![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/12\/Chaos8.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 2 of my book (available for free<\/strong> online), Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved<\/em><\/a>. See the Introduction<\/a> and ch. 1: How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?<\/a> All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n 1.Why did Matthew take the very unusual step of including four women (Matt. 1:3, 5-6) in Joseph\u2019s genealogy? Isn\u2019t that a contradiction over against other biblical genealogies?<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The four women were Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. But this is not \u201cvery unusual\u201d 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).\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This is another understandable, \u201crespectable\u201d objection. James 1:13 is literally true. The difficulty is interpreting Matthew 6:13, which seems to contradict it. \u201cLead us not into temptation\u201d from the Lord\u2019s Prayer or \u201cOur Father\u201d can be understood as a poetic, rhetorical way of expressing the notion: \u201ckeep<\/em>\u00a0us\u00a0from<\/em>\u00a0temptation\u201d or \u201cwe know (in faith) that you\u00a0won\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0lead us into temptation.\u201d Hence, lovers will say to each other, \u201cdon\u2019t break my heart\u201d: which usually means, literally, \u201cI believe you\u00a0won\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0break my heart like those others have.\u201d In other words, the literal \u201cwon\u2019t\u201d is changed to the rhetorical, more emotional, \u201cdon\u2019t.\u201d Instead of saying, \u201cplease do\u00a0this<\/em>\u00a0[good<\/em>\u00a0thing]\u201d we change it to requesting the person to \u201cplease\u00a0don\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0do [the opposite\u00a0bad<\/em>\u00a0thing]\u201d. The poetic Psalms, which are usually first person pleas or praise to God, offer many analogical parallels (Ps. 38:21; 40:11:\u00a0\u201cDo not thou, O Lord, withhold thy mercy from me, let thy steadfast love and thy faithfulness ever preserve me!\u201d [both senses in one verse]; 44:23; 70:5; 138:8; 140:8).<\/p>\n Matthew 7:1-2 is one of many scriptural proverbial statements, that allows and presupposes exceptions. Matthew is expressing a sort of \u201creverse golden rule.\u201d If we judge harshly, unfairly, uncharitably, then chances are such judgment will come back to\u00a0us<\/em>\u00a0at some point. It doesn\u2019t follow, however, that no one can ever rightly judge at any time. 1 John 4:1-3 is actually about spiritual discernment, so it\u2019s a\u00a0non sequitur<\/em>\u00a0and 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).<\/p>\n The first statement provides utterances from Jesus that are general, proverbial truths: qualified elsewhere in Scripture, in literal passages. For example: \u201cYou ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions\u201d (James 4:3); \u201cif we ask anything according to his will<\/em> he hears us\u201d (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<\/em>; it\u2019s time to be judged; the game\u2019s up for them, so at\u00a0that<\/em>\u00a0point they can\u2019t seek any more. No conflict here . . .<\/p>\n At\u00a0first<\/em>, the mission of Jesus and His disciples was to preach to their fellow Jews, as Matthew makes clear.\u00a0 Later, St. Peter\u2019s emphasis (but not\u00a0exclusively<\/em>) 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\u2019s emphasis was on the Gentiles: though not\u00a0exclusively<\/em>\u00a0in 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\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0groups, but emphasized\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0group (more or less a \u201cdivision of labor\u201d). Emphases and expansions of missions and goals of this sort are simply not contradictions. It\u2019s not contradictory for Peter to exclusively preach to the Jews and first and then \u201cbranch out\u201d to include the Gentiles. It\u2019s this wooden \u201ceither\/or\u201d 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.<\/p>\n The passages in Matthew are in the sense of prototype: John the Baptist was a\u00a0type<\/em>\u00a0of 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: \u201che will go before him in the spirit and power of<\/em> Elijah\u201d. The\u00a0repeated New Testament use of \u201cson of David\u201d\u00a0for Jesus is an instance of the same thing, because David was a prototype of the Messiah. Jeremiah proclaimed, some 400 years after David\u2019s death: \u201cBut they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them\u201d (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\u2019s no contradiction.<\/p>\n John 5:24 means that a believer will be saved (\u201chas eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life\u201d). \u201cJudgment\u201d there has the specific meaning of \u201cjudged as worthy of damnation\u201d or more broadly, \u201cconviction\u201d 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\u2019t conflict with that at all, so this is much ado about nothing.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s their choice, and they make forgiveness impossible to grant, because it must be preceded by acceptance and repentance. That\u2019s what Hebrews 6 addresses: those who have received this grace and who were on the road to salvation, but then rejected it. It\u2019s then impossible, as long as they continue rebelling and rejecting God and His grace.<\/p>\n James 1:2 refers not to temptation (hence, this is \u201capples and oranges\u201d again), but to \u201ctrials\u201d. The \u201cjoy\u201d that comes through trials is spelled out: \u201cthe testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing\u201d (James 1:3-4). This \u201ctesting\u201d need not be a temptation at all. I could have a rock fall on my head from an avalanche. That would be a \u201ctest\u201d 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\u2019s proven by\u00a0a Bible search of both words together.<\/p>\n This is division of labor. Paul\u2019s specialty was evangelism and dealing with hard-nosed unbelievers. He could assign others to baptize new converts (just as Jesus himself had done). It\u2019s not difficult to do. No biggie and no contradiction. Paul baptized one household, as an exception <\/em>to his rule, and couldn\u2019t remember baptizing anyone else.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t know the exact sequence of events pertaining to the healing of Peter\u2019s mother-in-law, because the Synoptic Gospels simply were relatively unconcerned with strictly chronological order. Once we understand this, it\u2019s plain that this is not an issue at all, let alone a supposed \u201ccontradiction.\u201d<\/p>\n Generally speaking, yes: all sins are forgivable. But as in most things, there is an exception<\/em>. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of God altogether, which in a sense is not \u201cforgivable\u201d because the person hasn\u2019t repented and\u00a0asked<\/em>\u00a0to be forgiven, by the definition of having rejected God. In that sense, it can\u2019t be forgiven, because \u201cit takes two.\u201d One could say, as an analogy, \u201call horses are able to drink from the stream. But I can\u2019t force my horse to do so if it doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t be altogether avoided.<\/p>\n Mark is also widely believed to be derived mostly from Peter: quite Jewish. This is much ado about nothing. The Hebrews thought in \u201cboth\/and\u201d terms (St. Paul\u2019s writings often reflect this). For them, the Law of Moses or Mosaic law was God\u2019s Law.\u00a0 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 \u201cMoses said\u201d while referring to the Ten Commandments, both 7:8 and 7:9 use the terminology \u201cthe commandment of God\u201d in referring to the same thing. 7:10 refers to the prior notions by starting with the connecting word \u201cFor.\u201d 7:13 also references \u201cthe word of God\u201d in discussing the same general topic. Nor is the converse true about Matthew, who makes references to Moses\u2019 teachings and his (God\u2019s) Law as well:<\/p>\n Matthew 8:4<\/strong>\u00a0[Jesus \u2013 also a Jewish man \u2014 speaking] . . . offer the gift that\u00a0<\/strong>Moses\u00a0commanded . . .<\/p>\n Matthew 19:8<\/strong>\u00a0He [Jesus] said to them, \u201cFor your hardness of heart\u00a0<\/strong>Moses\u00a0allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.\u201d<\/p>\n The parallel passage in Mark about divorce has Jesus saying:<\/p>\n Mark 10:3-5<\/strong>\u00a0He answered them, \u201cWhat did Moses command you?\u201d\u00a0 They said, \u201cMoses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.\u201d\u00a0 But Jesus said to them, \u201cFor your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.\u201d<\/p>\n Both books make reference to Moses commanding that which was God\u2019s Law given to him. They both do both things. It\u2019s not one vs. the other. St. Paul continues the \u201cboth\/and\u201d practice in his epistles, since he refers to the \u201claw of Moses\u201d twice (Acts 13:39; 1 Cor. 9:9) and the synonymous \u201claw of God\u201d twice (Rom. 7:22, 25). Moreover, in the Old Testament (not including the Deuterocanon), \u201claw of Moses\u201d is\u00a0used 13 times,\u00a0and \u201claw of God\u201d\u00a0four times,<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0as well as the similar \u201claw of the Lord\u201d\u00a0another 18 times.\u00a0We must conclude, then, that this point of argument is a false dichotomy. Context and cross-referencing demolish it.<\/p>\n The difference of \u201cstrategy\u201d has to do with\u00a0willingness to believe<\/em>\u00a0vs.\u00a0unwillingness<\/em>. Jesus knew who would accept His signs and miracles and who would not. With people who did not and would not (usually the \u201cscribes and Pharisees\u201d), 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\u2019 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\u2019 willingness to perform miracles<\/em> (Matt. 13:58: \u201che did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief\u201d). With the common folk, it was entirely different, and so we also see a verse like John 6:2 (\u201cAnd a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.\u201d). 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 \u201ccontradiction\u201d where there is none at all. E for [futile]\u00a0effort<\/em>, though . . .<\/p>\n This is just silly. Jesus is adding nothing. He lists the five famous \u201cthou shalt nots\u201d: murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and then says \u201cdo not defraud\u201d instead of \u201cdo not covet.\u201d It\u2019s essentially the same thing.\u00a0Merriam-Webster<\/em>\u00a0defines\u00a0defraud<\/em>\u00a0as \u201cto deprive of something by deception.\u201d This is what comes as a\u00a0result<\/em>\u00a0of covetousness. The same source\u00a0defines\u00a0covet<\/em>\u00a0as \u201cto desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably.\u201d Jesus is always forward-looking in his\u00a0application<\/em>\u00a0of the Jewish Law. This is similar to his teaching on the Sermon on the Mount: always going\u00a0deeper<\/em>: \u201cYou have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.\u2019\u00a0But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart\u201d (Matt. 5:27-28). I think a similar \u201cdeeper analysis \/ getting to the heart or root of the matter\u201d is going on here, as if Jesus is saying (by strong implication): \u201cYou have heard that it was said, \u2018You shall not defraud\u2019 [see, e.g., Lev. 19:13] But I say to you that every one who covets has already committed defrauding in his heart.\u201d Thus, \u201cdefraud not\u201d is not\u00a0\u201can extra commandment\u201d: it\u2019s an application<\/em> of one or more\u00a0existing<\/em>\u00a0ones, just as Jesus taught that lust was a variant \u2014 and indeed precursor \u2014 of adultery. He wanted to convey the heart-level roots of sin; not just the outward observance of moral laws.<\/p>\n Nonsense. There is Jewish \/ Hebrew precedent. In 2 Kings 16:2 (cf. 2 Chron. 28:1) refers to \u201chis father David\u201d in relation to King Ahaz, who reigned some 250 years after David. Acts 4:25 (Peter speaking) also references \u201cour father David.\u201d \u00a0\u201cYour\u00a0father Abraham\u201d only appears once in the Old Testament. \u201cFather Abraham\u201d appears\u00a0seven times in the New Testament,\u00a0including 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\u00a0Ezra)\u00a0did, and so did St. Peter (all Jews). Therefore, Mark can do so. He\u2019s simply following that Jewish tradition.\u00a0Besides, 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 (\u201d \u2018What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?\u2019 They said to him, \u2018The son of David\u2019 \u201c: Matt. 22:42). \u201cSon of David\u201d (in this vein) is applied to Jesus\u00a016 times in the Gospels:<\/u><\/strong>\u00a0ten of these in Matthew, including his description: \u201cJesus Christ, the\u00a0<\/strong>son of David, the son of Abraham\u201d (1:1). Yet we are to believe that Mark is somehow expressing himself in a non-Jewish way, by referring to \u201cour father David\u201d? It just isn\u2019t so.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t see much difference at all. After all, in the passage from Matthew above, Jesus doesn\u2019t even cite the Ten Commandments. Rather, He cites a portion of the Law that sums up \u201call the law and the prophets\u201d (22:40): \u201cYou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind\u201d (22:37). Then he stresses love: \u201ca second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself\u201d (22:39). He does similarly in another passage: \u201cWoe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe\u00a0<\/strong>mint\u00a0and 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\u201d (Matt. 23:23). That\u2019s certainly putting the emphasis on love, rather than merely legal transactions. Is Mark really much different than this?\u00a0Mark 12:31-34 is basically the same as Matthew 22:37-39 above, and then Jesus adds: \u201cto love one\u2019s neighbor as oneself, is\u00a0much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices\u201d (12:33). The Law was meant to focus on love all along, and this is explicitly taught in the Old Testament, too. If it\u2019s thought that Mark is denigrating the Old Testament sacrificial system, he is saying nothing that hasn\u2019t already been taught under the old covenant. So, for example:<\/p>\n Amos 5:21-24<\/strong>\u00a0I 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.<\/p>\n Jeremiah 6:20<\/strong>\u00a0. . . Your burnt offerings are not acceptable,\u00a0nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.<\/p>\n Proverbs 21:27\u00a0<\/strong>The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination;\u00a0how much more when he brings it with evil intent.<\/p>\n When His people obeyed his\u00a0commands, however, then God was pleased with the same sacrifices (Isa. 56:6-7: \u201ctheir burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar\u201d; Jer. 17:24-26: \u201cBut if you\u00a0listen\u00a0to me . . .\u201d; Mal. 1:11: \u201ca pure offering\u201d; many others). Therefore, we see nothing \u201cnew\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Luke 22:10 also indicates a man carrying water. Matthew simply doesn\u2019t 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\u00a0forbidden<\/em>\u00a0to do so. Hence, Deuteronomy 29:11 refers to \u201che who\u00a0<\/strong>draws your water.\u201d In the Jewish sect of the Essenes, men carried water on their heads. They had a community on Jerusalem, and one of Jerusalem\u2019s gates was called \u201cthe Gate of the Essenes\u201d.\u00a0Jesus 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.<\/p>\n The Bible has many passages about the Holy Spirit being especially present with holy and especially \u201cchosen\u201d people, in both Testaments. That explains the first four instances. Anyone can search \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d 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<\/em>\u2019s the difference: not that no one ever had the Spirit before, but that all Christians\u00a0could<\/em>\u00a0henceforth. This was what John 7:39 and 16:7 were referring to. When the former verse refers to \u201cas yet the Spirit had not been given,\u201d it doesn\u2019t mean that the Spirit never was given to anyone before, but that all believers would soon receive it, as indicated by its words, \u201cthe Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive.\u201d It\u2019s developing Christian theology. Developments are not contradictory because they always build on what went before.<\/p>\n Jesus says no such thing. The meaning of the words in John 3:17 (not Jesus\u2019 words, but the narrator John\u2019s) is\u00a0universal atonement<\/em>: that all who wish to be \u2014 who are willing to be disciples of Jesus with all that that entails \u2014 can be saved.\u00a0This is biblical teaching. In context it\u2019s 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: \u201cwhoever believes in him may have eternal life\u201d (John 3:15). John adds that \u201cwhoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life\u201d (3:16) and \u201che who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God\u201d (3:18). Revelation 14 never asserts that this was the\u00a0sum total<\/em>\u00a0of all who are saved. It specifically calls them the \u201cfirst fruits\u201d (14:4); in other words, there are many more to come and these are only the \u201cfirst batch.\u201d 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 \u201ccontradiction.\u201d<\/p>\n In John 6:37, Jesus refers to \u201cAll that the Father gives me will come to me\u201d: 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\u2019t cast\u00a0them<\/em>\u00a0out. Christianity doesn\u2019t teach universalism (all are saved); it teaches universal atonement (God\u2019s 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 \u201cfollowers\u201d of Christ who really aren\u2019t. They haven\u2019t repented and allowed God to transform them in grace, and so they simply mouth the words, \u201cLord, Lord\u201d and \u201cJesus.\u201d They \u201ctalk the talk but don\u2019t walk the walk\u201d as we Christians say. But God knows his own (John 10:14) and he knows who is faking it. God knows men\u2019s hearts. We can\u2019t fool Him with our games and pretensions and outrageous hypocrisies. That\u2019s 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\u2019t fall away till the end. One must understand<\/em> the biblical teaching on grace and salvation. Once they do, they see that these sorts of supposedly contradictory couplets aren\u2019t \u201ccontradictions\u201d 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\u2019ve 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 \u2013 as they themselves note \u2014 having been former fundamentalist or nominal Christians, and insufficiently instructed in the faith.<\/p>\n John 16:33 refers to\u00a0personal<\/em>\u00a0\/ soul level peace and fulfillment (\u201cin me you may have peace\u201d). He makes the meaning absolutely clear in the similar passage, Matthew 11:28-29: \u201cCome 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.\u201d The other passages, in contrast, have to do with those in one\u2019s family not liking the fact that one is a follower of Jesus; thereby bringing about division, which Jesus expressed with Hebraic hyperbolic exaggeration as \u201cI have not come to bring peace, but a sword\u201d (Matt. 10:34). In Luke 12:51, Jesus uses the literal description, \u201cdivision.\u201d It\u2019s a\u00a0social<\/em>\u00a0dynamic, as opposed to individual and personal. Another way of expressing the same dynamic was to say (with exaggeration of\u00a0degree<\/em>): \u201cyou will be hated by all for my name\u2019s sake\u201d (Matt. 10:22).<\/p>\n 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 \u201chis eternal power and deity\u201d as evident \u201cin the things that have been made\u201d (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.<\/p>\n Acts 1:1 is a general and non-literal statement. Luke was saying that his Gospel dealt with \u201call that Jesus began to do and teach\u201d in a broad sense. We do this all the time in how we use language today. We might say, for example, \u201cI\u2019ve been\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0over the world.\u201d No doubt there are several dozen countries where we\u00a0haven\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0been. This is understood by the hearers, who know that it is a broad, generalized statement. Or a woman says, \u201cI\u2019ve been unhappy all of my life.\u201d Are we to understand that literally for\u00a0every second<\/em>\u00a0she was unhappy? No. It\u2019s understood that it means, \u201cunhappiness is a recurrent problem and dominant theme in my life that I can\u2019t seem to shake off or resolve.\u201d When Luke explained his reason for writing his Gospel, he wrote that he had \u201cfollowed all things closely\u201d (Luke 1:3). Are we to conclude that this included absolutely everything<\/em> about Jesus? It couldn\u2019t possibly, because the Gospels record, for example, that Jesus went off to be alone many times. They wouldn\u2019t have known what he did then<\/em>. Note Luke\u2019s undeniable use of \u201call\u201d four times in a non-literal sense, in two verses: \u201cAnd 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, . . .\u201d (Luke 1:65-66). Many more such examples could easily be found. John 21:25 exaggerates to make the point that \u201cthere is a lot more material out there about Jesus than what I have recorded.\u201d 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\u2019s the same in the Bible.<\/p>\n Of course<\/em>\u00a0it\u2019s necessary. Romans 11:29 has nothing to do with repentance. It simply states: \u201cFor the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.\u201d This alleged \u201ccontradiction seems to have antinomianism in its thinking: the notion that once you are saved, you can do anything and it\u2019s fine and dandy: no need for continuous sanctification and good works (or an extreme \u201cfaith alone \/ eternal security\u201d view). This isn\u2019t 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\u00a0twelve times, and holiness\u00a0eight 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.<\/p>\n Acts 16:6 never indicates that this was a prohibition for all<\/em> time. It was only for that particular<\/em> time, as indicated by Acts 16:9 (\u201cAnd a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing beseeching him and saying, \u2018Come over to Macedonia and help us\u2019\u201d). This is a case of one passage not being specific enough<\/em> to establish beyond all doubt or argument, a contradiction with another passage. If 16:6 had read, \u201cforbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia forever<\/em>\u201d then a clear contradiction would be present, but alas . . . foiled again!<\/p>\n 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: \u201cFor God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.\u201d 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\u2019s, just as a convicted murderer\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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: \u201cThe 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.\u201d It is true that most Christians (including my own affiliation: Catholicism) believe that those who are saved were indeed predestined<\/em> to be saved: but that\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019t expect many unbelievers to grasp it. It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Romans 11:32 teaches that God\u2019s 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\u2019t say this at all. It states: \u201cHe 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.\u201d The Bible doesn\u2019t teach universal salvation to all, regardless of how they act. We all have free will to accept or reject God\u2019s free gift of mercy, grace, and salvation. Some people reject that, but it isn\u2019t due to a lack of God\u2019s mercy. They refuse to repent and to follow God\u2019s guidance. They would rather rebel against Him. The famous \u201cgospel\u201d passage John 3:16 laid out God\u2019s free gift: \u201cFor God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.\u201d 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\u2019s a\u00a0non sequitur<\/em>\u00a0in this discussion. Mark 16:16 reiterates the teaching of John 3. One who refuses to believe in Jesus and Christianity \u2014 who deliberately rejects it, knowing full well what it is \u2014 cannot be saved. This doesn\u2019t deny God\u2019s mercy, which is always there for everyone. But they must reform their sinful ways and repent. God being merciful doesn\u2019t 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 \u201ccheap grace\u201d without cost or responsibility. And this alleged \u201ccontradiction\u201d exhibits that stunted mentality. None of this proves that there are contradictory teachings in Scripture regarding God\u2019s 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 \u201ccontradiction\u201d 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).<\/p>\n This atheist refuted himself (a not uncommon occurrence), because he wrote in the same article that\u00a0\u201cPaul mentions\u201d\u00a0Jesus\u2019 Resurrection\u00a0\u201c14 times.\u201d\u00a0Is that<\/em> not a\u00a0miracle<\/em>? Indeed, it is Jesus\u2019\u00a0greatest<\/em>\u00a0miracle: the conquering of death, and showing that there is an afterlife. The Gospels teach that Jesus\u00a0raised himself<\/em>\u00a0(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 \u201csign\u201d that the Jews demanded (2:18). He reiterates this elsewhere in comparing his resurrection to the \u201csign of Jonah\u201d (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\u2019s 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 \u201cJesus of Nazareth\u201d (Acts 22:8): namely, \u201ca great light from heaven\u201d (22:6, 11), \u201cbrighter than the sun\u201d (26:13), and \u201ca voice\u201d [of Jesus] from heaven (22:7; 26:14), which the others around him couldn\u2019t hear (22:9). That was all miraculous and supernatural. It was a \u201cheavenly vision\u201d (26:19).<\/p>\n Paul in the overall context of 1 Corinthians 7:8 also recommends remarriage, since 7:9 states: \u201cif they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.\u201d Thus, both passages are consistent, not contradictory. The supposed \u201ccontradiction\u201d comes from 1 Corinthians 7:8: \u201cTo the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.\u201d To say that singleness is a\u00a0preferable<\/em>\u00a0state to being married is not to\u00a0forbid<\/em>\u00a0marriage or say that it is a bad thing. In the larger section, Paul teaches that singleness is better\u00a0in order to avoid \u201cworldly troubles\u201d (7:28), to \u201cbe free from anxieties\u201d (7:32), and to secure \u201cundivided devotion to the Lord\u201d (7:35). Paul is also very pro-marriage: \u201ceach man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband\u201d (7:2). Bottom line: Paul in this chapter teaches that everyone should live as God has\u00a0called<\/em>\u00a0them to live (7:7. 17. 24). That could be either single or married. No contradictions are present, once Paul\u2019s teaching is fully understood.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s bad news \u201cif, 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\u201d (2 Pet. 2:20; the entire chapter should be read, for context and completeness). John 10:27-29 doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s simply saying a=a (\u201cthose who are saved in the end are saved\u201d or \u201cthe elect are saved\u201d or \u201cthe predestined are saved\u201d).<\/p>\n 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\u201d; in our thoughts and intentions. Secular law recognizes this based on degrees of guilt, based in turn on how premeditated and \u201cvoluntary\u201d it was. 1 John 4:20 is about rank hypocrisy. One can\u2019t 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 \u201cif you love your brother more<\/em> than me [God] you can\u2019t follow me\u201d (since that would be idolatry). In fact, Jesus\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0express what we contend he was stating non-literally in Luke 14:26, in a\u00a0literal<\/em>\u00a0fashion elsewhere (this is following the important hermeneutical principle of \u201cinterpret less clear or obvious passages by more clear related passages\u201d): \u201cHe who loves father or mother\u00a0more\u00a0than\u00a0me<\/em>\u00a0is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter\u00a0more\u00a0than\u00a0me<\/em>\u00a0is not worthy of me (Matt. 10:37). The same scenario of \u201cfigurative \u2018hate\u2019 defined literally as \u2018degrees of love\u2019\u201d occurs again in Genesis 29:30-33. This understood, the supposed \u201ccontradiction\u201d vanishes into thin air.<\/p>\n The fallacy here is to think that because the Bible cites something, it, too (the complete work containing the citation), must be the \u201cWord of God.\u201d This simply isn\u2019t 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\u00a0\u00a0the Greek poet\u00a0Aratus: (c. 315-240 B.C.) and philosopher-poet\u00a0Epimenides\u00a0(6th c. B.C.): both referring to Zeus. Paul used two Greek pagan poet-philosophers, talking about a false god (Zeus) and \u201cChristianized\u201d their thoughts: applying them to the true God. He also cited the Greek dramatist\u00a0\u00a0Menander\u00a0(c. 342-291 B.C.) at\u00a01 Corinthians 15:33: \u201cbad company ruins good morals\u201d.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n ***** Photo Credit<\/strong>: \n
\n<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nthat many signs should take place (John 20:30; Acts 2:22)?<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*<\/p>\n