancing. The atheist who came up with this simply concluded without adequate reason that Paul had dancing in his head, as if he can read his mind. The Bible is quite blunt about behaviors that it condemns. If dancing in and of itself was always sinful, certainly this would have been made clear in the Bible, beyond dispute. But it never is, and instead, we have several passages presenting it in a good light, and even some that virtually command us to dance in praise of God (Ps. 150:4). Hence, our atheist skeptic has to come up with three desperate, pathetic, special pleading attempts to create a pseudo-“contradiction.”

Did Mary and Joseph know Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 1:18-21; Luke 1:28-35) or know nothing about it (Luke 2:48-50)?

The notion of Mary and Joseph knowing “nothing” is reading into the text (Luke 2:48-50) what isn’t there. They were simply bewildered about one particular thing that he said. They were likely taken aback by Jesus’ use of “my father” with regard to God, since this was terminology used only once in the entire Old Testament. It is true that “thou art our Father” and “thou, O Lord, art our Father” (Isa. 63:16), and “O Lord, thou art our Father” (Isa. 64:8) appear (collective use), but “Thou art my Father, my God” occurs (interestingly) only with regard to the Messiah (Ps. 89:26) — Jesus, of course, being the Messiah. They were probably startled that he used the word in a different sense: for God the Father. It could very well have been merely a momentary confusion, followed by a realization of “ah, of course; we knew that!”: without it necessarily following that they forget all that God through angels had revealed to them.

Did the God the Father’s voice at Jesus’ baptism address the gathering (Matt. 3:17) or Jesus (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22)?

I think this can be classified as a trifling difference, based on expected differential memory in finer details of eyewitnesses, or in oral traditions originating from witnesses. There is no essential difference; it’s simply the distinction between second person address (“Thou” / “You”) and a third person statement. It’s also true that the Gospel writers do not always necessarily intend to produce exact citations. Sometimes (in a time long before videos and tape recorders or even inexpensive writing capacity) they are knowingly paraphrasing: like a person in court saying, “to the best of my memory, I remember him saying something like . . .” The essence of the words in all three accounts is that God the Father is speaking from heaven, saying that Jesus was his “beloved Son.” To quibble about difference in type of address is to not see the forest for the trees.

Did Jesus begin a forty day fast in the wilderness immediately after his baptism (Matt. 4:1-2; Mark 1:12-13) or was he at the wedding in Cana (John 1:29-35, 43; 2:1) three days later?

John the Baptist spoke in the past tense when referring to Jesus’ baptism (John 1:29-34). Therefore, since that entire account was John talking about a past event, it’s not contradictory to the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ baptism and the wilderness temptations. John never says that Jesus was at the wedding three days after His baptism. Rather, he says that he was there three days after John the Baptist is recorded as speaking of Jesus’ baptism in the past tense. Skeptics — in their zeal to trash the Bible — too often “see” what they want to or wish to see in biblical texts: not what is actually present.

Was Peter chosen with Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matt. 4:18-20; Mark 1:16-18) or was he chosen with James and John by the Lake of Gennesaret (Luke 5:2-11), or did
Andrew persuade Peter to join (John 1:35-42)?

The account in Luke seems to assume that Jesus already knew Simon: “he . . . entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever . . .” (Luke 4:38); “Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, . . .” (5:3). Simon (Peter) calls Him “Master” (5:5) and “Lord” (5:8): also strongly implying that he was already his disciple. When Jesus told Peter, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men” (5:10), it could simply have been a reiteration of what he said before (repetition being a great teacher), when he called Peter and Andrew: “Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men” (Mark 1:17). This time (in Luke’s report), he said it within earshot of James and John, Peter’s “partners” (Luke 5:10), who were “with” him in the boat (5:9). Consequently, their response according to the narrative was: “they left everything and followed him” (5:11). All indications are that this was a later event, after the calling of Peter and Andrew. Luke 5 is not referring to the calling of Peter, but to that of James and John. John is referring to an entirely different third event. Jesus never says in this separate incident, “follow Me” or “I will make you fishers of men.” This took place in Judea (cf. John 1:19, 28), whereas the other three accounts were in Galilee (the Lake of Gennesaret is simply an alternate name for the Sea of Galilee). John records the first time Peter and Andrew met Jesus; they were called to follow him later. The critics try to turn these things into “contradictions”: but if it’s three different events in the first place, and not one, then it’s not contradictory.

Did the Sermon on the Mount take place on a mountain (Matt. 5:1) or on a plain (Luke 6:17)?

Before I visited Israel in 2014, I used to say that Jesus preached from a mountain that had a flat top. Now that I have been to the place where the sermon was preached, I can report that both things are true (but in a different manner). Note that Matthew 5:1 doesn’t state “on the top of the mountain.” A little ways up from the water and base of the hill, there is a flat area. He preached from this plain or “level place” (Luke 6:17). But it’s also “on the mount” as well (since if one is part of the way up a mountainside, we still say he is “on the mountain”). Jesus didn’t preach this sermon on top of a mountain. He preached it from halfway down the mountain, with his hearers above Him, in a “natural amphitheater.” Now that I’ve seen it with my own eyes, it makes perfect sense. Sound projects upwards and is “caught” by the amphitheater shape (precisely why the ancient Greeks and others used that shape). Our guide in Israel said that he has visited the Church of the Beatitudes at night with no one around, and could clearly hear fishermen talking down by the sea. This is confirmed also by textual evidence in the New Testament. Jesus is described at least once as being in the water and teaching from the boat (Luke 5:3). I think it’s fairly clear that he was utilizing the same acoustic principle when he did that. The Sea of Galilee is ringed by pretty high hills all the way around. My tour group later tested the theory in a similar “amphitheater” location where Jesus fed the 4,000 (across the Sea of Galilee; on its east shore). It was absolutely correct: we could hear each other — talking fairly softly, to test it — perfectly from bottom-to-top and vice versa.

Did Jesus state that the law would last until heaven and earth ended (Matt. 5:17-19), or that it was only in place until the time of John the Baptist (Luke16:16)?

Luke 16:17 states: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void.” Where’s the contradiction? This is a classic case of the skeptic not even reading the very next verse in order to grasp the proper context.

Did Jesus heal “all” in one particular mass healing (Matt. 8:16; Luke 4:40), or “many” but not all (Mark 1:34)?

Mark 1:34 records that “he healed many”. There could be several reasons for this qualification, but the most likely — in context –, is because of the sheer numbers of people: “And the whole city was gathered together about the door” (Mark 1:33). This was in Capernaum (Mark 1:21), which had an estimated population of 1,500 at that time. Let’s assume that 10% of all these people, or 150 needed to be healed, and let’s assume Jesus spent five minutes with each one. That would add up to twelve-and-a-half hours. It’s not physically possible that he could heal all of them (because he generally touched those whom he healed). Furthermore, Mark 1:28 states that “at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.” There were two towns fairly close by. Bethsaida was six miles away and Chorazin was only two miles. We also know from Mark 1:32 that “at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons.” Let’s say that sundown was 6 PM. Jesus would be healing them until 6:30 the next morning and get no sleep at all. That’s just not feasible. And so he healed “many” but not all. Even if we say he spent two minutes with each person, that would take five hours. Sunset could have been three hours later, too, depending on the season. All three accounts described lots of people, and healings taking place after sunset.

In Matthew 8:16, where it says he “healed all who were sick” it depends on what one means by “all.” I say that because two verses later we learn that that “when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side [of the Sea of Galilee]” (8:18). We can be quite sure that in this crowd of people that he deliberately avoided by crossing the sea, there would have been many more asking to be healed (since they observed healing taking place). So he didn’t heal absolutely all in this instance. “All” is necessarily limited in scope. In fact, he healed all who asked and were able in a crowd to get to him before He departed to the other side of the sea. Luke 4:40 states: “he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them” but that, too, could simply have meant “all” until such time as he left and went across the sea (as in Matthew): which simply wasn’t mentioned. Luke implies that there were “never-ending” crowds, too, in noting that “reports of him went out into every place in the surrounding region” (4:37) and (the next day) “the people sought him and came to him, and would have kept him from leaving them” (4:42), so “every one” has to have a limit at some point. In effect, then, all three passages are saying the same thing: he healed as many as he possibly could (who were able to get access to him) before having to leave. It’s not likely that Jesus healed “absolutely every person” in such a great crowd, in one evening before the usual bedtime. Language always has to be understood in context. Even in Mark’s account, where it is more literal and reads “he healed many” it states three verses later that his disciples told him: “Every one is searching for you” (Mark 1:37): which is non-literal language, meaning, “a great number; a lot.” We talk the same way today in saying things like, “everyone likes ice cream” or “everyone loves a good story”, etc.

Did Jesus’ twelve disciples include Thaddaeus but not Judas, son of James (Matt. 10:3), or the latter and not the former (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13)?

This is a clear (though not immediately obvious) case of multiple names for one person. Judas, son of James— not Iscariot! — was also known as Thaddeus, according to various translations (see Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18). The RSV I use calls him Thaddeus in Matthew and Mark, and Judas in Luke. So it’s much ado about nothing, as so often in these matters. One person had two names, and this is obvious (by a logical process of elimination) once the lists of disciples are all set side-by-side. Different names for a single person are not “contradictory.”

Why do the Gospels provide contradictory names for one of Jesus’ disciples: Simon the Cananaean (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18) and Simon who was called the Zealot (Luke 6:15)?

Cananaean (from the Greek Kananaios; in turn from Hebrew quannai or Aramaic quanan) is simply the equivalent term for zealot (Gk., Zelotes). Note: this is a different word than Canaanite (Kananites) which is derived from the Hebrew Kenaan.

All three other gospels refer to Peter (Matt. 16:17-20; Luke 22:28-32; John 21:15-17) and give him authority, whereas Mark doesn’t.

Mark mentions “Peter” 19 times. Matthew mentions him 23 times, with 12 more chapters to do so. So, proportionately, Mark has more emphasis on Peter. Luke mentions him 18 times, with eight more chapters than Mark. But then we have to add the use also of “Simon”: his earlier name. That’s ten more times in Mark for a total of references to Peter of 29 times. Matthew adds five more references with “Simon” for 28 total. Luke adds 14, for a total of 32. Mark mentions Peter an average of 1.9 times per chapter, compared to Matthew’s rate of 1.0 and Luke’s of 1.3. That hardly suggests an underemphasis on Peter in the Gospel of Mark. Moreover, Mark shows him as preeminent, just as the others do, by mentioning him more than any other disciple. Peter’s name invariably occurs first in all lists of apostles, including in Mark (3:16). Mark implies that he is the leader, in citing an angel stating, “tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee” (16:7). Singling him out in such a way, over against the rest of the disciples, is clearly expressing his leadership. This occurs again in Mark 1:36 (“And Simon and those who were with him pursued him,”). He’s a spokesman for the other disciples (Mark 8:29). He’s listed first of the “inner circle” of disciples: Peter, James, and John (Mark 5:37; 14:37). And he’s the central figure in dramatic stories: for instance, Jesus walking on the water (Mark 10:28).

Did the moneychangers incident occur at the end of Jesus’ ministry (Matt. 21:11-12) or the beginning (John 2:11-15)?

This is another example of a skeptical claim virtually answering its own charge. The eager inquisitor seems to have figured out that there were similar incidents at the beginning and end of Jesus’ earthly sojourn. And that is the answer. The logical conclusion is that two “cleansing” incidents were described. Apart from context suggesting the time-period, this is highly suggested by the factors exclusive to the account in the Gospel of John. Only he mentions oxen and sheep, the “whip of cords,” the overturning of tables, and Jesus’ statement, “Take these things away.” Moreover, John did not include Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 56:7 (“my house shall be called a house of prayer”), which the Synoptic Gospels all include as a central aspect of their reports.

Did Jesus accurately claim that that Zacharias was the son of Barachias, though that name never appears in the Old Testament (Matt. 23:35), or was Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest (2 Chron. 24:20)?

Jesus was referring to the prophet Zechariah, in saying, “that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” It was a sort of “beginning and end / A to Z” saying, seeing as Zechariah was perhaps the last prophet of Old Testament times. How he was murdered is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but it could have been a Jewish extrabiblical tradition, or simply known by Jesus in his omniscience (being God). There are many Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible (The New Bible Dictionary states that the total number is “some twenty-eight”). Jesus narrowed in on the specific one he meant by giving his (presumed) father. Our beloved skeptic claims that the father’s name never appears in the Old Testament. This is untrue (sometimes spellings of names can slightly change, for various reasons). Zechariah 1:1 refers to “Zechariah the son of Berechiah, . . .” Zechariah, son of Jehoiada lived some 400 years before Zechariah son of Berechiah.

How do Christians explain the contradiction between Matthew 27:3-4 and Acts 1:16-20, regarding Judas’ “repentance”?

In Matthew 27:3-4, it states in RSV that Judas “repented” and said, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” Acts 1:16-20, in mentioning Judas’ suicide, simply doesn’t indicate one way or the other whether he repented or not. Thus, it’s an argument from silence, from which nothing can be determined, as to alleged contradiction. But there is also a linguistic consideration. The Greek word in Matthew, for “repented” (metamelitheís) is not the same as the one commonly used in the New Testament (metanoia) and means, merely, “regret” or “remorse” or a “simple change of feeling,” whereas metanoia means “a change of mind and heart and life”: a complete change in direction, with the intent to reform one’s moral behavior. In other words, the text doesn’t indicate that Judas had repented in the biblically required way, leading to received forgiveness and grace, and possible eventual salvation.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to baptize with a trinitarian formula. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, since it took over two hundred years before this baptismal formula came into use.

This is another bald assertion that a particular passage was added later to the Bible. No proof or evidence is offered. Assertions minus rational argument carry no force or weight whatsoever. Trinitarianism is massively present in the New Testament, but it’s beyond our present purpose to provide the literally scores and scores of biblical proofs for that. The Didache was a very early Christian document (as early as 70 AD), and it states: “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (7:1).

Was Jesus tempted by the devil during (Mark 1:13) or after (Matt. 4:2-3) forty days in the wilderness?

Matthew 4 clearly refers to the same incident in the wilderness, parallel to the other Gospel accounts. The confusion comes from the word “afterward” in Matthew 4:2. But the passage following goes right back to his time in the wilderness. Matthew 4:1 makes it clear where the devil’s attempt to tempt Jesus took place: “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” Language must be interpreted in context, and so many alleged “biblical contradictions” utterly ignore context: thus rendering themselves silly and irrational.

Did Jesus and his disciples teach in Capernaum (Mark 1:20-21) or only Jesus (Luke 4:30-31)?

Mark never states that the disciples taught. He records, rather: “And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught” (Mark 1:21). Luke says that Jesus was in Capernaum and that “he was teaching them on the sabbath” (Luke 4:31), “in the synagogue” (4:33): precisely as Mark reported. Where’s the beef?

There is no evidence for synagogues (Mark 1:30; 3:1-5) in Galilee in Jesus’ time.

Capernaum — located on the shores of the Sea of Galilee — had a synagogue (Mark 3:1-5). I visited it myself in 2014, and our guide noted that the preserved marble synagogue was built on top of an older structure, whose foundation could still be seen at the bottom of the structure (much darker basalt rocks). Archaeological digs in 1981 discovered the remains of the older synagogue four feet lower in the ground. First century artifacts were found under the basalt floor. It was, in other words, one of the synagogues where Jesus taught. And there are remains of many other synagogues in Galilee. Archaeologists in 2016 discovered one at Tel Rekhesh near Mount Tabor (where the Transfiguration of Jesus took place), ten miles east of Nazareth (see Mark 6:1, 6). It was dated 20-40 A.D. and estimated to have been in use for a hundred years.

Did Jesus have his own house (Mark 2:15) or not (Luke 9:58)?

The first verse is a bit ambiguous as to whose house is referred to. Cross-reference Luke 5:29, however, in the midst of reporting the same story, asserts that it was definitely Levi‘s (i.e., Matthew’s) house. On the other hand, Mark 2:1 states about Jesus: “And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home” (cf. Matt. 9:1: “his own city.”). And Matthew 4:13 adds: “he went and dwelt in Capernaum.” Thus, we know that Jesus lived in Capernaum for some undetermined length of time, either in his own house or in Peter’s home. Jesus’ statement, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head” (Luke 9:58) is indicative of the many travels of Jesus and his disciples, whether he had a house in one place or not. He was responding to man who said, “I will follow you wherever you go” (9:57) and pointing out the sorts of hardships that would be expected. The context was: “they went on to another village. . . . they were going along the road” (9:56-57). Sometimes, no doubt, they had to sleep outside, like most travelers have had to do, when no lodging was to be had. I think this is what the passage refers to, without reference to whether he also had a house somewhere to stay. It doesn’t deny that he may have a house somewhere. Therefore, no contradiction necessarily exists here.

Did Jairus plead with Jesus to heal his dying daughter (Mark 5:22-23; Luke 8:41-42) or to raise his dead daughter (Matt. 9:18)?

It’s untrue that every Gospel “must” give every detail of every incident or someone’s words. According to whom? Where is this “requirement” written in stone? As in real life, people report different things; some highlight or concentrate exclusively on one element, another does differently. The person who passed on this challenge conceded that Mark and Luke were substantially the same. Matthew was possibly — but not necessarily — using the well-known and established ancient literary technique of compression (abbreviating accounts and skipping over some aspects) in recording only the daughter’s death. He uses about 176 words in writing about this event, whereas Mark utilizes around 481 words. All three accounts have Jairus — and Jesus — being aware of his daughter’s death (Matt. 9:18; Mark 5:35; Luke 8:49), before Jesus goes to heal her (Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:37-38; Luke 8:50-51). Matthew merely didn’t mention the part where Jairus told Jesus that his daughter was dying. He gets right to the point and has him telling Jesus (after being informed by a person of his house) that she was already dead (just as Mark and Luke also reported). After becoming aware of all this, only a person relentlessly, irrationally, and obstinately hostile to the Bible and/or Christianity could possibly still think a “contradiction” was present.

Mark 6:14-27 repeatedly refers to Herod Antipas as a “king.” Matthew also commits this error (14:9). The correct title ‘tetrarch’ appears in Matthew 14:1, Luke 3:19; 9:7; and Acts 13:1.

Mark and Matthew (14:9) were following the preference of the locals, who called him “king,” according to historians. Matthew also used “tetrarch” in 14:1. Such a use of multiple titles for rulers also occurred with regard to John Hyrcanus II (d. 30 B.C.), who was King of Judea in 67-66 B.C. and only the “ethnarch” from about 47-40 BC; yet he was still referred to as “king” by the people in the region.

After the feeding of the multitude, did Jesus go to Gennesaret (Mark 6:53) or Capernaum (John 6:14-17)?

Gennesaret is a plain on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, between Capernaum to the north and Magdala to the south. In Mark’s account, Jesus and the disciples “moored to the shore” (Mark 6:53) at Gennesaret. John 6:14-17 states that the “disciples . . . started across the sea to Capernaum” (6:16-17). Jesus was walking on the water (6:19), got into the boat with them (6:21), and “immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going” (6:21). But it doesn’t specify exactly where they landed, as in Mark. I think it’s plausible to hold that the strong winds and their being “beaten by waves” (Matt. 14:24; cf. Mark 6:48; John 6:18) blew them off course a bit, so that they landed at Gennesaret, some three miles south of Capernaum (consistent with Mark’s report). In any event, John 6 doesn’t inform us that “Jesus went to Capernaum”. It says that the crowds sought Jesus in Capernaum (6:24) but that he wasn’t there. He was “on the other side of the sea” (6:25). Of course, he could have gone from Gennesaret to Capernaum at some undisclosed later point in time after they landed in the former plain, and John 6:59 says he was there, at the synagogue. The parallel account in Matthew (14:22-34) verifies Mark’s specific report of the boat landing. It was windy, Jesus walked on the water (so did Peter, for a short time), they both got into the boat, which “came to land at Gennesaret” (14:34). If two sources agree on all these details and both say “the boat landed at location X” and a third agrees with them about almost all details, but doesn’t indicate the exact landing location, it’s perfectly sensible to assume that the boat did indeed land at location X. To deny it based on the third “agnostic” or silent source is merely the ineffectual and weak “argument from silence” once again.

When asked if he was the Messiah, did Jesus say “I am” (Mark 14:62) or “You have said so” (Matt. 26:64; Luke 22:70)?

When Jesus said, “You have said so” (Matt. 26:64), it was the same thing as replying “yes” and he proves this by what he said next: “But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” That was a claim to be the Messiah, based on Daniel 7, which he applied to himself (hence answering the question). This resulted in the high priest and others there accusing him of blasphemy (26:65-66). Therefore, to claim that this scenario somehow “contradicts” the “I am” of Mark is absurd. Luke is the same, since Jesus cited Daniel 7 in that account, too (without saying, “I am”), and his enemies knew exactly what he meant, since they said: “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips” (Luke 22:71). No “difficulty” or “problem” here, then!

Luke, who claims to be chronological (Luke 1:3), insinuates that John the Baptist did not baptize Jesus, since his account of Jesus’ baptism occurs after the account of John’s imprisonment (Luke 3:20-21). How does this not contradict the other three Gospels?

He does no such thing. Exact, literal chronology was viewed very differently by the Jews than it is by Greek-dominated western thought, so the order here means little. In Luke 1:3, Luke states his desire to write an “orderly account.” That’s not the same as “chronological.” “Orderly” is usually defined in English dictionaries as something like “arranged in a neat or methodical manner.” Luke also clearly and deliberately reflects the other three accounts of Jesus’ baptism by referring (Luke 3:22) to the Holy Spirit symbolized as a dove, and God the Father saying he was pleased (both things present in all three of those accounts). That was hardly designed to give readers an impression that he thought John didn’t baptize Jesus.

Did Peter and Andrew live in Bethsaida (John 1:44) or Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29)?

John 1:44 states that “Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.” In English, usually noting that a person is “from” a particular city, means the one they were born and/or raised in. In my case, I am “Dave from Detroit, Michigan” (born and raised there till age 17), so that I can say I am a “native Detroiter” or that Detroit is the “city of Dave”. But I don’t live there now. If someone asks me where I live, that’s a different question, referring to my current residence. John 1:29 refers to “the house of Simon and Andrew” (see 1:21, showing that it was in Capernaum). That’s where they lived at the time that Jesus called them to be his disciples. Jesus lived in Capernaum for a time, but he was known as “Jesus of Nazareth” because that’s where he was raised; his hometown. “Saul / Paul of Tarsus” indicates the city of his upbringing as well. Mary Magdalene, meant that Mary was from Magdala, a town on the Sea of Galilee, etc. Bethsaida was located on the north shore of the Sea of Galilee, about six miles northeast of Capernaum: also on the shore.

Acts 1:16-18 implies that Judas died by an act of God; contrary to Matthew 27:5

Acts 1:18 reads: “Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” The claim that this was an “act of God” is falsely derived from Acts 1:16: “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.” The error here is that the fulfillment of a prophecy is not the same thing as God directly causing something. God merely knew what would happen, in his omniscience and foreknowledge. If Luke had intended to imply that Judas’ death was an “act of God”, he would have made it very clear, as with other passages that make such a claim very explicit (Gen. 19:24-25; Num. 16:25-35, 46; 33:4; 1 Sam. 25:38; 2 Chron. 13:20; 21:18-19; 24:18; 32:25; Acts 5:1-6; 12:21-23). Nothing like that is remotely present in Acts 1 with regard to Judas’ death (I even provided two other passages in Acts where God does directly judge and smite). Both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament make it very clear if and when God is exercising wrath and judging someone unto death.

Acts 1:18 directly contradicts Matthew 27:5, since it has no indication that Judas committed suicide by hanging, or that this was his cause of death.

Acts 1:18 doesn’t deny that it was a suicide by hanging. It simply provides some of the gruesome details of what happened to Judas. The account is perfectly harmonious with Judas having hanged himself, with the “bowel” incident occurring after he died, to his corpse. The New Testament is always internally harmonious: as we would expect of an inspired revelation. Nor does Acts claim that Judas died by virtue of his “bowels” gushing “out.” One perfectly plausible scenario would be that Judas hanged himself, perhaps on a tree at the edge of a cliff. It’s widely thought that his suicide occurred in the Valley of Hinnom (also known as Gehenna: a metaphor for “hell” in the New Testament), near the Kidron Valley, where – by definition — there are many cliffs (and rocky ones). His body could have dangled from the tree for quite a while, which would have resulted in post-mortem bloating: most visibly affecting the abdomen. In due course, the branch broke and his body fell, perhaps quite far, resulting in his bowels gushing out.

Judas committed suicide by hanging; therefore, his head and upper torso would have been closest to the tree limb that he was hanging from and his feet nearest to the ground. Consequently, from a hanging position, Judas would have fallen feet first. Yet Acts 1:18 reports that Judas fell “headlong.”

He could have hanged himself from a tree by a cliff. There are at least three conceivable explanations for “headlong.” The corpse of Judas, in a hypothetical scenario where the rope broke, could have been intercepted by a lower branch, which could have resulted in his head being on the bottom as the corpse fell. Or it could have hit a rocky outcrop on the way down, resulting in the same thing, or tumbled all the way down a long cliff that wasn’t straight down, ending up head first in the last stretch: perhaps a drop-off. Any of these scenarios are entirely possible. Then the argument is that a “headlong” fall would entail landing on his head, not his belly. Once again, several explanatory hypotheses can be imagined. A head would bloat much less, since it has so much bone. Judas’ body could have landed on some pointed rock in the area of the belly on the way down (if the cliffside wasn’t “straight down”). Thus, to argue that “headlong” necessarily involves a contradiction is plain foolish and silly.

Did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4) or Before (John 20:22)?

On the Day of Pentecost, a group of “about” 120 new Christians was involved (Acts 1:15). Acts 2:4 reports that “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit.” This is perfectly compatible, logically, with a notion of “the disciples first received the Holy Spirit” and then about 108 more people — present with them — did on the day of Pentecost.” Or one could hold that the act of Jesus (to eleven disciples only) in John 20:22 (“he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”) was symbolic, meant to anticipate what was soon to come, or that they received a measure of the Holy Spirit then and a fuller measure on Pentecost (suggested by the word “filled”). Any of these possible explanations are non-contradictory and plausible.

Were those present at Paul’s sudden conversion standing (Acts 9:7) or did they fall to the ground (Acts 26:14)?

Why couldn’t it be both things in sequence?: they initially fell to the ground, and then got up and stood there speechless. Perfectly possible . . .

Did those present at Paul’s conversion hear a voice but see nothing (Acts 9:7) or did they see a light and hear nothing (Acts 22:9)?

First of all, the descriptions are inaccurate. They didn’t see “nothing”; rather, they saw “no one.” And they didn’t “hear nothing”; they didn’t “hear the voice of the one who was speaking” to Paul. The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Acts of the Apostles”) disposed of this objection way back in 1907, in observing that the accounts “contemplate the event at different moments of its course. All saw a great light; all heard a sound from Heaven. They fell on their faces in fear; and then, arising, stood still and speechless, while Paul conversed with Jesus, whose articulate voice he alone heard.”

In Acts 9:10-12 and 22:10 Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias about what to do next. In Acts 26:15-18 Paul is not told to go be instructed by Ananias, but instead Jesus himself instructs him. Well, which is it?

Much ado about nothing, again, as we see by simply reading the texts and applying logic (and not being hostile to and suspicious the texts without reason from the outset).

1) Acts 9: Paul learns (in a vision) that some stranger named Ananias would help him regain his sight after his dramatic conversion experience.

2) Acts 22: Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed, then he recounts how Ananias instructs and exhorts him.

3) Acts 26: Paul recalls some things that Jesus told him (having to do with his future mission) at the time of his conversion.

This (rather famous) atheist first misrepresents the stories of Acts 9 and 22 (I don’t say deliberately, but he should know better, being a scholar). It’s just plain sloppy analysis. Acts 9 says nothing about Paul being “told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias.” He simply saw a man identified as Ananias in a vision, who would, in effect, heal his temporary blindness. Nothing is here about either being sent to Damascus or being instructed by Ananias. The text talks about how Ananias was told by God in a vision to go visit Paul, but even so, it mentions nothing about “instruction.” So why are all these things projected onto the text that aren’t there? Who knows why? In Acts 22 Paul is indeed told by God to go to Damascus and that he would be instructed. But God didn’t tell him that Ananias would do so. The two texts are presented in an inaccurate way. They don’t contradict each other. The information is complementary and internally consistent. Our beloved anti-theist then tries to make out that Acts 26 contradicts chapters 9 and 22, simply because in that account, Paul recalled how Jesus had directly instructed him. But so what? Where is the supposed contradiction? The texts taken together never assert that “only Ananias would instruct him” or “only God would instruct him.” If that had been the case, it would have been contradictory. They teach us that he was instructed by both. The more the merrier! First God did, and then Ananias affirmed that God was so speaking (to help Paul avoid being skeptical of his vision), with the evidence of a miracle to establish his own “credentials” as a man verifying what God had said.

Did Paul, shortly after his conversion, go to Damascus and then Jerusalem (Acts 9:18-26) or to Arabia, then Damascus, and three years later, to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17-18)?

This is clearly another instance of the literary device of compression, or telescoping (which we might also describe as “abbreviation”). Luke employs it in Acts 9, which is his narrative of Paul’s conversion and his meeting the apostles: just as he did in his Gospel, chapter 24, while Paul does not use it in Galatians 1. But in Acts 22:17, Paul does use the same technique of compression, during his trial. He recounts his conversion, then (desiring to condense the story for whatever reason) skips right over the three years in Arabia at Acts 22:17 and starts talking about being in Jerusalem, recalling the initial skepticism about his conversion, because he had persecuted Christians. Paul does it in one place and not in another (which is perfectly fine). This is how ancient literature, including the Bible (and sometimes contemporary literature) works.

Which is true: Paul never mentions John the Baptist, or in fact, he does (Acts 13:24-25)?

The latter is the case. Paul mentions him in an evangelistic sermon delivered at Antioch of Pisidia:

Acts 13:24-25 Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was finishing his course, he said, `What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’

Does Paul never place Jesus within history; connecting him with historical figures like Pontius Pilate, or does he (Acts 13:27-29)?

Paul in fact mentions Pontius Pilate in connection with Jesus twice:

Acts 13:27-29 For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him. Though they could charge him with nothing deserving death, yet they asked Pilate to have him killed. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.

1 Timothy 6:13 In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession,

When Paul went to Athens, did he leave Timothy and Silas behind in Berea (Acts 17:10-15) and not meet up with them again until he went to Corinth (18:5), or did he arrive in Athens with Timothy (1 Thess. 3:1-2)?

As I noted in another section, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 indicates nothing at all about who went to Athens with Paul. The book of Acts doesn’t deny that Paul met with Timothy and Silas between the time they all were in Berea and another later time when all were in Corinth. That comes from fertile atheist imaginations only, and can’t be positively proven from the information we have in the Bible. Acts simply says that “Silas and Timothy arrived [in Corinth] from Macedonia” (18:5). Since it offers absolutely nothing about the in-between time in Athens (neither affirming nor denying either Timothy or Silas’ presence there), it’s perfectly consistent, logically, for Paul to say in 1 Thessalonians that Timothy was with him part of the time (not from the beginning). It looks likely (but not certain) that Silas never made it to Athens during Paul’s stay. Then in Acts 18, he arrived in Corinth from Macedonia, which makes perfect sense, seeing that Berea (where he was last mentioned as being) is in Macedonia. This is more evidence that he never left Macedonia previously (for whatever reason) to go to Athens and evangelize with Paul. Timothy was sent by Paul from Athens to Thessalonica, and was said to be traveling to Corinth to meet Paul from Macedonia. This is perfectly plausible and reasonable, too, since Thessalonica is also a region of Macedonia. All of this fits perfectly together with no contradiction. Foiled again!

When Paul traveled to bring the gospel to Athens, did he go by himself (Acts 17:14-17) or with Timothy (1 Thess. 3:1-2)?

Paul came by himself to Athens, and gave instructions to the sailors who brought him there to inform Silas and Timothy (presumably through some sort of mail, or by going back to where they were) to meet him in Athens “as soon as possible.” 1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 does not assert that Paul arrived in Athens with Timothy. It says nothing at all about who went there with him. It simply says that Paul was writing to the Thessalonians, about whom he was concerned (2:17-18), because of their suffering (2:13-14). He sent Timothy (who was at this time with him) to exhort and comfort the Thessalonians, to be able to withstand the “afflictions” that are the “lot” of Christians (3:2-7). We know Timothy was eventually with him in Athens, but we don’t know from this text that he went there with him. That comes solely from atheists’ zealous and overactive imaginations. Paul had asked that Timothy and Silas come as soon as possible. Timothy eventually arrived (perhaps Silas couldn’t make it for some reason), and Paul sent him off to comfort other suffering Christians.

In Acts 17:22-31, when Paul is preaching to the pagans of Athens, he tells them that they worship idols out of ignorance. Because of that, God overlooks their mistake; but he now gives them a chance to recognize the truth and worship him alone. In Romans 1:18-25, on the other hand, Paul’s stated views completely contradict what he preached to the Athenians. In Romans, Paul contends that pagans worship idols precisely because they did know that there was only one God who was to be worshiped, and they rejected that knowledge in full consciousness of what they were doing, thus bringing God’s wrath down upon them. Which of the two contrary accounts of Paul’s views should we believe?

In Athens, Paul noted and praised the Athenians worship of a “god”: albeit an “unknown” one. It was not a question of denying God’s existence altogether, but rather, of worship that lacks particulars as to the nature and identity of the one they are worshiping. Paul then used the opportunity of their lack of knowledge and simultaneous sincere and pious religiosity, to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and the nature of the one true God. He uses what they know and builds upon it, up to and including the Christian message. In Athens, Paul is addressing a situation where the Athenians had an “altar” with the inscription, “To an unknown god” whom they worshiped (Acts 17:23). This he perceived as their being pious and “very religious” (17:22). That’s not atheism: not a deliberate rejection of any god or God (nor even agnosticism), but ignorant religiosity; religion minus knowledge and particulars. Paul in effect praises it and expressly categorizes it as “ignorance” that “God overlooked” (17:30). In Romans 1 he is addressing something utterly different than that: “men who by their wickedness suppress the truth” (1:18); people who “knew God” but “did not honor him as God or give thanks to him” (1:21) and “did not see fit to acknowledge God” (1:28). This is a vastly different approach from the Athenians (or at least those who worshiped the “unknown god”). Paul isn’t addressing all pagans whatever, but specifically, people with these characteristics. Having stated this, he goes right into a very ecumenical, welcoming message in the next chapter (and the original New Testament didn’t contain chapters): one of salvation made possible for every human being who accepts it (“glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”: Rom. 2:10-11). He teaches that abiding by a good conscience could very well bring salvation to anyone: Jew or Gentile alike (2:14-16). Obviously, then, he is not condemning all pagans and non-Jews with the wave of a hand. In Romans 1 he specifically condemned those who know there is a God and who deliberately reject him, knowing that he exists. As usual, then, no contradiction exists here, either.

How could Paul be assured that he would not be hurt (Acts 18:9-10), in light of the fact that he was often physically abused (2 Cor. 11:23-27)?

The Acts passage is about how Paul wouldn’t be harmed in Corinth only. God told him: “no man shall attack you to harm you; for I have many people in this city” (18:9).

How can Paul teach that circumcision is nothing (1 Cor. 7:19), but also assert that it’s profitable (Rom. 2:25; Rom. 3:1-2)?

In Romans 2:25 he qualifies his statement by saying “if you obey the law,” so he’s simply expressing the notion, “those who keep the law get circumcised as part of that law.” 3:1-2 is a variation of that: referring to Jews and Judaism, and the requirement of circumcision. Thus, “apples and oranges” and no contradiction . . .

If everyone who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is of God (1 John 4:2), and a demon cried out that Jesus is the Holy One of God (Mark 1:23-24), is the demon, therefore, also “of God”?

This is at least a clever and understandable claim, that is worthy of an explanation. What 1 John says is generally true. He speaks mostly proverbially: meaning that it expresses general truths, that sometimes have exceptions (just as we see in the book of Proverbs). For example, he states that “No one who abides in him sins” (1 John 3:6). But this is a proverbial and idealistic truth: a “textbook” example. What he means is that “the good, serious Christian is typified or characterized by the absence of sin, and this is the high goal of the Christian life.” But we can’t possibly interpret all of these passages absolutely literally, because we know that even very good Christians are imperfect and sin, and it doesn’t follow that it makes them automatically “of the devil” (3:8). John knows this, too (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-2). Moreover, and directly to the present point, Jesus said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. . . . Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:15, 21). And so, in light of this, even a demon can and does state, “I know who you are, the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24). It doesn’t follow, however, that it is a follower of Jesus. Words alone (even if true) mean little unless they are backed up by action, and demons do nothing good. It’s for this reason that Jesus rebuked the demon who said these things, by saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” (Mark 1:25).

How can an army of locusts be instructed not to harm the grass (Rev. 9:4), when it has been burned up already (Rev. 8:7)?

There is an undisclosed timespan between the two verses. It’s entirely possible and plausible that the burnt grass simply grew back, since horticulturalists inform us that the roots of perennial grass are unaffected by fire, and that grass can quickly recover from a fire: often thriving even more than it did before.

*****
*

***

Photo Credit: jim373 (12-6-22) [Deviant Art / Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License]

Summary: Ch. 3 of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

Biblical Idiom, Language, Theology, & Culture

Last updated on: January 23, 2025 at 12:02 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Chapter 2 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 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).

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.

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).

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).

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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”).

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.

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”.

*****
*

***

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 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.

How Do Atheists Define a “Biblical Contradiction”?

Last updated on: December 1, 2023 at 3:18 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Chapter 1 of my book (available for free online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved.

*****

A common tactic of biblical skeptics is to question the veracity and historical trustworthiness of the New Testament based on alleged numerous “contradictions” therein. But most of these so-called “problem passages” can easily be shown to be non–contradictory and in fact, complementary. This is what might be described as the “1001 Bible contradictions” ploy.

Anyone can go look up the definition of “logical contradiction.” The great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) defined a contradiction as two statements that cannot both be true and cannot both be false. But how do anti-theist atheists habitually define a biblical contradiction? It seems that they regard this as any slightest shade of difference, or one passage not mentioning something or adding another detail. They are predisposed to see biblical conflicts and clashes and “contradictions” and so they “see” them.

In the desperation to find contradictions, any instance of a different report (not absolutely identical in all respects) is regarded as contradictory, when in fact this is not so at all, and obviously so, for anyone who will take a little time to reflect upon it. The following is an illustrative example of the sorts of things that atheists claim are “contradictory”:

Joe says he saw Bill walk up to the Dairy Queen and buy an ice cream at 3:10 PM on a hot Saturday afternoon.
Alice says she saw Ed walk up to the Dairy Queen and buy an ice cream at 4:10 PM.
John says he saw Kathy walk up to the Dairy Queen and buy an ice cream at 4:30 PM.
Sally says she saw Bill walk up to the Dairy Queen and buy an ice cream at about 3:15 PM, Ed buy an ice cream there at about 4:20 PM, and Kathy buy an ice cream there at about 4:45 PM.

Now, according to these conflicting and contradictory reports, how many people (at least) bought an ice cream at the Dairy Queen between 3:10 and about 4:45 PM on a hot Saturday afternoon? Was it 1, 2, 3, or 6? Actually, it’s none of the above, because (in all likelihood) many more people went there during that time to buy ice cream. They just weren’t all recorded. But skeptical hyper-critics look at the above data (let’s say they represent the four Gospels) and see a host of contradictions:

Joe contradicts Alice as to who visited there in an hour’s time.
Joe contradicts John as to who visited there in an hour and 20 minutes time.
Alice contradicts John as to who visited there in 20 minute’s time.
Joe says someone visited at 3:10, but Alice claims it was at 4:10, and John says it was at 4:30.
Joe, Alice, and John can’t even agree on who visited the Dairy Queen in a lousy span of only 80 minutes! They are obviously completely untrustworthy! Probably two or more of them are lying.
To top it all off, we have the utter nonsense of Sally, whose time for Bill’s arrival contradicts Joe’s report by 5 minutes!
Sally’s time for Ed’s arrival contradicts Alice’s report by 10 minutes!!
Sally’s time for Kathy’s arrival contradicts John’s report by 15 minutes!!!

And so on and so forth. This is the sort of incoherent reasoning which we get from so many skeptics of the Bible, who pride themselves on their reasoning abilities and logical acumen, over against us allegedly gullible, irrational orthodox Christians, who accept biblical inspiration. Many examples of this sort of nonsense can be easily located in the usual laundry lists of biblical contradictions which frequently appear in skeptical and atheist literature, often exhibiting the most elementary errors of fact or logic.

I shall now provide three brief examples of asserted contradictions that some atheists make, that are not contradictions at all:

Did the announcement of the special birth of Jesus come before his conception (Luke 1:26-31) or after (Matt.1:18-21)?

Luke details the Annunciation, which was God’s “proposition” to Mary, which she accepted (being willing to bear God in the flesh). Matthew gives an account from the perspective of Joseph. An angel tells him, “do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (1:20). I don’t see how two announcements about the same event, given to the two people involved, is any sort of “contradiction.” It’s no more contradictory than a doctor informing a woman that she is pregnant, and the woman informing her husband that she is pregnant. It’s simply two announcements from two people to two people about the same thing. No one would say that both are the same (one) announcement.

Did John the Baptist know of Jesus before he baptized him (Matt.3:11-13; John 1:28-29) or know nothing of Jesus at all (Matt.11:1-3)?

Matthew 11:1-3 doesn’t say he knew “nothing” of him at all. John, while being persecuted in prison, simply wondered (it could have been for only ten minutes, for all we know) if Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and sent a message to Jesus through his disciples, to ask Jesus about that (which is quite different from knowing “nothing . . . at all” about Jesus). It was merely a temporary lack of faith, in his suffering (probably without food or sleep). It shows that John was a human being, like all of us, and like all the saints are. The Bible is realistic about human nature, and the faults and imperfections and weaknesses even of great and saintly persons.

Did Jesus see the Spirit descending at his baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10) or did John the Baptist (John1:32)?

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.

Fair-minded and open-minded folks should be able to easily see through the shallowness of such absurdly supposed “proofs.” The skeptical underlying assumptions are almost always assumed as axioms (reasons for this acceptance are deemed unnecessary), and the Christian assumptions are almost always frowned upon as irrational, impossible, etc.

We often hear, for example, the weak objection that John’s Gospel excludes a lot of the important events in Jesus’ life, which are recorded in the synoptic Gospels. But it obviously had a different purpose (it was more theological in nature, rather than purely narrative). In the world of biblical hyper-criticism, however, facts such as those are of no consequence. The usual predisposition is that contradictions are involved, per the above shoddy reasoning.

Oftentimes, falsely perceived “contradictions” in Holy Scripture involve different genres in the Bible, various meanings of particular words or ideas in widely divergent contexts, translation matters, and interpretational particulars: frequently having to do with the very foreign (to our modern western sensibilities) ancient Hebrew culture and modes of thinking I know these things firsthand, because I myself have offered — through the years and in this book — what I think are good resolutions or “solutions” to hundreds of proposed biblical “contradictions.”

Other times, a purported “contradiction” may simply be a matter of manuscript errors that crept in through the years. Of course, that sort of error is only in transmission, and is not part of the original text, so it wouldn’t cast doubt on the non-contradictory nature of the original transcripts of the Bible (if indeed we can plausibly speculate that it was merely an innocent copyist’s error).

Sometimes, “contradictions” are alleged based on various arguments from plausibility. A common atheist tactic in discussions on biblical texts is to claim that all (or nearly all) Christian explanations are “implausible” or “special pleading” and suchlike. They very often assume what they need to prove, in thinking that all these texts are self-evident before we even get to closely examining them in context, checking the Greek and relevant cross-references, etc. But that issue is a very complex one. What different people find plausible or implausible depends on many factors, including various premises that each hold.

It’s just as wrong and illogical for the atheist to use “implausible” as the knee-jerk reaction to everything a Christian argues about texts, as it is for the Christian to throw out truly implausible or unlikely replies. Both things are extremes. Neither side can simply blurt out “implausible!” or “eisegesis!” without getting down to brass tacks and actually grappling with the text and its interpretation in a serious way. We can’t — on either side — simply do a meta-analysis and speak about replies rather than directly engage them. To prove that any explanation is “implausible” requires more than merely asserting that is is. Bald assertion is not argument. It’s proclamation.

I’ve been saying for years that atheists and other biblical skeptics approach the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog. Most — especially atheists, and particularly former Christian atheists — couldn’t care less about actually resolving these alleged Bible difficulties, or giving the Bible a fair shake. The “anti-theist” sub-group among atheists only wants to tear Holy Scripture and Christianity down. It has little or no interest in defenses of an infallible, inspired Bible or discussions with those who submit them.

I have much firsthand experience of these tendencies, having engaged in several thousand attempted dialogues in atheist online forums (several of the most prominent and popular online), and sometimes in atheist groups in person.

Biblical skeptics, who see “contradictions” everywhere, and who never seem to have “met” a proposed one that they didn’t like, are at the same time usually 1) abominably ignorant of the Bible’s contents and interpretation, and 2) seemingly unfamiliar with classical logic or, say, a textbook of logic ( and in case anyone is wondering, I did take course on logic in college).

Few things bolster my Christian faith more than dealing with these alleged “biblical contradictions”: because the arguments are almost always so shallow and even laughable, that we see the Christian faith as far more rational and sensible. Observing (while I am making my own arguments) the Bible being able to withstand all attacks is incredibly, joyfully faith-boosting. It’s the unique blessing we apologists receive for our efforts.

Because Bible skeptics have difficulty in proving actual biblical contradictions (by the dictionary definition of the word), what they do is collect a multitude of pseudo-contradictions which are not logical contradictions at all, and then rant and carry on that there are just so “many“!!! What they neglect to see is that a pack of a hundred lies is no more impressive or compelling than one lie. A falsehood is a falsehood. If a hundred proposed biblical contradictions are all refuted and shown to not be so, then the ones who assert them have not gained any ground at all. They haven’t proven their case one iota, until they prove real contradiction.

We Christians (and apologist types like myself) are obviously defending the Bible and Christianity and have our bias, just as the Bible skeptic also is biased in the other direction. But we need not necessarily assume anything (by way of theology) in order to demonstrate that an alleged biblical contradiction is not present. That’s simply a matter of classical logic and reason.

One need not even believe in “biblical notion X” in order to argue and assert that opponent of the Bible A has failed to establish internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the biblical account involving biblical notion X. One simply has to show how they have not proven that a contradiction is present in a given biblical text. I’ve done this myself innumerable times through the years.

We are applying the accepted secular definition of “contradiction”: which is part of logic. Too many atheists want to act as if the definition of “contradiction” is some mysterious, controversial thing, that Christians spend hours and hours “haggling” over. It’s not. It’s very straightforward and it’s not rocket science.

If something isn’t contradictory, it’s not a “Bible problem” in the first place. But atheists have at their disposal catalogues of hundreds of “Bible problems” — so that they can pretend as if they have an impressive, insurmountable overall case. This has been standard, stock, playbook atheist and Bible skeptic tactics for hundreds of years. They keep doing it because it works for those who are unfamiliar with critical thinking and logic (and the Bible).

Atheists and other biblical skeptics can reel off 179 alleged / claimed contradictions (as all Bible skeptics love to do: the mere “appearance of strength”). But this proves absolutely nothing because any chain is only as good as the individual links. Each one has to be proven: not merely asserted, as if they are self-evidently some kind of insuperable “difficulty.” One hundred bad, fallacious arguments prove exactly nothing (except that the one proposing them is a lousy arguer and very poor at proving his or her opinions).

One online atheist, to whom I have offered rebuttals many times, started out one of his articles by writing, “How can Christians maintain their belief when the Bible is full of contradictions?” Imagine if I said that about atheism?: “How can atheists maintain their belief when atheism is full of self-contradictions?” I do actually believe that, and think I have demonstrated it many times, but simply saying it [to an atheist] is no argument in and of itself. It has to be proven. The “proof’s in the pudding.” Any serious argument will be able to be defended against criticism.

Closely related to this issue of alleged biblical contradictions is the matter of “Bible difficulties.” We should actually fully expect many “Bible difficulties” to arise from the study of the Bible, for the following reasons, as a bare minimum:

The Bible is a very lengthy, multi-faceted book by many authors, from long ago, with many literary genres (and in three languages), and cultural assumptions that are foreign to us. All complex documents have to be interpreted. When human beings start reading them, they start to disagree, so that there needs to be some sort of authoritative guide. In law, that is the Supreme Court of any given jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. The Bible itself asserts that authoritative interpretation is needed to fully, properly understand its teachings:

Nehemiah 8:1-2, 7-8 And all the people gathered . . . and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, . . . the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Moses was told to teach the Hebrews the statutes and the decisions, not just read them to the people (Exod. 18:20). The Levitical priests interpreted the biblical injunctions (Deut. 17:11). Ezra, a priest and a scribe, taught the Jewish Law to Israel, and his authority was binding (Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26).

1. The Bible purports to be revelation from an infinitely intelligent God. Thus (even though God simplifies it as much as possible), for us to think that it is an easy thing to immediately grasp and figure out, and would not have any number of “difficulties” for mere human beings to work through, is naive. The Bible itself teaches that authoritative teachers are necessary to properly understand it.
2. All grand “theories” have components (“anomalies” / “difficulties”) that need to be worked out and explained. For example, scientific theories do not purport to perfectly explain everything. They often have large “mysterious” areas that have to be resolved.

Think of, for example, the “missing links” in evolution. That didn’t stop people from believing in it. Folks believed in gradual Darwinian evolution even though prominent paleontologist and philosopher of science Stephen Jay Gould famously noted that “gradualism was never read from the rocks.” Even Einstein’s theories weren’t totally confirmed by scientific experiment at first (later they were). That a book like the Bible would have “difficulties” to work through should be perfectly obvious and unsurprising to all.

1. Christianity is not a simpleton’s religion. It can be grasped in its basics by the simple and less educated; the masses, but it is very deep the more it is studied and understood. Thus, we would expect the Bible not to be altogether simple. It has complexities, but we can better understand them through human study, just like anything else.

Having written this initial outline and description of my fundamental premises and presuppositions, and some of the common issues involved, I shall now proceed to an examination of 198 instances of “alleged biblical contradictions.”

***

*****
*

***

Photo Credit: Refused (7-30-23) [Deviant Art / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 DEED; Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported]

Summary: Portion of Dave Armstrong’s book, “Inspired!”: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.